Forewarning: I'm literally making this up as I write it, and I'm doing it on my lunch break which finished 10 minutes ago, so if it doesn't make sense, my apologies. Also it's possible that I've come up with an idea that everyone else has been using for years, and if that's the case then...well, ****. Anyway...

I've been catching up on my GM reading, and came across this article (which is D&D oriented, but don't worry about that for the moment). Anyway, it contained the following point:

The simple act of attacking an enemy actually hides a rather complex type of action that we don’t think twice about. When you get down to it, the action of “attacking an enemy” really represents a player saying “I want to kill the enemy by stabbing it with this sword.” But, a success on an attack action doesn’t (usually) kill the enemy outright. Instead, a successful attack MAKES PROGRESS toward the goal. And that is totally okay.

The writer (the Angry GM, AKA "Angry", for the uninitiated) goes on to suggest his own system of applying this approach to non-combat skills in D&D, but it got me thinking. My default position when playing FFG's SWRPG (and, really, this is the default position of RAW for non-combat checks) is that on any given roll Success=Success and Failure=Failure, and this has sometimes caused me some difficulties in the past (particularly in adjudicating things like failed Astrogation checks). But you could easily apply a system whereby each task required a certain number of uncancelled success to achieve - just as killing an NPC does. Particularly in scenarios with a time pressure, this seems like it could really create some exciting, down-to-the-wire scenarios. And the beauty of the EotE system, with its advantage and threat and triumph, is that those repeated rolls could each be very different, rather than just the same thing over and over again.

Also, from a GM's point of view, it might make results a little more predictable. For example, in a slicing encounter, you can set the security system difficulty at Daunting, but the PCs might still nail that in a single try, which might feel a bit anti-climactic. But if the system also needs 5 uncancelled successes - i.e. it has 5 metaphorical "wounds" (we'll leave metaphorical "soak" out of things for the moment) - then only a truly spectacular roll is going to complete it straight away. Thus your PCs will still be rewarded for doing really well, but the activity is far more likely to tie them down for some time, giving the GM more potential to...you know, release the TIE fighters and whatnot.

Come to think of it, I think the Order 66 guys used a similar approach in one of their live play episodes - although I think it was for a "montage scene". And I think they had a failure point where a certain number of failed checks had some sort of effect...I'll have to dig that out.

Anyway, I guess my question is this: does anyone use this technique in their games? And, whether you do or not, what are the potential pitfalls of introducing it for some checks?

Thanks in advance.

I do for slicing. Networks have a wound threshold, and a firewall (soak) rating. I reserve it for the more challenging instances. I also set up group checks where a number of PCs working together have an aggregate score they need to achieve and different skills are needed, one slicing, one using skulduggery, and one using mechanic to get through a vault door for example. No one PC is under pressure and as long as they get over the threshold with total results it's good.

I do for slicing. Networks have a wound threshold, and a firewall (soak) rating. I reserve it for the more challenging instances. I also set up group checks where a number of PCs working together have an aggregate score they need to achieve and different skills are needed, one slicing, one using skulduggery, and one using mechanic to get through a vault door for example. No one PC is under pressure and as long as they get over the threshold with total results it's good.

Consider this stolen.

I like this idea and will steal it for my game as well. I already had a beginner's version that I use as group checks, like stealth. I figured that the entire group needed to succeed, and that if they narratively use the best sneak to scout ahead, a weaker stealth can be assisted. So I make everyone make a stealth check against the same difficulty, but total everyone's successes, failures, advantages, and threats. They need to succeed at 1 success per person, otherwise someone is spotted.

I use it as well. Space combat comes to mind. I try to keep space events short, and usually there is terrain that the PCs must cross in order to be able to leave. This can be done in a couple of ways, either decide how many total successes are required to get from A -> B (which means it's possible to get there in one turn with a fantastic roll); or decide how many successful checks it takes, only allowing one check per turn.

I've also done it for social checks over the course of, say, a fancy dinner event where various NPCs must be schmoozed in order to get enough information to plan the next step in a caper.

