How do you as GM deal with failed checks that have to be successes in order to continue with the story. For example, the PC's have to hack the average computer check in order to open up the looked door that leads to the prisoner you have to free. "OK I rolled my check and failed, and I roll again, failed. Again, failed... again, finally!" Do you just let someone role until they succeed (of course after adding the various advantages and threats involved which each role, which I guess could help or hinder the success rate)?

What are you thoughts on this? What would you do/how do you handle situations such as this?

Thanks!

I try to be specific about what they are doing in explanation before the roll, that way if they fail they can roll again "trying something different". If it is the same check again upgrade the check once and maybe a setback due to a loss of confidence.

It's important to remember that a skill check represents a character's best effort towards a task given the current circumstances. Despite suboptimal results. So when a character fails, the character has given its best but it just wasn't good enough. A good rule of thumb is, unless the character's skills have improved, or the circumstances have changed, the character has tried his best. Obviously that falls through for things like combat checks, but I hope my point is made.

My question is why is the player re-trying when he or she has failed?

It's best to simply not include Go/No Go skill check choke points in your story plots. A success means the door unlocked, no one knows it unlocked, and all is well. "Failures" generally aren't all negative results, there are likely some successes, some Advantages, etc. So instead of the pass/fail result, you should try and insert more narrative interpretation, such as you get the door unlocked, but an alarm sounds for example.

Like 2P51 said, you should avoid "fail and die"-type checks at all costs. If you need the PCs to succeed at something in order for the plot to move forward, either opt for no skill check or set it up differently.

In the scenario you described above, my advice would be to not have the skill check be "Succeed and open the door, fail and it stays closed". It's much better to go with "Succeed and the door opens quickly, fail and it opens very, very slowly" - or perhaps, "Succeed and it opens without the alarm triggering, fail and it opens but the alarm goes off".

This was probably the hardest lesson I had to teach myself with this system - that the skill checks aren't a binary succeed-or-fail kind of thing, but rather a succeed-or-fail-in-different-and-exciting-ways thing. This can also be a hard habit to break in your players; one of the guys at my table looks only at the number of successes on the different types of dice and attaches no importance at all to things like Advantage and Triumphs. The sooner you learn to view dice rolls differently, the sooner you'll truly be able to enjoy the sort of freedom this system brings to your table.

Oh, and never allow rerolls (unless the player has a talent that allows it, of course). Make them come up with a different way of going about things instead. Reward creative thinking and use of Advantage and Triumph.

It depends on the situation for me, but I try and avoid total Go/No-Go checks when I can. They still creep in from time to time.

If the players are trying to do something that isn't on a time crunch and it seems like something you can bang away at till you get it, I allow it. "I want to fix this Landspeeder" As long as a pile-o-threat or Despair doesn't show up it's not a problem, though it might turn out that a fix expected to take an hour takes 12.

I deal with this differently, depending on whether the characters are in structured or non-structured time. And I deal with it slightly differently depending on the circumstance.

In structured time:

If they fail a check during combat or other structured time, I generally rule that they can try again on their next turn. This applies, for example, to trying to slice a computer or pick a lock while under fire. They can try again on their next turn, it just means they're focused on the task rather than the combat. And they could be in danger as a result.

In non-structured time:

I generally rule that one single check represents their best effort within the time they have available. This could mean a few hours or a few minutes, depending on the circumstances.

Sometimes I rule they can try again, but it just takes more time. The group makes a Streetwise check to try and find an underworld contact. It fails. I might say this attempt took three hours of slogging through dive bars and back alleys, but they came up empty.

They can try again, with the understanding that it's going to take more time.

For something like a Charm check, generally one failed check means "You've done all you could."

You can't just sit there and try over and over to Charm somebody, there are diminishing returns.

http://angrydm.com/2012/12/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/

I really like the blog series that started with this post.

It mirrors some things others have said here.

In general I would stay away from single skill checks that the party needs to succeed at in order to continue the adventure.

NEVER put yourself in a position where success is the only option. ALWAYS try to have another option planned. Can you imagine the fate of Alderaan coming down to if the player on the Death Star can shoot the technician who is about to hit the 'fire' button? There's nothing worse than knowing as a player that your rolls don't count and the GM is going to "run you over with the plot-wagon" regardless of whether you make the roll or not. It's like...."The GM is goign to tell this story whether we do something or not." We once had a guy always ask for Perception checks as GM, see us all fail our rolls miserably, and then tell us what we saw anyways. It got to be very frustrating.

