For most skills, there low level human equivalents in the real world who will never “choke under pressure” once when doing the thing thousands of times throughout their life. When we’re talking about one of the heroes of a tale that are also “the best of the best”, I think it’s ok from a literature, fantasy, or gameplay standpoint for them to have a 100% success rate despite the fact that a failure risk would be possible in the real world. This is doubly true (DM point of view) when failure would be uninteresting or mess with suspension of disbelief. If an ace pilot is trying to fly through a bad storm to land where the firefight is going to happen, he bloody well makes it. I’m ok with “success with complications” on a 1, but the complications should be fun as well. You land ok, but the wind that hit at the last minute caused some damage to a wing. You might need to find another way out" or even "unfortunately, you weren’t able to fly evasively enough because of the buffetting winds, so they know you’re here.

Nobody wants Skyrim syndrome, where a master thief gets caught pickpocketing someone (we Bethesda players do something called save-scumming to keep the immersion). I used to go to a pickpocket show at the local renfair and the performer never got caught. And he was not a “master thief”.

Which, as said elsewhere, is still a 1-in-400 chance. A commercial pilot lands a plane thousands of times in his life. 1d20 with a 1d20 confirm would mean no pilot ever survived to retirement.

And one could argue a commercial pilot has a fairly average skill level, the equivalent of a level 0 character with a ~4 points of proficiency (D&D3 mindset, I know I’m old). Someone who is 5 or 6 times that should have no meaningful risk of crashing a plane (and the plane should have no meaningful risk of dangerously malfunctioning 0.25% of the time)

Yeah, I really like the “success with complications” category (Fate system does something like this, too) to keep things moving when a bad roll would otherwise make 1-in-a-million tragedy happen.

Doubly so if that bad roll would be a session- or campaign-ender.

Youtube’s margins are 38%, much lower than most of its competitors (that are in the 80% range). The primary reason for the margin being so low is that they give a far higher percent of their revenue to the content creators.

Just a reminder… 38% margins are kinda low for the type of product Youtube is.

That’s about consciousness, which is a much larger claim than the self being an illusion

I don’t agree. Care you defend this claim? Your assertion that you can have consciousness without a self (ego death) seems more personal spiritualism than argument.

In theory, a conscious being could exist that’s always in a state of ego death, and have no understanding of the self and be utterly confused by why people find anything unintuitive about the teleporter paradox.

In theory like modal possibilities, or in theory like you genuinely believe such a person can exist? I’d love to hear why.

The Illusionist theory of Consciousness is pretty solidly refuted. The emergent theory of consciousness is vaguely similar, and argued by some to be stronger, others to be weaker, than illusionism. I think it’s the most popular view among physicalist philosophers. For the arguments against emergentism, the most common seems to be the required presupposition of physicalism plus some handwaving to make it work. It’s noted, however, there are a vast number of permutations of the emergentism argument or what emergent mental states actually mean, which each one of those permutations a bit different.

Upon analysis, neither has demonstrated being “a fully consistent view of the self” with any success. Ultimately, both are just unsubstantiated attempts to fill the gaps in our understanding.