Topic: Partial Success

[Phil]

Was just reading the thread "Not enough DPs" when I had a thought on partial successes which I thought I'd share.

I've been working on a new game system which doesnt have any successes or failures per se - everything succeeds, it's just a question of how long it takes! (so you have an IQ of 70 and want to work out the Theory of Everything... ok, roll your skill, cross reference unskilled against task that requires Genius level skill... ok, that'll take you 250 years).

I think that partial success could benefit from being implemented in this way. Rather than re-rolling each round, just take the % given in the partial success table and extrapolate it out. E.g. you achieve 50% of the task, therefore it takes you 2 rounds.

I think this would work fine in theory - my only concern is the lack of granularity on the current table for this sort of mechanism, which makes me think that to really make it work you'd have to house-rule a more graduated SM table. It would also help alleviate any issues with characters with modest +20 skill levels finding it hard to ever achieve anything, whereas in reality that represents a perfectly respectable "interested amateur" skill level.

[Temujin]

That could be a good approach, however in cases like that, you might want to go along with the idea in SoHK governing Lore skills, whereby you need a certain number of ranks to even attempt the check.  Otherwise anyone can build a nuclear reactor if he has a rank of Physics and Engineering, given enough time.  And there should still be a margin of failure anyhow.  You need to jump 10' long or drop into the pit, you just don't jump 4' then jump another 4' then another time before you make it accross...

[yammahoper]

Normally when I get a partial success for a mnv, I simple say it takes more time or apply a penalty to action for a length of time (normally one round).

For a craft, I say the object is done and whole, but is not pretty, or increase its break numbers, decrease its strenth, apply a penalty when it is used, etc.

As with most skill use in the game, I find GM fiat works best.  I do not care for the reroll unless it really makes sense.  Best to take partial success literally.  You succeeded, but not as well as was hoped for or possible.

Same for near success, just smaller penalties.

BTW, this interpretation is how I came up with the orgin of +1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,11 etc items, or spell enhamcers that are x1.6pp instead of x2.  No way a guild is gonna throw away the apprentice sloppy work when it can still generate a profit off it, for sale or as a gift.

yamma

[Phil]

Normally when I get a partial success for a mnv, I simple say it takes more time or apply a penalty to action for a length of time (normally one round).

For a craft, I say the object is done and whole, but is not pretty, or increase its break numbers, decrease its strenth, apply a penalty when it is used, etc.

As with most skill use in the game, I find GM fiat works best. 

Common sense approach interpreted by a good GM is always best. Totally agree.

BTW, this interpretation is how I came up with the orgin of +1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,11 etc items, or spell enhamcers that are x1.6pp instead of x2.  No way a guild is gonna throw away the apprentice sloppy work when it can still generate a profit off it, for sale or as a gift.

Again, I love it. One of things I'm going to house rule (eventually) is a lot of the tables to have varying impact within the broad SM/MM categories. We have skills from -30 to +200 with every possible number inbetween, yet we granualise results into 5 or 6 categories. Except for combat of course, which goes to the opposite extreme

yamma
[/quote]