What happen precisely on a failed roll of a prolonged action? The action is considered failed but can surely be repeated later, if possible (like the next day)? Of course it also depends on the actual action...

And what about cooperation? How do you handle it? Every cooperating person can roll?

Any idea?

Thank you.

I recommend trying to set things up so the consequences of failure are interesting; so the attempt changes things enough that the next effort must be new and interesting.

I would say just that some sort of setback occurs ... not necessarily disastrous (unless an Eye of Sauron resulted), but not good, either. Regarding cooperation, I would say that anyone could make the attempt, but keeping in mind that too many cooks can spoil the stew ... maybe limit the number of active cooperators in a Craft Task/Test to the amount of space available (say 2 per square meter/yard?) or amount of material available.
Some examples:

• Craft Task/Test - They are constructing something and what they worked on that day (or time increment) was somehow ruined.
• Inspire/Persuade Task/Test - They are giving a series of speeches designed to rally a populace and someone says something untoward/passes gas/does "something" that ruins the effect.
• Athletics Task/Test - They are rowing a boat and a missed stroke causes the loss of an oar/paddle.

Another way to approach this is taking a page from D&D 4E (one of the very few things they did well in that game) regarding extended actions. They usually require a certain number of successes before a lesser number of failures occur (e.g., requires 8 successes before 4 failures). They delineate what happens if the overall attempt is successful and what happens if the overall attempt is unsuccessful.

For example ... an extended attempt to sneak past a horde of Orcs:

Success: The characters encounter only a few easily-dispatched Snaga Trackers while crossing the ruins and reach their destination without hazardous detours.
Failure: Each character loses a healing surge immediately. The characters draw the attention of one Orc-Chieftain and 1d6 + 5 Orc Soldiers. Set up a battle map with clogged streets, burned-out buildings, and other suitable features. Each round after the first, 1d6 – 1 Orc Soldiers arrive from a random direction. If a 6 is rolled, one Black Uruk arrives instead of five Orc Soldiers.

And, yes, I know there's no healing surges nor battle map involved. I, quite literally, copied the text of a D&D 4E downloaded adventure and just changed the creatures referenced. I did this ONLY as an example.

What Thorsgold said. I've written several TOR adventures and I usually set up Encounters to require more than one success before they reach the Tolerance in failures. Usually two or at most three successes will do, though, since usually the Tolerance, being based on Wisdom or Valour, is not higher than 3 or 4 for most groups.

D&D 4E skill challenges are one of the only facets of that edition that I found palatable - that and minions concept.


When I first read TOR and saw the rules on encounters and "Tolerance" I immediately made the connection with that of skill contests of 4E. Later when I read the sample adventure of "The Marsh Bell" I found the situation....








SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....where the heroes are trying to find clues as to the whereabouts of Oin and Balin needing "4 successes" as a sample of a skill test as well.

I have just completed running this adventure (at least up to the part of the Stone Troll and the Elf Galion confronted the heroes) and I resolved the searching for the tracks/signs of travel as just that - a skill challenge.


The Scout was forced to make 4 successes - one attempt per day. I had no "tolerance" in mind - meaning they could continue to check the swamp until they died there if they so chose - but time would pass for the hapless duo dwarves as well and perhaps one of them would suffer grievously for it. But each failure (that didn't result in "the eye") would just be another day of aimlessly meandering about the swamp and the chance for a "not-good" encounter.

The scout (played by my 11 year old daughter - a hobbit wanderer named Lillie Padd) had 3 consecutive in a row on three successive days, and with each success I described how her expert ability at scouting found passing evidence of the dwarves having passed that way (i.e. old campsite, ditched boat, etc).

Then she had 2 failures in a row - this cost them two additional days - used more rations, and suffered encounter - one was with a couple marsh dwellers, and the other was with the Gallow's Weed - which the Look-Out man in the party recognized it for what it was based on Nerulf's warnings; so that wound up being an easily avoided encounter.

The 6th day found the next and final success which led them back on track, following the dwarves trail and eventually with success in finding them.




So in short - I would say that most of the "consequence" for failure is pretty much open-ended and up to the Lore-Master to narrate, though not devastating I would say (unless Eye shows up); and the number of those who take part should be common sense - in the case of the adventure, the text indicated that the trail can be searched for by the company's scout so I basically had her and her alone make the attempt. If there were two scouts, one may succeed where the other failed - but both should be allowed to try. Sometimes only one hero should be allowed to try - and other time the whole fellowship. It's pretty much a case-by-case basis I would think.

Robert

is it not two(2) attemps per days per scouts in the adventure...?

probably; regardless, that detail doesn't change the theme and message I was trying to convey - with 3 successful days in a row, then two failures in a row, then finally the fourth success on day 6; whether that was 2 tries per day or only one, it doesn't change how I narrated the days in which she failed or succeeded.

