Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 9632121" data-attributes="member: 6779310">What I'm saying is &quot;I Reject your claim, because it's false on several levels&quot;There are a number of times where failure is appropriate. Not every &quot;no effect&quot; is a show stopper. Not every action needs a failure consequence other than closing an avenue. &quot;I try to pick open the safe with a paperclip&quot; - 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, &quot;you realize that there's no key slot, as it's a combination lock,&quot; and if it has, &quot;you broke off the paperclip inside the keyway&quot; or &quot;you opened it, but don't realize you scratched yourself and left a blood sample for the [cops | diviner].&quot; Critical success? &quot;You open it in a very short time.&quot;The simple failure, &quot;you find you're unable to open it with the paperclip&quot; 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).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="aramis erak, post: 9632121, member: 6779310"] 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). [/QUOTE]

Verification