Hi All,

In my last session, one of the players, who is an Clone (campaign is set 5 years post Revenge of the Sith), wanted to make his armour more like a regular more modern stormtrooper outfit in order to infiltrate a Mining Guild Headquarters. The group's mechanic was keen to get her hand on the armour and gave it a go.

The result was a net failure with a threat and two (2) Triumphs.

I ruled that the attempt took a few hours and a lot of concentration, resulting in a loss of a point of strain. What I was confused with was what the failure and two triumphs would do. Every one of the players had no idea what to suggest, and so the ruling was left to me.

I knew that the triumphs couldn't be better than a success, but it had to be pretty amazing. So I decided that instead of someone just automatically accepting it as stormtrooper armour, that instead of an average check for any NPCs looking at the armour in order to notice the armour as fake, that the difficulty would be upgraded twice.

Does this sound ok or can someone suggest something better for future reference. This was my second session, so I'm keen to learn different ways to determine things.

If I am understanding this correctly the attempt was to change the appearance of the armor. So the mechanic failed to make the armor appear correctly. This cannot be changed with the triumphs in my opinion. I would consider things along the lines of decreasing the encumbrance of the armor, the armor gains a hard point, or maybe if you are felling generous it receives the superior quality.

Maybe the armor was not modified to look like modern clone trooper armor; but instead they accidently impressed some symbol of an old commander who wore that old armor and was respected everywhere.

It doesn't work if you want to infiltrate anonymously, but it might open other door.

Of course, be sure to flip a destiny point at the end of the infiltration to make someone recognize the scam, and change the scene into a shootout or chase.

It was ONLY to affect the appearance, yes.

I would have it fail (as per the dice result) but then have the character find out a lot of the troopers frequenting the mining guild headquarters still use the old Clone armor so that it isn't a bad thing to just wear it.

Wow, this is a tough one. Well in this narrative game, a failure does not always mean you did not accomplish the task. This is not a D20 game where you can fail, roll again, fail, fail, roll again. (well it can be that way...)

In this case it could just means that he failed to modify in the "allotted" time...maybe 8 hours, and it took him 16. A triumph could then cut the time in half, and the other triumph could be used to give the disguise a boost die on coercion checks. Or even upgrade the check.

Alternatively, to go along the lines of the OP, and the failure is actually a failure, then this is what I would do. (You didn't mention the difficulty of the check, or the skill roll, those can be helpful).

So the mech failed the check, and the armor does not look like proper Stromtrooper armor. With the first triumph the mech did not waste or ruin any materials. The second Triumph I would decrease the difficulty of the next check by one level. On a failed check like this I would normally say 10% of the material was wasted.

I imagine the trooper looking something like this then on your mech's check.

Perhaps the player "found" something embedded in the armour...numbers, dates, coordinates. Maybe it wasn't his armour originally, maybe it was Captain Rex's, or Cody's. Really, it's a perfect opportunity to set the stage for a new adventure: secret bank accounts that are still being watched, locations of Jedi on the run etc.

"You couldn't modify the armor, but while looking around for parts, you found a desperate group of adventurers willing to unload a suit of Stormtrooper armor for cheap."

Why not? If it was Phase II, and if they had a full work shop and the time, I could see it being modified enough to fool those who don't look too close.

R2builder, I believe that as a GM once you let someone roll for something you need to se the results that come up. If it is a nett failure then the party failed at the task, plain and simple. If it is only a matter of time then I wouldn't have them roll for it at all and just tell them : It took a while to do so."

I have a GM in a CoC game that lets us roll for every little thing and then thinks "oh ****" once we fail and starts backtracking, I think it sucks. I want a fail when I fail, and not a GM holding my hand through a success anyway...

Were I running the game, I'd say that they didn't succeed in making the armor approximate the current established standard. A failure is a failure is a failure. As has been said before, if the task is not plot-critical (and this certainly isn't), failures are failures, not resource sinks.

With the triumphs, I don't think adding superior or a hard point are reasonable. Were it uncancelled with a success, I can see that being argued, but this is modifying a failure and those are excellent bonuses to a roll of this nature.

