I have to confess, though I've played systems that use "degree of success" mechanics* extensively in their core rules, I often forget about them. I don't mind the occasional special ability / spell that asks for such a check, but when a majority of rolls are asking you to track certain thresholds it kind of slips off my brain. Is it really so wrong to use binary pass / fail rolls and have the GM make a call as to what happens?
What do you think of these rules? Do you feel they are necessary, realistic, gritty, nuanced, etc.?
* How much your roll exceeds or fails the target number has a specific, quantified mechanical or in-universe effect.
I am fine with them but these days prefer it when they are more intuitive rather than chart based. Also don't mind if the system allows for eye-balling it.
I'm fine with them. I usually like it if it's just counting over a certain difficulty number and if it's certain degrees (five over, ten over, etc.)
I dislike the fiddly counting that such systems require. As a GM, eyeballing is kind of better as it doesn't require counting per se, but it also adds an extra level of uncertainty from the player side about what results mean and subjectivity from the GM side and that combination is overall a bit negative.
I'm happier with a critical hit system of some kind. Runequest did this best with the odds of Special success, Critical success, and Fumbles scaling with the chance to succeed. I'm not too fond of systems where say a 20 on a D20 is always a critical and a 1 is always a fumble as that gives the exact same probablity of criticals and fumbles regardless of the chance of success.
You mean like rolling damage? Or something a little less common, like critting mechanics? I definitely prefer to know the degree of success I have in chopping off some monster's head. Is there some question about this? :D
-clash
I tend to use them in non-binary situations, for ex, when running Microlite and Wizard makes a Knowledge check related to magical runes, I automatically assume he knows SOMETHING. I then grant additional information for 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and so on. Produced a crazy, funny moment when group came upon what I thought was a VERY obscure piece of info, and wizard totalled out at, like, 32 or something, so I ruled he had met the person who wrote the tome at some party, "and he told me [], which led to a brief internship..." It was pretty funny.
Anyways, I think such things as degree of success/failure allow for more interesting results, including "fail forward," if the failure degree is minimal. Boons & Consequences are interesting, imho.
I like a certain degree (hur hur) of it, in the range of 'somewhat successful/successful/very successful,' though I suppose I'd be fine with 'just barely made it/regular success/crit' or something.
More fiddly than that and actually requiring more involved math, meh.
D&D 3e's 'success by 5s' worked reasonably well for a number of things, like knowledge checks to identify monsters. I liked having a sense of varying information to give someone.
While I'm normally not a fan of dice pool systems, this is one area where they do well -- degree of success is easy when it's 'how many of these dice are over TN.'
They work fine. Depending on how the system is designed, they can make skilled characters feel highly skilled, in a way that binary systems can't.
I guess from a GM point of view, it adds another layer of complexity (You have to manage information and narration slightly differently to take them into account, sometimes), but that's the GM's job, so... no sympathy.
They need to be done in such a way that calculating them doesn't slow down the game, though. I'm personally pretty fond of blackjack methods.
One of my least favorite things about Call of Cthulhu BRP system was that degrees of success were very clunky, if you used them at all.
I find that in a system where characters are doing a lot of things OTHER than combat, having some range of results makes for a more interesting game (obviously liberally IMO).
I haven't played too many Rpgs that include DoS mechanics (or in other words, margin-of-success/margin-of-failure). Or at least I'm drawing a blank on remembering many.
The Silhouette system, as used in Heavy Gear, is one that I enjoyed running (10 years ago). MoS influences the damage dealt - the value acting as a multiplier for a static weapon damage value - which is set based on weapon type. IIRC, the MoS of the defensive roll made by the target reduced the MoS of the firer. The final, multiplied value is compared to 3 health level values (flesh wound, major wound, instant death) to determine damage sustained.
Quote from: Will;815590One of my least favorite things about Call of Cthulhu BRP system was that degrees of success were very clunky, if you used them at all.
I find that in a system where characters are doing a lot of things OTHER than combat, having some range of results makes for a more interesting game (obviously liberally IMO).
