Edit: Again, re reading this, it seems to have a way bitchier tone than I intended… I swear I’m just saying this in a confused fashion for the most part
I’m using jackpot as an analogy for the emotional impact of a rarer, higher tier win mechanic
But it’s not.
That’s the thing that I’m not following with your point. Like a Natural 20 is not a rare occurrence in the game so I don’t understand treating it like a jackpot. It’d be like treating something that happens several times a day as a really rare thing. And if they’re not that rare then I don’t understand the instant jump of going “Well then it must be a critical success because it’s a rare-but-not-really thing”. It’s just the highest number on the die that can pop up but it’s only one more than 19. It is 1 in 20. Those are pretty good odds when you’re rolling a die repeatedly.
The game sets up rolling 20 and critting as a win big moment.
In Combat and death saves. At no point in the DM guide that I recall does it say anything about a Natural 20 applying to any skill check, saving bonus or anything other than an attack roll and saving throw. I’m not aware of anything in the PHB or DM Guide (at least in 5e) that states anything else about a Natural 20 having any effect at all save for specific spells or subclasses that usually mess with the critical hit range for attacks.
To occasionally then deny players that fails to meet expectations and creates disappointment.
But it’s not occasional! And that’s where all of this argument instantly falls apart for me. It’s a 1 in 20 chance for a number that just says “I win”. To me as a DM it removes a significant amount of the challenge from my players if they can just roll the number that does it for them or if they’re stacking advantage and everything else. The stacking advantage and using chronomancy to force a success or diviniation or whatever at least is written in the rules and is balanced by having you use actions, spell slots or whatever else to do the thing. But simply rolling a natural 20 requires zero effort. You just roll the thing and you have a decently high chance of rolling the thing. The only way you can limit that as a DM and try to balance it then is just by limiting skill checks entirely.
I think we’re using very different ideas of game design. Are you using good design in the sense of like “tactically balanced”? I think of good game design as setting up and meeting player expectations for fun while minimizing frustration.
So is Elden Ring badly designed? That game does not meet player expectations for fun (typically) and certainly doesn’t minimize frustration for literally anyone and I say this as someone at New Game+6. For me good design is providing a challenge for players and allowing them to overcome it themselves with the tools they have available not simply rolling the number that wins everything. If someone with a 6 Charisma can roll a 20 and be able to convince whomever of whatever they wish despite the fact that they have negative modifiers then it’s not providing a challenge for them, it’s just gambling. Certain people should never be able to make certain successes. Flat out. It makes no sense for me to say that someone can do something just because they rolled a number that pops up like 5 times every session I run.
I also outright refuse the argument of “Well then why are you rolling a check a player cannot succeed” because that impedes character choice far more than if I were to allow them to do a stupid thing. Moreover, the rolls can be determined to tell the level of failure in doing something. Like if you’re trying to intimidate a king into giving you his throne and everything else on it, a natural 1 means that he takes it seriously and you’re going to be imprisoned or at least have a very strong talking to. A natural 20 means that he takes it as good natured ribbing and gives you extra favors or trusts you more or whatever because of course that was never going to work but your character got to do the thing he wanted to do, did really well and actually blundered into something else that can still help.
A natural 20 should be treated as a high roll that demonstrates that the character did something as amazingly as they are capable but only as amazingly as they are capable.
To occasionally then deny players that fails to meet expectations and creates disappointment.
Again, it’s not in the book. It’s not written anywhere. It’s a made up personal rule that some people believe is real but it isn’t. If I were to give in to every false expectation that a player had we’d never be able to get a campaign done. It’s not on the DM to bow to the fact they can’t read the rules. The only way you get that expectation is by either never reading the rules or not understanding it. If the clarification isn’t good enough then… that sucks but you’re not playing the game by the rules. And if you’re not playing the game by the rules then you (not you specifically, I mean the figurative player) don’t really have a right to be disappointed by people who do play by the actual rules as written. At that point its on you.
Elden ring absolutely does meet player expectations - challenge is the expectation of the souls-like genre.
6 Charisma can roll a 20 and be able to convince whomever of whatever
Certain people should never be able to make certain successes
only as amazingly as they are capable
I don’t disagree with any of this but I’m not talking about how the win should look in the fiction.
It’s just that when you roll a crit but don’t get a crit, most players will get extra disappointed. That’s a fact of the human experience that no rules text will ever change.
Good design accounts for the reality of how people actually use a thing.
