Let's Talk About Levels or Tiers of Success

[Reynard]

What doesn't produce fun: the dice say you rolled a "success," but then other rules swoop in to say, "no, you failed."

Can you give an example of that?

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Ok. Can you explain then? Because that's how it reads to me.

I can't speak for others, but in some games there is a base mechanic of "Every 10% over is a degree of success" , or "each success die rolled in the pool is a success". And those games will have degrees of success that are not qualified or explicit. The is the case I am stating is 'not helpful' and too much cognitive load and always no fun.
So when its left up to the GM to determine what the difference between 2 degrees of success is vs 4 vs 7... it always turns out the GM just kinda weasels it down to not much better than a base success if at all. And even sometimes, thanks to the number of degrees, just makes base success never quite a success.

This comes up in all pass/fail systems too. Where rolling a pass fail and getting a pass - and the pass results are left up to the GM - the pass often is "meh, you kinda get what you were going for, but not really".

It's a problem with GM fiat, and vague or non-explicit results.

Here, let me give an example of how frustrating this is were it Combat ...
- Imagine a game where the attack hits and the GM always gets to decide the damage you dealt, just you know... with the gut feeling. No rules on damage dice, no damage dice at all... just "Hey GM make up a result since the player hit"... That sounds like a recipe for frustration.
So why do we do Intrigue/Social/investigation that way? = it's just as frustrating.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Can you give an example of that?

I gave example above of degrees of success and pass fail systems both suffering this problem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I see

I can't speak for others, but in some games there is a base mechanic of "Every 10% over is a degree of success" , or "each success die rolled in the pool is a success". And those games will have degrees of success that are not qualified or explicit. The is the case I am stating is 'not helpful' and too much cognitive load and always no fun.
So when its left up to the GM to determine what the difference between 2 degrees of success is vs 4 vs 7... it always turns out the GM just kinda weasels it down to not much better than a base success if at all. And even sometimes, thanks to the number of degrees, just makes base success never quite a success.

This comes up in all pass/fail systems too. Where rolling a pass fail and getting a pass - and the pass results are left up to the GM - the pass often is "meh, you kinda get what you were going for, but not really".

It's a problem with GM fiat, and vague or non-explicit results.

Here, let me give an example of how frustrating this is were it Combat ...
- Imagine a game where the attack hits and the GM always gets to decide the damage you dealt, just you know... with the gut feeling. No rules on damage dice, no damage dice at all... just "Hey GM make up a result since the player hit"... That sounds like a recipe for frustration.
So why do we do Intrigue/Social/investigation that way? = it's just as frustrating.

I see nothing here that refutes my interpretation of @soviet 's post as assuming an adversarial relationship leading to a lack of objectivity and fairness. Is that what you're saying as well?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I gave example above of degrees of success and pass fail systems both suffering this problem.

Is this theoretical, or are you talking about a specific game or games?

 

[Reynard]

I gave example above of degrees of success and pass fail systems both suffering this problem.

No you didn't. You described how it might go awry but you did not tell us what games actually do it badly. What games are you thinking of?

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I see

I see nothing here that refutes my interpretation of @soviet 's post as assuming an adversarial relationship leading to a lack of objectivity and fairness. Is that what you're saying as well?

You are pushing and assuming, which shows a level of inability to engage in the conversation. I gave examples, how about you speak to them directly?
An adversarial GM or a complicit GM does not matter if you read what is being said - people interpret degrees differently and when its not explicit there are frustrations when people come to different conclusions on how to rule a given degree. The fact we have explicit damage dice in games is an example of why this is an important concept. The suggestion is to consider that in terms of all of the game.

Is this theoretical, or are you talking about a specific game or games?

Many specific games. But I don't want this to turn into a game-bashing thread. So for now, I can keep it general. If you have never played a game with those rules, then that's fine.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

No you didn't. You described how it might go awry but you did not tell us what games actually do it badly. What games are you thinking of?

I will say the same here, I don't want to bash a specific game, that's not the point. If you can't understand the concept then stating the exact same thing in terms of a game won't help you. You must consider the mechanic aside from implementation if you really want an answer to you OP - which is in its self Vague and not tied to a specific game

 

[Micah Sweet]

You are pushing and assuming, which shows a level of inability to engage in the conversation. I gave examples, how about you speak to them directly?
An adversarial GM or a complicit GM does not matter if you read what is being said - people interpret degrees differently and when its not explicit there are frustrations when people come to different conclusions on how to rule a given degree. The fact we have explicit damage dice in games is an example of why this is an important concept. The suggestion is to consider that in terms of all of the game.


Many specific games. But I don't want this to turn into a game-bashing thread. So for now, I can keep it general. If you have never played a game with those rules, then that's fine.

Unless you provide a game that actually works the way you say, there's no reason to think your example is anything more than theoretical, and therefore of limited value.

Also, the interpretation of degrees you are assuming explicitly works against player interests, with no indication in your rhetoric that it might go a different way. That is adversarial.

 

[BenjaminPey]

That operates on the assumption of an adversarial relationship between the Players and the GM. Why make that assumption?

Players could very well find it simply fun to choose for themselves. Why should it be adversarial? I don't understand. I like choosing. I like to have more agency, I find it fun. Nothing to do with adverserial GM-ing. It's just another kind of balance, another kind of way to spread the narrative authority.
It is, for instance, the standard in a game like Legend in the Mist. Players choose their "effects".