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.
Indeed, if a game is going to use a random element, I'd rather that it is used to select between a continuum of outcomes. In much of D&D the continuum of outcomes is often just pass/fail. Critical success/fail moves the continuum of outcomes from 2 possibilities to 4, partial success/fail adds 2 more oucomes and marginal success/fail adds another 2. I generally prefer more outcomes, even if they are as restricted as critial hits and fumbles
But D&D doesn't do outcomes well, and never has. Most players of the "white box" edition that I knew disliked separation of hit and damage rolls, and the complete lack of correlation between the two. It would have been simple enough to use a single attack roll to scale the damage an attack might cause, but over 40 year's later, D&D still uses the same poor system, bar the reversal of the armor classes for players that had difficulty with subtraction.
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.
Which D&D rules of the many available Larian decide will make a good videogame is up to them. You can certainly express a personal preference, but that is different from their choice being wrong.
There is no "intent" to 5e. It is designed around what TT players said they liked ( this is a good thing ), along with WotC having a better understanding of how to follow social trends that increase their market size. Both factors they seem to have totally screwed up with 4e.
One thing 5e is definitely not, is balanced. Chess is balanced, Checkers is balanced, Go is balanced, any game where the players have the same capabilities and conditions is balanced. RPGs are not balanced, and would be dreadful if they were. If anything, a better description of 5e is that it is more bland, because your character choices matter less, with limited meaningful specialization compared with earlier versions.
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.
Then we seem to be playing different games ( or you always play the game the sme way, perhaps ) as I have found that there are many ways of approaching most of BG3's content, and many (apparently) different outcomes.
Larian could be less inclined to turn everything into a fight, on occasion, but on the whole there are many more choices available than an "average" RPG.
