This, to me, is a part of how the game has become "easier" over time."Succeeding with penalties" (or "progress combined with a setback") is a fail state for a check that did not succeed.
There's a flaw in that logic.But really this comes down to whether failure has meaningful consequences. If there are no meaningful consequences, there is no ability check in the first place. The character just succeeds or fails, no roll, depending on the approach to the goal in the given situation.
This, to me, is a part of how the game has become "easier" over time.
How?
Because 'succeeding with penalties' is still, in the end, succeeding; even though the roll says failure.
Succeeding, with or without penalties, is something that should only happen if the roll in fact says success. Failure means failure, end of story; though if that failure also happens to have penalties attached (e.g. you failed so badly on finding the trap that you in fact set it off, roll a save) that's fine too.
In broader terms, sometimes we all just have to accept and deal with the fact that there's going to be occasions when the dice just refuse to allow the story to advance; and in so doing also accept the frustration this causes in the players (and in the PCs).
There's a flaw in that logic.
You say a check should only happen if failure has meaningful consequences. What about times when the meaningful consequences* are tied to success? For example, searching for a secret door behind which you-as-DM know there's a big pile of loot while the players/PCs have no idea what's there or even if there's a hidden door there to find.
From the players' position, failure almost always simply maintains the status quo without any consequences at all (in the PCs' eyes this is the case with most failed search checks) In other words, Nothing Happens. But you-as-DM know that success has meaningful consequences in that the PCs are going to gain a pile of wealth.
* - consequences that may or may not be known by the players/PCs at the time the roll is made.
See to me, this, what you've described here, is undesirable. The players don't know if there's a secret door. They look for one (hoping to find one?) which results in a roll. On a failure result, they don't know if there's a secret door. For me, this clunks, hard.You say a check should only happen if failure has meaningful consequences. What about times when the meaningful consequences* are tied to success? For example, searching for a secret door behind which you-as-DM know there's a big pile of loot while the players/PCs have no idea what's there or even if there's a hidden door there to find.
From the players' position, failure almost always simply maintains the status quo without any consequences at all (in the PCs' eyes this is the case with most failed search checks) In other words, Nothing Happens. But you-as-DM know that success has meaningful consequences in that the PCs are going to gain a pile of wealth.
* - consequences that may or may not be known by the players/PCs at the time the roll is made.
This. Rolling in the open for dramatic moments has a massive emotional payoff for my players, since I normally hide my rolls. I often reveal it when a monster rolls a Natural 1 as well. Mostly so they can see the monster is having a bad day.Most of my rolls are behind the screen. However, sometimes I reveal a roll. And during dramatic moments when the roll really matters, I roll out in front of everyone.
I have to lean more towards Lanefan here. If you fail your search for a secret door, I don't think the outcome should be that you find it, most of the time. I get that success with consequences can be interesting (especially if it means setting off a trap), but with secret doors the most logical outcome of a failed search, would be that you are unable to find it. After all, you are searching for a hidden object and failing that search.
Of course there can be exceptions. I'm thinking of the scene from Indiana Jones and the last crusade, where his father accidentally opens a secret door, causing Indy to tumble down a flight of stairs that is revealed. To me it is all a matter of, "What is at stake?".
When a player tries to jump across a pit, then they are trying to reach the other side without falling in. Those are the stakes, and failure means those are things that could go wrong.
When a player tries to find a trap, they are trying to locate it without setting it off. But if you don't know where it is, setting it off is very much within the scope of things that can go wrong.
When you are looking for a secret door, you are trying to find out how to trigger it, preferably without taking all day, and without making too much noise. So those three things are the stakes. A failed check means you either don't find it, or you take very long, or you draw unwanted attention, or some other setback that seems appropriate given the way the door is hidden. If all it takes is leaning in a chair to open the secret door, then it seems reasonable that it might be triggered even though you failed to find it. Most of the time though, not finding it at all seems like the most logical outcome to me.
Okay, the player now thinks that because he or she had to roll at all, there is definitely a secret door there and wants to keep searching. Are you okay with that? Some people are very much against this "metagame thinking" hence why they institute table rules regarding hidden rolls and phantom rolls.
I tend to foreshadow the presence of a hidden door, so meta thinking is no issue. The players will suspect something is there regardless of the outcome of the roll. They can keep on looking if they want, but it will cost them a lot of time if they keep failing the check