Automatic Failure

[Frewfrux]

I searched through the forums for the answer to this question, but I couldn't find it. I'm sure I can't be the first person to notice this, so please forgive my lack of search-skills if this has been asked already.

The rule for automatic failure is as follows:

Automatic Failure. Without regard to skill levels, any of the Checks fails on the highest possible roll. 1D fails on 6; 2D fails on 12; 3D fails on 18.

That means you have the following chances of automatically failing tasks:

Easy task: 16.667% chance of automatic failure
Standard task: 0.028% chance of automatic failure
Hard task: 0.005% chance of automatic failure

So, it's very common to automatically fail an easy task, and very rare to automatically fail a hard task.

Is that right? It doesn't seem right. What am I missing?

 

[Condottiere]

Effect probably.

Routine tasks shouldn't require a roll, unless some other elements has entered the equation.

If you fail to tie your shoelaces, the consequences aren't usually fatal.

If you accidentally hit the wrong switch during a nuclear plant meltdown, well ...

 

[Supplement Four]

Doesn't the rule say that Spectacular Failure happens on Difficult tasks and harder ones?

It is logical that Easy and Average tasks are so easy that Spectacular Failure isn't even an option.

With the T5 rule, as written, SF occurs when three sixes are thrown on a task. It's logical that Spectacular Failure results becomes more and more likely as the task gets harder (it's much easier to throw three sixes on 8D Beyond Impossible tasks than it is on a 3D Difficult task).



There is still a problem, though. And, Marc is aware of this one. I showed it to Don, before he passed, back when we were working on the T5 revision, and he showed it to Marc. The word was that Marc was not concerned with this problem--didn't think it a real issue.

I disagree.

Problem: Page 136 of T5 describes Spectacular Success as occuring when three ones are thrown on Difficult or harder tasks (3D or more dice for difficulty).

The first issue is that Spectacular Success is not possible on the easiest of tasks (Easy and Average tasks). Why? If the task is easy, isn't it logical that it should be easier to throw Spectacular Success on that level of task?

The next issue with the rule as written is that Spectacular Success becomes easier the harder the task becomes. It's much easier to throw three ones on a Beyond Impossible 8D difficulty task than it is to throw three ones on a 3D Difficult task. Isn't this completely backwards? Shouldn't it be harder to throw SS as the task itself gets harder?

 

[Frewfrux]

Effect probably.

Routine tasks shouldn't require a roll, unless some other elements has entered the equation.

If you fail to tie your shoelaces, the consequences aren't usually fatal.

If you accidentally hit the wrong switch during a nuclear plant meltdown, well ...

But you shouldn't be failing easy tasks 17% of the time.

 

[Frewfrux]

Doesn't the rule say that Spectacular Failure happens on Difficult tasks and harder ones?

I'm not talking about spectacular failure, but rather automatic failure. I copied/pasted right from the rules on page 115. There's no errata that I can see on it either.

It is logical that Easy and Average tasks are so easy that Spectacular Failure isn't even an option.

With the T5 rule, as written, SF occurs when three sixes are thrown on a task. It's logical that Spectacular Failure results becomes more and more likely as the task gets harder (it's much easier to throw three sixes on 8D Beyond Impossible tasks than it is on a 3D Difficult task).



There is still a problem, though. And, Marc is aware of this one. I showed it to Don, before he passed, back when we were working on the T5 revision, and he showed it to Marc. The word was that Marc was not concerned with this problem--didn't think it a real issue.

I disagree.

Problem: Page 136 of T5 describes Spectacular Success as occuring when three ones are thrown on Difficult or harder tasks (3D or more dice for difficulty).

The first issue is that Spectacular Success is not possible on the easiest of tasks (Easy and Average tasks). Why? If the task is easy, isn't it logical that it should be easier to throw Spectacular Success on that level of task?

The next issue with the rule as written is that Spectacular Success becomes easier the harder the task becomes. It's much easier to throw three ones on a Beyond Impossible 8D difficulty task than it is to throw three ones on a 3D Difficult task. Isn't this completely backwards? Shouldn't it be harder to throw SS as the task itself gets harder?

I fully agree. I haven't refreshed regarding spectacular success/failure yet, but I agree with your logic. I need to think about this a bit more.

 

[Condottiere]

Depends on how you define failure.

Going back to the shoelaces debacle, my brother wanted Timberlands, and I was already way past onboard luggage restrictions with a laptop, three dozen hard drives and two dissembled Ryzen twenty seven hundreds and their accompanying motherboards. Not surprisingly, I had to go through security twice each time. Coming back with only one Ryzen, two three point fives, and a newly mined ten eighty, I still had to do that.

I managed to slip in a pair in the rucksack, and wore the other, and discovered that for some reason, my previous cache of footwear had disappeared, so I ended up with a pair of his Camels, which had the annoying habit of becoming untied at some point within the next hour.

 

[Frewfrux]

Depends on how you define failure.