Rather, I'd suggest spending the triumphs on one point of encumbrance reduction (that's reasonable, non-game breaking and not a huge benefit) and "reskinning" the armor into something similar to the current armor's appearance. Say commando armor or another stylistically different specialized version. Perhaps it now looks Mandalorian or matches a version worn by a particular armed group that's not the group the mechanic was originally intending.

I'd also give the mechanic the opportunity to try again if they manage to acquire another suit or spend some unnamed number of credits on raw laminate.

R2builder, I believe that as a GM once you let someone roll for something you need to se the results that come up. If it is a nett failure then the party failed at the task, plain and simple.

I sometimes interpret net failures as "you did it, but not the way you wanted to do it." Maybe that'll work in these situations?

I think the net failure does need to be taken into account, that it fails to convincingly look like an actual stormtrooper, but on the other hand accidentally looks like a stormtrooper sergeant's armor that the mine is expecting. It means that while he does manage to infiltrate the base, he's expected to attend to some sort of specific duty and command of the troops while he is there, and therefore will NOT be left alone, and of course there's the reality that the real sergeant is on his way. It's far harder to sneak around a base looking like a sergeant, rather than just a standard buckethead.

R2builder, I believe that as a GM once you let someone roll for something you need to se the results that come up. If it is a nett failure then the party failed at the task, plain and simple. If it is only a matter of time then I wouldn't have them roll for it at all and just tell them : It took a while to do so."

I have a GM in a CoC game that lets us roll for every little thing and then thinks "oh ****" once we fail and starts backtracking, I think it sucks. I want a fail when I fail, and not a GM holding my hand through a success anyway...

I don't agree here. Failure on this can mean a lot more than the D20 binary pass/fail concept. Failure here could mean that they did make the armor look like Stormtrooper armor, but in doing so, it is now more of a costume than actual armor. Failure does not always have to mean not accomplished. Even in the newer D20 games they have the charts to show varying degrees of success and failure. I am definitely one for getting rid of the old keep rolling until you make it or roll a net 1. "Oh, to get across that rope bridge, you need a 13. I roll a 10, I roll a 8, I roll a 4, I roll an 11..."

The main question is do they really need to roll again and get another weird narrative roll just to satisfy that need to see one net success. Rolling again servers no real purpose, so I feel a good narrative on the check would suffice. No point in making it a time sink for the table either. I feel that failure does not actually mean failure, it means they were able to do it, but something bad has happened to the armor.

If people want to keep that binary pass/fail concept, great, but opening up the narrative to explore more options can make for a better and much more interesting game. When rolling it should not always be the question "can you do it?" it should more often be "How well did you do it?"

I don't agree here. Failure on this can mean a lot more than the D20 binary pass/fail concept.

Certainly you can deal with failure differently in each case, but I think it needs to be spelled out ahead of time. For my group, they live on a planet where the average number of jumps to Eriadu is 8. Failure means it takes 8 + failure jumps instead. If each jump costs X, then failure implies a credit cost and lost time.

So before somebody rolls, the GM needs to think "wait, what if they fail?", and if they don't succeed, then usually the default is the goal is not achieved. I think in this case it's pretty simple: the armour does not look like stormtrooper armour. But maybe the Triumphs add to a Deception roll.

"You don't look like a stormtrooper."

"What? Oh, the armour. It's a new design we're testing out."

"Alright..."

R2builder, I believe that as a GM once you let someone roll for something you need to se the results that come up. If it is a nett failure then the party failed at the task, plain and simple. If it is only a matter of time then I wouldn't have them roll for it at all and just tell them : It took a while to do so."

I have a GM in a CoC game that lets us roll for every little thing and then thinks "oh ****" once we fail and starts backtracking, I think it sucks. I want a fail when I fail, and not a GM holding my hand through a success anyway...

I don't agree here.

I am not surprised.

However, I must say and I don’t mean to be rude at all but I have seen more “opening up the narrative to explore more options can make for a better and much more interesting game” from the people so far narrating the fail and handing out cool stuff for the two triumphs then your “it takes longer” so I guess none of us are adhering to a rigid d20 mindset but some of just have better imagination. I however think that if I allow for failure to happen it should if it is rolled (as does the RAW by the way.)