FWIW, inconsistency is one of the things I hate the most about the game design in Elden Ring. It does not properly communicate the actual impact of stat upgrades at different levels (e.g. 39-40 vigor is a significantly higher jump than 40-41 vigor) and enemies will have resistances or weaknesses to different damage types that often feel arbitrary/poorly communicated (e.g. the Magma Wyrm, a creature that breathes fire, is more resistant to fire than the Fire Giant; Borealis, an icy dragon that breathes ice, is nearly as resistant to fire as the Fire Giant; Hero of Zamor, an icy man that shoots ice, is weak to fire).
Elden Ring’s design is essentially a form of trial and error that often punishes you for choosing poorly, relying instead on metagame knowledge (patterns from previous Souls games, online discourse) to patch up its shortcomings. Fun as all hell when you know what to do, but its systems are incredibly arcane for newcomers.
Good design accounts for the reality how people actually use a thing.
Disagree. People misuse stuff constantly.
I’m also falling back on my point that if someone is upset that their natural 20 doesn’t mean that they get an auto success on a skill then that’s more of a skill issue on them for just not reading the rules. TTRPGs are not simple nor are they going to hold your hand and give you everything you want. Just because a player expects something doesn’t mean they should get it nor that their expectation is based in reality. It’s a false understanding of the rules. The design is good. The players reading comprehension isn’t.
If some DMs want to lean into that, by all means, but the game isn’t badly designed just because some people make a false assumption that isn’t backed up anywhere.
Woah wait now. Sure people misuse things but designing with that in mind always produces a better thing than ignoring reality. A gun with a safety is a objectively a better design than a gun with no safety, even if the both have a manual that says not to play with the trigger and keep away from kids.
on them for just not reading the rules
The game trains you to expect a dopamine reward when you roll a 20. A game that consistently meets the expectations it creates would be a better game.
The game trains you to expect a dopamine reward when you roll a 20.
Okay this is just getting ridiculous and I’m checking out of this conversation entirely. You’re now just going with stuff that is either completely unprovable or totally anecdotal while I’m saying “Your assumptions do not reflect reality when the rules say otherwise.” We’re not going to see eye to eye on this at all.
Like yes dude. Some things might make you thing that one thing naturally comes after another but that is why the rules are there to say that the assumption is wrong. Your argument could be applied to so many things in DnD and if it came out as the dominant stance the entire game would fall apart as there would be no balancing and people would effectively be able to do whatever they want because they assume so. “Create water inside his lungs” type nonsense.
Have a good one but this doesn’t make sense to me at all to say "It’s badly designed because it clarifies something that I would naturally assume otherwise as that is the purpose of game rules." Take care.
Edit: Again, re reading this, it seems to have a way bitchier tone than I intended… I swear I’m just saying this in a confused fashion for the most part
But it’s not.
That’s the thing that I’m not following with your point. Like a Natural 20 is not a rare occurrence in the game so I don’t understand treating it like a jackpot. It’d be like treating something that happens several times a day as a really rare thing. And if they’re not that rare then I don’t understand the instant jump of going “Well then it must be a critical success because it’s a rare-but-not-really thing”. It’s just the highest number on the die that can pop up but it’s only one more than 19. It is 1 in 20. Those are pretty good odds when you’re rolling a die repeatedly.
In Combat and death saves. At no point in the DM guide that I recall does it say anything about a Natural 20 applying to any skill check, saving bonus or anything other than an attack roll and saving throw. I’m not aware of anything in the PHB or DM Guide (at least in 5e) that states anything else about a Natural 20 having any effect at all save for specific spells or subclasses that usually mess with the critical hit range for attacks.
But it’s not occasional! And that’s where all of this argument instantly falls apart for me. It’s a 1 in 20 chance for a number that just says “I win”. To me as a DM it removes a significant amount of the challenge from my players if they can just roll the number that does it for them or if they’re stacking advantage and everything else. The stacking advantage and using chronomancy to force a success or diviniation or whatever at least is written in the rules and is balanced by having you use actions, spell slots or whatever else to do the thing. But simply rolling a natural 20 requires zero effort. You just roll the thing and you have a decently high chance of rolling the thing. The only way you can limit that as a DM and try to balance it then is just by limiting skill checks entirely.