Finally regardless of how many times per day a written adventure or Loremaster's discretion allows for a check to be made as part of a prolonged action, the way in which it should be resolved is still the same, and does move towards answering the original question.

Robert

I'm probably strange for loving both this system and 4e DnD, but I can live with that.


Anyway, skill challenges are something I port over to pretty much any system I play now, if possible. They're just awesome.

Often, you can even port over the exact complexity lineup, and adjust xp alottment according to the system. In this system and a few others, it doesn't work as well, because there isn't per encounter xp like in dnd, but the rest works fine.

Should be fairly self explanatory to assign advancement points in a skill challenge, I'll have to look over my books and double check, see if any adjustment would be appropriate.

Indeed. In fact I've been using "skill challenges" for many years - back in 2nd edition D&D in the mid-90s.

What I use to do as DM is put a row of D6s (the number of which varied on how difficult or extensive the test should be) on the table with gaps between them and then place a D4 in the center; this represented a meter of sorts; and used to help adjudicate some prolonged action.

As the player went about his/her business and tried something new or narrated something they were doing, I would have them roll for success/failure. With a success I would move the D4 to the right and the opposite for a failure. Once the D4 reach the end of the row of D6s the contest was over with either failure or success being narrated.

Another time I used it is for specific contests - such as an arm wrestling contest. Strength checks back and forth between players or player vs NPC. If you can visualize the D4 as the position of the two arms moving ever so slowly back and forth as the ebb and flow of the contest.

I now use this concept for trap disarming and sometimes for lock picking when the object to open is particularly important and I wish to build up the drama - OR if/when it's happening in a "round-by-round" scenario - such as if the rogue has to pick a lock to help the party flee during combat, or a pit filling with water, or lowering ceiling, etc.


Robert

Interesting system. Were your dice visible to the players, or behind a screen?


I think I might adopt something like this for my 4e games and my TOR game. 4e difficulty and complexity could be represented simply by changing the number of d6 dice, and where in the row the d4 is.

Yes I placed them in the middle of the table - it added to the drama as the players watched the meter move in their favor or not.

For the purpose of disable device for instance, you narrate it by stating that the hero has some measure of success and describe sliding something aside, or fixing this or that, affixing something to it, or severing a string, or putting a wedge into a pressure plate etc. Contrastly, failures can be a jamming of something, a breaking of a tool, a tool slipping from his hand, pulling the wrong wire, etc.

The important part is if you're making it a point to illustrate a failure or success - whether it's round by round, or hour by hour or daily, it's important to describe the nature of the failure or success so as to give meaning to the dice roll itself for the purpose of adjudicating the prolonged action.


Robert

TOR already has "xp" rewards for skill challenges in that a player gets Advancement Points for making successful skill tasks/tests (albeit, they do need to make a great success or better) for every session played. So, if they make a great success or better during the skill challenge (or even multiples ... up to 3 maximum per skill group), they get points for it ... Advancement Points, but points (i.e., a reward) nevertheless. Unless you want to ensure they get something for succeeding, you shouldn't need to come up with a methodology to assign points for the skill challenge.

With that being said, though, assigning automatic Advancement Points for successful skill challenges WOULD eliminate the need for the great success requirement. I have one player who'd appreciate that as he always seems to roll an Eye of Sauron when he manages to finally roll a 6 on his d6s. So far, he has gone 1 session with no Advancement Points AND has the lowest total number in the campaign. I may just do this for some of the skills in my games ... most-especially the important, game-changing, skill tests.

Nice! Sort of reminds me of the flowchart for figuring out technology in Gamma World, back in the day, without the chart. I will be borrowing this idea!

Cool deal! Glad to have inspired. While I am new to TOR and newly returned back in the world of "rules-light" and "sandboxy" type campaigns and RPGs, I am no newbie to RPGs - having played a plethora of them dating back to 1982 when I first got the old D&D basic boxed set - and almost all of my game has been in the role of DM/GM etc. Never played Gamma World, but did play Star Frontiers for a time.

I've picked up or invented a trick or two in my time for running games; happy to share.


