Degrees of Failiure?

[Morgoth]

So we have QL levels for degree's of success, that is if you get more QL on a roll you succeed more than planned; many spells and skills have rules of what can happen on higher QLs.

But what about failure? You have rules for failiure and botches, but nothing for in between. I'm thinking that as a GM, when my PCs fail by a larger margin but don't botch, I could add in more of an effect than just saying 'that didn't work' or 'you fail'. Anyone do something like this and if so, any guidelines on how to implement it?

[Denshi]

You could define the degree of a failure as the number of attribute checks that failed. You could even distinguish different types of failures depending on the attribute(s) that failed.
edit:
Keep in mind that success rates on attribute checks are in most cases not much higher than 50%. IMHO when using degrees of failures, those degrees should vary fluff-wise and not mechanically.

[bluedragon7]

You could calculate how much of a bonus would be required to still make the roll, or by how much your skill would need to be higher

Say your attributes are 12/14/10 and your skill is at 4
If you rolled 14/14/14 you would need a bonus of 1 (rolling against 13/15/11) or 2 higher skill
With a roll of 18/14/10 it’s bonus of 2 or skill of 2
At 15/15/11 it’s bonus 1 or skill 1 and so on

You could then multiply the time required to complete by x for each level of failure.

I don’t see much benefit in this, the current 2 grades of failure are sufficient for myself

[Thrar]

For me personally, I don't think degrees of failure would be much fun. It already sucks to fail, it's not enjoyable to figure out exactly how badly so the GM can then think of appropriately harsh consequences. As a GM, I try to put the spotlight on the players' successes, not their failures.

Degrees of success are on paper very similar, but feel very different. A narrow success is still a success and feels good, but it's even more cool when you get 5 QL on your core skill and achieve a spectacular result.

[Bosper]

To me its interesting what attribute failed. Does he lack the strenght to climb up or doesnt he even have the courage to go on. That makes enough of a difference to me.

[GuernseyMan]

I agree with Bosper.

We've only played 2 sessions up to now (Revelations from Heaven) and my players are using the actual failed stat to define their failure (with no prompting from me). One of my players describing his hangover in terms of his failed strength check.

The tri-stat roll for skills is a work of art from a narrative point of view. I don't believe that it needs any mechanics to complicate the game any more.

[videopete]

Don't forget to give characters the bonuses for difficulty. +0 is challenging difficulty. With +1 an easy check. Up to +5. Not to mention tools giving a +1 bonus. the problem is that a 10/10/10 is not 50%. It is closer 12.5%, with the aid of SP to fix it.

[HEX the Dark]

To me its interesting what attribute failed. Does he lack the strenght to climb up or doesnt he even have the courage to go on. That makes enough of a difference to me.

You can see that by which of the three checks fails.


Generally I think you don't need several degrees of failure. Either you make the sword or climb the tree or you don't.

[GuernseyMan]

Just come back from tonight's game. Been experimenting with bonuses for skills.

The players came across a small ornate lock. The mechanism was fairly simple so +3 to the sagacity roll but -1 to both dex checks as it was small and fiddly. To be able to describe something to the players and then have the game mechanics mirror the description is a great part of the rules. In most other games it would be a blanket bonus or penalty.

I agree. There should only be one degree of failure (other than critical). The rolls you fail on give all the narrative you need.

[Dany40]

Just come back from tonight's game. Been experimenting with bonuses for skills.

The players came across a small ornate lock. The mechanism was fairly simple so +3 to the sagacity roll but -1 to both dex checks as it was small and fiddly. To be able to describe something to the players and then have the game mechanics mirror the description is a great part of the rules. In most other games it would be a blanket bonus or penalty.

I agree. There should only be one degree of failure (other than critical). The rolls you fail on give all the narrative you need.

Fantastic example