Now I think we have all experienced dice rolls which have resulted in numerous threats, or numerous advantages, but what about huge numbers of failures?

During my last session, I had an interesting result, which I'd like some advice on. The situation was this:

The PCs were aboard a space station and were attending a high end auction for a rare artifact. The PCs had discovered that the artifact may in fact be a force imbued object, and so had managed to get their way into the auction through hacking the station's computer system to get the crew on the guest list. During the evening's festivities, before the auction, they had a chance to mingle with the crowd. The mechanic/slicer (Twi'lek female) decided to charm one of the patrons in order to learn as much information as she could.

She used her Charm (obviously) with a very hard difficulty, as this guy was very well skilled in the Discipline department. She managed to succeed, but with 4 threat. I adjudicated that although he became a little loose lipped with her (including revealing that he was an Imperial Officer in charge of the military base on a planet the PCs had stolen an Imperial shuttle from), he also realised that perhaps she was trying to extract information from him. He decided to turn the tables, and get information from her using his own charm versus her Discipline in a kind of social combat (with 2 setback from the 4 threats).

Now as I try to do, I got the player to roll the Discipline check versus his Charm check as the difficulty (4 reds and 1 purple). This resulted in no threats, advantages, triumphs or despairs, but 6 failures.

After a bit of analysis paralysis, we decided that he obviously was able to coax a lot of information from her. The players decided that perhaps the officer got the slicer drunk during the discussions, which ended with her laying out everything that they had done on the world he was in control of, including where the PCs stole the Imperial shuttle. As the other PCs were in on the conversation, they heard the slip, and hilarity ensued.

Is this how you would adjudicate this fairly large number of failures? Should I not have asked for a second roll? Any help would be great.

What would you have done if they were many success? There are only a few times where it matters to get multiple successes. (Medicine, Tirade, Rhetoric, combat)

if anything I would have giving the player a few strain and a very bad faux pas (A spit-take, or hysterical scream) and let the NPC gain insight who she really was, without the player knowing

Generally I don't do anything with uncanceled failures. This would have been nothing but a failed attempt to resist his charms. I wouldn't rule it as any more severe than one net failure.

Since this was an opposed check, the number of failures should indeed matter. Had it been a check against a set difficulty I would have run it as a straight-up failure, but when you roll against an NPC the number of successes tends to matter, and therefore the number of failures should count in the opposing character's favour as well.

What's important is to ask yourself, "what am I trying to accomplish with this check?". The number of successes, it stands to reason, would indicate that you accomplished said goal either better or more quickly. Therefore, the number of failures should be the exact opposite. Since this was an NPC using Charm against your player, I'd say that the amount of failures is the same as if the NPC had been the active character and rolled a bunch of successes. And if the goal of the check was to obtain information, I'd have ruled that the NPC managed to get a lot of information from the PC. In other words, I'd have played it the same way you did.

Did you have fun and was everybody satisfied with the decision? If so, then it was probably the right call, and it looked like everybody agreed to it.

While I might be in the minority, I consider multi-success and multi-failure results to matter almost as much as triumphs and despairs. If someone completely blows away a check (+6 successes), then they'll have done an outstanding job at whatever it was with commensurate benefits (even more than a ton of boosts). Similarly, I treat multiple-failures as completely botching things up. 6+ failures would be worse than a Despair, to my mind. Not only did they screw something up, but they caused unanticipated unrelated problems (more than threats would generate).

It's a major area in which I disagree with some interpretations of the rules. I don't understand why some checks (like combat) count extra successes as additionally beneficial while ignoring them in other cases and completely ignoring multiple failures (by RAW).

I think in general the idea behind discarding extra failures and successes is to preserve the sanctity of the other narrative axes...so people don't just start swapping the impact of successes and advantages, etc. It's kind of important because the un-upgraded dice tend towards success + threat, and advantages are the consistent reward for being skilled. Normally I agree, and an extra couple of successes or failures are ignored where applicable. But large numbers, like 5+, are hard to ignore, especially when the player looks at you with puppy-dog eyes and says "B-b-but...FIVE successes...?" So I have to treat failures the same way...

Any failures above and beyond what is necessary to fail, I tend to ignore. If you want something extra bad to happen, you already have the tools you need in your bag of tricks. Despair and threat more than cover the "Man, that really sucks!" angle. No need to add a third layer to that mix.

Any failures above and beyond what is necessary to fail, I tend to ignore. If you want something extra bad to happen, you already have the tools you need in your bag of tricks. Despair and threat more than cover the "Man, that really sucks!" angle. No need to add a third layer to that mix.

