Failing Forward

[Maxperson]

But if the GM is demanding you have to climb this mountain or else nothing, then that's the problem

Yes. It's a problem which has nothing whatsoever to do with using or not using fail forward. Bad DMs are bad.

I hate to point out "That one 5E session with the PA people where they spent a while constantly rolling to unlock a door", but, well, that's it as an example

Bad DMs are bad. Get a new one.

 

[grendel111111]

Yes. It's a problem which has nothing whatsoever to do with using or not using fail forward. Bad DMs are bad.



Bad DMs are bad. Get a new one.

Exactly If you have a DM that is causing these problems that need to be fixed, either get a new DM or work with them to improve.

That fix might include fail forward, or it might include helping them set clearer goals, non-linear objectives, having more open plans for the session (or to not hold so tightly to plans).
Fail forward is not a magic pill that will fix a bad DM, and a bad DM will still be a bad DM, just using a different technique.

I suspect that a DM that needs to hold so tightly to the story, so as to insist there is only one way to do things, is either a very new DM or wouldn't be comfortable giving up so much control to be willing to try fail forward anyway.

Another reason some of us don't see the same need for fail forward is because we are not having these "problems" that it is trying to fix. We don't have one roll that can disable a whole nights play. As a result the negatives of adding the disconnectedness that we dislike is not balanced by "fixing a problem".

 

[Reinhart]

In fact there is nothing wrong with failure always producing interesting consequences which drive the action on - which is what game designers like Luke Crane, Robin Laws, Ron Edwards, Jonathan Tweet, Vincent Baker etc have in mind in advocating "fail forward" as a technique. This is completely orthogonal to whether the PCs always, frequently or only sometimes get what they want. In 4e, which is a very heroic game, the tendency is towards "frequently". In BW, which tends towards grittiness, it is more like "sometimes". Others who know the Apocalypse engine better than me can comment on the sort of frequency of success it tends to produce. But all these systems deploy "fail forward" in the sense of "the consequences of failure should be a challenging new situation that drives the action onward."

No disagreement from me on that point. I'm not sold on the term "Succeed at a Cost" like Jon is, but I am frustrated by how muddied the original Fail Forward term has become. I agree that using only Success at a Cost instead causes people to suspect that failure is no longer a possible outcome, even when that failure would be interesting to the story and characters.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Sure. That's bad luck, though. It's also possible to get frostbite while climbing a mountain, and it's possible to start an avalanche while climbing a mountain, sprain an ankle while climbing a mountain and so on. A failed climb check involves climbing or the failure to do so. I occasionally call for a fate roll in my game, and sometimes bad luck or good luck happens in addition the results of whatever else is going on. If the PC fumbles that fate roll while climbing, bad luck happens. What doesn't happen is for it to happen instead of a failed climb check. The PCs don't get to continue on their merry way is if they had succeeded at the check and just lose a piece of equipment.
...

As I said, I have fate rolls that can alter things for better or for worse. I also have skill fumbles, and if you roll multiple 1's in a row, bad things directly connected to the event at hand start to happen.

It isn't that it's unrealistic to drop a rod while climbing. It's that it's not realistic for the climb check to be the reason. Climb checks check climbing and that's it. They don't check rods falling out of your pocket. Something else has to come into play before that happens.

In and of themselves, no. They aren't unrealistic. What makes it unrealistic or not is how those things are brought into play. I failed a climb check so it started raining and slowed my climb down is not a realistic result of a climb check, even though rain is realistic. Rain has nothing to do with a climb check.

What Pemerton and Manbearcat are saying is that a skill check doesn't have to be so narrowly defined, and shouldn't be.

The idea that it's not 'realistic' for the climb check to trigger any of those options, that a failed climb check means you fall, and you must make a separate fate check to see if something else happens is realistic makes no sense.

Rolling dice to see what happens to you is unrealistic period. Rolling dice is a game mechanic. Game mechanics are just that, part of the game. A mechanic cannot be realistic or otherwise, it's just a tool to provide a random chance of success, failure, or to determine some other option.

To me, the job of the rules is to provide a framework to allow me as DM adjudicate actions or events important to the story that have multiple possible outcomes. The rules should not interfere with the story, and they should allow me to handle any scene that arises. When to make a check of any sort is dependent upon these points in time, and the purpose of the check is to help determine the next point in the story.

So yes, a strict adjudication of a climb check helps determine a point in the story. You move forward, or you fall. But it's also limiting the story to two outcomes. But when performing a skill, such as climbing, there are a great many possible outcomes. Why limit yourself to two?