I always find myself asking "What if..." questions of my GM plans and ponder the alternatives.

Of course, there are times when ALL the players fail an 'EASY' check you never planned for them to fail. It's not ONLY up to you to come up with the alternative method. The players are great thinkers and can figure out another way if you let them try.

In the case of the locked door, perhaps the "janitor" comes by with the key ring on his belt....or a survey or scouting or patrol crew is returning at about that time.

Sometimes it really is best to allow failure. They can't hack the door? OK, maybe Mechanics to disassemble/break through/set demolitions to open it...if you have the tool? Maybe Lightsaber (with a lightsaber) is the answer...if you have the tool. If they try everything and still fail, or more likely if time or circumstances reduce the number of options they can employ and all of those fail, then see how the story works with them failing. In most cases, the story can be just as interesting.

If the Heroes of Yavin had been forced to flee without rescuing Leia, she may have died on the Death Star, but the story could still go on (if R-2 knew to go to Yavin).

Worst case scenario:

Ask one of them to spend a destiny point so they can claim to have been carrying a laser torch and cut the lock so they can bypass this sealed door if its that much of a problem.

If they're in combat and fighting off approaching guards maybe have a despair rolled by your npcs' result in an emp effect that automatically unlocks said lock thereby resolving this situation and moving on.

PS: I like some of the ideas listed above.

If the party needs to do something, don't make them roll.

Simple way to not get stuck...

Or if you do want them to roll and they fail make it work but have it take a lot longer time.

That way a problem might arise such as Han having to shoot the communications panel and having Troopers show up when they bust Lea from the jail on the Death Star...

While I wouldn't make a situation where a story would grind to a halt if a player failed a roll, I think it's important to remember that failure on the dice can also imply "things didn't go as planned." The use of a Destiny Point as others have suggested is perfectly legitimate for getting past the block as well.

GM: "You can't seem to slice the lock on this door and you can hear the stormtrooper's boots echoing off the deck plating as they approach."

<Player flips Destiny Point>

Player: "Oh, hey, what's that yellow wire? Oh, it's a failsafe that needs to be deactivated."

<Door opens>

How do you as GM deal with failed checks that have to be successes in order to continue with the story.

Easy: never write a game that comes to a bottle neck like that. If they have to steal the Top Secret Plans from the safe to set the rest of the plot in action, then no roll is required to open the safe. Problem solved.

Whenever a critical roll is about to come up (and I know when it is) I've already made sure that the destiny pool is all white or mostly white and I let them flip a destiny point to add another green die to the existing total. That usually works pretty well but this one time the kept rolling blanks or advantage and they had to spend something like 6 destiny points (add 6 green dice) to get the one more success that they needed for the roll. They managed to get it on the last white destiny point in the pool. So it's not fool proof but so far it hasn't failed me. I play fast and loose with the FFG star wars rules any way, it's a narrative system anyway so I don't really have to worry about disrupting a fragile game balance. I let my players be awesome (more awesome than they strictly could be if we were completely following raw), for example in my game a critical hit kills a rival outright (same as for a minion) it's an effectively free attack that kills one minion or rival and the damage is applied to a separate target. This has made the guy with a vibró sword with a mono molecular edge a minion/rival slayer he's about to get last one standing, he said he didn't want to be that brutal to my story but I encouraged him to get it by telling him that if he did get it I would insert encounters with lots of minions just so that he would have an opportunity to use the special abilities (I had recently upped the typical opponent from a minion to a rival, but will put more minions in just for him)

It has already been said. I just want to add my voice to it.

Just don't create situations where the moving forward of the plot depends on the success (or the failure) of a dice roll. I learned that time ago playing the Call of Cthulhu. And rolling over and over is a very anti climatic tool, don't do it!

The two main options (not exclusive) are

1) Allow more options / ways that can move the plot forwards. In your example, allow the door to be opened with a computer check, but may be it can also be broken with an Athletic or Mechanics checks, lightsaber anyone? or opened with skulduggery, or may be someone with a Perception check notices a hidden entrance, or by means of Stealth or Deceit a character can get the codes needed to open the door from a guard...

2) The failure of the check still gets the task done but with complications (The Burning Wheel RPG style). As simple as that. In your example, the character opens the door but he is surprised by guards or someone is alerted that the PC is accessing the computer etc...

Cheers

Han Solo (and R2) had the same door Issue on Endor, remember? He had to think outside of the box and get the Imperials to open the door for him.

