Critical failures

[Pender Lumkiss]

Hey folks,

Just wanted to get your thoughts on critical failures... Currently when they happen I give a player 2 options:
1) if uses a device vechicle, cybernetics tw item, roll on technical difficulties. If not uses a technical element suffer -2 to current action or possibly next action depending on the circumstance.
2). Epic failure: naritively describe just how much damnable trouble your character is in and I'll give you a benny for putting yourself at my mercy.

-- I do not want to discount the technical difficulties so I was thinking if you took option 2 the device that would have normally taken a roll on the tech difficulty table, functions for the rest of the scene but maybe you notice your skill chip overheating slightly, or the steering column is just a bit sluggish. At the end of the scene you would roll on the technical difficulty table and depending on the roll narrate how it "breaks". It won't really break it just would give you a penalty on the appropriate skill until fixed.

I know it is a bit of a departure from rules as written, but I like the idea of an epic failure. Thoughts?

Alternately I could do both, a roll on the tech difficulties table if appropriate(or a penalty to current action or next if no device is used based on circumstance), the if that is not enough trouble for your character you can describe an epic failure as well that puts you at the mercy of the enemies, take a benny for going epic in failure.

[Markus Berger]

I hope Markus was good enough for a Bennie.
How many of them do you need to revive from dead?

[Pender Lumkiss]

For sure you got a benny

[Kesslan]

I'm not sure it's really necessary to have extra rules covering potentials for failures as the Savage system seems to handle that just fine. Not to mention it happens more often than you'd think. It also has the potential of lessening the value of flaws such as:

All Thumbs (Minor)Some people just aren’t good with modern devices. Characters with this drawback suffer a –2 penalty to the Repair skill at all times. In addition, when a hero uses a mechanical or electronic device, a roll of 1 on his skill die (regardless of his Wild Die) means the device is broken. The damage usually requires a Repair roll at –2 and 1d6 hours to fix

[Pender Lumkiss]

Kessler could you clarify what extra rules you are talking about? Primarily I am talking about critical failures and technical difficulties. But mostly I am trying to see if you guys like the opportunity to narate your critical failure, and let you know my thinking on if the naratition is that of an Epic failure I like to reward a benny for good role playing. I can see that it totally looks like I am trying to codify a new rule set, sorry about that.

[Libertas Magicum]

I like the sound of this--narrating an Epic Failure as an option seems great to me.

That said, Technical Difficulties are sufficiently part of the system (and, to be perfectly blunt, one of the few things from keeping Techno-Wizards from being totally broken; Libertas' base roll with any of his powers is d12+4, so once he finally actually gets a gizmo into play, things are gonna be opening up pretty dramatically--forcing him to suffer a TD on his precious gizmos is a key part of him not dominating things too much).

That said, I would be totally down with "Epic Fail option + Tech Diff". Since the Epic Fails are always optional unless something else (like All Thumbs) is in play, it's not something we're forced to do, but it's a good way to get a benny if you're down. Or, you know, have Bad Luck. *Eyes signature*

[Pender Lumkiss]

Ok cool. the more I think about it, the more so think you are right Libertas.

[Maximilian]

Narrating our own epic failures is a good idea. I agree that new rules would be sticky, but hearing the clarification that it's just narration, I'm on board.

[Jude Maverick]

Sounds fine to me. I don't think I've rolled a critical fail yet, though.

[Kesslan]

Kessler could you clarify what extra rules you are talking about?

It's Kesslan btw, just notice you keep writing Kessler.

As to the question, I think, looking things over again, I might have misunderstood what you meant by 'Epic Failure' and took it to mean something akin to the 'critical failure' EU uses on the main site that isn't at all part of Rifts rules. Just something that a lot of players/GMs seem to use in my experience to counter the existence of critical successes. So in this case it seemed to me you were adding an extra layer of rulings to a critical fail roll beyond the already existing system in Savage.

Where as Savage and most other games that have such things account for both success and failure. But that's because they were designed properly

[Lucretia]

But that's because they were designed properly :P

The little game designer that lives in my brain begs to differ.

I can't remember jack about the Palladium rules (never actually used them), but generally critical successes are bad for players - unless enemies can never crit on PCs.
Most of the time a crit against an enemy just hastens a win that was probably inevitable anyway (because most GMs design fights so the PCs will win), but a crit on a player can turn an "easy" fight into a deadly one.

I don't mind having critical successes and failures, they make games less predictable and predictable is boring... but saying critical failures are necessary to balance critical successes is just not true.

[Maximilian]

I'm assuming epic/critical failures to mean double 1s on the skill and wild dice, right? Can't spend bennies to reroll, tech devices roll a tech difficulties roll, etc.?

[Lucretia]

Well, sorry Markus. I was trying to protect you, but now....

Crit fail on the resistance... I think Lucretia might be falling (again).

[Libertas Magicum]

I'm assuming epic/critical failures to mean double 1s on the skill and wild dice, right? Can't spend bennies to reroll, tech devices roll a tech difficulties roll, etc.?

Yes. A critical failure is a 1 on both dice (note: This means that Extras cannot Critically Fail--that's just a little slice of heaven for us important characters).

Due to setting rules, you cannot spend a Bennie to re-roll or use Extra Effort on a Critical Failure, and if a piece of gear was involved in any way, shape or form, it will experience Technical Difficulties. (For instance, if you're cybered up, or using a robot armor's sensors, and crit-fail a Notice check, your sensors or the cybernetic eye you're using can be hosed.)

