I have a question. In conflicts, there are compromises based on who won and by how much. I try to do this with single skill checks as well, basing the success of the check off of the degree of failure or success. For example, a Lore Master check to find information on a magic item is made. The way I judge it, if the player rolls all fails, they learn nothing. 1-2 successes, (depending on the Ob,) they learn a little information, but nothing of importance. Closer to the goal, they might learn some bits of important info or gain a condition/twist to learn in all. Barely succeeding will get them what they are looking for, nothing more. Killing the check will get them what they are looking for and much more.
At least one of my players disagrees and says that single skill checks are basically pass/fail. Even if the Ob is 5 and the player rolls all fails, he feels he should still be able to gain a condition/twist and get what he wants. I feel, if that’s the case, no one ever really fails. In the above example, if the player rolled all fails, should I say he finds no information? Should I just say he’s Exhausted or something and then give him the info? Should I say he finds what the information he needs, but magic item is useless at the current time? (A sword is powerless unless paired with the matching shield, for example.)
Maybe he’s right and its still the old D&D player in me, but I feel that an outright failed roll should feel like a fail.