Completely agree. If you have lots of failures or successes equate to advantages, disadvantages, triumphs, or despairs, then you are not only diluting those other pips on the die but adding complexity to the narrative system that already covers really bad or really good fails/success. To keep the players from frowning at you just point this out in advance when describing the system to them. If you didn't, then point this out the very first time they roll lots of extra successes on a task that won't benefit from such. I would quickly follow up the frown by explaining how lots of extra failures on most tasks won't harm them either so there is a balance.

Any failures above and beyond what is necessary to fail, I tend to ignore. If you want something extra bad to happen, you already have the tools you need in your bag of tricks. Despair and threat more than cover the "Man, that really sucks!" angle. No need to add a third layer to that mix.

Completely agree. If you have lots of failures or successes equate to advantages, disadvantages, triumphs, or despairs, then you are not only diluting those other pips on the die but adding complexity to the narrative system that already covers really bad or really good fails/success. To keep the players from frowning at you just point this out in advance when describing the system to them. If you didn't, then point this out the very first time they roll lots of extra successes on a task that won't benefit from such. I would quickly follow up the frown by explaining how lots of extra failures on most tasks won't harm them either so there is a balance.

Unfortunately the system doesn't support this though according to many of the skill descriptions. Primarily they deal with length of time it takes to do a task (more successes meaning it takes a shorter amount of time), and of course there is combat, with more successes = more damage. I am not raining on your parade here because the rules are silent on this issue. I'm just keen to get other people's perspectives - so thanks in advance to those who have responded to this dilemma.

I love the narrative dice system and one of the aspects I enjoy is the binary success or failure. In the 40K universe RPGs they use a percentile system with degrees of success and failure. It can get very complicated. Many games reward excess success and penalize excess failure on rolls, and that tends to lead to stat-pumping, min-maxing, etc. I believe in this system, with basically no benefit to huge success excesses, it encourages a wider range of skills and talents, rather then getting really, really good at one or two things.

That said, there's nothing inherently wrong with rewarding excess success. I would be cautious not to lead the players to expect it and only use it sparingly.

You've discovered the flaw with inverting opposed rolls -- failure is absolute and sometimes wonky. Although I think your table handled the situation perfectly, I probably would have just let the PC's initial roll resolve all the action with the mark, with threat/despair indicating that the mark got some information as well.

Any failures above and beyond what is necessary to fail, I tend to ignore. If you want something extra bad to happen, you already have the tools you need in your bag of tricks. Despair and threat more than cover the "Man, that really sucks!" angle. No need to add a third layer to that mix.

Completely agree. If you have lots of failures or successes equate to advantages, disadvantages, triumphs, or despairs, then you are not only diluting those other pips on the die but adding complexity to the narrative system that already covers really bad or really good fails/success. To keep the players from frowning at you just point this out in advance when describing the system to them. If you didn't, then point this out the very first time they roll lots of extra successes on a task that won't benefit from such. I would quickly follow up the frown by explaining how lots of extra failures on most tasks won't harm them either so there is a balance.

Unfortunately the system doesn't support this though according to many of the skill descriptions. Primarily they deal with length of time it takes to do a task (more successes meaning it takes a shorter amount of time), and of course there is combat, with more successes = more damage. I am not raining on your parade here because the rules are silent on this issue. I'm just keen to get other people's perspectives - so thanks in advance to those who have responded to this dilemma.

This is true and can also apply to Knowledge, Streetwise and Negotiation checks. More hits on a Knowledge check will, for example, reveal more pieces of history concerning a piece of lore, and more hits on a Negotiation test will net a better cash payment for the PC than fewer hits.

However, not every test is going to have granular degrees of success or failure. Sometimes you just pass, sometimes you fail and nothing happens, even with Tragedy or Triumph in the mix. It has to make sense for the situation and the narrative of the game.

Completely agree. If you have lots of failures or successes equate to advantages, disadvantages, triumphs, or despairs, then you are not only diluting those other pips on the die but adding complexity to the narrative system that already covers really bad or really good fails/success. To keep the players from frowning at you just point this out in advance when describing the system to them. If you didn't, then point this out the very first time they roll lots of extra successes on a task that won't benefit from such. I would quickly follow up the frown by explaining how lots of extra failures on most tasks won't harm them either so there is a balance.

Just pointing out that I meant for the tasks that specifically don't have a way to already resolve extra successes. Some in RAW of course do. I was speaking of those that don't. I don't think we need to start adding explanations for extra successes for all tasks. Most should just remain pass or fail with Advantages and Triumphs adding extra benefits.

RAW: Multiple net failure symbols do not influence the magnitude of the failure.

RAW: Multiple net failure symbols do not influence the magnitude of the failure.

This is correct ^. Magnitude of Failure, if necessary, should be handled with Threats and Despairs, it is after all what they are intended for.

