Binary Success vs Multiple Levels of Success

[Crimson Longinus]

More rolling is bad; more dice being rolled is less bad, but requires more "understanding time". I have players at my table that - after literally 3 decades of D&D - still are doing the math of "I rolled a 12, plus my strength, plus my skill... 15. No 17. Wait, it's a +1 sword..."

Why they don't have the bonuses as one precalculated number?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why they don't have the bonuses as one precalculated number?

Exactly. Why are these calculations being made at the time of rolling?

 

[billd91]

Why they don't have the bonuses as one precalculated number?

If anyone had the answer to that question, we'd save so many GMs from burnout or player-caused PTSD.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Lack of an actual fail de-games a game too much for me.
I don't mind a range where complicated success is allowed, but there are times where I want a real failure to be an option, and that's most of the time.

I think you bring up a good question that is hinted at in the whole mixed success and fail and both etc etc =

What actually is "Fail" ??

To me... Fail means "...it didn't go as I wanted it to."
and Fumble/Botch means "....I screwed it all up and made matters worse"

However, both of those could still possibly include "I did the action I was trying to do, but...." (then append one of the results above)

So Failure is always an option... it just never "Fail = nothing happens"
...

What is a situation in which "Fail = nothing happens" , is more fun and engaging than "succeeded with complications?"

......

Note that "fail with opportunity" is really the exact same thing as "success with complications", just phrased different....
"You failed to complete the task as you intended, but you still acted and did things and stuff still happened. It just failed to resolve as you hoped. Which could be: it worked with less effect, it costed much more, it allowed the badguy to also get a task completed, the thing didn't work but its also not busted so you can try again, you didn't see anything but nobody saw you either, etc etc... "

....


The idea behind success with complications being better than 5+tiers of success/fail and better than pass/fail = is that it is the way to acknowledge that the character in fact did act, they did something, and that failure is never just 'nothing occurred at all from your action.'
It also asks everyone to consider 'failure' is more than 'you don't it at all' = far more often 'failure' is based entirely on very different possibilities - none of which are 'nothing happens'.

A typical example of this is "Roll to climb the wall", you fail the roll, you don't climb the wall. = what a boring result
Some games go so far as to punish for a failed roll, "roll to climb the wall. you failed, you fall and take damage". = ok fine, but what a tedious and one-dimensional result. Every time, always 'take harm' result, bleh....

But that is far from the only result 'fail' could mean.

If we go with PBTA's dynamic of success with complications we get a better paradigm for keeping the game going and engaging players for fun. "Roll to climb the wall, you failed(Success with Complications), you made it half way up and you panic and freeze, you cant will your arms to go up or down." or "you failed(SwC), you made it up over the wall, but there were spikes at the top, and you cut yourself, take harm but you are up there", or "You failed(SwC), you can't seem to find footholds to climb this wall, but you are able to take a long time to make ropes, sticks, and other things to shimmy up the wall, you are up there but it took so long the ceremony is already started!" etc etc

Every single Success With Complications is the kind of fun and drama people love, and it keeps the game moving on, and it lets the result "let things happen"... we did stuff, so stuff should be done...

 

[dragoner]

What do you think? Do you prefer binary success or multiple levels of success? Why? Do you agree with the author's idea that you can make binary success more interesting by making checks more complex?

Binary, such as two rolls, more rolls slow down the play. Adding complexity is usually a no go too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think you bring up a good question that is hinted at in the whole mixed success and fail and both etc etc =

What actually is "Fail" ??

To me... Fail means "...it didn't go as I wanted it to."
and Fumble/Botch means "....I screwed it all up and made matters worse"

However, both of those could still possibly include "I did the action I was trying to do, but...." (then append one of the results above)

So Failure is always an option... it just never "Fail = nothing happens"
...

What is a situation in which "Fail = nothing happens" , is more fun and engaging than "succeeded with complications?"

......

Note that "fail with opportunity" is really the exact same thing as "success with complications", just phrased different....
"You failed to complete the task as you intended, but you still acted and did things and stuff still happened. It just failed to resolve as you hoped. Which could be: it worked with less effect, it costed much more, it allowed the badguy to also get a task completed, the thing didn't work but its also not busted so you can try again, you didn't see anything but nobody saw you either, etc etc... "

....