Are you referring to the Critical (5%) and Special (20%) success rates in CoC?
In CoC5e/6e you had Impales as a default rule (basically, a special success), and Criticals as an optional rule. There were also optional rules for Special results for other skills (which is something that I use as a house rule, but don't go overboard on). But, it a fairly 'light' mechanic - far less detailed than its use in RuneQuest BRP and Elric!/Stormbringer BRP.
CoC7e... well, I won't even go there. That's even more defined (and definitely "clunky").
Quote from: flyingmice;815572You mean like rolling damage? Or something a little less common, like critting mechanics? I definitely prefer to know the degree of success I have in chopping off some monster's head. Is there some question about this? :D
-clash
Hit results are a usual application "of course," but other thigs can also vary - and a lot of people like to base that on a single roll. At the same time, some prefer to "eyeball" it and improvise, while others want more formalism. Specific rules can add up to a lot of data, and tabulated presentation can make that easier to manage; but some folks don't like tables!
Peterson: yes. But it means you have to list skill/20%/5% values for the several dozen skills you might have, or do that math each time you roll.
I realize to some people that's about as much of an extra load as breathing, but end of week/late in the session/clumsy mathy folks can find it annoying.
It also goes toward order of operations fatigue: adding is easier than multiplication is simpler than subtraction is easier than division. I think that's the order.
Quote from: Will;815605Peterson: yes. But it means you have to list skill/20%/5% values for the several dozen skills you might have, or do that math each time you roll.
I realize to some people that's about as much of an extra load as breathing, but end of week/late in the session/clumsy mathy folks can find it annoying.
It also goes toward order of operations fatigue: adding is easier than multiplication is simpler than subtraction is easier than division. I think that's the order.
Chaosium's RQ had a table (using different formulas between 1st and 2nd ed.).
You can let the second digit give rounded-off probabilities down to 1/10 - but I don't find another die toss much more effort. I prefer that to poring over dice to parse them (which the desigers of Godlike seemed to think quite lovely).
Let the dice do the math! I say.
Quote from: Will;815605But it means you have to list skill/20%/5% values for the several dozen skills you might have...
That's the approach that CoC7e takes. All of those values are listed out on the charsheet, which makes it looks busy as hell, IMO. Be prepared to write down a lot of tiny numbers...
Quoteor do that math each time you roll.
I realize to some people that's about as much of an extra load as breathing, but end of week/late in the session/clumsy mathy folks can find it annoying.
I can understand that. After playing BRP for decades, it's fairly internalized for me. And many of the gamers I've played with over the years have been math-heads, or engineer-heads. Such that BRP is a step-down in arithmetic complexity, compared to their favorite systems.
For CoC-newbs, I've often handled the math for them as the Keeper. Having an Investigator 'log' handy with many of their skill levels written down, and having them just roll the dice. I perform the [skill*.2] calculation, look at what they get, and narrate a failure, standard success, or special success result. (I don't use Crits in CoC).
FGU used to have effect points so a complex task required x effect points. reach point you rolled over target gave you an effect point. As you can roll per time period it means you could work out how long complex tasks took.
I have run several systems that work on that principle.
My Amber skill system simply gives you more information the higher your score. There is a threshold to get something.
So the party are following some bandits. the bandits have hidden their tracks but the bandit leader has "tracking" 25 so you need more than 25 to find them. The guy with 26 will get a statement "it looks like the bandits have tried to hide their tracks but you can just make out a trail heading to the west" the guy with 100 tracking will get "there were 3 bandits mounted on horses they attempted to hid their tracks in a rather crude way one of them came over here to this bush and cut down some brush they tied to the back of the their mounts. From his stride the guy is about 6 2" and weighs 200 lbs." (skills have no top end and can go as high as you like but 50 is considered genius level)
This to me is the simplest DoS system.
I'm inclined to think 1/20 of hit chance too small for crits in BRP. For fumbles, it's close enough (to my mind) to use 99-00 for skill up to 50, just 00 after that.
