In the couple games I’ve run it’s seemed like linked tests were an unnecessary and awkward mechanic, and I’m tempted to not use them at all. But perhaps I haven’t been using them correctly, or this would have some negative side effects I’m missing?
The reason they seem unnecessary is that as GM I can already assign advantage and disadvantage to rolls based on the circumstances. If the results of a test success or failure is a change in circumstances that would be advantageous or disadvantageous to a future test, the rules already give me the tools for handling that!
The awkwardness comes from breaking the shift from the binary success/failure that is normally the result of a test to a trinary success w/ advantage / success / failure result and having to add disadvantage to whatever failure consequence I had in mind.
Many times when I have asked for a pair of tests in play, and they have seemed like they could be linked, the failure consequences I had in mind for the first tests would make the second test impossible, or at least require some intermediary tests before they could continue. In this case increasing the obstacle of the second test does nothing (unless I track the +1 Ob for a future test that could be many sessions away, which would be a pain). Or the failure consequence would already produce disadvantageous circumstances, so again it lacks teeth unless I come up with a second failure consequence or levy a double penalty. Even in the cases where failure on the first test would still allow the second test to be made and is not already producing disadvantageous circumstances, I then need to come up with an explanation of the +1 Ob which often feels like a second unconnected failure consequence.
If the player succeeds exactly and success would obviously create advantageous circumstances, then it can feel awkward that to justify this and it often doesn’t feel like the player really got their intent. If their intent wouldn’t obviously make the second test easier then I need to justify how it could provide advantage. So it feels awkward if success would clearly net advantage or clearly wouldn’t, and only works well if I can see how two degrees of success could be possible in the circumstances.
So perhaps the solution is to only use linked test when failing the first test wouldn’t make the second test impossible, when failing the first test would have consequences aside from making the second test harder, but could conceivably make the second test harder, and when passing the first test would have consequences distinct from making the second test easier, but could conceivably make the second test easier. If I use that criteria I’m not sure I’ve every encountered a situation where a linked test would be appropriate! Maybe it’s just meant to be a really niche rule?
When I see a pair of tests that seem like they should be linked, it’s almost always the case that either failure on the first roll would make the second roll impossible, or the natural failure consequence would be to make the second roll harder, or the intent has been described such that success on the first roll would make the second roll easier. Maybe I should be using FoRKs in most of these circumstances, but then it’s not clear to me when I would ever use linked test!
Am I missing something? Can you think of an example where a linked test was clearly called for and just using FoRKs or advantage/disadvantage would have been less fun?