Auto Success Limitation

[PencilBoy99]

So I reviewed this link (viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7250&hilit=automati ... s&start=20) and just wanted to get more group thoughts on how they handled Auto Successes.

I think that an Auto Success via Trait is a marginal success AND isn't intended to be used where the outcome failure is significant (is this right)?

... but is there any limit to what you can auto succeed at, difficulty wise.

For example, you want to convince King Bard to give you command of a whole bunch of troops. He has no idea who you are, so this would normally be incredibly difficult. You have some relevant trait. The risk of failure for that is low (he just doesn't give you the troops and thinks you're weird), but it seems weird to auto-succeed at that task. Can't you just auto succeed at super-difficult tasks? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[Deadmanwalking]

Our GM generally doesn't allow it for things that are too difficult, no. Though allowing it is also workable, remember that Encounters require lots of rolls to succeed at convincing people of things, and an auto-success only adds one to that total.

[PencilBoy99]

That makes sense. So you're auto success gives you a good impression, but (as long as you limit to one auto-success per scene) you can't accomplish the impossible in this case.

[Falenthal]

I usually don't allow for an autosuccess if I set the difficulty at a TN higher than 14. If I get to the point of considering a Task harder than 14, it is because it's not a "normal" action and therefore even an person used to it has to roll.
Exception may occur, of course.
Sometimes an appropiate Trait might reduce the TN of a difficult roll for that character, but not autosucceed at the task. Depends as much on the situation as on my mood ...and, of course, on how important or interesting for the adventure the chance of failure is.

[Indur Dawndeath]

Official rules allow for Auto success at least up to TN18. Rivendell book, look at Tharbad crossing. A trait can also reduce difficulty for the entire party to TN14.
Remember to consider the importance of the test. Never allow auto success on key quest objectives.

Cheers

[Stormcrow]

I think that an Auto Success via Trait is a marginal success AND isn't intended to be used where the outcome failure is significant (is this right)?

Some people think so; I don't. The "consequences" section of tasks and tests makes this quite clear. "Whatever the case, the Loremaster must make sure that the task has a definite impact and produces consequences that cannot be ignored." No consequences, no roll. No consequences equals automatic action.

... but is there any limit to what you can auto succeed at, difficulty wise.

For example, you want to convince King Bard to give you command of a whole bunch of troops. He has no idea who you are, so this would normally be incredibly difficult. You have some relevant trait. The risk of failure for that is low (he just doesn't give you the troops and thinks you're weird), but it seems weird to auto-succeed at that task. Can't you just auto succeed at super-difficult tasks? That doesn't make any sense to me.

How much a skill can accomplish is baked into the skill. For instance, the Persuade skills says:

The successful use of the skill lets the hero convince his audience of the flaws in their current position. A great success convinces the subject of the quality of the hero's stance, while an extraordinary success may turn the subject into an ardent believer.

So in your King Bard example above, invoking an automatic action would give you only a normal success. He would only give you command of troops if you were already due to command those troops but he had come up with an argument against giving you command. You'd need to roll to achieve a great success, which is what you'd need to persuade him that you as a complete stranger could, in fact, command those troops, but even then he might just agree that yes, you seem like you could command them, but he isn't convinced that he SHOULD give you command. An extraordinary success would be needed for a nobody to walk in off the street and walk out a captain.

Never allow auto success on key quest objectives.

"Sorry, I know I let you take an automatic swimming action when crossing that swift-flowing river earlier, but THIS time I've decided it's important, so you have to roll." There would be mutiny. Allow automatic actions whenever they make sense. Never design important adventures to rely on a single, normal success.

[Glorelendil]

So in your King Bard example above, invoking an automatic action would give you only a normal success. He would only give you command of troops if you were already due to command those troops but he had come up with an argument against giving you command. You'd need to roll to achieve a great success, which is what you'd need to persuade him that you as a complete stranger could, in fact, command those troops, but even then he might just agree that yes, you seem like you could command them, but he isn't convinced that he SHOULD give you command. An extraordinary success would be needed for a nobody to walk in off the street and walk out a captain.

This is quite insightful, and could serve as a template for any such scenario. The LM should define (or at least have a general idea) of what the three levels of success would look like. If the player then chooses to invoke a trait, he/she gets the lowest level of success.

[PencilBoy99]

That clarifies everything and goes back to what the book I think says. That is, for a given thing, you define the stakes, levels of success, and outcome of failure.

[mica]

In the case of encounters even getting a couple of success may not give you the results you are looking for so a single guaranteed success is not necessarily a game changer.

Parliament of Spiders (DoM 53) is a good example - 0-3 successes - the spiders tolerate them but will hunt them down as soon as they leave the assembly!

Also bear in mind that exceeding tolerance rather than quitting while ahead irrespective of degree of success could end in additional undesirable results (corebook 188).

'You may go, we have enjoyed your presence though the fat hobbit who talks too much, he has something we desire...'

This is why the LM should never reveal the tolerance of the encounter though maybe allow insight checks to see the changing mood of the target.

[Rich H]

I agree with all the points made about number of successes and APs. I'm okay with players using traits to pass high TN tasks etc; that's really what they are about and like others have said above if an action isn't important/significant then LMs shouldn't be asking for tests anyway.

The bit about invocation of traits that gets to me the most is the potential for the repetition when invoking them; it's really why I limit one invocation for each trait per scene (journey leg, battle, encounter, extended action, etc). This means players can still use their traits, and if they have two or more that can apply then they get that advantage too (I have a player whose character has Old Lore and Rhymes of Lore) over character with just one trait, but the issue of 'pressing the win button'* is removed.

* Perhaps an overstatement but it was a problem for travel tests etc that don't need more than an ordinary success.