Failure = Doesn't look like standard Stormtrooper armor seems pretty clear.

Two Triumphs could be that it looks close enough at a casual glance. Could be the amour was improved in some way. Could be it will pass for a prototype or elite unit, or officer, or something else.

Sometimes deciding what Triumphs should do on a net Failure is tough.

Wow, somebody had an extra helping of jerk for lunch today.

What on Earth is jerky about that? You are telling people that went a narritive route with a certain roll that they should embrace the narrative system by standing behind the least narrative solution available. How is discussing this any more "jerky" then telling people (who clearly aren't) are stuck in a D20 mindset?

Also, I clearly stated I had no intention of being rude at all. But sometimes I guess the internet makes you sound rude no matter what... I am really not.

Just for the record the dice pool was PPPADDC (I upgraded it with a Darkside Destiny Point as this was going to be a crucial point in their "plan"to infiltrate the base).

The situation was time critical, and I didn't consider to use one of the Triumphs to half the time to complete the task.

I also didn't consider moving the dice to the characters (using the notion that the PCs should roll everything where possible) to have the PCs Deception Check upgraded instead.

Basically, many of you have suggested what I did or similar. So at least I know I'm on the right track.

When the conversation starts going down the track of name calling, its time to say thanks for the advice and move on.

Just for the record the dice pool was PPPADDC (I upgraded it with a Darkside Destiny Point as this was going to be a crucial point in their "plan"to infiltrate the base).

Wow. Only a 15% chance of failure with an almost 70% chance of success (23% chance of triumph). Sounds like it could have been crucial to that plan and that they might have been pushed off to another one.

R2builder, I believe that as a GM once you let someone roll for something you need to se the results that come up. If it is a nett failure then the party failed at the task, plain and simple. If it is only a matter of time then I wouldn't have them roll for it at all and just tell them : It took a while to do so."

I have a GM in a CoC game that lets us roll for every little thing and then thinks "oh ****" once we fail and starts backtracking, I think it sucks. I want a fail when I fail, and not a GM holding my hand through a success anyway...

I don't agree here. Failure on this can mean a lot more than the D20 binary pass/fail concept. Failure here could mean that they did make the armor look like Stormtrooper armor, but in doing so, it is now more of a costume than actual armor. Failure does not always have to mean not accomplished. Even in the newer D20 games they have the charts to show varying degrees of success and failure. I am definitely one for getting rid of the old keep rolling until you make it or roll a net 1. "Oh, to get across that rope bridge, you need a 13. I roll a 10, I roll a 8, I roll a 4, I roll an 11..."

The main question is do they really need to roll again and get another weird narrative roll just to satisfy that need to see one net success. Rolling again servers no real purpose, so I feel a good narrative on the check would suffice. No point in making it a time sink for the table either. I feel that failure does not actually mean failure, it means they were able to do it, but something bad has happened to the armor.

If people want to keep that binary pass/fail concept, great, but opening up the narrative to explore more options can make for a better and much more interesting game. When rolling it should not always be the question "can you do it?" it should more often be "How well did you do it?"

I rather like the other suggestions like making it fail to look like a regular storm troopers armor but instead make it look like a sergeants bringing its own plethora of issues.

Now if the question is why Players wouldn't just be trying over and over till they succeeded there's several reasons:

1. The characters themselves might not always know that they failed. After all they're not storm troopers maybe the fail is they missed some small detail that only storm troopers would notice and they find this out once they're there trying to sneak in.

2. They don't have time for another attempt. Perhaps there's only a small window to get in and there simply isn't the time to modify it properly.

3. The failure often just represents their breaking point the "ah screw it I can't do this" part where someone's been at attempting the task for hours before finally giving up. After all such a check could represent hours or days of work even though it's "just a roll" to a player outside the game the character is not going to keep trying the same task for months on end more likely than not.

If it's really important the character passes and it's something they could reasonably accomplish in the given time then a roll isn't really neccessary. I just think removing all chance of failure from a roll is a mistake as it makes the game come down more to GM handholding and fudging results removing the risk normally involved and thus some of the fun for both parties.

What on Earth is jerky about that? You are telling people that went a narritive route with a certain roll that they should embrace the narrative system by standing behind the least narrative solution available. How is discussing this any more "jerky" then telling people (who clearly aren't) are stuck in a D20 mindset?