The idea behind success with complications being better than 5+tiers of success/fail and better than pass/fail = is that it is the way to acknowledge that the character in fact did act, they did something, and that failure is never just 'nothing occurred at all from your action.'
It also asks everyone to consider 'failure' is more than 'you don't it at all' = far more often 'failure' is based entirely on very different possibilities - none of which are 'nothing happens'.

A typical example of this is "Roll to climb the wall", you fail the roll, you don't climb the wall. = what a boring result
Some games go so far as to punish for a failed roll, "roll to climb the wall. you failed, you fall and take damage". = ok fine, but what a tedious and one-dimensional result. Every time, always 'take harm' result, bleh....

But that is far from the only result 'fail' could mean.

If we go with PBTA's dynamic of success with complications we get a better paradigm for keeping the game going and engaging players for fun. "Roll to climb the wall, you failed(Success with Complications), you made it half way up and you panic and freeze, you cant will your arms to go up or down." or "you failed(SwC), you made it up over the wall, but there were spikes at the top, and you cut yourself, take harm but you are up there", or "You failed(SwC), you can't seem to find footholds to climb this wall, but you are able to take a long time to make ropes, sticks, and other things to shimmy up the wall, you are up there but it took so long the ceremony is already started!" etc etc

Every single Success With Complications is the kind of fun and drama people love, and it keeps the game moving on, and it lets the result "let things happen"... we did stuff, so stuff should be done...

This entire post, while valid for the playstyle you are supporting, demands that the highest and by far most important priority in the game is that the players are constantly provided with a steady continuous stream of action and drama. This assumption that the most interesting thing for the players be what happens every time is simply not shared by everyone, though as I've noted there are many games that do and that's perfectly fine.

Also, accomplishing your goal imperfectly and failing to accomplish your goal but something else happens are not the same thing, at all. Both contain some "fuzziness", but one has you do what you intended and the other does not.

 

[Reynard]

I also use Emphasis Rolls that I read about somewhere online. The thing being attempted simply works - like picking the lock with no time constraints - but the die with the largest differential from "10" tells you if there are benefits or complications, and how large they are. (You don't get both benefits and complications.) But say Araylia is picking the lock on the defeated goblin chief's chest. She can't "fail", so she makes an Emphasis Roll, getting a 7 and a 12. 7 is "farther" from 10 than 12, so she "succeeds with a complication"... but 7 isn't very far, so it's a minor complication. If both dice are high or low, you can read into that... or just take the most. On the RARE (1 in 400) occasions that "nat1" and "nat20" are rolled together... well,... 20 is father from 10 than 1 is, so it is still a success, but it's time for me to have fun! [double nat20s has also happened, but somehow in 2 years of using this mechanic, double nat1s has not?] (In actual play, Araylia rolled a 12 and a nat20 when picking that lock. I had her pop open the chest unexpectedly quickly because... the chest was crap, but the high-quality lock came free in her hand - bonus loot!)

This is interesting. I should give that a try.

 

[aramis erak]

I think you bring up a good question that is hinted at in the whole mixed success and fail and both etc etc =

What actually is "Fail" ??

To me... Fail means "...it didn't go as I wanted it to."
and Fumble/Botch means "....I screwed it all up and made matters worse"

However, both of those could still possibly include "I did the action I was trying to do, but...." (then append one of the results above)

So Failure is always an option... it just never "Fail = nothing happens"
...

What is a sit

What I'm saying is "I Reject your claim, because it's false on several levels"
There are a number of times where failure is appropriate. Not every "no effect" is a show stopper.
Not every action needs a failure consequence other than closing an avenue. "I try to pick open the safe with a paperclip" - a simple failure is perfectly reasonable. A complicated success is also reasonable - left your prints. A simple success is also (barely) reasonable for a key-safe. A fumble? If the safe's type hasn't been established already, "you realize that there's no key slot, as it's a combination lock," and if it has, "you broke off the paperclip inside the keyway" or "you opened it, but don't realize you scratched yourself and left a blood sample for the [cops | diviner]." Critical success? "You open it in a very short time."
The simple failure, "you find you're unable to open it with the paperclip" is a reasonable failure condition, one which can lead to more outlandish things, or, perhaps, just fill a wedge in a countdown clock.
Simple failure is often, for me, the right choice for encouraging players to think outside the box, as well - or to getting them to move on to more important things.
What you are taking for granted is not something that is universal. Why? Because action attempts already include a cost - the [action economy | character time] spent on the attempt. And, in many games, even newer ones in the traditional/semi-simulationist ones, retries are not permitted. MegaTraveller, from 1987, requires a separate check to see if you may try again after failure - with Jack of All Trades skill allowing a retry per level of skill (each still taking a separate roll and separate time spend) before the character gives up (caused by failing the determination check to try again).

