Anything diverging from that is a nuanced (non-absolute) result. So, advantage/disadvantage, or critical pass/fail, are both nuanced outcomes that diverge from the linear norm.
This makes it sound like you're in favour of keeping the absolute succeed/fail binary outcomes that Larian are using nigh exclusively, but you just want the way we arrive at those binary outcomes to be made more complicated... To be clear, I suspect that's
not what you're saying, but that's how it reads and, if it is, I'm not a fan, personally. I'd rather have actual nuanced outcomes.
As for rules regarding partial successes and failures and marginal outcomes, they do indeed exist and are in the DMG. Most DMs use them to some small extent, in various places, in places outside of direct combat. It's not actually that complicated, either - it's pretty straight forward.
It mostly comes up around ability checks specifically. In particular, in group play, graded outcomes and variable results are an important part of managing characters, when different party members have wildly different capabilities, but there's no good reason why several of them shouldn't make a roll. This involves modulating individual DCs and having variable graded outcomes for different characters. This is what prevents the 'bad dm' situation of "the barbarian recognises wall of force and knows that it can't be dispelled, but needs to be disintegrated, while the Wizard-who-cast-WoF-yesterday does not", which is a trap that Larian are currently falling into in several places.
My point ( as much as I had one ) was that I don't see Larian's implementation as being outside the scope or intent of 5e, as documented, even if it is not as elaborate as it could be. You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that their implementation must be changed, even though you did not explain why this is so.
It is outside the intent of 5e, directly, because it's not a feature in the core rules; it used to be a feature of earlier editions, but it is not a feature of 5e, and that is not an arbitrary choice. It's quite deliberate. The ruleset is build in many ways that take that as an understanding - that outside of attack rolls and death saves, 1s and 20s are not absolutes. Bounded accuracy plays a part in this, but there are other elements and features of the ruleset that were built with that understanding in mind.
So yes, I want them to
Fix this rule change that they have made, which was a feature that was deliberately redacted from the current edition ruleset because of the way said ruleset was made. I know many people will reject the notion, but it's a system balance issue.
The development of variable outcomes doesn't need to be world-shattering; even something as simple as "I'm not going to do this, and I'm going to go report you to the guards now"/"I'm not going to do this, and leave me alone"/"I'll do this, but don't ever talk to me again"/"I'll do this, but [there will be a penalty]"/"I can do that, if you make it worth my while"/"I can do that, sure. Good luck.", where the 'world shaping' outcomes are still that something happens or it doesn't, but the persinal-level outcomes are more varied and have more outcome states... even that would be more that Larian are delivering at the moment.
==
To Miravlix - Probability is one thing, and most of us have an understanding of it. The issue is that in video games and other computer-based programs, we don't have actual random probability; we have simulated randomness, based on algorithms which, in the more sophisticated cases, regularly re-seed themselves and source chaos variables from external points. the problem arises when you use a more simplistic algorithm, and it becomes visible - when it becomes visible and to a certain extent predictable, that's a problem for a game based on those random number generations. Larian's algorithm for their random number generation is too primitive, and the flow of it DOES become visible, and to a certain extent predictable, all too easily, and that's a problem - that's what the data table I linked above is showing.
