In my games I tend to separate the concepts of chance of success (did I do it?) from quality of success (how well did I do it?), but internally in my own group I also use the concept of Quality of Failure - i.e. "just how badly did I screw up?" this is a powerful concept, and one that can be lots of fun to employ. On a failure, I like to let the player roll how badly the character failed, then let them describe exactly what happened. For example, if you fail on a skill check in a StarPerc (percentile) game, I may ask the player to roll percentile again, with 00 being a complete cock up and 01 being almost a success.
The point here is that failure can be entertaining, not just "you fail." Sometimes you do everything right and still don't succeed - and sometimes you do everything wrong and the only thing you can do is laugh at yourself. Both things have their own interest and entertainment value. You can reward particularly entertaining failures however your group rewards coolness - a fate/plot/hero point, laughter and high fives, a freebie later on, whatever works for you.
-clash
I actually use tables for critical failure. This is mechanically separate from simple non-accomplishment of the goal of the skill check. For instance, you have a range (usually +25%) over the skill that results in failure. Then bad effects begin happening. A similar mechanic is used for critical skill success.
ReplyDeleteTables for critical failure can work too. The only problem I have found with critical failure tables is that the fumble is seldom in any sync with the action being played. The players - or I - can make up stuff that can be fun *and* in-character for the action.
ReplyDelete-clash
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete