>>98326077
>When I run a game I already feel like I have too much on my plate to have to come up with some petty reason why the end result was only okay instead of great.
Then let the players do that.

>>98326077
Maybe they can be fine if done well but in my experience playing in such systems the DM is forced to arbitrarily assign some bullshit "consequence" that's tacked on to the actual result which ends up happening about 75% of the time
>total success - you pick the lock
>mixed success - you pick the lock but you alert all the guards
>mixed failure - you alert all the guards but you see a nice flower :)
>total failure - you alert all the guards

>>98326077
I like them. Makes things more dynamic and (because I'm not a lazy retard) I don't find narrating the game to be a hassle at all.

>>98326077
Nah, it's fun.

Though personally I prefer using the degrees of success method, and interpreting what each degree means, with 'success plus consequence' being one of those.

Odds are if it's a game with a narrative (as most ttrpg's are, let's be real), having that flexibility is more helpful than not.

>>98326077
I really like how Genesys does this, but the proprietary dice are a hassle.
You can have marginal succeses, critical succeses with complications, critical failures with minor advantages, simple failures, lots of combinations.

>>98326322
Also the Genesys book explicitly says that the players should come up with ideas for tangential bonuses or setbacks.
In addition to providing the tables of possible results. In addition to the fallback option of "mark/heal X stress" when your imagination runs dry.

>>98326077
its one of those "good on paper, nightmare in practice" ideas that's particularly popular with game devs who want granular degrees of success but dont have the stones to attach hard definitions to anything that would prescribe those outcomes. what the fuck is a "partial success" on picking a lock? it either opens or it doesnt.
>ooh the alarm goes off
okay? then what was the partial success on my "detect traps" to find the alarm?

i actually respect VTM5's "messy success" system for this, because it's clear. you succeeded, but you did it by letting your hunger take over and solve the problem violently. whatever the check, you know HOW and WHY the mess was caused and players can predict it to manage the risk

I hate this gay bullshit that's swept the scene for a decade or more. A roll just needs to tell me yes or no.

>>98326322
Genesys is a massive fucking headache, and so was their L5R and Star Wars game.

The burger example is retarded, but the concept is good.
I really enjoyed running a PbtA game, and I like the “make a difficult decision” option. E.g. “You can open the lock, but you can tell it will trip the alarm if you do. Do you want to open the door and go loud, or back off and look for another way in?”
It appeals to my sadism, since I get to watch them squirm while they try to decide.

>>98326077
I think they're a bit lazy. Badly made systems crutch on them, they get their dice pools wrong then mitigate it by using a 'fail forward' system that makes failure and success indistinguishable.

Degrees of success and failure can work, but the Vickie Pollarding "Yer, but naw, but yer" bullshit it a red flag for me.

>>98326100
>>98326363
yeah i think systems like these should have an option for simple rolls where you either succeed or fail.
or maybe if the task is easy the "mixed success" result doesn't have any complications and it's just the expected result, while a full success is even better
in general i think the need to always stick to the degrees of success idea ends up making the system too rigid and prescriptive, it would be better if the degrees only come in play when they make sense

>>98326363
Christ, anon, are you really too stupid to run this at the table?
>You succeeded in getting the faceplate off. Disassembly needs no further rolls but will take time.
>You can definitely do it, but knocking the lock cylinder out will make noise.
>You get it done but you have a nagging feeling you've left some evidence behind somehow.
>You get it done, but the alarm bypass won't hold forever with the damage you've caused.
>You get it done, but damage a tool in your kit. -2 forward.
>You get it done, but use up <some resource>
>You get it most of the way done, but you need a second pair of hands to bust this finicky hinge. Whoever's helping will be as distracted as you are, no longer on overwatch
>You open it but fuck you it's a mimic
>You open it but hold up for a picosecond while I glance at a list of ideas or GM moves which I should have prepared beforehand

>>98326077
What setting?

>>98326077
I have always run it. But it should only be run in systems where you can moderate the result. The more randomness there is in your challenges, the worse a mixed result system is. For example, the burger in your pic, there isn't that much randomness in how a burger turns out. If you imagine you have a roll-under system, where you have 10 to cooking. Then rolling 1d20 trying to get under 10 is way to much randomness. What can possibly go so wrong that you fail? Now, if the system allows you to roll something like 1D6 vs that 10, then it starts making sense. A 6 would be a worse burger than a 1, but still passable. Meanwhile, someone with 6 to cooking that rolls a 6 barely managed to make an edible burger.

>>98326077
It depends. I played a bunch of Scum and Villainy where it just kinda sucks because constantly more shit is going wrong and there's only so much interesting things you can think up to complicate the mission. I've been running Masks: A New Generation which has enough guidance and specifics on exactly what goes wrong on a partial hit for each roll that it's a lot of fun.
I think that just saying free form "I dunno something goes wrong" is rough because many checks seem binary, and it takes a lot of skill to make the complication both relevant and interesting, and not just making it basically a failure.

>>98326448
>>98326452
I think I like the way P&P does it, where successes are resolved with antagonistic narrative control in different hands, in 4 levels - Actor, Actor with embellishments from opponent, Opponent with embellishments from actor and Opponent. When the actor or opponent are in charge, they get to narrate a believable narration of the results of the event in their favor, while if there's embellishments, the embellisher either gets to unquestionably add a caveat to the situation without invalidating the original narration, or come to a compromise with the narrator to dial down the degree to which they succeed in narration at the cost of giving up their embellishment.

>>98326077
Got mixed feelings about those.

>>98326077
>food analogy

>>98326385
Which L5R?

>>98326077
For me, it's less about what rolls could do and more about what they actually do.
The example snippet, which posits "the GM may suggest a compromise" takes away from the structure of a game, and makes it narrative in nature. This is something I'm severely disinterested in, for three reasons.
1. I like to play games, and I don't want to listen to stories or theater when I've set aside time to play games.
2. Down the road, when a similar situation comes up, the loose interpretation allows for an inconsistent resolution in spite of an exact or proximal die result. This isn't "what the dice are doing" to any degree.
3. A game is its challenges and goals, and the abilities and limitations established to succeed, and the lines drawn to indicate failure states.
Frodo throwing The Ring into the volcano was decided by Tolkien. Jotaro defeating DIO was decided by Araki. Luke Skywalker blowing up the Death Star was decided by Lucas.
The resolution of a challenge or progress towards a challenge's resolution is decided by the game's rules. When you have a person with bias and a specific "narrative" in mind making the decisions, it is no longer a game, no matter how complicit or contradictory to the participants' desires he makes things.
When you say "this thing happened because my DM said so", this wasn't something that happened in a game, this was permission granted for a progressing collaborative narrative.
When you say "this thing happened as a result of my decision and the roll of the dice", that is something that happened in a game, because it is a consistent and repeatable resolution.
I won the pot because I had a Royal Flush is a cause-and-effect of gameplay.
I won because my token crossed the finish line first is a cause-and-effect of gameplay.
My character killed the monster because she used an attack that bypassed its defenses is a cause-and-effect of gameplay.

But that's why I make my games how I want to play them. Random, impartial, unbiased.

>>98327372
>impartial, unbiased
Then play a video game, or a board game, or cards, or any sort of activity that doesn’t have a human GM.
ttrpgs are always run by a human, and will always have that narrative aspect.
Sure, you rolled high and landed your blow and slew the dark lord, but that’s only because your GM presented you with the opportunity to make that roll in the first place.

>>98326100
stop playing with retards

>>98326077
Underwhelmed. As far as I can tell it's the purview of people that thinks rolling interrupts the game and wants to reduce it as much as possible. Thus they make rolls broader and have a spectrum of outcomes rather than just using multiple rolls.

>>98326363
stop rolling for individual actions, you retard

>>98326077
I'm running a game using the Cosmere RPG system, and one core part of the system is the use of a plot die, which you roll in tense situations. It has 3 types of a sides: 2 blank sides where nothing happens, 2 opportunity sides (which can be spent in that moment to give advantage to other for a round, recover a stamina like resource, and the occasional scene-based effects), and 2 complication sides, one with a 2 and one with a 4. Rolling a complication on the plot die gives you a bonus to that skill roll equal to the number you got, and beyond it's negative effects roughly mirroring the opportunity result's positive effects, it also has the added narrative effect of something complicating the situation even if you succeed the roll, such as causing a narrow bridge to collapse after you rolled to safely use it to cross a canyon.
You can also get opportunities and complications by crit successes and crit fails respectively, but there's no associated bonus to the skill roll for crit failing.

>>98327372
Christ, this is the smartest-seeming idiocy I've read in ages. You definitely deserve some manner of misfortune.

>>98328052
But how do you feel about it?

>>98328081
I like it, as a GM. I like thinking of possible complications on the spot, and I take into account whether they would have succeeded without the bonus from the complication on the plot die when deciding what happens.
My players have shit luck with the dice roller in the VTT we're using, so more often than not it's a complication compounding a failure, which make it extra funny.
According to the system, a plot die should only be rolled roughly 1 in 3 rolls, so it's not a constant thing either. I often forget to tell them to roll the die except when they're in a situation where friendly fire is possible anyway.

>>98327418
>just do a thing that doesn't offer the same experience as what you're doing
Nah, I'll continue making my tabletop roleplaying games the way I want to play them.

>that’s only because your GM presented you with the opportunity to make that roll in the first place
The dark lord is one of the campaign goals established in the game and the journey to face him is another established set of challenges.
The opportunity is presented because of the path your characters chose along with a little luck from the dice, which are causal-effects established in the game rules and structure, not because an author said so.

Could you learn how to read, please, instead of getting mad at posts you dislike?

>>98328181
The opportunity was created by an author. You lose.

>>98328181
Motherfucker, who do you think established the goals? Who designed the challenges?
Ultimately, whether premade or homebrew, a campaign is designed to offer your character a path from being a some scrub hunting rats to being the hero of the realm or whatever. The narrative is there no matter what rules you're using.
Encounters don't spring fully-formed out of the game system; they're designed FOR YOU. And what's more, designed FOR YOU TO WIN.
Your GM might ask for smarter play, or better luck than most, but the encounter was still created as part of a narrative.
I WAS telling you to go play non-GMed games because They seem more like what you're looking for. Now I'm telling you that so other players don't have to deal with someone who fundamentally misunderstands how these games work.

>>98326100
>>mixed failure - you alert all the guards but you see a nice flower :)
Mixed failure would be something like "The lock is jammed but you didn't set off the alarm"

>>98329404
>ultimately every set of rules was made by a human
>that means there's no difference between [consistently following codified rules that were agreed upon before an adventure] and [just making up inconsistent shit mid-session on whatever whim desired]
>I am.very intelligent!
Shove the business-end of a rusty rake up your ass.

>>98332390
I'm not talking about the rules. I'm talking about the campaign and the encounters. Unless you are running a game where every single encounter is rolled off a set of tables (i.e. dogshit), the encounters will not be designed impartially.

I prefer a GM to manage it. They understand context better and dice are too hard and fast.
>And what's more, designed FOR YOU TO WIN.
that's not true

>>98332568
>I'm not talking about the rules.
Then don't jump on posts whose points are about games and their rules.

Well as you can see from mulattos everything mixed is always retarded and gross.

>>98327331
5th Edition, which is not the same as Adventures in Rokugan for DnD5E