You've added a fate check (or maybe it's part of the game system, don't know what you're playing). This handles the meat of the story affecting points outside of combat, the role-playing of the players and your own input as DM.

How often do you make fate checks? If you only do it every time they fail a skill check, it's redundant.

If it's a random amount of time, then most of your story time is relegated to simple yes/no options, at least as the result of a die roll.

If you make fate checks every time there is a skill check, then you'll run into situations where they succeed, but fate intervenes and they fail anyway. Not entirely unrealistic, but probably not the result you're looking for.

In other words, if the possibility that fate intervenes occurs only when they fail a check, then you might as well expand your failure degrees and possibilities and save yourself a check. If you aren't checking for fate that often, I'd recommend it.

Incidentally, my crew would get a good laugh if one of them rolled a one on a climb check and it started raining. I may just have to use that!

Ilbranteloth

 

[LostSoul]

So yes, a strict adjudication of a climb check helps determine a point in the story. You move forward, or you fall. But it's also limiting the story to two outcomes. But when performing a skill, such as climbing, there are a great many possible outcomes. Why limit yourself to two?

One possible reason is that the failure condition is communicated more easily to the player. In a risk/reward type of game it's important for the players to know what the typical outcomes of a failed check may be. It gets complicated because in these types of games there is often a good deal of hidden content, so there typically isn't communication of specific outcomes due to failure. Because of that, it's important for the players to be able to make general assumptions about what the outcome might be due to failure.

e.g. The DM's notes specify: The kobolds rigged up some loose stone/false foot and handholds as a trap for anyone climbing, making it more likely that they'll fall. The DC to climb the wall is increased by 2. Any failure to climb the wall results in a 50% chance that the kobolds in area 6 will come to see what made the noise. Spotting the trap: if the wall is searched closely for five minutes; on a successful find traps check; or on any climb check that beats the DC by 5.

In this case (and for that kind of risk/reward play style) the DM isn't going to come right out and say that failing the climb check may alert the kobolds in area 6, though that is the failure condition. Since the play style doesn't allow for the DM to communicate this, the players need to make assumptions on their own. The most obvious one should be the default, if not worked directly into the rules themselves (as it is in 3E I believe).

 

[grendel111111]

What Pemerton and Manbearcat are saying is that a skill check doesn't have to be so narrowly defined,

I totally agree.

and shouldn't be.

I totally disagree.

The first is clearly stating that you have a choice in how you define skills working. People like different levels of connectedness. Playing the way that they want to play is in no way wrong and is a good way to play. I play that way in Leverage and Champions (when we used to play it). But the second part suggests that not chosing to play it one way isn't OK. The "and you shouldn't" is the problem that I am having.

The idea that it's not 'realistic' for the climb check to trigger any of those options, that a failed climb check means you fall, and you must make a separate fate check to see if something else happens is realistic makes no sense.

Rolling dice to see what happens to you is unrealistic period. Rolling dice is a game mechanic. Game mechanics are just that, part of the game. A mechanic cannot be realistic or otherwise, it's just a tool to provide a random chance of success, failure, or to determine some other option.

To me, the job of the rules is to provide a framework to allow me as DM adjudicate actions or events important to the story that have multiple possible outcomes. The rules should not interfere with the story, and they should allow me to handle any scene that arises. When to make a check of any sort is dependent upon these points in time, and the purpose of the check is to help determine the next point in the story.

For me rolling dice represents "probability", not "fate". Fate has it's own probability, and it isn't tied to the players ability scores. (and may not even need a roll if it is interesting).

So yes, a strict adjudication of a climb check helps determine a point in the story. You move forward, or you fall. But it's also limiting the story to two outcomes. But when performing a skill, such as climbing, there are a great many possible outcomes. Why limit yourself to two?

You've added a fate check (or maybe it's part of the game system, don't know what you're playing). This handles the meat of the story affecting points outside of combat, the role-playing of the players and your own input as DM.

How often do you make fate checks? If you only do it every time they fail a skill check, it's redundant.

If it's a random amount of time, then most of your story time is relegated to simple yes/no options, at least as the result of a die roll.

If you make fate checks every time there is a skill check, then you'll run into situations where they succeed, but fate intervenes and they fail anyway. Not entirely unrealistic, but probably not the result you're looking for.

In other words, if the possibility that fate intervenes occurs only when they fail a check, then you might as well expand your failure degrees and possibilities and save yourself a check. If you aren't checking for fate that often, I'd recommend it.

