I only permit retries if the situation somehow improves in a significant way. The first roll assumes the character did as much as they could in the circumstances. Allowing open ended retries = might as well not roll at all (or just go straight to assuming they roll a 20).

I tend to give players complications on failed rolls, as well as sometimes requiring character skill advancement before new try. For instance, PCs were in a Vault crawling with feral ghouls and tried to enter the armoury. I had intentionally made the armoury lock well over their current level since the rewards would have been substantial, so barring a critical success they'd have to level up a few levels to get access to pre-war goodies. I made clear that the lock is A grade and terminal was security model, that the characters recognized as former Vault residents as nearly unhackable. They still went with greed option, and summarily failed lockpicking (critically, breaking a tool into the lock) and hacking three times. With the computer on lockdown, they now know they need either stuff like blowtorches and power tools (good luck with that stuff) or substantially better hacker to get through. Also, ferals had found them again and they lost some ammo and medicals as they fought their way through to the exit.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;958788This is what I do.  Some skill checks are still successful on failed rolls, it just means there's a complication that happens:  You alert the palace, it takes too much time, the trap goes off anyway, things that keep the game moving and interesting for the players and don't make them spin their wheels and feel pointless.

But really, like all things RPG, it's a judgement call.  Sometimes a door just won't open and you need to go around instead.

I thoroughly agree with this. It's more interesting as well as reasonable simulation to use a single roll to determine how long it will take to finish, rather than rolling repetitively.

Silly Pundit hasn't heard of failing forward:D  (dives for cover from the inevitable diatribe)

Generally, a failed skill roll is indicative of not having successfully performed whatever action was attempted. Some actions still might succeed even when bungled - provided the players put in some legwork and/or approach stuff in a sensible way, a skill roll is often more an indication of level of success (or embarrassment, depending) than pass/fail.
Failing to pick a lock might mean not being able to pick it before the goblin horde catches up with you, it might mean that you eventually pick the lock, but only after breaking half of your picks in the process, it might mean that you pick the lock, but fail to notice the trap, or it might mean that you simply fail to pick the damn lock and must find another way, period.
No skill check is an island.

You guys are making so many interesting suggestions I'm now conflicted.

Entirely situational. Locks-there are going to be locks that one simply doesn't know how to pick (I would assume, I have no real-life knowledge of lock picking), but for most of them, a talented lock-picker would eventually get assuming that failure had no repercussions. Traps and secret doors- in general if you don't spot them initially, you usually find out about them when they are sprung/someone else opens them. However, if you were locked in a prison cell with a secret door, and you spent days and days just staring at your surroundings, I'd probably let you roll again eventually to notice that that section of wall just doesn't look right. Knowledge checks- there are absolutely times when you get 'stuck' on these kind of things and putting more effort into it won't help. Here, I usually say that you cannot re-roll in the situation where the knowledge check was directly pertinent. However, I might reroll for you later on when it might be retroactively useful, but the original situation has passed (ex.: "you realize, now, after the fact, that the 'rakshasa' you shot with the blessed crossbow and left for dead in the last dungeon did not have reversed hands. Was that crossbow bolt by chance silver?").

 
Overall, I think the situations where this matters should be rare. The situation where there is "no particular consequence for failure other than not getting what they wanted; i.e., no monsters attack, no traps go off, no external time limit to figure things out, etc." should be the exception and not the norm.

Quote from: Omega;9587413: If theres no consequence of failure then why even have checks?

Because you might need to know how long it takes to do something; and because there might be some things that you might not be able to do with your current abilities.

Quote from: RPGPundit;960283Because you might need to know how long it takes to do something; and because there might be some things that you might not be able to do with your current abilities.

That is a consequence of failure, though...  If you succeed the skill check, then it happens as per the normal.  You fail, you take longer.  And if it's too hard for you to succeed at, then the player should be given other options, including going back.

After they level, or after circumstances materially change.  The latter is a judgement call, but needs to be more than just "I try again, this time with a crowbar."

On the other hand, sometimes they don't even have to roll.  If a thing is within a character's competence, if they're not being shot at, opposed in their efforts, and are not working under adverse circumstances, they simply succeed.  So this cuts down on "I should be able to, but rolled a 1" roadblocks.

Quote from: Dumarest;959292You guys are making so many interesting suggestions I'm now conflicted.

Make a skill check vs confusion. :cool:

If the skill is a physical action (lock picking, climbing), then failure usually means that the action was performed in the standard time rather than the expedited time. A retry, if necessary, may be attempted as desired depending on the consequences. If the skill is a mental action (Lores, &c.), then the particular fact or conclusion escapes the character. A retry is not an option until the character has some access to further information, be it a library or going up a level. Spiritual actions (Presence, Intimidation, &c.) are allowed retries, but they become more difficult each time.

Quote from: Baron Opal;960360If the skill is a physical action (lock picking, climbing), then failure usually means that the action was performed in the standard time rather than the expedited time.

How does that figure? Some locks can't be picked, some walls can't be climbed... perhaps come back with better equipment but don't assume all actions are successful, just slowly.

Quote from: Simlasa;960375How does that figure? Some locks can't be picked, some walls can't be climbed... perhaps come back with better equipment but don't assume all actions are successful, just slowly.

I was generalizing. That said, situations where there is a significant disparity between the task and the character's capability are usually obvious, and a fail state can be more appropriate.

Young Oliver can get a lock open eventually, but the important part is can he do it in time? The Upright Man can just Fonzie a lock at will, but if it's magical in nature he's going to need some magical support regardless.

While Burning Wheel's "intent and task" and "let it ride" rules may not apply exactly to the old school games I also run, I would take a lot of inspiration from Burning Wheel. Make sure we understand what the player is trying to accomplish, decide if we even need to roll or not, if so, what modifies the roll, and what are the consequences of failure. Set up the consequences as often as possible such that a retry isn't possible (or isn't needed - you pick the lock but just as you open the lock, the watch comes around the corner - often we want to know "can he pick the lock before the watch arrives", and we can always give a bonus the more likely it is that the lock could be picked before the watch arrives).

Sometimes a GM may roll just to prevent players from inferring something from whether the GM is rolling or not.