[Runequest] RQ 6 Failed Athletics

Styopa styopa1 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 11 02:06:00 EST 2014


>
> In this case, a fumble is inconsequentially worse than a failure.


Sorry, but you've completely lost me here. In what context is a fumble
'inconsequentially worse than a failure'? Climbing? Jumping? Parrying? I'm
honestly not clear on your meaning.

[Steve]: referencing the originally-presented case of jumping over a chasm.
 Failure = likely death.  Fumble can't really get much worse, can it?

Likewise there are rolls where a critical success is nonsensical or
> meaningless.


Again, can you provide some examples?

[Steve]: Examples where (except for extraordinary circumstances) a critical
success brings the character no substantially better benefit than a simple
success: Read language.  Rolls for holding one's breath. Casting a 1-point
magic spell.  Throwing (ie a grappling hook).  I'd expect there are others.



On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Lawrence Whitaker <
lawrence.whitaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> And that's where the "failed climb roll means you didn't even start" sort
>> of disappoints at a gut level.
>
>
> As Lev quoted in the OP, the entry for Climb under Athletics says that a
> failure means that the climb attempt is *aborted *- but this isn't the
> same as 'didn't even start'. It will depend on the context. If you're just
> beginning an ascent and fail the  roll, then you won't have gained enough
> purchase to get your feet off the ground - so, in that context, the climb
> wouldn't have started. However, if the ascent means multiple rolls, then a
> failed roll means you will stay put for whatever length of time is being
> measured between climb attempts. The attempt has, indeed, been aborted and
> no progress made.
>
> In this case, a fumble is inconsequentially worse than a failure.
>
>
> Sorry, but you've completely lost me here. In what context is a fumble
> 'inconsequentially worse than a failure'? Climbing? Jumping? Parrying? I'm
> honestly not clear on your meaning.
>
> Likewise there are rolls where a critical success is nonsensical or
>> meaningless.
>
>
> Again, can you provide some examples? The skills chapter provides a lot of
> guidance on what happens with both criticals and fumbles and does, at the
> very start, explicitly state that a critical is a spectacular success and a
> fumble a miserable failure (whilst also noting that GMs should decide the
> specifics). In combat, levels of success are measured against each other to
> determine the number and types of Special Effect available. In more mundane
> tasks we've tried to provide examples of the consequences for each skill
> described so that GMs have a clearer idea of the benefits or consequences
> of a crit or fumble - but I'm really confused by this 'nonsensical or
> meaningless' statement.
>
> On 10 September 2014 07:46, Styopa <styopa1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "...a Failure represents your inability to complete a task - no harm
>> done, whereas a Fumble results in something disastrous and harmful...."
>> And I think that's the inconsistency of what Lev's pointing out, the
>> explicit RAW linkage between success/failure and the consequence.  The
>> consequences of failure are ALWAYS context-dependent, full stop.
>> By that same logic, a simple "failed" parry should just mean you fail to
>> parry, not that you get harmed - which is patently absurd.
>> And that's where the "failed climb roll means you didn't even start" sort
>> of disappoints at a gut level.
>>
>> No, I see where Lev's at on this one: the skill roll merely says that you
>> succeed or don't.  "Crits"/"Fumbles" simply give you an additional layer of
>> granularity that can imply (but do not exclusively mean) exceptional
>> success or failure.  For some tasks, simple failure IS going to be
>> catastrophic...that's what makes them scary, and rarely-to-be-attempted.
>>  In this case, a fumble is inconsequentially worse than a failure.
>>  Likewise there are rolls where a critical success is nonsensical or
>> meaningless.
>>
>> Of course, this is a detail of semantics, and "YGMV" and anyone can
>> ignore/use/infer whatever they want.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Pete Nash <the.iqari at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree with the claim that the meaning of failure cannot be context
>>>> independent. I think that consistency of what a failed roll means can
>>>> and
>>>> should be sought. Especially in the same skill!
>>>>
>>>
>>> All I can say is that the intent of the rules is this: a Failure
>>> represents your inability to complete a task - no harm done, whereas a
>>> Fumble results in something disastrous and harmful.
>>>
>>> In the case of leaping a chasm using the proposed alternate
>>> roll-again-for-distance rule, a simple Failure _could_ result in the
>>> character plunging to their death... and its difficult to envisage what
>>> additional disaster occurs with a Fumble, save for automatically falling or
>>> pulling another PC over the edge with them.
>>>
>>> Now I'm not against the alternate rule, its actually quite elegant, but
>>> it's against the spirit of RQ6 in general to unduly penalize players for
>>> attempting an action. As always YRQMV and if rolling again for distance
>>> works for you, then go for it!
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Runequest mailing list
>>> Runequest at rpgreview.net
>>> http://mail.rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Steve
>> (my personal email)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Runequest mailing list
>> Runequest at rpgreview.net
>> http://mail.rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Will there be time enough and World for me to sing that song?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://mail.rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>
>


-- 
-Steve
(my personal email)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20140910/362680af/attachment.html>


More information about the Runequest mailing list