For years I have loved 3rd editions D&D (since 99), and love Paizo's writing of their adventures, and loved the convenience and great stories of their Adventure Paths (since they did all the hard work for me), I realize it was time for a change. They say timing is everything. TOR and my immediate love of it just conveniently happened at the right time for me to embrace such a chance. It falls on the heels of 1_) starting to get burned out on rules-centric game systems as Pathfinder now is rules-bloating theirs with all the add-on books just as WotC did w/ 3rd edition; 2_) overly complicated high-level play and power creep, and the Adventure Paths by Paizo although fantastic still takes characters to those dreaded double-digit levels of complex spells, hundreds of dice rolls, and astronomical number of modifiers and circumstances to remember, 3_) tried out a couple other rules-light games such as Paranoia, and Smallville RPG with no minis, or map and no power creep, and started to miss the simplistic nature, 4_) Started running Pathfinders' Kingmaker campaign (which is the best Adventure Path I think has ever been written for D&D) which reintroduced a non-linear sandboxy campaign style that allowed for my creativity to flourish once again, 5_) Already hooked on Lord of the Rings Online and falling in love with Tolkien's world far more than I ever had in the past (I had read the novels - but never truly embraced the world - more of a passive fan of fantasy in general - not specific); having truly come to appreciate the depth of the imagination and love the flavor of the setting of good vs evil etc. Timing is everything. I'm fully hooked now.

I tried Decipher's a few years ago with a friend that bought it, and didn't feel it worked well so I never returned. I happened to see TOR advertised and did some extensive research on the publishing company, watched the You Tube videos of the guy talking about how awesome it is and gave a thorough hour long overview, and figured what the heck - it's worth trying - and then when I started reading it, I couldn't put it down and have for the first time in years truly chomp at the bit for another gaming weekend; not to mention it was easy enough to understand to teach it to my 11 year old daughter who has been begging to play some RPGs with her mom and I - it was just a natural fit. I now see that planning the game and writing it (which I have let Paizo do for so many years) is far less work than actually running their rules-heavy games - so now I go back to my true love of writing good adventures for my friends, and simply allow the games to be nothing but fun and easy-going back to basics the way that RPGing used to be for me.

(This is not to say Pathfinder is bad by any stretch - I am still a huge fan of Paizo and their products and their adventure writing is IMO the best in the RPG business. Its the actual game-play and rules arguing/discussion/bloat that is burning me out.)

Robert

Oh, yeah ... Kingmaker is VERY kewl! I really like the "kingdom" construction system in it! I'd recommend it to anyone running a build-up campaign for a starting fief/kingdom/etc. I plan on using it when I do me up a campaign in the Angle in Rhudaur, a 4th Age campaign, or a resettlement campaign in Cardolan ... all on my "to do" list.

In that vein, the House creation system in A Song of Ice and Fire RPG is good, too. It's really good for fleshing out noble houses.

Well - now that this thread has totally derailed, I will say that early scuttlebutt on the new AP being released in March ("Skulls and Shackles") is suppose to possess some similar concepts as "kingdom building" but more specific to building up ships, fleets, and pirates gangs.

I'm very much looking forward to that; all I have to say about the idea of an open-ended sand-boxy campaign on the open-seas where players can portray pirates in charge of their own gang and fleet......Yo-ho-ho!

Sign me up!!!


Robert

Right, like I said, pretty self-explanatory.

That said, I do like the idea of each player getting an advancement point at the end of a challenge.

SirKicley, I love it! I think the part about description, and it being ignored when specifically called out in the DMG, is one of the big (IMO unwarranted) complaints about 4e, and it's skill challenges.

Speaking of which, did your run of RPG playing even lead you to play 4e? Just curious.

Makes me sad that the whole OGL thing lead to Paizo publishing Adventures for themselves only, and not for DnD....if only I liked pathfinder...


Oh well, maybe it will be relatively easy to convert. I've seen easy and clean conversions of old ADND adventures, surely a 3.5-esque adventure can be converted even more easily.

They WERE publishing for D&D. Check out the older Dungeon Magazines since 2003, PAIZO publishing WAS Dungeon Magazine.

Shackled City, Age of Worms, and Savage Tide were all major 12 issue spanned adventures for levels 1-20 all written by Paizo.

They would have continued to do so but when WotC went 4E, they took Paizo's right to write for them away from them. So Paizo was forced to either switch to writing 4E material for WotC, or maintain 3rd ed OGL and write their own; luckily for them, they had a huge enough fan base based on 6 years of writing for Dungeon that we begged them to carry the 3rd ed OGL torch and simply modify the rules a bit to be more playable - which they did; now we get better version of 3rd edition rules written by the same people designing fantastic adventures.


And no I never ran or played 4E; having played D&D for nearly 30 years, the changes in 4E did not appeal to me, and so I stuck with Paizo - primarily because I loved their business practice, their customer service, their dedication to premier products and customer satisfaction, and their top-notch writing of adventures.

Robert

Getting back to TOR Prolonged Actions...

I was wondering how you handle cooperation. Let's say you need 4 successes at TN10 and you have two characters who can participate. Do the characters take turns trying the roll? If one failure means the whole action failed, how does cooperation benefit you?

