What works for me with games like D&D is instead of setting DCs for binary results, is I know the DC scale (8-12-16-20-24) well enough to interpret the results of a check on the fly. The specific situation will determine whether that 8 means "success at a cost" or "limited success" or what.
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?
On the idea of multiple tiers of results...
I think extra scales of success or failure are extra steps in just doing what PBTA has been showing people how to do all along.
So you need a 10 to succeed at a Persuade check?
1 = fumble, bad things happen
5= you didnt do it, but things are not ruined for ya
8= you kinda did it, but only in a limited way
10 = you did it, but only in a basic way
15= you did it and you get a little extra
20= you succeeded in the best way possible and get bonus results that are good too
like... sheesh.... what a overly extra tedious way of just doing =
10+ you did it as best as can be done within the fiction
9- you did it with some complications
1 the GM gets to decide based on the theme and plot, and here is a quick ref guide.
The extra granularity of the first set in fact adds
nothing. You can fold 5, 8, together for the same effect based on the context of the roll. you can fold 10 and 15 together because they are the same thing. 20 can be reserved for character special abilities or just folded onto 10 because at the end of the day, you still just "did it".... move on to the next fun bit already...
And if you want, you can use a PBTA style 'themed suggested results set' for success with complications if you need a little creative juice. You got success with complications to Persuade the guy =
ok, well they go along with it but ... pick one
- you have to pay them extra
- you owe them a favor
- it makes someone else an enemy of you
- it adds danger to the scene
- etc etc...
That is just as quick as any binary roll, and it helps get the mind thinking of what the risks were in the first place.
And it gives the GM what they really want deep down = challenges and drama for the players to engage with.
Even better it was the roll that made the result = the GM isnt the enemy to outthink, they are the person who helps bring these results to like in big and cool way
.................
On the article....
The author of the article is
laughably wrong on this =
"Mixed successes provide a framework for an assumed situation, which might not fit what’s actually going on"
its utter nonsensical gibberish. assumed situation where mixed success does not fit?
Here is the real nitty gritty kitty litter truth =
this is really exposing bad GM habits.... ones where the GM has no clue what the stakes are, so its just easy for them to say "you fail, nothing happens". or "I don't really know if I want you to succeed here, so uh... here is a DC, if you make it then fine, you do it..." = yuck!
If the assumed situation has some chance of failure, then failure can be
quite a few things... like... a
lot of possibilities...
And a "success" is absolutely part of a failure state.
(i.e. yes, you got the reactor working, its online and everything has power, but its overloading, so in 1 hour it will blow up)
Even in "fail" too...
(i.e. You didn't get the reactor online your hack failed, but since the power is out the enemy can't open the maglock doors, so you are safe... for now...)
Mixed success always makes sense. And if it doesn't, its a bad GM making someone roll when they should not have been rolling at all.
That, is the death of fun and a waste of time.
.......................
On Pass/Fail and binary results...
Are trash.
Ok, that's too harsh. But hear me out.
"I roll to hit the ork, I miss. nothing happens." its binary. You hit or you don't hit. Nothing interesting happened when I missed (even if the interesting thing as the ork getting a one-up on me).
This also makes gaming worse for success.
"I roll to persuade the king to kill himself." I succeed, he does. its binary. There is no reason for this, there is no build up. In a single roll we have given up what would have been a interesting dialog of why, and to what end, and what emotions or reasons were involved.
Binary pass fail is junk because
it requires a GM to be a gatekeeper of fun. They, the person who is the GM, have to say
"No you can't just persuade them to to that". That is a person telling another person what they can try in a game and what they cant. And its not always agreed upon, there are a thousand posts on this very forum over this exact thing...
................
IMHO, it is proven day after day,
everyone (deep down in truth) wants to play PBTA, its what everyone really enjoys... we are all tired of pass fail and extra layers of nothing, and we all want rolls to be interesting, even failed ones. And PBTA serves as a good test of bad habits and exposes unfun rulings that too many people have become used to suffering through.
There are so so so many blogs, posts, podcasts, even critical role talks = of people saying how to make failed rolls more interesting, narrate things happening, getting players to not spend hours arguing over how to out think the GM, players getting bad rolls and it removing them from play, GMs not handling missed perception checks leading to failed plots, tedious combat of 45 minutes of waiting for your turn to miss... the list goes on and is really obvious
Funny thing is... these gripes, the heartaches... all for pass fail systems (most of which are really wargames in drag). None of these things are breaking the backs of PBTA games, no such wealth of players who fully embrace and play mostly only PBTA talk of of untenable roll results or plays having to do nothing from bad rolls, PBTA isn't missing out on plots or suffering through a GMs guessing game of clue locations...
................
I used to not get PBTA. I thought it was "training wheels for roleplay" or some such. I thought the moves were limiting to players and the GM had no clue what to run or do... I was wrong.
I was trying to force my bad habits and my overly controlling GM habits into a game that solved all that and more.
Now, when I run PBTA, as a GM I work less, and get more fun out of my plots, my players don't see me as a villain to fight, and as a player I get to say the thing I wanted to do, do it, and see how much fun snowballs from the successes and the complications both. Players embrace both harm and risk more, and that lets me add to the stakes and story.
