1. As the title says, what do you do if they roll a wash? So 2 success, 2 failures, 1 Advantage, 1 Threat. Net result 0 success/failure, 0 Advantage/threat.

We've been re-rolling most of the time.

2. Does an attack still hit on a wash? My first instinct is to say no, but when attacking all successes (including the first one) add to damage. By that logic, no successes and no failures could hit with no bonus damage. One of my players brought this up.

If the number of Failure icons rolled is equal to the Successes it's not really a wash, it's a failure.

In an attack roll that means the attack misses (though if the weapon used has Blast, that can be triggered by spending 3 Advantages).

Outside of combat it can mean anything the GM wants it to, and may even lead to a problematic success if that is what's necessary to move the story forward.

e.g. "You haven't got the door open but haven't rolled any threat so at least the alarm hasn't gone off."

e.g. "Okay, he isn't intimidated by your attempt at coercion, but he offers to sell you the information as he's not particularly fond of who you're tracking."

I've used versions of your #2 before. For combat, I've often described such scenarios as "your attack wings the target but the damage is merely superficial", or something to that effect. It has the same effect as a miss.

Per the rules, you need at least 1 remaining success symbol to pass a check. If you don't have any, it's a failure. So a complete "wash" where everything cancels out is a failure, with no additional effects.

Which is a boring failure, but a failure nonetheless.

Per the rules, you need at least 1 remaining success symbol to pass a check. If you don't have any, it's a failure. So a complete "wash" where everything cancels out is a failure, with no additional effects.

Which is a boring failure, but a failure nonetheless.

And also very uncommon, unless the player has unusually rotten luck with their dice rolls.

Can lead to some humorous remarks when such a situation shows up on Knowledge checks, as the character has literally "drawn a blank" or "got nothing."

As a side note, speaking as a GM, results like this cause me a perverse kind of pleasure, and are another reason I am enjoying this system. Such results are "non-zero sum" -- meaning there is an indeterminate quality to the result that cannot be accounted for in a minmax equation. It is, in simplest terms, a failure, but in a narrative sense, it's "mostly-a-failure-but-maybe-the-GM-can-describe-it-as-something-else". IRL, "nothing happens" all the time. Explaining why this is the case in a game can be really fun.

Sometimes you just miss and that's as cinematic as it gets....

A wash is a failure, like others have said, but one in which I usually will allow a second attempt. This is not a reroll; the second attempt requires a second action, too. For combat checks, the distinction is meaningless, but it can be useful for something like a knowledge, technical, or social check.

So why roll the dice at all in that case? Why not just let them succeed? That sounds like dice rolling for the sake of dice rolling.

I like Cuddly's rule for stuff that involved PCs "doing stuff". I'd only approve of a second chance at a "knowing stuff" roll if the circumstances had changed somehow. Like, the PC reads their old notes or text books or computer files, or if someone says something in-character that could refresh their memory.

So why roll the dice at all in that case? Why not just let them succeed? That sounds like dice rolling for the sake of dice rolling.

I'd only allow a second attempt in the event of a "wash", where success and failure completely cancel out. A net failure is just a failure and gets no second attempt.

For knowledge rolls, the narrative result would be "it rings a bell" or "give me 5 minutes and it'll come to me".

For technical rolls, you "happen to know another trick that just might work".

For social rolls, the other person "didn't quite hear you right, could you please repeat yourself?"

Again, this is *only* for a wash. Mainly because a wash is boring and leaves little room to describe what happened in an interesting way.

By the rules though no uncancelled successes left equals a failure. A wash is a failure per RAW.

By the rules though no uncancelled successes left equals a failure. A wash is a failure per RAW.

But a complete wash is narratively boring. "You fail, move along, move along." Rather than "you fail but get/lose this". So for fixing something a wash would mean that it doesn't work but you don't break it further.

I like Cuddly's re-roll idea but I would make them describe some other way that they are doing it.

Also keep in mind that this system doesn't ever have you count failures. Fail is fail. There is no fail more or fail less.

By the rules though no uncancelled successes left equals a failure. A wash is a failure per RAW.

But a complete wash is narratively boring. "You fail, move along, move along." Rather than "you fail but get/lose this". So for fixing something a wash would mean that it doesn't work but you don't break it further.

I like Cuddly's re-roll idea but I would make them describe some other way that they are doing it.

See my comment above re. non-zero sum thinking. A "wash" is a cosmic fart, an anomaly, a non-result...but only mechanically. It can leave open a lot of room for entertaining narrative.

Also -- and I believe this fundamentally -- I think it's important to think about "wash" rolls as "the house wins on a draw". That makes the game harder. That's important -- you want people to feel their victories are hard-earned. "Draws side with players" would mean everybody would shoot for a draw.

By the rules though no uncancelled successes left equals a failure. A wash is a failure per RAW.