The pitfalls can be "too much rolling", or a "success bottleneck". This is especially a problem when progress depends on success but the difficulty has been set too high. If a slicer can't make progress hacking the system and the rest of the team depends on it, then the whole thing grinds to a halt.

I've called it "Complex Checks". See the last entry on this PDF for details:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzdHVybnNzdHVmZnxneDo0M2Q1ZTVlNWQ4ZDljYmUy

I've been a fan of using these sorts of checks for increased action - why does it take 10 minutes and 5 rolls to defeat the stormtroopers guarding the bases's computer core, but only a single roll to slice it? Not on my watch!

[edit:] I usually predefine a number of successes to accomplish hefty tasks, but the adaptation of WT and ST are intriguing and will definitely be considered where appropriate!

I should add that I require things be done simultaneously as well. It gives it that Mission Impossible feel and requires a well rounded party, so they can't just have the 'high intellect' PC do multiple skill checks.

I like this idea and will steal it for my game as well. I already had a beginner's version that I use as group checks, like stealth. I figured that the entire group needed to succeed, and that if they narratively use the best sneak to scout ahead, a weaker stealth can be assisted. So I make everyone make a stealth check against the same difficulty, but total everyone's successes, failures, advantages, and threats. They need to succeed at 1 success per person, otherwise someone is spotted.

The Stealth skill is written that way.

This is a great method for social tolls as well, particularly if your players enjoy actually role playing conversations. You talk in character, until the player says something that feels like they are trying to invoke a response that involves a real decision on the NPcs part. Then you roll - and it makes it easier to guess the difficulty - if the player did a good job thinking intelligently building or rapport or providing a real heartfelt speech for the character give, then they are obviously in a better position to change the npcs mind. I like to roll these behind the screen sometimes so the player doesn't know what's happening in the NPcs head. Thenthe just plays the NPC actions given a shift of the sort that the dice suggest.

On astrogation rolls I agree wholeheartedly - jumping into hyperspace isn't like dusting crops...

OK, cool, seems like this is a thing that works then. Good to know.

I do for slicing. Networks have a wound threshold, and a firewall (soak) rating. I reserve it for the more challenging instances. I also set up group checks where a number of PCs working together have an aggregate score they need to achieve and different skills are needed, one slicing, one using skulduggery, and one using mechanic to get through a vault door for example. No one PC is under pressure and as long as they get over the threshold with total results it's good.

Love it. Particularly love the firewall=soak part of this!

The pitfalls can be "too much rolling", or a "success bottleneck". This is especially a problem when progress depends on success but the difficulty has been set too high. If a slicer can't make progress hacking the system and the rest of the team depends on it, then the whole thing grinds to a halt.

I can definitely see how too much rolling might be a thing. How many successes do you reckon is a good number to make this work?

The bottleneck thing is always an issue - I'm not sure how that's more relevant in this circumstance. If anything surely it becomes *slightly* less relevant because if the player fails a bottleneck check with Advantage/Triumph, then instead of being stuck he gets to re-roll with bonuses.

Also, do people have a "failure count" when they run these sorts of checks? I.e. is there a threshold of uncancelled failures - or failed checks - after which the task is no longer possible? Or do you simply rely on the pressures of the situation to enforce this (e.g. the longer it takes you to slice that computer, the more likely someone will shoot you)?

I'm just going to throw this into the mix...

When I call for my players to make Fear checks, I'm not concerned with Success/Failure. My players are aware of this. My point being the PCs will have agency in fearful/terrifying situations, regardless of Success/Failure, that their reactions are more narrative than mechanical. To me, it's not about "Are you or are you not afraid?", instead it's about to what extent a PC's survival instinct kicks in, the fight or flight moment.

So, Success/Failure plays no part. Instead, I impose a bit of Strain, or temporarily reduce their Strain Threshold during a fearful encounter, or increase it a bit in the case of Triumph, or allow them a few moments table talk to maximize their immediate reaction/response for the first Round. Other examples are Boost/Setback adds to their next check.

In all situations the narrative, common sense, and collaborative adjudication informs Fear check results.