The way I've done it is everyone cooperating rolls at the same time. If at least one person succeeded, then you can keep going - but if they all fail, the action failed. I don't remember reading that specifically in the books - is that how it's meant to be handled?

I've found that they can be done in one of a few seamless ways (whichever floats your boat at the time, or set a precedence and always do it this way)

FIRST: you must determine how many people could reasonably assist with the task at hand.

1) If there requires X number of successes before Y is completed, than regardless of how many people are trying there still needs to be X number of successes divided amongst the team.

Of course you can rule that someone helping who FAILS can negatively affect the attempt if/when an EYE shows up - which then negates the other person's success.


If you're using the marsh bell situation with the Scout looking for signs of the dwarves passage, if you have two players acting as Scouts (perhaps because there's five or more heroes in the group), then one's success may make up for the other's failure; however if the one failure showed up as an EYE then this wipes out the others' success - perhaps the EYE recipient made a bold statement of discovery and led the team astray by no fault of their own.

This is what happened in my game, my daughter and another player (Scott) were playing the scouts - he succeeded once where she rolled an EYE, and ruled it that way. The next day they both failed but no EYE results. Successes came as a mixture of either 'both succeeding' or one succeeded where the other failed (but no eye).

2) The other way you could adjudicate "helpers" is allow their D6s (but not Feat Die) to add to the "lead". So you have two people working on CRAFTing a makeshift raft of logs to row across a wide river. As with most projects you usually have a "leader" that kinda naturally falls into role based on experience and/or leadership outgoing dynamics. Using this within the game, the lead rolls his/her successes and Feat die and adds to his dice pool extra D6s for each of the those that the other player has in that particular skill. If a person has no D6s trained in that skill, it's believable that this person isn't much of a help.

3) Similar to #2; however instead of adding D6s based on assigned skill points relating to more success dice, you instead allow 1 extra D6 to add to the "leads" dice pool for each helper involved.

With more D6s you're more likely to succeed - but you're also more likely to have Great and Extraordinary successes. Such successes may truncate the CRAFTing time needed to finish the task - hey when you have help, you usually get done faster (provided the helper has knowledge of the activity in the first place).

Robert

Just brainstorming here, but perhaps another interesting mechanic would be to let the helper roll as many D6s as they have ranks in a skill, and the lead could take the highest of their own D6s or the helper's. So if the lead rolls all 1s on the D6s but the helper rolls a 5, the 5 "counts." If the lead rolls a 5 and a 6 and the helper rolls a 4, the helper's die essentially did nothing.

I'd probably restrict the trade to being highest die for highest die (and second highest, etc., if the helper has more than one d6 to roll); for example, if the lead rolled a 1 and a 6, but the helper rolled a 5, the total result would be 6+1, NOT 6+5. If, however, the lead rolled 6 and 1 and the helper rolled 5 and 3, the total result would be 6+3.

This way the helper's dice only come into play if the lead blunders, or can't recall something, etc.

That works too - if perhaps a bit more complicated. There' not one right answer here - and several ways that it can be approached.

Your version is definitely more subtle in the way of how much you'll be adding which may or may not be the preferable style of an individual LM.

This is a link to a table that I prepared for inclusion in the upcoming screen, but that didn't fit. It addressed the issue of what happens if a character fails a roll during a prolonged action. The consequence is based on the nature of the prolonged action attempted.

Francesco

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/14117990/Prolonged%20actions.jpg

If time and/or discovery is never going to be a factor then I'd question whether to ever ask for a roll for "Most actions not performed under stress". Without consequence, the PC can just keep trying the task until they eventually succeed. The GM can just state that and move on - perhaps evaluating the time it takes from the level of skill.

Unless there will (at some point) be a time pressure (e.g. the coast is clear now, but the next patrol will pass by in 5 minutes), then there doesn't need to be a roll to see if the task suffers a slight delay.

An alternative could also be each failed roll is going to make the task harder (e.g. the lock is being damaged by the lock-picking attempts, raising the TN needed for further rolls).

Storytelling wise the only use I can see for it is situations where the timing doesn't matter, but it is used as a scene tension heightening affect.

Kind of like Gandalf at the Doors of Durin, trying to recall the word 'friend'. We all suspected the bloated Sirannon was hiding some creature that was waiting to attack. Tolkien made absolutely sure to set the scene as a pending conflict. Yet he didn't realize the conflict until the company is about to enter Moria. So he built tension, released it after the passage of time (their boredom), and then pounced when they were no longer suspecting attack.

Agreed - similar to "taking 20" in Pathfinder.

Unless of course it's for storytelling tension that you're shooting for as Garn so succinctly described.

Thanks for sharing that Francesco. That's a nice table to give a good "rule of thumb" to go by.