A second digit of 0 or 5 gives 1/5, the 0 1/10 (both rounded down, but if your hit chance is under 10% then maybe you should not crit). If you have skills over 100%, then you probably can handle that math; but Elric! seemed to take that as more like mere competence with combat skills.
Quote from: Will;815605Peterson: yes. But it means you have to list skill/20%/5% values for the several dozen skills you might have, or do that math each time you roll.
In Runequest we had a table so players could look that up.
In practice, what we usually did was the player said what they rolled and the GM (me) told them if it was a special or a critical. The values are simple arithmetic and when I ran RQ I naturally ended up remembering them. Requiring players in general to do the math or look up the range themselves can be a bit cumbersome and is prone to them making mistakes.
I find degrees of success obtuse from the perspective as a Gamemaster, as it builds an expectation of additional success or mitigated failure on the part of the players based on an arbitrary measure. Attempting to justify the difference between 5 degrees versus 6 degrees of success on an Athletics Test to climb a wall is just silly, particularly when the Gamemaster possesses fiat to narratively describe the results to the players.
ZWEIHÄNDER Grim & Perilous RPG (http://grimandperilous.com/?p=663) is built upon the principle that you either 1) succeed at a task, 2) admirably succeed, 3) fail at the task, or 4) critically fail; that's it. It requires less numeric justification on the part of the Gamemaster to frame in a binary way YES/NO towards a task, but grants added success or critical failure. It's strikes close to the popular house-ruled D&D model of success, failure, critical failure on a natural 1 and critical success on a natural 20.
Now, I will say that degrees of success are helpful for purposes of introducing a second layer of results (multiplier method). For instance, with the example above, the Gamemaster may state that the wall can be assailed - and rather easily - with an Athletics Test. However, the degree of success may influence how many yards the climber can move over a short span of time. So, those 5 or 6 degrees have more impact direct to the results, rather than dictating the exactitude of numeric distinction within the success/failure model.
I use the Harn method of determining 20%, a 0 or a 5 on a success is a Special Success and 10% is a Critical Success. An 05 (probably a Special and Critical if you're reasonably skilled) is the "OH YEAH!" number, like a 66 in RoleMaster. It's easy, no math (anyone can read a 0 or 5 or chop off the second digit), and makes for good fun.
As far as degrees of success go otherwise, I like a Shadowrun type system where compared successes directly determine result rather then a nebulous "what does +3 on a d20 over what I needed mean?"
Now, as Clash said, if you rolled enough damage to kill someone and you rolled really high, then you didn't just kill them - you chopped their head off, cleaved them in two, speared them through the left eye, etc... Knowing the exact degree of curbstompage is important. :D
Quote from: Phillip;815614Chaosium's RQ had a table (using different formulas between 1st and 2nd ed.).
You can let the second digit give rounded-off probabilities down to 1/10 - but I don't find another die toss much more effort. I prefer that to poring over dice to parse them (which the desigers of Godlike seemed to think quite lovely).
Let the dice do the math! I say.
Hi Phillip! My point was that people have no trouble with a damage roll, which is a perfectly legitimate degree of success mechanic that is extremely pervasive, but never think of it as such. :D
-clash
Quote from: Will;815605But it means you have to list skill/20%/5% values for the several dozen skills you might have, or do that math each time you roll.
As Peterson suggests, if special/crit is based on percentage of the base chance, it is mathematically equivalent and far easier to use another die rather than calculate thresholds.
If you want to keep 5% crit, 20% special, then you can roll a d20 along with the two percentile dice. d20=20 is a crit, d20 in 17-19 is a special.
As far as degrees of success in general, I like having a handful of possible outcomes available from a given roll (roughly 4-6) rather than binary. More than 6 possible outcomes gets too fiddly for my tastes, though. Four could be done as crit/success/fail/fumble, but could also be say fail/green/yellow/red like in Marvel Superheroes, or number of successes in a dice pool.
I love TSR's Marvel Super Heroes, and also had a lot of fun with the Action Results Table in Legendary Lives (the handbooks for which suggested various uses for the target/result columns).
