>System without an outright fail state
Think it could work?
Now, I'm not talking about the players succeeding at absolutely everything forever. I'm just talking about less "no" and more "yes, but..."
You mean like Strike! or Fellowship RPG?
>>48100618
Not familiar with either of those. Care to give me a quick rundown?
>>48100605
It can work sometimes, but I prefer a chance for outright failure.
>>48100641
Strike is exactly what you are talking about with even if you fail to do something, you succeed with a cost or something happens. Say if you roll low while trying to pick a lock. The gm could rule that someone opens the door at the same time or someone comes around the corners or someone shows up that can give you a hand.
Fellowship, you find some way to overcome obstacles. Take the same locked door. You could role, which causes new situations to arise,you can use gear or class abilities or you can describe how you overcomes the situation with something else coming up and another player having a chance to solve it.
Ryuutama basically has no failure rolls.
>>48100605
You're not far from describing Dungeon World.
Note that a minor faction of /tg/ absolutely hates Dungeon World.
>>48100605
>>48101540
Dungeon World is a failure on any roll of 1-6.
>>48103605
But the failure in the 1-6 doesn't mean that the character failed at doing what he set out to do, only that the situation changed for the worse.
I think one example given is the thief picking a lock only to be greeted by a guard on the other side of the door asking him what the fuck he's doing. He was successful, but with a bad consequence.
The only step for OP to make would be to eliminate the "you fail" option entirely, but it seems kinda silly.
>>48104153
>I think one example given is the thief picking a lock only to be greeted by a guard on the other side of the door asking him what the fuck he's doing.
I love doing stuff like this.
