D&D (2024) Auto-succeed/fail on ability checks

[Lanefan]

One thought that just wandered by: is there any correlation between those who always tell players the DCs and those who don't like this rule change?

 

[Reynard]

One thought that just wandered by: is there any correlation between those who always tell players the DCs and those who don't like this rule change?

That is an interesting question. I don't generally tell players the DCs -- partly because things like knowledge checks, persuasion and such have sliding difficulties. I don't like nat 1/nat 20 because I think it is unnecessary and can lead to silly results. But I rarely set super high DCs because constant whiffing is boring.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

One thought that just wandered by: is there any correlation between those who always tell players the DCs and those who don't like this rule change?

for what it is worth I do not tell the players the DC usually but the new rule does not bother me.

 

[Parmandur]

That is an interesting question. I don't generally tell players the DCs -- partly because things like knowledge checks, persuasion and such have sliding difficulties. I don't like nat 1/nat 20 because I think it is unnecessary and can lead to silly results. But I rarely set super high DCs because constant whiffing is boring.

The main reason they are making the change is that a huge number of people already play that way, sonitnis not new, and it's probably Matt Mercer's fault. It is only "necessary" insofsr as WotC seems to feel it is absurd to pretend the rules are different frrom how people are playing the game. In practice, it doesn't lead to the strange results being bandied about in online discussions from what I have seen.

 

[Bill Zebub]

it's probably Matt Mercer's fault.

Isn’t it always? I might make that my .sig.

 

[clearstream]

That is an interesting question. I don't generally tell players the DCs -- partly because things like knowledge checks, persuasion and such have sliding difficulties. I don't like nat 1/nat 20 because I think it is unnecessary and can lead to silly results. But I rarely set super high DCs because constant whiffing is boring.

Frankly, where they should be doing work is getting graded results working correctly (the DMG 242 mechanical design is far from ideal at the table.) And the reason is what you touch on here. In brief

1. "Whiffing is boring"
2. It's not harder to roll a "hard" check, than an "easy" one: what "hard" is, is a statement about the likelihood of indexing one result over another (and in the case where fail does nothing in particular, the likelihood of doing nothing in particular)
3. What we want from the check is change to our game state (fiction + system)

As I've linked elsewhere, one solution is a fixed index d20 method (as I've explained elsewhere), but whatever: it will matter far more to 1e to offer a good mechanical solve to what I will imprecisely call fail-forward (where forward doesn't necessarily mean in the direction player hoped), than to auto-succeed/fail on the roll.

 

[Lanefan]

for what it is worth I do not tell the players the DC usually but the new rule does not bother me.

That's the correlation I was kind of expecting - that those who don't reveal the DCs would have less issue with this new rule than those who do. But @Reynard doesn't like it yet he also doesn't reveal the DCs. So, inconclusive so far, on a very (!) small sample size.

 

[CrashFiend82]

I am really enjoying this thread, when I first read the new rules I was a hard no. After reading and examining my own thoughts I am starting to change my mind, but for a reverse reasoning. When DMing I used static DCs. Like climbing a cliff would be DC 25. Success means you climb half speed so generally 15 ft (disadvantage for dash). If a character tried with +2 score they couldn't progress but sometimes people achieve the unexpected so on a 20 they succeed finding that inner strength they didn't know they had. I understand that may break immersion but in real life surprises happen. Even the best experts screw up terribly too. I think this may force me to be a better DM, stretching my thinking in game and lead to more improvisation.

 

[jmartkdr2]

That's the correlation I was kind of expecting - that those who don't reveal the DCs would have less issue with this new rule than those who do. But @Reynard doesn't like it yet he also doesn't reveal the DCs. So, inconclusive so far, on a very (!) small sample size.

Another data point: I often reveal DCs and I don’t care.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I am really enjoying this thread, when I first read the new rules I was a hard no. After reading and examining my own thoughts I am starting to change my mind, but for a reverse reasoning. When DMing I used static DCs. Like climbing a cliff would be DC 25. Success means you climb half speed so generally 15 ft (disadvantage for dash). If a character tried with +2 score they couldn't progress but sometimes people achieve the unexpected so on a 20 they succeed finding that inner strength they didn't know they had. I understand that may break immersion but in real life surprises happen. Even the best experts screw up terribly too. I think this may force me to be a better DM, stretching my thinking in game and lead to more improvisation.

That's the spirit!

It doesn't mean we all have to love the new rules or decide they are awesome.

But, man, this whole "They ruined D&D with 5e and now they're making it even worse!" gnashing of teeth and rending of garments is getting old.