Talislanta has a very simple d20 table, giving general categories and some specific combat factors but mostly leaving interpretation up to the gm.
Quote from: Phillip;815640I love TSR's Marvel Super Heroes, and also had a lot of fun with the Action Results Table in Legendary Lives (the handbooks for which suggested various uses for the target/result columns).
The key thing is the the system has to codify to some extent what the degree success map to. MSH is a good example of degree of success system done right. Fate also with degree of success rolling into the damage in combat and the benefits of "Spin" effects generally being well defined.
On the other hand the more subject "Yes but, No and" sort of degrees of success I find hard work.
Unknown Armies:
Roll %ile. You want to beat your opponent while still being under your skill, else it fails anyway. Then your roll is success amount -- roll is damage for guns, or add dice together for melee.
What I find elegant there is that it neatly rewards high skill and rolling high without any math beyond <> (and maybe addition.)
Then UA does some fussy stuff with double numbers and stuff, but the core is nicely basic.
Quote from: jhkim;815636As Peterson suggests, if special/crit is based on percentage of the base chance, it is mathematically equivalent and far easier to use another die rather than calculate thresholds.
:huhsign: That's not something I suggested. Maybe you meant
CRKrueger, and even then I'm not sure that's what he said.
Adding more die, for an additional indicator of result, doesn't seem 'far easier' to me than calculated thresholds.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;815564I am fine with them but these days prefer it when they are more intuitive rather than chart based. Also don't mind if the system allows for eye-balling it.
Eclipse Phase is an excellent example of this, IMO: All you have to remember is 30, 60, and double digits are the special values.
I'm also generally a fan of systems where margin of success influences things like the amount of damage dealt (or avoided). As Will says, there are plenty of examples where you can enjoy gradated levels of success. And I also like
Numenera-like systems where the dice occasionally generate a "pop" of excitement or interest or the unusual.
OTOH, let's consider FFG's
Star Wars game. Using an inconsistent system of canceling dice symbols it can generate:
- Success
- Success + Advantage
- Success + Advantage + Despair
- Success + Advantage + Triumph
- Success + Despair
- Success + Triumph
- Success + Threat
- Success + Threat + Despair
- Success + Threat + Triumph
And then a matching panoply of Failure results. In theory this is almost defensible, but in practice even the designers can't figure out how to use the system. (One simple example: If you're making a Stealth check, you'll reduce the time required for the check through successes; but if it's a Streetwise check, you'll use advantages.)
I'm particularly fond of how L5R's raise system works, which is sort of a degree of success type thing, but you have to decide how much you think you can manage beforehand.
Basic idea is, roll against base Target Number to succeed at the task in the most basic way OR voluntarily raise the Target Number to get added effects, but if you miss the new target number you completely fail, even if you would have succeeded without those effects.
It doesn't work too well on some things, like knowledge checks (I'm not sure why if you try to remember more details and fail, you suddenly can't remember basic knowledge either), but with combat rolls, or for writing a poem, or something like that, I think it works well.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;815562I have to confess, though I've played systems that use "degree of success" mechanics* extensively in their core rules, I often forget about them.
* How much your roll exceeds or fails the target number has a specific, quantified mechanical or in-universe effect.
I like them, even prefer them, but these rules have to be elegant and easy to use. That's the hard part.
The closest I've come would be combat rolls in Rune Quest. Since you have your critical numbers set before the session, and they won't change, it was pretty easy to use.
In my current D&D 5e campaign, I'm winging DCs quite a bit by just having the player roll and gauging what happens based on the result (with a few quick variables based on their background, proficiency and the current context). Seems complex but it really isn't. If I felt that the odds were stacked in their favor for some reason and they still fail, I give them a minor success at cost.
I only throw out a concrete DC number if they specifically ask me for one. Then I still do the same thing (partial success at cost etc...). It's been working well lately.
I like rulings, and luckily for my players I'm not an asshole. I'm a fan of their characters but I sure do love some peril.