So is Elden Ring badly designed? That game does not meet player expectations for fun (typically) and certainly doesn’t minimize frustration for literally anyone and I say this as someone at New Game+6. For me good design is providing a challenge for players and allowing them to overcome it themselves with the tools they have available not simply rolling the number that wins everything. If someone with a 6 Charisma can roll a 20 and be able to convince whomever of whatever they wish despite the fact that they have negative modifiers then it’s not providing a challenge for them, it’s just gambling. Certain people should never be able to make certain successes. Flat out. It makes no sense for me to say that someone can do something just because they rolled a number that pops up like 5 times every session I run.
I also outright refuse the argument of “Well then why are you rolling a check a player cannot succeed” because that impedes character choice far more than if I were to allow them to do a stupid thing. Moreover, the rolls can be determined to tell the level of failure in doing something. Like if you’re trying to intimidate a king into giving you his throne and everything else on it, a natural 1 means that he takes it seriously and you’re going to be imprisoned or at least have a very strong talking to. A natural 20 means that he takes it as good natured ribbing and gives you extra favors or trusts you more or whatever because of course that was never going to work but your character got to do the thing he wanted to do, did really well and actually blundered into something else that can still help.
A natural 20 should be treated as a high roll that demonstrates that the character did something as amazingly as they are capable but only as amazingly as they are capable.
Again, it’s not in the book. It’s not written anywhere. It’s a made up personal rule that some people believe is real but it isn’t. If I were to give in to every false expectation that a player had we’d never be able to get a campaign done. It’s not on the DM to bow to the fact they can’t read the rules. The only way you get that expectation is by either never reading the rules or not understanding it. If the clarification isn’t good enough then… that sucks but you’re not playing the game by the rules. And if you’re not playing the game by the rules then you (not you specifically, I mean the figurative player) don’t really have a right to be disappointed by people who do play by the actual rules as written. At that point its on you.
Elden ring absolutely does meet player expectations - challenge is the expectation of the souls-like genre.
I don’t disagree with any of this but I’m not talking about how the win should look in the fiction.
It’s just that when you roll a crit but don’t get a crit, most players will get extra disappointed. That’s a fact of the human experience that no rules text will ever change.
Good design accounts for the reality of how people actually use a thing.
FWIW, inconsistency is one of the things I hate the most about the game design in Elden Ring. It does not properly communicate the actual impact of stat upgrades at different levels (e.g. 39-40 vigor is a significantly higher jump than 40-41 vigor) and enemies will have resistances or weaknesses to different damage types that often feel arbitrary/poorly communicated (e.g. the Magma Wyrm, a creature that breathes fire, is more resistant to fire than the Fire Giant; Borealis, an icy dragon that breathes ice, is nearly as resistant to fire as the Fire Giant; Hero of Zamor, an icy man that shoots ice, is weak to fire).
Elden Ring’s design is essentially a form of trial and error that often punishes you for choosing poorly, relying instead on metagame knowledge (patterns from previous Souls games, online discourse) to patch up its shortcomings. Fun as all hell when you know what to do, but its systems are incredibly arcane for newcomers.
Disagree. People misuse stuff constantly.
I’m also falling back on my point that if someone is upset that their natural 20 doesn’t mean that they get an auto success on a skill then that’s more of a skill issue on them for just not reading the rules. TTRPGs are not simple nor are they going to hold your hand and give you everything you want. Just because a player expects something doesn’t mean they should get it nor that their expectation is based in reality. It’s a false understanding of the rules. The design is good. The players reading comprehension isn’t.
If some DMs want to lean into that, by all means, but the game isn’t badly designed just because some people make a false assumption that isn’t backed up anywhere.
Woah wait now. Sure people misuse things but designing with that in mind always produces a better thing than ignoring reality. A gun with a safety is a objectively a better design than a gun with no safety, even if the both have a manual that says not to play with the trigger and keep away from kids.
The game trains you to expect a dopamine reward when you roll a 20. A game that consistently meets the expectations it creates would be a better game.
Okay this is just getting ridiculous and I’m checking out of this conversation entirely. You’re now just going with stuff that is either completely unprovable or totally anecdotal while I’m saying “Your assumptions do not reflect reality when the rules say otherwise.” We’re not going to see eye to eye on this at all.
Like yes dude. Some things might make you thing that one thing naturally comes after another but that is why the rules are there to say that the assumption is wrong. Your argument could be applied to so many things in DnD and if it came out as the dominant stance the entire game would fall apart as there would be no balancing and people would effectively be able to do whatever they want because they assume so. “Create water inside his lungs” type nonsense.
Have a good one but this doesn’t make sense to me at all to say "It’s badly designed because it clarifies something that I would naturally assume otherwise as that is the purpose of game rules." Take care.