The Epic Fail "rule" our GM is putting in says that, in addition to the above, you can choose to use the opportunity to describe something truly awful happening as a result of the failure--falling off a bridge, for instance. If you do that, you get a Benny for adding to the scene and creating more complications.

[Lucretia]

Hm. For some reason I thought Extra Effort had to be announced before/rolled with the trait roll, and figured that it would just be wasted in the case of a critical failure. I'd be more than happy to get that Bennie back if I did it wrong.

I am not going for an extra bad result for an extra bennie on that resistance roll, because I'm not sure what I could do on this other than:
A) Not get to resist later if the vamp commands Lucretia to attack you folks (which would probably end very badly for one of us). EDIT: "If", right.... more like "when".
B) Fall to some extent, which while it could be interesting story wise is really not where I want to go with the character.... at least not just yet. Maybe after the team has gelled a bit more.

[Markus Berger]

Damn!
I would say Lucretia had some "antagonism" against Markus, so what the Vampire will ask for her will come "naturally"...
Oh boy...

[Pender Lumkiss]

Lucretia you get that extra effort benny back. Yeah not sure how it could be worse.

[Maximilian]

Yeah, talk about an unfortunate time to fumble the roll. Add one cyber knight to our list of foes until we can shake her out of it.

[Lucretia]

Well, if Markus were also surrounded by vampire spawn.... oh wait.

Well, at least he's got backup... dangling off the bridge, digging for hidden devices, trying not to squish civilians or destroy the bridge, or angry at him for saying mean things... who does that leave... Maverick! You can take on a hypercharged close combat specialist cyber-knight, right? For the team?

[Maximilian]

Squished civilians = collateral damage = acceptable in moderation, right?

[Kesslan]

But that's because they were designed properly

The little game designer that lives in my brain begs to differ.

I can't remember jack about the Palladium rules (never actually used them), but generally critical successes are bad for players - unless enemies can never crit on PCs.
Most of the time a crit against an enemy just hastens a win that was probably inevitable anyway (because most GMs design fights so the PCs will win), but a crit on a player can turn an "easy" fight into a deadly one.

I don't mind having critical successes and failures, they make games less predictable and predictable is boring... but saying critical failures are necessary to balance critical successes is just not true.

Depending on the system 'critical success' is something only PCs ever deal with as NPCs just get what ever the roll happens to be. Not all GMs or games apply it that way of course. Additionally if NPCs can get critical successes, they can also get critical failures just like PCs as well. Also, I don't see anything wrong with the occasional supposedly easy fight turning hard because something unexpected happens. Besides, if a GM wants to go easy on the players they have all the tools at their disposal to do so anyway since they ultimately control the game, and can thus 'fudge' things if they really want to.

A good example is where I was once GMing a game in Shadowrun where there were some new players. Wanting to get them used to how the setting worked and what sorts of things they should look out for, I put in things like the occasional trap, set it up strictly by the rules and then when it was something particularly nasty started off at least by having them notice it just in time if it was something that could kill them outright. For example a claymore in a staircase. PC massively failed 3 notice checks (Where he would normally only get one to begin with) to spot the trip wire, so I had him stop just before he pushed the wire too far to detonate it, since under SR rules at the time for explosives, it would have potentially turned even the toughest PC in the heaviest armour in the game into a fine mist.

I'd also disagree that it's inevitable that PCs will always win a battle. Yes, any decent GM will generally set things up so that the PCs will probably win, but it's no fun when there's never any real challenge or chance of failure. Also, depending on the game things are supposed to be more heavily stacked against the players (Such as Shadowrun, or even more extreme case, Paranoia). Some game systems make combat in general quite lethal (Again, Shadowrun or other games like Heavy Gear, or Palladium in MDC vs SDC or SDC vs SDC scenarios that involve weapons like hand grenades)

Ultimately the 'crit failure' or 'crit success' concept can simply mean, depending on the system, that your weapon jams, or while building something you break a component or simply fail the project or instead simply manage to do what ever it was you were doing extra well (Which yes, in combat usually means dealing extra damage or hitting some otherwise very hard to hit thing)

[Cantrell]

Well, if anyone can talk down the mind-controlled cyber knight, it's Maverick.

[Maximilian]

If anyone was concerned about 10 wild vampires being an easy combat, they just added a cyber knight to their number. This GM isn't going easy on us.
I like it!

[Pender Lumkiss]

To be clear I am your guys' biggest fan. I want you to succeed and do the Epic. In my book you guys are bigger than life action or super movie heroes. You are all awesome legends.

[Maximilian]

No worries here. The best stories have the greatest struggles. Looking forward to next round!

[Pender Lumkiss]

No worries here. The best stories have the greatest struggles. Looking forward to next round!

You get me!

[Lucretia]

From one CK to another, no worries. I know you just want to be the president of Lucretia's Fan Club. :lol:

[Pender Lumkiss]

From one CK to another, no worries. I know you just want to be the president of Lucretia's Fan Club.

I'll be your president any day.

[Jude Maverick]

Well, if Markus were also surrounded by vampire spawn.... oh wait.

Well, at least he's got backup... dangling off the bridge, digging for hidden devices, trying not to squish civilians or destroy the bridge, or angry at him for saying mean things... who does that leave... Maverick! You can take on a hypercharged close combat specialist cyber-knight, right? For the team?

Maverick will just flash her his smile and she'll snap right out of it and fall into his arms

[Lucretia]

Attractive former assassin for the spluggorth... you can bet for sure she honeypotted some of her marks. Falling into Maverick's arms may be a prelude to something less pleasant than he thinks. :P

[Jude Maverick]

Worth it?