I like fumbles, failure, success and criticals. I like damage rolls. I'm happy to provide varying color commentary that has no mechanical effect based on the actual rolls made. I don't like vague and subjective degrees of success that have actual consequences, since it tends to undercut any ability to judge effectiveness objectively, and tends to either exaggerate or minimize the character's choices (of skills or tactics or whatever).
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;815562I have to confess, though I've played systems that use "degree of success" mechanics* extensively in their core rules, I often forget about them. I don't mind the occasional special ability / spell that asks for such a check, but when a majority of rolls are asking you to track certain thresholds it kind of slips off my brain. Is it really so wrong to use binary pass / fail rolls and have the GM make a call as to what happens?
What do you think of these rules? Do you feel they are necessary, realistic, gritty, nuanced, etc.?
* How much your roll exceeds or fails the target number has a specific, quantified mechanical or in-universe effect.
I don't like them either, they take far too much mental effort to track on every die roll. I am ok with normal success & 'crit on a 20' type mechanics, but not 'double success on 10 over target number' type mechanics. Unisystem is terrible with its multiple success levels.
Earthdawn uses degrees of success very successfully ( ;) ). The dice in the system 'explode', and rolling higher than the target number can grant degrees of success. The older editions used a chart with a scale for each target number (due to the non-linear scaling of exploding dice).
The new 4th Edition simplified this into, "One additional success for every +5 over the Target Number". This has changed the rest of the system in really good ways. Firstly, it totally does away with a chart lookup on the GM side, and lets GMs and even players calculate degree of success on the fly. This has sped up handling time and smoothed out a lot of the chrunchy-feel to the ED system. Previously, Armor (which directly reduces damage) was completely bypass-able with 3 successes (a hit +2 more). Now, each success adds +2 to the damage roll, effectively bypassing a portion of the armor, and thus keeping armor relevant when player's skill ranks are getting to the top end of the scale.
Quote from: S'mon;815727I don't like them either, they take far too much mental effort to track on every die roll. I am ok with normal success & 'crit on a 20' type mechanics, but not 'double success on 10 over target number' type mechanics. Unisystem is terrible with its multiple success levels.
Raises in Savage Worlds, Quality in James Bond 007, counting success in WoD or other dice pool systems?
Seems like what you don't like is the d20 implementation of degrees of success.
Clash hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that 99% of systems use degrees of success in combat. Its just an implementation issue.
I can imagine a task resolution mechanic where you rolled a skill and success allowed you to roll a "resolution dice" based on say the key stat fr the skill and you needed x many resolution points to resolve the issue.
So decypher a code : Roll versus crytpography skill. Success and then you roll a dice with a modifier for Int (or a different dice for different ranges) to generate points versus a target value for the task. A crit gives you a bonus dice... just like combat and damage vs HP
I like improvised assessments as (and only as) significant, often with a second toss - like many rules sets' damage rolls - weighted for the situation at hand.
I don't find that this hinders tactics, since I approach those from a role-playing perspective. Unless my character is Commander Data, precise probabilities are not relevant. The ref can inform me of "ball park" estimates as appropriate. I am not interested in playing a solitaire game of cooking up optimal stratagems in an ideal abstraction - but a fair number of people are, and it's nice that there are rules sets geared to that.
I don't mind it all, as long as A) it can be easily ignored in situations it doesn't apply, and b) it doesnt add any extra number crunching to task resolution.
While I really really liked the new die mechanic introduced in WHFRP 3rd edition, in running the game I was more than a little frustrated that DoS was always a factor. Soemtimes, as a GM, all I need to know is success/failure" or "yes/no". I didn't realize how often until a resolution mechanic actively interfered with that.
Quote from: Telarus;815824The new 4th Edition simplified this into, "One additional success for every +5 over the Target Number". This has changed the rest of the system in really good ways. Firstly, it totally does away with a chart lookup on the GM side completely, and lets GMs and even players calculate degree of success on the fly. This has sped up handling time and smoothed out a lot of the chrunchy-feel to the ED system. Previously, Armor (which directly reduces damage) was completely bypass-able with 3 successes (a hit +2 more). Now, each success adds +2 to the damage roll, effectively bypassing a portion of the armor, and thus keeping armor relevant when player's skill ranks are getting to the top end of the scale.