I see the term RAW thrown around a couple of times in this thread.

RAW says nothing about Success and Failure being absolute Pass/Fail. Examples for Success include dealing damage (+1 per success), reducing time to locate information, increasing the length of time a social interaction effects a target, making precise calculations via astrogation, etc. RAW is not clear on the topic of levels of success, and I seem to recall an example of levels of failure being used as well. Unfortunately I cannot recall where.

This was the basis of my question, and as can be seen above, its a mixed result.

The published scenarios The Jewel of Yavin and Beyond the Rim use Success/Advantage charts for Knowledge Checks which illustrate how degrees of Success and Advantage can be interpreted.

As the game is slanted toward player success, Failure without a Threat simply means that the PC failed in his/her attempt at a test, even if the net roll is multiple Failures. Threats are what increase the degree of Failure/repercussions for Failure... as well as introduce complications to otherwise net Success rolls (example: you find the illegal black market item you're looking for but the Threats cause law enforcement to get wind of your search).

I would like to see the example of levels of Failure you found.

As a GM I would have played it as you did except the PC would not have revealed as much information probably.

My interpretation of the rules is that failure is failure. Failing the task is THE negative outcome of the check, while degrees of failure are handled by advantage/threat and triumph/despair.

I've seen areas and charts for multiple successes but I've not seen any thing anywhere for multiple failures. There are even some charts in published adventures for multiple threats and despairs. So I think it is well within your rights as GM to apply negative results for multiple failures but I personally wouldn't make it the norm.

I see the term RAW thrown around a couple of times in this thread.

RAW says nothing about Success and Failure being absolute Pass/Fail. Examples for Success include dealing damage (+1 per success), reducing time to locate information, increasing the length of time a social interaction effects a target, making precise calculations via astrogation, etc. RAW is not clear on the topic of levels of success, and I seem to recall an example of levels of failure being used as well. Unfortunately I cannot recall where.

This was the basis of my question, and as can be seen above, its a mixed result.

I think you've missed some of the basics of the system, which is easy because people rarely look at the basics more than once and instead dive right into the juicy bits. In any case below are the relevant rules (emphasis mine). Basically the RAW clearly states additional Failures do not influence the magnitude of failure and that additional Successes can influence success but don't for everything. It's important to note that unlike some other RAW this is not ambiguous at all. So if you choose to ignore this that is your prerogative but it will change the balance of the whole dice mechanic as it is designed.

Pg 13 EotE CRB:

Pg 12 EotE CRB:

You've discovered the flaw with inverting opposed rolls -- failure is absolute and sometimes wonky. Although I think your table handled the situation perfectly, I probably would have just let the PC's initial roll resolve all the action with the mark, with threat/despair indicating that the mark got some information as well.

Honestly I can't like this enough and I think this is really what should of happened, The slicer initiated a dialogue with this guy and I would of ruled the same way that while getting some information from the guy she had to kinda reveal a few things as well. It makes sense that way because conversation is dynamic THe way that you played it.. just doesn't really make sense to me. She found out he was from the base the shuttle was stolen from but than blurts out that they where the group that stole it because he's really charming? I'm sorry but no.. also 4 reds and a purple? dear LORD.

edit: I will say if it ended up working out than it's fine just I dunno there's a point where you need to ignore dice to me for believe-ability

In hindsight, I would agree the first roll should have been enough, and I think I was a bit overzealous. The second dice roll didn't elicit complaints, and the results of the second roll (as I pointed out), was the interpretation that the players gave me, and so we just ran with it.

Thank you FuriousGreg for pointing those pages out, this does make it crystal clear.

As for an example, I present to you Fear. Its under Threat though, so I don't know if this is an error or not, but its the same in all three rule books.

Threat: The character suffers a number of strain equal to the number of [Failure]. If the check generates [3 x Threat] or more, the character can be staggered for his first turn instead.

The difference with a Fear check and other similar tests, is that there is a damage (strain) modifier involved. It's not related to degrees of failure, which is always a binary yes/no state, but rather, damage taken due to the failure. Damage from a weapon works the same way but there's no "yes, and..." involved with damage that the GM/player need to make up on the spot. Additional successes and advantages, when applied to weapon use, simply unlock a pre-determined set of values already established by the weapon used. There's no GM or player interpretation needed for that.

Yes, you can apply additional advantages to maneuvers and passing blue dice to other players but that's simply splitting a pool and decided how much to assign to a pre-determined result, and how much requires interpretation.

So basically the designers are saying, "We're diagramming a few specific mechanics which require strict adherence to the number of Failures rolled. The rest of the time, don't worry about it because it doesn't apply."