There's always another way. If the PC's learn to think alternatively and the GM allows for other non-linear thinking, that is. I highly encourage radical ideas and PC's using their characters in their best form. Sometimes my group will do what I'd expect of them, but more often than not they'll throw me a curve ball and I'll smile and nod at the new challenge they present me to deal with. That's the great fun of being the storyteller when it all comes down to it. Using your creative juices on the fly when the story begins to unfold in unforetold ways.

How do you as GM deal with failed checks that have to be successes in order to continue with the story.

Easy: never write a game that comes to a bottle neck like that. If they have to steal the Top Secret Plans from the safe to set the rest of the plot in action, then no roll is required to open the safe. Problem solved.

Or the roll is to show how long it takes or if an alarm is set off.

Things like it taking longer or an alarm going off are the results of Threats or Despairs. Whether it opens or not is based on success or failure.

Things like it taking longer or an alarm going off are the results of Threats or Despairs. Whether it opens or not is based on success or failure.

Technically yes, unless the GM rules something else.

Things like it taking longer or an alarm going off are the results of Threats or Despairs. Whether it opens or not is based on success or failure.

Technically yes, unless the GM rules something else.

Exactly this. The GM is the one who sets the parameters for what a successful check actually accomplishes. If the GM defines success as "open the door without an alarm going off", then that's what a successful check does. Threat could, in this instance, mean that a guard comes strolling by while you're opening the door.

To expound on the infamous locked door scenario. You don't make the lock/unlock the point of the roll. The door opening is a foregone conclusion, the roll determines how well or poorly the PCs gained entry. So for instance.

A successful check and as I stated the door unlocks, no alarms, and they gain entry unnoticed. Lets says though they also have 3 uncancelled Advantages as well, so perhaps in addition the PC also disables the facility's alarm system, or reboots it giving the team a finite number of minutes to move quickly. Say there is a Triumph as well, so in addition to the above, the PC also discovers a 'master key' PIN that maintenance staff use on the doors in the facility and no further lock checks will be needed.

The flip side is they don't roll any successes but there is an uncancelled Advantage(s), so they gain entry, but a silent or audible alarm sounds. Say there are no Advantages and uncancelled Threat(s), they gain entry but they sound an alarm, or break their tools, and/or trip some anti-intrusion system and the group is doused with a chemical irritant causing a -2 Strain reduction to the party for X amount of time. Throw in a Despair and any/all of the above and in addition there is an arcing discharge from the panel and the PC making the check and anyone engaged with them suffers 2 Wounds.

The idea is the point of the check isn't whether the door opens, but how the check influences the story moving forward, for good or ill. PCs can adapt and deal with security from alarms, wounds, broken tools, etc, but dice pool results that just say you failed leaves them standing outside a door looking silly and then requires GM fiat or a silly use of DPs.

To expound on the infamous locked door scenario. You don't make the lock/unlock the point of the roll. The door opening is a foregone conclusion, the roll determines how well or poorly the PCs gained entry. So for instance.

A successful check and as I stated the door unlocks, no alarms, and they gain entry unnoticed. Lets says though they also have 3 uncancelled Advantages as well, so perhaps in addition the PC also disables the facility's alarm system, or reboots it giving the team a finite number of minutes to move quickly. Say there is a Triumph as well, so in addition to the above, the PC also discovers a 'master key' PIN that maintenance staff use on the doors in the facility and no further lock checks will be needed.

The flip side is they don't roll any successes but there is an uncancelled Advantage(s), so they gain entry, but a silent or audible alarm sounds. Say there are no Advantages and uncancelled Threat(s), they gain entry but they sound an alarm, or break their tools, and/or trip some anti-intrusion system and the group is doused with a chemical irritant causing a -2 Strain reduction to the party for X amount of time. Throw in a Despair and any/all of the above and in addition there is an arcing discharge from the panel and the PC making the check and anyone engaged with them suffers 2 Wounds.

The idea is the point of the check isn't whether the door opens, but how the check influences the story moving forward, for good or ill. PCs can adapt and deal with security from alarms, wounds, broken tools, etc, but dice pool results that just say you failed leaves them standing outside a door looking silly and then requires GM fiat or a silly use of DPs.

I disagree with this. Failure can mean that the obstacle is not overcome. Doing it the way you suggest means that obstacles are not really obstacles and the conclusion is already decided with the roll only determining details. To me that's like going into a combat and knowing the you're going to win--the rolls are just made to determine how stylishly you do it, and defeat isn't really an option. My style of play has failure and defeat as very real possibilities, and I wouldn't enjoy a game that didn't.