Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8274727" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I often use progress combined with a setback, which “fail forward” is largely another term for. I don’t generally tie it to failure by a specific margin though. I like the elegance of the pass/fail nature of ability checks in D&D, but I find it is often appropriate for the fail state to be progress with a setback rather than no progress.Yes, although I didn’t DM much at all prior to 5e. I think I would likely have found my way to the technique eventually if 4e had kept going.Only certain instances. Sometimes progress with a setback is the most appropriate consequence for failure, other times no progress is more appropriate. Depends on the action and the stakes.When a player declares an action, I evaluate their goal and their character’s approach to achieving it for possibility of success, possibility of failure, and likely cost or consequence of failure, and I ask for a check only if it has all three, otherwise I simply narrate the results. Sometimes the most appropriate cost or consequence is progress with a setback. Sometimes it isn’t. Consider a locked door, with an ogre on the other side. The ogre is not yet aware of the PCs. Attempting to break the door down is a case where progress with a setback might be an appropriate consequence for failure- you succeed in breaking the door down either way, but on a success you break it open before the ogre has time to react. On a failure, the ogre hears your attempts to break the door down and can prepare for your arrival. On the other hand, attempting to pick the lock might be a case where no progress is a more appropriate result of failure. Each attempt might take time (potentially bringing you closer to the next roll for random encounters), and on a failure you’ve spent that time but made no progress in getting the lock open.</blockquote>

Verification