I must be the only one who actually finds the repeated skill checks a good thing - keeping thinks unpredictable and beyond the control of a single lucky roll.
Rolling more dice makes the outcome less random, not more. If you were to roll 2d20, for instance, you would have a drastically higher chance of hitting the midrange (high teens low twenties) of the possible outcomes than you would of hitting an extreme (2 or 40). If you just roll a single d20, you are just as likely to roll a 1 as you are to roll a 10.
In the case of multiple skill checks in a row, it just arbitrarily increases your odds of failure. 'More likely to fail' is the exact opposite of 'more random'.
Exactly.
Yeah, and sorry to get all 'Team 5e' on you, but having random rather than guaranteed results would be fine in a better written game. Being more likely to succeed rather than guaranteed to succeed is fine because failure in TTRPG gaming is supposed to lead to more interesting situations and rarely to outright fail-states. It should give the game master a chance to have some fun by humanizing your character and making you react to more out-of-control situations, but all the 'GM' of BG3 wants to do is randomly kill children or force you to fight. It extra sucks because 'it's fun to fail forward!' was supposedly a big talking point around this game when it was being introduced through streams and marketing.
...and I'm like 99% sure that this is actually true.
But there were too many red flags in the whole dice roll mechanic for me to enjoy it. You named two of them which I absolutely - ABSOLUTELY - hate.
I remember how much I enjoyed being able to solve situations in D:OS2 in different ways (example: houndmaster, dogs and red ball).
Here, currently, I feel like the dice decides for me. And thats not what I expect from an RPG. Because this is MY role, not the role of the dice.