But a complete wash is narratively boring. "You fail, move along, move along." Rather than "you fail but get/lose this". So for fixing something a wash would mean that it doesn't work but you don't break it further.

I like Cuddly's re-roll idea but I would make them describe some other way that they are doing it.

I don't see how one dice pool result is a null quantity and another is magically bestowed with a Academy Award level script. The story that gets told, or not, with a dice pool result is the responsibility of the storyteller, not the dice.

By the rules though no uncancelled successes left equals a failure. A wash is a failure per RAW.

Yes, and I acknowledged that in my initial post. This is a house rule. House rules are inherently not RAW.

I've played this game long enough now to recognize that a wash, especially a complete wash without even threat or advantage, is a narrative let-down to everyone at the table, GM and players alike. I can feel the excitement that accompanies any roll, however faint, merely dissipate in a puff of indifference and/or frustration. The narrative stalls in the face of a wash, which just isn't fun, at least for my table, so thus the house rule.

Your mileage may differ, but to each their own.

I am baffled by people that play RPG's that claim a standard failure is boring. This is literally the result of 60 to 70% of rolls in other systems and the one time it ever comes up in this game it is somehow an issue now?

By the rules though no uncancelled successes left equals a failure. A wash is a failure per RAW.

Yes, and I acknowledged that in my initial post. This is a house rule. House rules are inherently not RAW.

I've played this game long enough now to recognize that a wash, especially a complete wash without even threat or advantage, is a narrative let-down to everyone at the table, GM and players alike. I can feel the excitement that accompanies any roll, however faint, merely dissipate in a puff of indifference and/or frustration. The narrative stalls in the face of a wash, which just isn't fun, at least for my table, so thus the house rule.

Your mileage may differ, but to each their own.

So would you do the same for 1 succes and 2 failure with no advantage or threat? The result is in fact exactly the same, but in that scenario I bet you don't feel the need to make something happen, am I right?

By the rules though no uncancelled successes left equals a failure. A wash is a failure per RAW.

Yes, and I acknowledged that in my initial post. This is a house rule. House rules are inherently not RAW.

I've played this game long enough now to recognize that a wash, especially a complete wash without even threat or advantage, is a narrative let-down to everyone at the table, GM and players alike. I can feel the excitement that accompanies any roll, however faint, merely dissipate in a puff of indifference and/or frustration. The narrative stalls in the face of a wash, which just isn't fun, at least for my table, so thus the house rule.

Your mileage may differ, but to each their own.

So would you do the same for 1 succes and 2 failure with no advantage or threat? The result is in fact exactly the same, but in that scenario I bet you don't feel the need to make something happen, am I right?

1 success and 2 failures at least gives you a visible failure and leaves everyone feeling comfortable knowing that it's a failure. Even 1 result of any kind feels like a solid result. A wash counts as a failure but just feels inconclusive. I understand that it works for you, but it's left my players and I feeling let down.

If it is a wash...

...I stab them with a harpoon.

If it is a wash...

...I stab them with a harpoon.

We lose so many players that way that we had to stop. They left the venue like leaves on the wind.

1. As the title says, what do you do if they roll a wash? So 2 success, 2 failures, 1 Advantage, 1 Threat. Net result 0 success/failure, 0 Advantage/threat.

We've been re-rolling most of the time.

2. Does an attack still hit on a wash? My first instinct is to say no, but when attacking all successes (including the first one) add to damage. By that logic, no successes and no failures could hit with no bonus damage. One of my players brought this up.

point 1 is a simple failure, as others have said.

No, it doesn't hit. No, it provides no tactical advantage nor disadvantage. Simply put, it didn't hurt anything, except the chances of surviving.

If you're seeing it a lot, it probably indicates poorly built characters with low stats... Because a typical result pool is 2 purple, and a yellow and a green is actually more likely to succeed than wash.

There is no mechanical way to hit for base weapon damage.

By the rules though no uncancelled successes left equals a failure. A wash is a failure per RAW.

Yes, and I acknowledged that in my initial post. This is a house rule. House rules are inherently not RAW.

I've played this game long enough now to recognize that a wash, especially a complete wash without even threat or advantage, is a narrative let-down to everyone at the table, GM and players alike. I can feel the excitement that accompanies any roll, however faint, merely dissipate in a puff of indifference and/or frustration. The narrative stalls in the face of a wash, which just isn't fun, at least for my table, so thus the house rule.

Your mileage may differ, but to each their own.

So would you do the same for 1 succes and 2 failure with no advantage or threat? The result is in fact exactly the same, but in that scenario I bet you don't feel the need to make something happen, am I right?

No, I wouldn't do that, and I've clearly stated so several times now.

I'm all for house rules, but are you concerned with bending the success rate up and any impact on challenge level?

The dice are set up the way they are for a wash to be a failure. Given the dice are weighted to success if you move the border, as it were, for what equals failure and have a re-roll, you've bent that curve more towards success on a given check.