Well, at this point I'm going to assume that the vast majority of players don't use the Basic rules and probably haven't even seen them. I guess if you want to play the basic game and leave out everything else that the "advanced" game offers, that rule can apply. How many people in this thread do you think runs the basic game, rather than the game that uses the PHB, DMG and MM? I'm going to guess 0.
The Basic Rules are in the PHB, including "progress combined with a setback." What are you trying to get at?
The rules for determining which are in the DMG under "Success at a cost." One blurb at the end of one sentence isn't a rule. It's just a general descriptor of things that the DM might do if you fail.
It's very convenient for your argument that a rule in the rulebook isn't a rule because you think it's a blurb and not a rule. Very interesting indeed. "Success at a cost" and "progress combined with a setback" are different things. Nobody's saying you must narrate progress combined with a setback after a failed check since the DM has a choice between this and outright failure. But saying it's not a rule? Wow. Just wow.
You misunderstand me. I’m not saying that a roll of less than 20 indicates that your character did less than their best. I’m saying that a roll of less than 20 means that “your character’s best” is less than it could have been, if you had rolled a 20. This is the “quantum” aspect of the model that bothers me. It’s “your character’s best” no matter what, but how good “your character’s best” is, is dependent on the die roll.
Right, but if you had rolled a higher number the first time, “your character’s best” would have been better.
But it's not quantum at all. It just means that your best is incapable of success in that circumstance. Character's have skill and knowledge that we don't have. We don't know for certain if their best is good enough or not. The roll determines it. At no time, though, did the character both succeed and not succeed simultaneously. No more so than any other skill check anyway.
No. It would never have been better. It would have been good enough to succeed. Best is best whether you roll a 1 or 20.
Seems pretty obvious to me that it was created to solve the problem of “what if the player rolls poorly at something and then decides to try again?” which on its face seems like cheating - you already rolled low, you can’t just keep trying until you roll high! The more elegant solution, of course, is to insure each attempt has a cost or failure has a consequence.
But it could have been capable of success in that circumstance, if I had rolled better. So either my character’s capabilities, or the difficulty of the task, is indeterminate until a die roll decides it. That’s something I find deeply dissatisfying.
Only under the “one roll represents your best attempt” model.
That’s not generally how I’ve seen the term “quantum” used in D&D, but whatever. I don’t care what you want to call it, the fact that the die roll determines either my characters capabilities or the difficulty of the task under that model is something I’m not comfortable with.
Which is by definition better than not good enough to succeed. Unless it’s the difficulty of the task that’s easier than it could have been. Either way, if you can roll low and “your best” is not good enough, or you can roll high and “your best” is good enough, then either “your best” or “good enough” must be a variable that is dependent on the result of the die roll.
Yes, that is the conceit of the “one roll roll represents your best” model. I’m not disputing that. I’m pointing out that either how good your best is, or how good your best needs to be, must be dependent on the result of the roll in this model.
Yes and this applies to some extent to the other players at the table. If one PC fails, others may try to join in, resulting in a cascade of rolls until someone rolls high. Telling the original player they can’t roll again and then allowing others to just roll... or not... ends up with some rather... unsatisfactory gameplay, IME.
100%