This is one change I'm not quite sold on, though I'm naturally reserving judgment until I have the chance to see how it shakes out in actual play. I really like the basic idea behind armor-defeating hits; IME they didn't happen all that often, and when they did it was pretty cool for the players to simulate the lucky blow that really struck home. Nor was it generally much of an issue on their end, as I felt there were plenty of other mechanics in the game that made wearing heavy armor less than ideal; far better to boost your physical defense and not get hit in the first place. I admit I haven't done much high-circle play, though, so I don't know how that may have changed things.
As for the OP, I'm largely in agreement with Will. Some degree of DoS is certainly better than a binary fail/succeed. That said, less is more. I think 3-4 degrees is the sweet spot; less than that obviously ventures into binary territory, more than that can quickly become fiddly and unwieldy.
I like them if they are open to taking a back seat to the game and not overly involved in figuring out.
Like, the Check Digit d6 of IN SJG is easy peasy: they say it doesn't always have to be used (unless Intervention, and even there there is discretion), and is immediately grokked (passed? failed? & how big's the CD number?). The biggest problem was how often it was incorporated into "spell equations" and the like. But other than that it did what I wanted.
Sometimes a task is simply a task. And sometimes a GM is empty or doesn't feel like adding more. As long as DoS can step back, and the players let it, it can be a fantastic tool.
I'm a WFRP 1e player and degrees of success aren't an explicit part of the rules but I think they're something people have always used in my experience. They were included in 2e. However, they're only used descriptively, and when you want to, and I think that works well enough. I don't think a rigid formula where you've got to make calculations or use charts etc is the way to go with this sort of thing. It all becomes too much of a fag.
Tristram Evans wrote:QuoteWhile I really really liked the new die mechanic introduced in WHFRP 3rd edition, in running the game I was more than a little frustrated that DoS was always a factor. Soemtimes, as a GM, all I need to know is success/failure" or "yes/no". I didn't realize how often until a resolution mechanic actively interfered with that.
I've never actually played 3e. It's always been evident that it had some ingenious mechanics but ingenuity for its own sake wasn't really what I was looking for in WFRP, and I don't like the look of quite a few elements of it (and I wasn't looking for a completely different game). I wouldn't have anticipated the problem you describe at the time but some people who had playtested it extensively did come to exactly the same conclusion. The narrative dice pools actually made problems for them.
Quote from: woodsmoke;815912This is one change I'm not quite sold on, though I'm naturally reserving judgment until I have the chance to see how it shakes out in actual play. I really like the basic idea behind armor-defeating hits; IME they didn't happen all that often, and when they did it was pretty cool for the players to simulate the lucky blow that really struck home. Nor was it generally much of an issue on their end, as I felt there were plenty of other mechanics in the game that made wearing heavy armor less than ideal; far better to boost your physical defense and not get hit in the first place. I admit I haven't done much high-circle play, though, so I don't know how that may have changed things.
As for the OP, I'm largely in agreement with Will. Some degree of DoS is certainly better than a binary fail/succeed. That said, less is more. I think 3-4 degrees is the sweet spot; less than that obviously ventures into binary territory, more than that can quickly become fiddly and unwieldy.
I can understand wanting to see it in action. I've done a few small playtests with the pre-release ED4 Player's Guide, and I now like to think of it as, instead of one static rating to get an AD Hit, each type of armor has it's own Armor Defeating Hit rating (# of success to totally bypass), and now partial armor-defeating hits are possible. All while not tacking any additional mechanics onto the system. Just "Chainmail, Physical Armor: 7, Mystic Armor: 0, Initative: -3" like before. :D
Oh, one of the other games that has a cool degree of success mechanic is Reign (and any One Roll Engine game), where you have 2 dimensions of success (Width and Height), as you are matching numbers from a pool of d10s. So you could have a "2x1" (two 1s), or a "5x9" (five 9s) etc. Neat mechanic, as everyone throws their dice at once, then determine matches, which then determines how the round plays out.