Incidentally, my crew would get a good laugh if one of them rolled a one on a climb check and it started raining. I may just have to use that!

Ilbranteloth

Yes, fate effects both the skilled and the unskilled. Your skills determine how you deal with that fate. If you were using a fate mechanic to avoid tying it to skills, why on earth would you then only roll it when they failed a skill check?

If I use a fate system I tend towards an accumulated fate, where the DM or players "bank" fate to use at a later time due to very good or bad rolls.

 

[Emerikol]

The issue is not about realism. It's about the ways in which backstory is authored and brought into play as part of action resolution. At the table, is it primarily an input or an output?

Perhaps realism is a loaded word. Obviously it is a fantasy game. What is modeled is not anything approaching reality.

When i say realism, I am really just saying the player knows what his character knows and acts on that knowledge and nothing else. There has been a trend in modern gaming where players invent the world along with the DM. Basically do players have input powers on the world or not. In my campaigns they do not. I recognize other styles exist though of course. Just not my preference.


As for the DM using his judgment to have something happen on a failure instead of just failure, I'd only say i'd want it codified. On a failed climbing roll, follow it up with a roll on another table to determine other aspects. That would be fine. It would then become part of the physics of the world. I'm not even sure a DM who is really consistent couldn't make it up as he goes though I'd be very nervous to play with the DM. 99% of the time he wouldn't end up providing a campaign I'd like. I leave open the theoretical possibility for that 1%.


I prefer detailed DMs with really deep campaign worlds that I can discover. I want those worlds to be built like a clock so that the interconnections are already there and are not waiting for me a player to invent them.

It's nothing more than a matter of taste. I'm not saying your way isn't a valid way to play. It just doesn't satisfy me either as a player or DM.

 

[Emerikol]

Nor is there anything unrealistic about the various actual play examples that I have given upthread. There is nothing unrealistic about searching a tower for a lost mace and discovering that it is not there, but rather has been looted by a dark elf adversary, and instead discovering that one's balrog-possessed brother may have been evil all along - as be-tokened by the black arrows in his (formerly) private workroom.

Just for additional clarity. I want to emphasize that my use of realistic is in regards to how the player controls the character. The player by roleplaying the character in the way I prefer is limiting his decisions and actions to what that character is capable of doing. Anything the character can realistically do, the player can realistically consider. The player though shouldn't be a metagamer who weaves the story around the character. (for my style of course).

For me its the tension between story writing and gaming. I want a game where the players as their characters confront challenges presented to them by the DM. They do everything in their power to achieve their goals in the most efficient way possible unless their characters personality really didn't work that way which in the world of successful adventurers would be rare.

I realize there are the story writer gamers who want to work as a team with their DM to create interesting stories where their characters are pawns in the grand scheme of things. They will gleefully complicate matters for their characters because that makes the story more interesting. It's all about story and actually "winning" the game is not a consideration other than just having fun of course.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I totally disagree.

The first is clearly stating that you have a choice in how you define skills working. People like different levels of connectedness. Playing the way that they want to play is in no way wrong and is a good way to play. I play that way in Leverage and Champions (when we used to play it). But the second part suggests that not chosing to play it one way isn't OK. The "and you shouldn't" is the problem that I am having.

I agree with your disagreement. I should have worded it slightly differently.

A skill check doesn't have to be so narrowly defined, and it shouldn't be presented as if that's the only option.

What I was really getting at is that a lot of people present rules like skill checks as being an either/or scenario, and claim that the rules restrict them to only that interpretation. Then I've seen newbie DMs (including a few threads ongoing right now), adhering to an interpretation of the rules that is limiting at best, and killing the game at worst. So I feel it's important for people, especially those new to the game, to understand that the DM always has the option to consider more than just an either/or scenario.

Now the proponents of so-called fail forward mechanics will still argue that it's a better approach. I an inclined to agree, recognizing that game design is always evolving, and that many things that seem obvious and make sense to us now, were new and controversial a decade or two ago. As a result, there will be a lot of people who don't agree with the approach.

I will also point out that the concept is still a relatively new one, at least in terms of being laid out as an over-arching rule concept. And I think there are still some general flaws in the usual presentation of the concept that keeps it from being a more universal approach to rules systems.

Other than the terminology, the descriptions lean heavily on the idea that they are used in certain types of games - usually sandbox, anti-railroading, anti-prewritten scenario, and similar terms. They also lean heavily on the 'always say yes' methodology.

