I thought in PNP some DMs would prepare multiple layers of DC for some rolls.
For example a DC 10 Perception check on a locked door.
Roll less than 10, fail to spot anything.
A roll of 10 could let you notice a weakness on the door where you could perhaps force your way with an axe.
A roll of 15 or higher would let you notice that the key is hidden under the rug.
etc...
That is what I do, but not for every single skill check. I use the "pathfinder crit" rule for skill checks: 10+ over the DC means the character did it really well. I also call for a lot of "roll for effect" rolls. The character is going to succeed no matter what, but let's roll and see what the result is. It creates RP opportunities, which, again, is not an issue in a computer game. The game can respond only in the ways it's been programmed to.
Dm: Okay, Rogue - It looks like you got this, but you still need a 2 for this to work.
The other thing I dislike about it is this. Let's use the fairly ubiquitous DC 10 that BG3 uses a lot. Let's say I have a rogue who is total of +8 at Sleight of Hand. He needs to roll a 2 to pick that DC 10 lock. Several levels later, he's +12. He's 50% more skilled, but he still needs to roll a 2.
And riddle me this. Are you seriously saying that you are OK in a PnP game with the DM putting in skill checks that can fail only if you roll a 1? How many are OK? Clearly not every single skill check because you advocate for taking 10.
I saw a reddit post once in which a guy recounted how his Goliath barbarian tried to pick up an injured old man on a mountain road. The DM asked him to make a roll to pick him up, he rolled a 1 and the DM said he dropped the man to his death. Something like that might cause me to leave the game instantly, because that's just plain stupid. Now if instead of an injured old man it had been an eel covered in olive oil, sure, make a roll.
