I am wondering if my system should work thus:

If a player fails at a roll for an action the player still succeeds, but less effectively and with some element of misfortune. A sting in the tail.

As opposed to the player fails the roll and things...stall.

Or is that too easy?

I feel there should be room for both failure, success with potentially bad consequences ("sting in the tail") and success.

Maybe "success with consequences" as a result of using action/fate/drama/hero/etc. points to avoid failure? A "deal with the devil" thing to trade immediate success for a different brand of misery down the road?

I like this idea, but I wonder in what sort of game would this be appropriate.

Quote from: The Butcher;511467I feel there should be room for both failure, success with potentially bad consequences ("sting in the tail") and success.

Maybe "success with consequences" as a result of using action/fate/drama/hero/etc. points to avoid failure? A "deal with the devil" thing to trade immediate success for a different brand of misery down the road?

I like this idea, but I wonder in what sort of game would this be appropriate.

How about making the action resolution step "fail / conditional success", and then giving the player a pool of "this is important!" points, that they can use to turn "conditional success" into "unconditional success!". If you implement some sort of "critical!" mechanic, it could reward a "this is important!" point that could be spent then, or saved for the future.

I could see it working for a setting like Warhammer, where things tend to get worse over time, and victories tend to be minor.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;511463I am wondering if my system should work thus:

If a player fails at a roll for an action the player still succeeds, but less effectively and with some element of misfortune. A sting in the tail.

As opposed to the player fails the roll and things...stall.

Or is that too easy?

Generally i like for failure to be a potential outcome. My guess is this will vary a lot from person to person. There is probably a small crowd that will really like this sort of mechanic,  but an even bigger one that will have some issues with it.

Quote from: The Butcher;511467I like this idea, but I wonder in what sort of game would this be appropriate.

Any game to be honest. Noone wants the narrative to stall because someone rolled the wrong result, but at the same time we are playing a game so there needs to be a mechanical answer rather than 'fudge the dice'. Even if you compensated failure by giving the player some bennies the failure is still there, that's the problem. If a test of character skill fails then there's a roadblock right there. The only time this wouldn't necessarily be appropriate is combat.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;511470Generally i like for failure to be a potential outcome. My guess is this will vary a lot from person to person. There is probably a small crowd that will really like this sort of mechanic,  but an even bigger one that will have some issues with it.

Of course some won't like it. That's a given. But i suspect the reaction is mostly psychological; it sounds like I'm suggesting characters can't ever fail. That's not quite the point. If the roll fails, the character still gets the basic goal achieved, but with a dramatic consequence. That has the advantage of moving the game forward in new and exciting directions, bringing new elements into the environment of play and without stalling the game. In a way rolls become an exercise in seeing how well a character does and presenting a wrinkle in their efforts if their attempt falls short. Otherwise you get into situations where the player has to devise another way of trying again, but with not much of a reason to do so.

Such a rule could be optional, but then that doesn't really address the point it's trying to resolve.

If success is the only option, it certainly makes your characters seem great. I've always hate how in dnd sometimes my character jumps 20' and sometimes he fails to clear 5.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;511473Any game to be honest. Noone wants the narrative to stall because someone rolled the wrong result, but at the same time we are playing a game so there needs to be a mechanical answer rather than 'fudge the dice'. Even if you compensated failure by giving the player some bennies the failure is still there, that's the problem. If a test of character skill fails then there's a roadblock right there. The only time this wouldn't necessarily be appropriate is combat.

I have a hard time grasping "failure = stalled narrative" -- good stories are full of people failing at stuff, and having to deal with the consequences.

Quote from: The Butcher;511482I have a hard time grasping "failure = stalled narrative" -- good stories are full of people failing at stuff, and having to deal with the consequences.

Well, LotR for one would be a pretty bad book is Sauron didn't fail his Intelligence check.

"Hm, maybe I shouldn't wear the most important item in battle".

Quote from: The Butcher;511482I have a hard time grasping "failure = stalled narrative" -- good stories are full of people failing at stuff, and having to deal with the consequences.

The GM has to plan for that failure in the adventure which is a bit harder than what he'd have to do here I think. That's hard work!

Some actions just become a chore when they fail, others can lead to consequences that are also tedious and difficult to manage.

At least this keeps things moving.

And good stories are indeed full of people failing, but the are also stories - written by an author that can plan out what's going to happen and doesn't rely on dice rolls to determine if his characters succeed or fail. Luke failing at the dark side cave sets up the end of the ESB, but only because that's how it was planned. What if Luke rolled well and succeeded at the cave? Same difference.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;511499The GM has to plan for that failure in the adventure which is a bit harder than what he'd have to do here I think. That's hard work!