First, I'd argue that for it to evolve into a universal technique, it needs to be recognized that it is a universal concept, and works equally well in published scenarios, pre-written home scenarios, random scenarios, etc.

It's actually very simple: A skill check is about more than just a single task at a single point in a time. A skill check can be used based on a broader context, looking at the circumstance, not just the skill in question. This is something that has been part of the game since the beginning.

'I kick in the door.' Makes a Strength check, and fails.
'The door is stronger than you think, and doesn't budge.' DM also makes a check to see if the orcs down the hall hear the attempt.

The reality is that the second check isn't necessarily needed. As a DM, you have a pretty good idea how far the sound of a strong kick on a door will travel, and you know what the orcs are doing and how attentive they are. Failure to kick in the door is enough to warrant considering whether they hear it or not, and you can use the amount of the failure to help determine that. I get that the two are only indirectly connected, and that more checks could give you potentially more possibilities.

The orcs may be alerted even upon successfully kicking in the door. That the orcs are alerted shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone, because kicking in a door isn't a very stealthy way to get in.

If they were trying to pick a lock and enter stealthily, you could save some steps by indicating that a minor failure is a success in picking the lock, but the door squeaks loudly as they open it, alerting the orcs. A major failure indicates that picking the lock didn't work, you can continue to try (in which case I'd just use my time-based option), or you can try an alternative way to enter. Yes, this could be a series of checks (failure, success, stealth, perception), but it doesn't need to be that complicated. The action moves forward, and an interesting scene is set through the use of a single check which is determining 'did they successfully bypass the lock and enter the room without detection' rather than 'you failed, try again, OK the lock is open, what do you do? Enter stealthily, etc. Also, do you make a Stealth/Perception check on the failed check, successful check, opening the door, all three, or two of the three, etc.?

Neither approach is inherently better or worse. But the first option streamlines it and moves the game forward without extraneous checks that as a whole don't add any more value to the game and the story than the first option.

But you're writing a story, and part of a good story is, well, a good story. If you make a check for the orcs, and they fail, then there's no additional story, no additional complication. But if you go with the (aargh!) fail forward approach, then the story evolves based around that single roll. This is simpler, streamlined, and also allows the DM to go with what makes sense rather than just more die rolls.

Second, proponents of the technique, and the very description of the technique, needs to retain the original possibilities and expand upon them. Most of the discussions tend to either ignore, or specifically advise against outright failure. I think that is a mistake. I think that failure is an option, and although sometimes that option isn't the most interesting option, it still must be an option - provided it serves a purpose. This speaks in part about good design in where an obstacle must serve a purpose. My opinion on what serves a purpose, though, often goes against what is usually recommended.

One example is a locked door that serves as the entrance to a dungeon. Outright failure is not an option, they must get through the door. But if the rogue fails to pick the lock there are still other options. A knock spell. Kicking in the door. Finding an alternative entrance, etc. Fail forward proponents would probably recommend not having an outright fail option.

Second, current design concepts recommend placing things like locked doors unless there's a purpose for them. This also seems to be a common recommendation regarding random-based adventures. But people lock doors. It might just be their bedroom, with little of value, and doesn't further the story as well. But it does further the goal of building a believable and immersive world.

As for fate. If you are using fate to avoid tying it to skill checks, then no, you wouldn't want to tie it only to failed skill checks. But, if you're using the 'failed forward' concept, then one option you have as a DM is to describe a failure that is foiled by fate. This usually feels a bit more fair to the players, than when one of them succeeds, and finds that their success is suddenly negated due to fate. As I said, this could potentially be viewed as 'more realistic' and if that's what you want, then that's fine.

I'm not a fan of disassociated mechanics in general, so I haven't implemented a fate mechanic, and certainly am not interested in a banked fate system for my game. YMMV of course.

Ilbranteloth

 

[grendel111111]

I agree with your disagreement. I should have worded it slightly differently.

A skill check doesn't have to be so narrowly defined, and it shouldn't be presented as if that's the only option.

What I was really getting at is that a lot of people present rules like skill checks as being an either/or scenario, and claim that the rules restrict them to only that interpretation. Then I've seen newbie DMs (including a few threads ongoing right now), adhering to an interpretation of the rules that is limiting at best, and killing the game at worst. So I feel it's important for people, especially those new to the game, to understand that the DM always has the option to consider more than just an either/or scenario.

