Let's Talk About Levels or Tiers of Success

[Micah Sweet]

Sure but this thread and all threads on ENWorld are not about your preferences. It is false for RPGs in general.

It is false for some RPGs. It is true for many others, maybe most. Since I have very little interest in games where it is false, why should I discuss them?

 

[soviet]

It is false for some RPGs. It is true for many others, maybe most. Since I have very little interest in games where it is false, why should I discuss them?

I don't know, but you do it regularly.

The point is, you made a blanket statement about RPGs, that is only true about the RPGs you prefer. If you don't want to talk about them, or to have people point out your error, don't make such broad statements.

 

[BenjaminPey]

Addressing the OP, for me degrees of success can be a good thing, and they can be a bad thing, depending of the general aim and means of the system.

=> When a roll will potentially decide an entire scene, when they are few and very meaningful, when they are very clear cut, with no overlap, when the GM have clear guidances and principles to address them, their effects and consequences, then yes, they can be good.

=> When rolls decide discrete actions, when they are many, when there are no principles guiding the GM, when it's not always clear how to distinguish them, when their only use is to move a needle (like adding/removing a ressource), when any kind of gradient would be as good ("roll a die, high is good"), then, no, to me, they will only muddle the game and add mechanical fuss where I vastly prefer clear cut results.

 

[Argyle King]

OK. I tease you sometimes but I've had enough real discussions with you to give you a proper answer.

The rules structure discussed inherently gives the GM an authority over what a success 'means'. If I roll to persuade someone of something, and I succeed, and there are no degrees of success, then that person is persuaded. If there are partial successes, and one-hit successes, and two-hit successes, and critical-successes - well, what did my single or partial success mean? Are they persuaded? Are they persuaded temporarily, reluctantly, with a cost, with future very bad consequences, not as good as a critical success, what? It's all undefined and therefore open to GM interpretation.

This rules structure inherently prioritises the GM's interpretation over mine. It's a barrier to communication. Sometimes I might get a partial or a one-hit success and get everything I want, because it suits the GM's idea of what should happen. Sometimes I will get a partial or a one-hit success and get very little of what I want, because, well soviet, it's not a two-hit success is it, and what I want doesn't suit the GM's idea of what should happen.

This doesn't make it adversarial. All the people I play with are my good friends. But it does prioritise the GM's view over mine. It makes the GM a larger driver of the fiction than I am. Their views carry more weight than mine do. This is a very common way to play and there is nothing wrong with it. But it is not the only way to play. And doing something else does not have to come from a place of 'the tyrant GM is bullying the poor players'. It can come from a place of 'I as GM want players to have more say in this, so I do not want the power to interpret or finesse their dice rolls into the fiction. I want the rules to tell me clearly what happened'.

I think a lot of that can be covered by simply asking the player what they are trying to accomplish.

Also, as a GM, having NPCs who exist (and think) separately from who the GM is as the arbiter of the rules.

I think it is valid to allow players to have input into the story. I enjoy giving opportunities for that. At the same time, I think it is reasonable for the GM to set reasonable boundaries (informed by the 'physics engine' of the rules and the needs/wants of a NPC/obstacle) concerning what is acceptable.

In my own anecdotal experience, I've seen issues with unreasonable player requests when D&D players seem to feel that 'charm' is the same as being able to brainwash a NPC. Likewise, I've had the displeasure of being at the same table with the cliche Horny Bard player who seems to think making high diplomacy checks means his character gets to bugger any and all NPCs, monsters, and even sometimes other PCs.

 

[aramis erak]

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

It is extremely common for count success systems to have situations where situations require more than what the system defines as a basic success in order to have a desired effect. Most often in combat.

For example, in Alien, it's extremely common for needing 3 successes to hurt a given zenomorph, despite difficulties being assessed as number of dice added/subtracted to/from the pool before the roll.

In L5R 5e, with certain special abilities, it's possible to trigger a range increase... So, I have a range band 2 weapon that, using my special ability, allows range band 3 attacks... but to trigger it I need at least 1 success (in order to hit) and at least 2 opportunity to trigger the range expansion. So If I keep 5d and get 5 successes, but my primary target is at range band 3, I just missed... at best I can only keep 3 successes because I need 2d showing an opportunity

In oWoD... roll to hit, count successes. Target reaction may cancel some successes. remaining successes add to damage, soak reduces damage. So a success to hit may not actually hit... given the dodge. And an actual hit might not do any damage.

Even in some 3 level or 4-level outcome systems...

Palladium has for combat critical hits, success, partial success and failure. (Partial: you hit the armor worn, doing SDC to it, rather than the wearer. Success bypasses armor.) It also has parry/dodge rules... so quite often, a partial or full success gets negated by success on the parry or dodge.

RuneQuest (edition dependent) has 3 to 5 levels of success in combat. I know third best, so that's the choice to show.
Crit Success, Special Success (=Impale), Success, Failure, Fumble. On a success, you do base damage roll; that roll may be less than the armor in the location hit, and effectively nullify the hit. Likewise, it has a parry/dodge option, a success on which can negate the hit.

 

[ART!]

For combat, tiers of success often can easily translate to damage or some effects. Cool, that's fine.