Quote from: jibbajibba;815827Raises in Savage Worlds, Quality in James Bond 007, counting success in WoD or other dice pool systems?
Seems like what you don't like is the d20 implementation of degrees of success.
Unisystem is d10. But yes I'm ok with a die pool 'count # of successes' mechanic. What I don't like is having to refer to a chart on every attack roll to determine damage based off success level, as happens in eg Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG.
Quote from: Telarus;815920I can understand wanting to see it in action. I've done a few small playtests with the pre-release ED4 Player's Guide, and I now like to think of it as, instead of one static rating to get an AD Hit, each type of armor has it's own Armor Defeating Hit rating (# of success to totally bypass), and now partial armor-defeating hits are possible. All while not tacking any additional mechanics onto the system. Just "Chainmail, Physical Armor: 7, Mystic Armor: 0, Initative: -3" like before. :D
Huh. I hadn't thought of it like that. From everything I've read it's kinda' been sold as doing away with ADH in favor of the new success mechanic, which is why I wasn't on board. I'm willing to admit it could maybe be implemented better, but I like the idea behind ADH and thought the game would suffer a bit for their loss.
The way you explain it makes a lot more sense; 4e isn't getting rid of ADH, just adding some gradation to the way they work. Which actually sounds good to me.
Have you considered a career in marketing? Maybe working for FASA Games? :p
I'm fine with degrees of success as long as it matters. Its ok if some skills/tasks are simple pass/fail and others come with degrees of success/failure too. I'm not in favor of arbitrarily making it a universal part of a games mechanics just because.
I don't usually particularly like 'degree of success' mechanics; but if they're done right, in a way that doesn't require too much complexity, it can be OK. I'm rather liking mongoose-trav's "effect" rules.
I don't like degree of success mechanics. They are almost always unnecessary, and just complicate the game. The only one I sorta like is a natural 20 crit.
Most of the time, the only question that matters is "Did character X accomplish task Y without screwing it up?" and anything beyond that is gratuitous detail. I don't need "degrees of success" beyond YES or NO for situations like that.
However, if it matters, then I'll use some form of "degree of success" system when it's called for. I've been running Savage Worlds lately, and the "Success and Raise" mechanic handles this quite well. If the PC's are in a hurry, a raise means they're done in half the time. On attack rolls, a raise means extra damage. (The equivalent of a critical hit.) Extra raises are just gravy; the players get to brag about how awesome their roll was and high-five each other.
This is something I've been working around with a current project. Flyingmice has an excellent point about damage being a measure of success. Some systems do a better job of integrating this into the rules than others. D&D for example has a, mostly, binary attack roll with damage being independent. The exception to this is of course critical hits. Alternatively, Eclipse Phase has some unique mechanics for boosting damage based on the roll and on the actual margin of success compared to character skill.
That said I think the core of this thread falls more towards non-combat rolls. How do you create logical tiers without bogging down play. Games PbtA are explicit on the character sheet on how to manage partial success keeping game play fast. As mentioned the X over target some games use also make for a quick reference as long as you have a solid grasp of what each degree means.
Quote from: Baron Opal;815684...
The closest I've come would be combat rolls in Rune Quest. Since you have your critical numbers set before the session, and they won't change, it was pretty easy to use.
IIRC your critical ranges are based off of modified or actual % chance not your base. IIRC this is also how BRP uses specials and criticals.
Quote from: trechriron;818189IIRC your critical ranges are based off of modified or actual % chance not your base. IIRC this is also how BRP uses specials and criticals.
That's right for RQ2 and 3. Typically the critical range doesn't change unless you are close to edge of a step, but the range for a special probably will change a bit. A simple lookup table can be consulted if you happen to roll low which makes it easy or for the arithmetically inclined one can just calculate the resulting 5% and 20% chances in one's head. Most of the time the roll will clearly be a simple success or a simple failure so you only really need to know the chance for a critical, special, or fumble if the roll is on the low side or the very high side.