Going back to the shoelaces debacle, my brother wanted Timberlands, and I was already way past onboard luggage restrictions with a laptop, three dozen hard drives and two dissembled Ryzen twenty seven hundreds and their accompanying motherboards. Not surprisingly, I had to go through security twice each time. Coming back with only one Ryzen, two three point fives, and a newly mined ten eighty, I still had to do that.

I managed to slip in a pair in the rucksack, and wore the other, and discovered that for some reason, my previous cache of footwear had disappeared, so I ended up with a pair of his Camels, which had the annoying habit of becoming untied at some point within the next hour.

I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at...does that happen to you around 17% of the time?

 

[Condottiere]

Roll every ten minutes for each shoelace.

I wore them for the return journey, and decided to wear them out over the winter; the odds haven't improved.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Automatic Failure only applies to "Check Skill" (roll under skill only), not general tasks (roll under C+S)?

If you bother to roll an Easy check, you should have some chance of failure even if you have a high skill, Automatic Failure provides that chance.

The total chance of failure is bigger when rolling 2D than when rolling 1D unless you have an absurdly high skill, so no problem.


So, the mechanism is quirky, but not a problem in game?

 

[Frewfrux]

processing....

 

[robject]

It's quirky. However, it rarely affects a game.

 

[Frewfrux]

Sorry, I realized I hadn't read your response correctly, so I tried to delete my post, but the forum wouldn't let me. (Hence, the "processing..." comment.)

Automatic Failure only applies to "Check Skill" (roll under skill only), not general tasks (roll under C+S)?

I actually did not realize it was only on Check Skill rolls. That's the disadvantage to PDF's verses physical books...I end up zoomed in too much and don't think to scroll up to see what comes before. Sigh.

The total chance of failure is bigger when rolling 2D than when rolling 1D unless you have an absurdly high skill, so no problem.

Depends. The total chance of automatic failure is LESS when rolling 2D. 16.67% on 1D, and 2.78% on 2D. It might be more or less in "reality," however, depending on the situation.

For example, if a character is trying to explain a pun to someone with a different native language, I could see that being an Easy Language Skill-only check (assuming the GM doesn't think puns have anything to do with intelligence - a point I have heard before and strongly disagree with...but whatever). That means, despite having level 7 in their native language, the PC will still fail 16.67% of the time.

If, however, they decided to try to explain the pun without using the word "punny" the GM may say it's no longer an Easy task, it now has a normal difficulty rating. So, the PC being ever so cleaver, calls in a friend to help. It's now a cooperative, skill-only check that will automatically fail if either of them rolls a 6. In fact, the more people who join in the effort, the more likely it is to fail. (Unless cooperative, skill-only tasks work differently?)

Another example would be if a character gets disoriented in his home city, it's probably an Easy knowledge (homeworld) check to get re-oriented and not get lost. The highest this skill can be at is 6, but as it's an Easy task the PC will still fail to re-orient 16.67% of the time in the city in which they grew up.

Sure, the chance of failure is greater if, under the same circumstances, the difficulty was increased one level. Then the PC would need 6 or less on 2D6 which is ~58%. However, the rules also give common mods and say "almost certain" should be +5. That means that an almost certain, standard difficulty, skill-only (at 6) check would only fail about 2.78% of the time, but the same, almost certain task would fail 16.67% if it was made easier. Of course, in such a case, why are you rolling for it in the first place? Still.

So, the mechanism is quirky, but not a problem in game?

I can't say for sure as I do not yet understand the rules well enough to be able to play the game. For sure, I did not realize this only applied to skill-only checks. That should mean it's less of an issue only because it doesn't come up as often. But saying that something that's broken should not be fixed because it won't be encountered that frequently doesn't sit well with me. It's like the difference between a professional piece of software and one that someone's cousin wrote for them from their own basement. They may both be fine pieces of software, but if I'm starting to see errors come up in uncommon situations with the professional code I'm not going to buy the expansion.

So, I've come up with a "house rule" that I am going to use in these cases. (I think there's a thread for house rules, though, so I'll post it there.) It could also apply to the spectacular results as well.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If, however, they decided to try to explain the pun without using the word "punny" the GM may say it's no longer an Easy task, it now has a normal difficulty rating. So, the PC being ever so cleaver, calls in a friend to help. It's now a cooperative, skill-only check that will automatically fail if either of them rolls a 6. In fact, the more people who join in the effort, the more likely it is to fail. (Unless cooperative, skill-only tasks work differently?)

A) It's a skill check, not a task.
B) Cooperative tasks should be noted in the task description.
C) Tasks do not use Automatic Failure (but Spectacular Failure instead).
D) Why would each participant roll one die? A cooperative task is still only one roll.

Another example would be if a character gets disoriented in his home city, it's probably an Easy knowledge (homeworld) check to get re-oriented and not get lost. The highest this skill can be at is 6, but as it's an Easy task the PC will still fail to re-orient 16.67% of the time in the city in which they grew up.

Sure, the chance of failure is greater if, under the same circumstances, the difficulty was increased one level. Then the PC would need 6 or less on 2D6 which is ~58%.