For all other aspects of roleplaying, tiers of results are not often well used or defined

What is never ever helpful is =
1 success (tier 1): good result
2 success(tier 2): great result
3 success(tier 3): critical result

This is always no-fun to see in a game.

Because now I have to as the GM think of three possible gradients of what the results are - and nothing here helps me do that. What is good to GM X may be great to GM Y which may be middling to a Player C. It's all GM fiat, arbitrary and not useful.

Another example of kind unhelpful results are games that use dice pools but dont really do anything with them outside of combat. Some games have 1 - 5 difficulty, but the players routinely roll 7 to 14 successes... of which mean nothing outside of combat-what a waste.
Or they have 1 - 5 difficulty, but again, player A rolls 3 successes and player B rolls 4 successes and Neither results mean anything different, it was an arbitrary gate by the GM.
That's often so obscure its not fun to engage with because its just GM fiat with extra steps.

I prefer if tiers of success are explicit - like Actual results.
This means the results are bespoke to what you are doing, and just as detailed as combat.
We get things like =

Persuade results
Fail: they refuse your offer until you prove yourself to them or they do it but in a way that causes you trouble later
Success with complications: "they will do it but only if you pay extra cost, favor, or let them benefit too"
Success: they do it as you hoped for as best fits the fiction

Use Device results
Fail: it does not work until you get a part/item to fix it, or it works but its going haywire in a bad way
Success with complications: its working and does the task for you, but then breaks or has some odd side effect
Success: it works as best fits the fiction, does what you expected

Search Around
Fail: as you are looking around you draw trouble prepare for a fight/problem,
Success with complications: you find what you are looking for but its missing some of its info or you need to follow up to get its relevancy, or you find what you are looking for but its in the hands of enemy or a problem/obstacle
Success: you find what you were looking for

These are useful, they have just enough info to very quickly help the GM adjudicate the roll, AND they give explicit example of what the player is owed. So GM can't weasel out of the results with old school fiat because the player got a lucky roll.
AND these are vague enough that they can fit into any situation so they are always applicable.

This is pretty much how I feel about it, too.

When I'm GMing, I'm already making a lot of decisions off the top of my head, so having to figure out what X level of success means vs Y or Z level of success, for every roll, is kind of a nightmare. I like enough structure that some of that work is done for me, and hopefully worded or structured in such a way that I can easily fill in details or use it as a springboard. Having to come up with all of it myself is too much

 

[Kannik]

The rules structure discussed inherently gives the GM an authority over what a success 'means'. If I roll to persuade someone of something, and I succeed, and there are no degrees of success, then that person is persuaded. If there are partial successes, and one-hit successes, and two-hit successes, and critical-successes - well, what did my single or partial success mean? Are they persuaded? Are they persuaded temporarily, reluctantly, with a cost, with future very bad consequences, not as good as a critical success, what? It's all undefined and therefore open to GM interpretation.

In ways similar to a non-tiered-based resolution system, it hinges on who was being persuaded of what and in what circumstances (and the GM interpretation thereof). Persuading a bored bouncer to let you skip the line? Low DC / Single-hit success = get into the club, and multiple-hit successes don’t add anything.

But other end of the spectrum, persuading a noble to support your rebellion? Then it gets interesting! (And fun) One hit success? You succeed indeed in convincing them to support you...with easily deniable resources. Three hit success? Oh, they're in, and will even lend their voice to the cause.

(Can even be more fun this run this with the whole party get in on the persuading action, tallying successes.)

Under a non-tiered-based, then the GM would also be interpreting, like how persuadable the person may be and what the DC of said possible thing is needed to succeed. And perhaps give nothing to the PC if they do not hit the “full persuade” DC. Or could institute some kind of multiple DC and what DC is rolled over is the support garnered (which essentially is creating a tier-base system).

This doesn't make it adversarial. All the people I play with are my good friends. But it does prioritise the GM's view over mine. It makes the GM a larger driver of the fiction than I am. Their views carry more weight than mine do.

Interesting, I’ve found the opposite. There is a slightly different game loop than a non-tiered system, often with more information/setup prior to the tests being rolled. But it hasn't felt like there's been more GM dictum nor more player confusion. (Nor players feeling cheated either.)

 

[kigmatzomat]

Double post

 

[kigmatzomat]

How is it flexible for players - do they get to interpret the levels of success for the roll themselves?

No, I'm Renley on this. Multiple amorphous levels of success means the GM has too much ability to downgrade successful rolls into 'nearly, but not quite'.

When Deadpool and Reed Richards can both only get the same success on a knowledge check, its often an issue.

Wade Wilson: (rolls a 15) - Ooh, that's a bad guy. I'm gonna go stab them.
Reed Richards: (rolls a 95) - that's Melchor of the Negaverse! He's made of antimatter!
Wade: Baby knife! (Boom!) Ow! Neat explosion! Five stars! Would stab again!

Yes, it requires having at least a decent set of guide post exemplars for 1 success vs 4 successes and often either penalties for partial success or bonuses for great ones. (High dive off building into swimming pool :1 - you succeed without permanent injury but are barely conscious, 4- you snag a martini and a phone number off a hottie as you emerge unscathed from the pool).

 

[kigmatzomat]

Triple post? Something is wrong today. Got gateway errors.