Dude. What have you been playing? :eek:

Like I've said, I'm not out to persuade you or anyone else, but I do honestly think that being prepared for whatever curveball the PCs throw you (or just thinking quick on your feet, which is how I do it most of the time) is the GM's job.

PCs succeeding all the time, because a GM can't be arsed to "meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat these impostors the same" would be boring. as. fuck.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;511463I am wondering if my system should work thus:

If a player fails at a roll for an action the player still succeeds, but less effectively and with some element of misfortune. A sting in the tail.

As opposed to the player fails the roll and things...stall.

Or is that too easy?

That would suck to me. I wouldn't play that game.

Failure on a skill roll that stalls the game is the result of bad play and/or bad GMing.

Quote from: Benoist;511143When something fails on a roll and the status quo is maintained, as a player you then have an infinity of courses of actions to choose from, including attempting some other action that would either allow you to reach the same goal, or participate to a strategy that enables you to try again, or you could decide to move on to the next problem, the next obstacle, the next room, or just leave and work on something else while you think about ways to come back to this problem later on...

My point is that failure is only boring when you, as a player, do not use it as a stimulation to take your characters, your plans, your adventure in a different direction on your own. And if you cannot, or the GM doesn't let you or hasn't planned for such eventualities, or is incapable to improvise based on your choices from there, then it is railroading, failing on prep, failing at running the game.

The notion that a single die roll would result in a status quo that either could not or would not be changed by any decision on the players' parts from the moment of failure really is the problem, here. So either the players fail at initiative and imagination, or the GM does. In either case, game mechanics don't fix people. People fix themselves. Or not.

Quote from: Benoist;511214[D]ull play results either from players failing to take the initiative and attempt something else, plan for alternate courses of action, address the status quo in some other fashion, AND/OR the DM fails at providing an environment that invites such responses.

Let's take a concrete example.

The PCs explore a dungeon. They come by a room that was some kind of workshop at some point. There is a corridor stretching beyond the workshop in front of them, with a curtain rotting by the archway leading to it that once provided some kind of separation between the workshop and whatever lies beyond. In the workshop, on the PCs left, there is an iron door covered in rust. On their right, a wooden door showing signs of falling apart. Huge mess/clutter of furniture, bags, tools and stuff gathered in the middle of the room. The walls seem wet, made of ancient stones now partially covered with moss.

PC Thief goes to the iron door. Tries to pick the lock. Explains he uses his locking picks to work on it after asking if there was a lock in the first place. Thief rolls.

Failure.

DM describes the faint noises of metal scrapping metal which, though extremely faint, carry through the silent room and maybe beyond. Rolls a die. Explains that apparently, all remains quiet as drops of dark water fall from the ceiling in the workshop's penumbra...

Status quo maintained.

From there, the PC Thief and his companions have multiple choices: he can try picking the lock again, even though that's a noisy business. Who knows what's on the other side of that door? He can try looking through the wooden door falling apart. Or inspect the clutter. Or check out the curtain. Walk down the corridor as a scout. Try to dislodge the iron door from its hinges resting on the wet mossy stones. And so on.

So. Failure, status quo maintained. Provided the environment offers choices to the PCs, they have no reason to just go "that's boooring" unless they just give up because they can't move on. That's a mark of a sucky player to me. Likewise. If that door was the only existing exit to the dungeon, that there was no other thing to do at all because the room is white with no other door and so on, that's just plain bad DMing.

It's not that the rules fail. It's that the people around the game table fail at playing an entertaining game. They need to try a little harder.

Ok, bad idea overall. Is cool. That's why I made the thread.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;511578Ok, bad idea overall. Is cool. That's why I made the thread.

It's not. You already know you don't share any tastes with the people arguing with you. I run Palladium and High Level PF as no fail on skill rolls for anything that isn't being actively opposed by an equal frequently. It is FUN to know that what matters is your choices and RP, rather than if you going to random drown, crash your ship, fall off you horse or whatever else. When you have a very strong character, like in the game you are writing, I think it kills immersion to fail on anything less than epic contested rolls.

You should try this.

Hunt down the early 1990s issues of Space Gamer magazine via eBay or Noble Knight. Each mag had a stand alone RPG using their Free-Style system. I am a huge fan of their games Battleborn and Rogue Fantasy.

Their system is all about taking actions that have varying degrees of success and failure and how that affects the situation.  You can often succeed, but with consequences.

Here's their old website
http://www.spacegamer.com/spacegamer/default.asp