42%. Seven or less is 58%.

However, the rules also give common mods and say "almost certain" should be +5. That means that an almost certain, standard difficulty, skill-only (at 6) check would only fail about 2.78% of the time, but the same, almost certain task would fail 16.67% if it was made easier. Of course, in such a case, why are you rolling for it in the first place? Still.

Contrived example. Why bother rolling if is almost certain? This is what I dismissed as absurdly high skill. But, corner cases should be tested.

If the skill target number is over 9, you have a greater chance of failing an Easy check than a normal check. At a guess this will not happen all that often in a normal game.


This is a natural consequence of the "vary the number of dice with difficulty" system. To get a better system you would have to do something complicated, or roll even more dice. The T5 system is quite complicated enough as is...

 

[Frewfrux]

A) It's a skill check, not a task.

Yes, that's how I was using it.

B) Cooperative tasks should be noted in the task description.

Re-reading it, I see that in the cooperative cases you add your skills together. So a skill-only cooperative check, in the punny example, would have a target of 14 (skill-only level of 7 * 2 people). That's actually even a better example of what I'm talking about.

C) Tasks do not use Automatic Failure (but Spectacular Failure instead).

Yes, I know. (This was already gone over.)

D) Why would each participant roll one die? A cooperative check is still only one roll.

I was just misreading the description of cooperative checks. Sorry for the confusion.

42%. Seven or less is 58%.

Quite right. Just glanced at the wrong column.

Contrived example.

Come on man, I'm doing my best hear. Just working off the top of my head, and my brain these days can get quite fuzzy. Pick whatever cooperative, skill-only check works best for you.

Why bother rolling if is almost certain? This is what I dismissed as absurdly high skill.

I don't disagree. In fact, I pretty much said as much myself. That said, I'm guessing there's a reason that the mod for "almost certain" (as well as "certain") attempts is detailed out in the rules.

But, corner cases should be tested.

If the skill target number is over 9, you have a greater chance of failing an Easy check than a normal check. At a guess this will not happen all that often in a normal game.

This is a natural consequence of the "vary the number of dice with difficulty" system. To get a better system you would have to do something complicated, or roll even more dice. The T5 system is quite complicated enough as is...

Actually, you just have to roll a colored die at the same time as the 1D. If the 1D result is 6, and the colored die is also 6, then do an automatic fail. That way, easy and normal skill-only checks always fail 2.78% of the time. Pretty easy "fix."

In fact, you don't even have to add an extra die. All you have to do is say it fails on 2 6's, so if you roll one 6 then roll again to see if it auto-fails. Or whatever. You don't really need anything complicated.

Fixing the spectacular results, however, so that spec successes become harder rather than easier might not be as simple. Hmmmm.

 

[Frewfrux]

Sorry, I was again flipping between "check" and "tasks" in my previous response. I've corrected that now.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

A skill check is not a task, so can't use task mechanisms such as Cooperative.

There are "Skill Only Tasks" that can be Cooperative, but that is up to the Referee, not the player.

Actually, you just have to roll a colored die at the same time as the 1D. If the 1D result is 6, and the colored die is also 6, then do an automatic fail. That way, easy and normal skill-only checks always fail 2.78% of the time. Pretty easy "fix."

In fact, you don't even have to add an extra die. All you have to do is say it fails on 2 6's, so if you roll one 6 then roll again to see if it auto-fails. Or whatever. You don't really need anything complicated.

That does not handle the 3D Hard check...

Adding even more dice, or rolling another roll, is definitely what I would consider too complicated. Especially additional rolls slow the game and focus the game on the mechanism, not the action.

 

[Frewfrux]

A skill check is not a task, so can't use task mechanisms such as Cooperative.

I did not realize the section with "Check Skill" was different than the Tasks section with "Tasks without characteristics." Again, one of the problems I have with PDFs is that it all blurs together. (My hard copy has post-its in it denoting chapters.)

That brings up an interesting question though...if there's already "tasks without characteristics" (in the Tasks section) why bother separating out "Check skills" in such a different manner as everything else? Is there a reason this is there that I'm missing?

Reading it again I now see that the description for "Check Skill" says that checking "double skill" is likely more appropriate because the skill is so low. That means it wouldn't be uncommon to have values in the range of 10 or higher that you're checking against.

That does not handle the 3D Hard check...

Doesn't need to. The "broken" bit is the 16.67% failure rate for easy checks.

Adding even more dice, or rolling another roll, is definitely what I would consider too complicated. Especially additional rolls slow the game and focus the game on the mechanism, not the action.

Like I said, you can do it with, or without the extra die (just re-rolling a 6 if needed - for a little extra suspense).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The "broken" bit is the 16.67% failure rate for easy checks.

Isn't it just as much a problem that we have a greater chance of Automatic Failure on a Normal check than a Hard check?

Like I said, you can do it with, or without the extra die (just re-rolling a 6 if needed - for a little extra suspense).

You can of course do as you wish, but I would find extra rolls an undesirable slow down of the game.