 

[Reynard]

What I'm saying is "I Reject your claim, because it's false on several levels"
There are a number of times where failure is appropriate. Not every "no effect" is a show stopper.
Not every action needs a failure consequence other than closing an avenue. "I try to pick open the safe with a paperclip" - a simple failure is perfectly reasonable. A complicated success is also reasonable - left your prints. A simple success is also (barely) reasonable for a key-safe. A fumble? If the safe's type hasn't been established already, "you realize that there's no key slot, as it's a combination lock," and if it has, "you broke off the paperclip inside the keyway" or "you opened it, but don't realize you scratched yourself and left a blood sample for the [cops | diviner]." Critical success? "You open it in a very short time."
The simple failure, "you find you're unable to open it with the paperclip" is a reasonable failure condition, one which can lead to more outlandish things, or, perhaps, just fill a wedge in a countdown clock.
Simple failure is often, for me, the right choice for encouraging players to think outside the box, as well - or to getting them to move on to more important things.
What you are taking for granted is not something that is universal. Why? Because action attempts already include a cost - the [action economy | character time] spent on the attempt. And, in many games, even newer ones in the traditional/semi-simulationist ones, retries are not permitted. MegaTraveller, from 1987, requires a separate check to see if you may try again after failure - with Jack of All Trades skill allowing a retry per level of skill (each still taking a separate roll and separate time spend) before the character gives up (caused by failing the determination check to try again).

Ostensibly, even the "failed to pick the lock with a paperclip" has knock on effects. Otherwise, why are you rolling? Either it is impossible, or it is inevitable. You roll when there are consequences for success and failure.

Let's look at opening the safe from a couple different perspectives.

First, the PCs have broken into the house where the safe is and are trying to get it open before a roving guard finds them. In this instance, the PCs get ONE roll before the guard arrives. if they succeed, the safe is open and they can pilfer its contents and get out before the guard arrives. if they fail, the safe does not open and they took too long. Now what?

Alternatively, the PCs lifted the safe during transit and they have it at their HQ. They have all the time in the world to open it, and lots of tools at their disposal. You could just let them open it without a roll, and that would be fine. But you could also use the roll as a sliding scale of how well or poorly it went and with what consequences. If the safecracker rolls really poorly, maybe they ended up having to blow it open and the old lady upstairs definitely heard that. or, if they roll really well, they not only get it open but leave it in pristine condition. Maybe they "put it back" before anyone is the wiser.

In other words, if we are going to bother rolling for stuff, there should be meaningful consequences. Nothing is more tedious that the party trying 5 different ways to get the door (or safe) open before a roll finally randomly succeeds.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I'm a big fan of the dice pool mechanic in The One Ring.

For the uninitiated:

• You roll a d12, which is numbered 1-10 plus "Gandalf" and "Sauron" runes
• You also roll as many d6s (0-6) as your skill level.
• You total the dice to compare to the target number, although a Gandalf is auto-success
• Each 6 rolled on the d6's counts as an extra success, which means different things depending on the context (extra damage in combat, allows a companion to succeed on a group roll, etc.)

It's actually even a bit nicer. In combat you can do other things with the special successes -- like knock opponents away, make a killing blow more likely, and so on. But if you are tired or just want to play fast, there's always the simple default of more damage. So it allows for more narrative results, but doesn't require you to do so.

I think Aliens RPG has a similar approach - you can use extra successes for more damage, to trade initiative, knock down or just increase damage. One of the few rules I like in the system, which is otherwise pretty weak for long-term play.