Also, I clearly stated I had no intention of being rude at all. But sometimes I guess the internet makes you sound rude no matter what... I am really not.

Wow dude.

This started out by me telling the OP that here is one idea, You could say the failed roll did not actually mean he failed to modify the armor here is an idea...

In the same post I also put what I would most likely do, and that would be to say the check as a whole failed, and offered some ideas on what to do with the two Triumphs.

Then YOU address me, and pretty tell me that no, a failed roll is a failed roll. The end. That you want a fail on a fail and no GM pandering!

I defended my position that I think it is perfectly acceptable to use the narrative system to describe this situation, and that a fail on this skill check does have to mean that they failed to modify the armor.

Again, you don't agree, but now start in with the snide comments like.

ME:" I don't agree."

You: "I'm not surprised."

Then you proceed to say that every other idea out here is better than mine. Which you clearly cherry picked, or you didn't want see any other ideas that I put out there. I think it's funny how you talk about other peoples ideas for the Triumphs, but only use my idea for the fail to say that you have seen better use of the system than what I do. Then you have to insult me once more for good measure.

so I guess none of us are adhering to a rigid d20 mindset but some of just have better imagination.

It's not the internet that makes you sound rude...

Perhaps I was wrong about you being a jerk. Perhaps a Summer's Eve would be more appropriate.

Double triumph maybe allow an extra mod slot he did so well

What on Earth is jerky about that? You are telling people that went a narritive route with a certain roll that they should embrace the narrative system by standing behind the least narrative solution available. How is discussing this any more "jerky" then telling people (who clearly aren't) are stuck in a D20 mindset?

Also, I clearly stated I had no intention of being rude at all. But sometimes I guess the internet makes you sound rude no matter what... I am really not.

Wow dude.

This started out by me telling the OP that here is one idea, You could say the failed roll did not actually mean he failed to modify the armor here is an idea...

In the same post I also put what I would most likely do, and that would be to say the check as a whole failed, and offered some ideas on what to do with the two Triumphs.

Then YOU address me, and pretty tell me that no, a failed roll is a failed roll. The end. That you want a fail on a fail and no GM pandering!

Well I am not sure why you would feel this “attacked” by a civil:

R2builder, I believe that as a GM once you let someone roll for something you need to se the results that come up. If it is a nett failure then the party failed at the task, plain and simple. If it is only a matter of time then I wouldn't have them roll for it at all and just tell them : It took a while to do so."

I have a GM in a CoC game that lets us roll for every little thing and then thinks "oh ****" once we fail and starts backtracking, I think it sucks. I want a fail when I fail, and not a GM holding my hand through a success anyway...

This was in no way, shape or form a snidy remark. It was just a discussion of why I wouldn’t go that route. That’s all.

I defended my position that I think it is perfectly acceptable to use the narrative system to describe this situation, and that a fail on this skill check does have to mean that they failed to modify the armor.

Again, you don't agree, but now start in with the snide comments like.

ME:" I don't agree."

You: "I'm not surprised."

I can see how that would be snide. Except that I meant it in a of course you don’t, this is the internet and we are having a discussion kind of way. I was going for a smile not a frown when I wrote that. So my apologies I can see why this would come of totally wrong, I just didn’t think of it as rude.

Then you proceed to say that every other idea out here is better than mine. Which you clearly cherry picked, or you didn't want see any other ideas that I put out there. I think it's funny how you talk about other peoples ideas for the Triumphs, but only use my idea for the fail to say that you have seen better use of the system than what I do. Then you have to insult me once more for good measure.

Well if you go back you are really belittling myself and others for stating a failure is just that, a failure and are schooling us on why that isn't so in this system (it is) but perhaps you too didn’t mean it as such?

I do agree that that last remark was insulting but only if you disagree with the premise that your inititial reply and the suggested thing to do with the failure is not the most narrative way of dealing with a failure and two triumphs. I found it lacking especially considering the way you vehemently defended it.

So in short while I enjoy a heated argument at times I didn’t enjoy this one and I see why I am partly to blame. However, the name calling? That was all you bro.