[Rules Compendium] Degree of Success/Failure Informs the Narrative

[Justin D. Jacobson]

I kid, of course, to draw eyeballs to the thread. Let me start by saying that I have absolutely no delusions that WotC actually stole the idea from me. Indeed, I'm sure some representative percentage of playgroups were already doing this, but I'm still pleased (I can at least be pleased, can't I?) that "great minds think alike".

From Passages, page 12, "Spread":

In some cases, it is enough to simply know if the character has succeeded or failed at what he was trying to do. However, the result of any check also indicates the degree of success or failure. The difference between the result of the check and the DC is called the spread.

And page 228, "Interpret the Results":

If the check succeeds and the spread is minimal, the character has accomplished the task but only barely. Describe it in those terms. Describe how the character strainted to hold his grip on the ledge just catching himself before he plummeted to his doom. (Now that you know the character has succeeded, you can make the effect o failure that much more horrific.) Describe how the queen creases her brow and mutters to herself as she acquiesces to teh character's request. A narrow success creates a welcome tension at the table, as if the character doged a bullet--sometimes literally so.

If the check succeeds and the spread is great, the character has been wildly successful. Describe it in those terms. Describe how the woman in the front row faints from his eloquent recitation of the poem. Describe the mouthwatering smells as he not only catches a wild boar for their dinner but creates a meal fit for a gourmand. This is a chance for the character to soak up the spotlight. At least for this moment, he is the star.

Failure also has its place. Narrow failures can be gut-wrenching as something critical slips free from the character's grasp or infuriating as the character just fails to nab the villain before he escapes. Great failures can be moments of levity as the character bumbles about like a drunken sot. And of course, great failures can leave to teh gravest sort fo danger as the character's life very is jeopardized.

And from the Rules Compendium, page 29, "Dicey Narration" by Chris Sims:

In D&D, the system is largely binary--yes or no--so it's usually an all-or-nothing outcome when the d20 rolls. However, the degree of success or failure can always matter in your game. All you have to do, as DM, is use the degree of success or failure to determine how you describe the action. A leaper who fails a Jump check by 1 might have missed the other side, but only by inches. That's different from stretching for the landing when failing by 4, even though a jumper that fails by 4 or less needs to clamber up after just catching the other side. If two enemies are scrambling for the same iterm, you might use a Dexterity check. If the winner only wins by 1, that's an opportunity for you to make it quesitonable who grabs the iterm for an intense second or two. When a climber fails by 6, you can even make the player think everything's fine after a slight slip--right before that second slide turns into a real fall.

This narrative style isn't just for checks. In combat, near misses make the scene more real. They also give your players hints at what they really need to roll to hit the bad guy, a guessing game that can make missing a little less disappointing.

Anyway, I thought that was cool.

I'll also use this as my mini-review to note that I was quite pleased with the RC. It's very handy, the few minor omissions don't really bother me, and I found the sidebars and design notes (lile the one above) to be pure gold.

EDIT: To change the thread title to something less gratuitously inflammatory.[\i]

 

[Justin D. Jacobson]

So I changed the thread title because I realized it was more stupid than funny. And because I think the interesting part of this is the concept itself (and, indeed why I thought it was interesting enough to be the foundation of Passages).

So ignore the similarities with Passages.

What are your thoughts about the rule itself? Have you used it? I'm guessing that, given what I've seen about the more narrative-oriented bent of 4e, that it will be in the core rules for that new edition.

 

[amethal]

What are your thoughts about the rule itself? Have you used it? I'm guessing that, given what I've seen about the more narrative-oriented bent of 4e, that it will be in the core rules for that new edition.

I've been using it for years.

D&D wouldn't be D&D if you couldn't mock the guy who failed his jump check by 17 by describing how much of an idiot he looked as he fell to his doom.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

degree of success

I think that degree of success is an important concept that's missing from D20.

I actually prefer RuneQuest's version .. In runequest, a die roll can be a fumble, a failure, a success, a special success, and a critical success.

Key to RuneQuest's degree of success concept is that degree of success is measured as a percentage, not as a flat number.

For example, if I have a 50% chance to hit someone, then my chance to get a special success is 10% (20% of 50%) and my chance to get a critical success is 2% (5% of 50%, rounded down). My chance to fumble is 3%, if I recall correctly.

I like this because even at high skill levels, randomness in outcome is preserved, since special and critical successes will always be rare.

Also, opposed rolls on skill checks can get interesting. You can say, for example, that if someone achieves a special success to spot a rogue, then he has to make a special hide roll to avoid being seen, rather than simply beating them in an opposed check. With this system, high level rogues can't _always_ avoid being spotted by the fighers (as they can in straight d20).

The problem with this way of doing things, of course, is that the math is more complicated than what D20 considers appropriate. I can see why they didn't go in this direction; some people in my D&D games have had problems calculating their bonuses without a calculator.

Ken

 

[Flynn]

The runequest levels of success are present in D20 already. In the PHB, I seem to recall a paragraph or two that describes succeeding by +10 being an exceptional success and by +20 as an amazing success. Sadly, I can't find it in the SRD, which probably indicates that it is either closed content, or it was in 3E and removed in v3.5.

The concept of the "spread" has been intrinsic to Gather Information and Knowledge skill checks for quite some time, though.

Hope This Helps,
Flynn

 

[Justin D. Jacobson]

The runequest levels of success are present in D20 already. In the PHB, I seem to recall a paragraph or two that describes succeeding by +10 being an exceptional success and by +20 as an amazing success. Sadly, I can't find it in the SRD, which probably indicates that it is either closed content, or it was in 3E and removed in v3.5.

By any chance, are you thinking about this from the DMG, pg. 32, "Degrees of Success":

Degrees of success usually only apply when the amount of information you have to give out can be different depending on how well the character succeeds. Most of the time, the only outcome that matters is whether the character succeeds or fails.

And "Degrees of Failure":

Usually failure itself is a sufficient problem and does not need to be compounded. However, failure can sometimes cause additional problems, such as a [sic] setting off a strap or alterting a snetry to the characters' presence. When such consequences exist, a check that fails by 5 or more causes them to occur. For example, if Lidda the rogue misses a Disable device check by 5 or more, she sets off the trap she's trying to disable.

The concept of the "spread" has been intrinsic to Gather Information and Knowledge skill checks for quite some time, though.

Right, but the relevance of spread vis a vis Balance, Climb, Disable Device, Gather Info, etc. are specifically provided for in the skill descriptions and rather concrete, e.g., if you fail the Balance check by 5 or more you fall. It's still "binary" -- just with an extra outcome at a given threshhold. The idea that the degree of success or failure can be relevant to any check and that it informs the narrative description is entirely new. (At least until I can be proven otherwise. It wouldn't shock if it's somewhere arcane, but it's certainly not part of the core rules.)

 

[blargney the second]

We've been doing it for wild successes and wild failures since the get-go, but using it for more marginal results we haven't done so much of. I might just have to get this book, if it has useful gamecraft stuff like that in there.

 

[Psion]

Indeed, I'm sure some representative percentage of playgroups were already doing this

And it's basically an extrapolation of rules text in the DMG (both 3.0 and 3.5) that a lot of people miss out on because it's not actually in the SRD.

 

[Fifth Element]

It's still "binary" -- just with an extra outcome at a given threshhold.

With three possible outcomes, it can't be binary by definition. Trinary perhaps?

 

[Justin D. Jacobson]

With three possible outcomes, it can't be binary by definition. Trinary perhaps?

Well, that's why it's in quotes. That and the fact that I couldn't think of a better word.