NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 8324015" data-attributes="member: 53980">Fail Forward isn't typically used to design an entire skill system, it's true. It's typically used situationally, when failure would otherwise bring the game to a halt. The closest I can think of a skill system designed around fail forward would be Gemshoe wherein, iirc, investigation skills always succeed but the GM can ask for a roll to see whether there is a complication. But non-investigation skills can still fail outright in Gumshoe.That said, I think that using fail forward to mean "success with a complication" is somewhat confusing, given it's established usage. Especially in this case where the success with a complication isn't a failure to begin with (it's a success that rolled an odd number, which introduced a complication).Success at a cost is also an established term (DMG pg 242). This isn't really the same thing, but rather success with a complication. The proposal doesn't enable a failed roll to succeed, it just introduces the possibility of a complication to an already successful roll. Hence why I've been referring to it as Success with a Complication, rather than Success at a cost. They're not really the same thing.I would distinguish fail forward and success at a cost based on the idea that you can't fail when using fail forward. However, there are cases where you might with success at a cost. For example, if you offer the choice to the player and they refuse the cost, or if the player rolls too low to trigger the option.</blockquote>

Verification