I think this is partly due to many of these options being in the DMG and so people don't give them a fair shake. WTC needed to choose a default settings and these are the choices they presented in the Players Handbook. But people have become so hung up on "official" rules that they don't look at the optional rules in the DMG which can shift the came significantly in one or other direction.

Now the proponents of so-called fail forward mechanics will still argue that it's a better approach. I an inclined to agree, recognizing that game design is always evolving, and that many things that seem obvious and make sense to us now, were new and controversial a decade or two ago. As a result, there will be a lot of people who don't agree with the approach.

I will also point out that the concept is still a relatively new one, at least in terms of being laid out as an over-arching rule concept. And I think there are still some general flaws in the usual presentation of the concept that keeps it from being a more universal approach to rules systems.

Other than the terminology, the descriptions lean heavily on the idea that they are used in certain types of games - usually sandbox, anti-railroading, anti-prewritten scenario, and similar terms. They also lean heavily on the 'always say yes' methodology.

First, I'd argue that for it to evolve into a universal technique, it needs to be recognized that it is a universal concept, and works equally well in published scenarios, pre-written home scenarios, random scenarios, etc.

Those who like not using fail forward will also argue that is the better approach, and it is for them.

The key here is that being accepted as a universal option is different to being accepted as the universal right way to play. And I think you see the difference. I certainly see it as a very valid and enjoyable way to play. For me it suits some games better than other and different forms of failing forward work in different game experiences.

It's actually very simple: A skill check is about more than just a single task at a single point in a time. A skill check can be used based on a broader context, looking at the circumstance, not just the skill in question. This is something that has been part of the game since the beginning.

'I kick in the door.' Makes a Strength check, and fails.
'The door is stronger than you think, and doesn't budge.' DM also makes a check to see if the orcs down the hall hear the attempt.

The reality is that the second check isn't necessarily needed. As a DM, you have a pretty good idea how far the sound of a strong kick on a door will travel, and you know what the orcs are doing and how attentive they are. Failure to kick in the door is enough to warrant considering whether they hear it or not, and you can use the amount of the failure to help determine that. I get that the two are only indirectly connected, and that more checks could give you potentially more possibilities.

The orcs may be alerted even upon successfully kicking in the door. That the orcs are alerted shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone, because kicking in a door isn't a very stealthy way to get in.

And I think everyone agrees on this. Those who want a consistent world (because we can't use realism we need a new phrase), would also have kicking down a door attracting the attention of near by creatures. But I for example would not have the person who successfully kick down the door be some how quieter than those who failed. Success and failure generate about the same amount of volume in this situation. People who suggest that success at a cost is good here could also look at the option of: just saying that yes the door is kicked down and assess if there were any creatures near by that heard that happen. I don't see a reason to even roll a die and assign a failure to it, if they are automatically successful knocking down the door anyway and the orcs hearing you is because of the kicking being done not the success of the opening.
In the same way that if a person proficient with lock picks is opening a lock - you want it to succeed so no matter the roll it will open, What is important is "did someone hear you?" the I would go with a stealth roll, and if they announced they were doing it as quietly as possible give them advantage on the roll.

If they were trying to pick a lock and enter stealthily, you could save some steps by indicating that a minor failure is a success in picking the lock, but the door squeaks loudly as they open it, alerting the orcs. A major failure indicates that picking the lock didn't work, you can continue to try (in which case I'd just use my time-based option), or you can try an alternative way to enter. Yes, this could be a series of checks (failure, success, stealth, perception), but it doesn't need to be that complicated. The action moves forward, and an interesting scene is set through the use of a single check which is determining 'did they successfully bypass the lock and enter the room without detection' rather than 'you failed, try again, OK the lock is open, what do you do? Enter stealthily, etc. Also, do you make a Stealth/Perception check on the failed check, successful check, opening the door, all three, or two of the three, etc.?

Neither approach is inherently better or worse. But the first option streamlines it and moves the game forward without extraneous checks that as a whole don't add any more value to the game and the story than the first option.

But you're writing a story, and part of a good story is, well, a good story. If you make a check for the orcs, and they fail, then there's no additional story, no additional complication. But if you go with the (aargh!) fail forward approach, then the story evolves based around that single roll. This is simpler, streamlined, and also allows the DM to go with what makes sense rather than just more die rolls.

Second, proponents of the technique, and the very description of the technique, needs to retain the original possibilities and expand upon them. Most of the discussions tend to either ignore, or specifically advise against outright failure. I think that is a mistake. I think that failure is an option, and although sometimes that option isn't the most interesting option, it still must be an option - provided it serves a purpose. This speaks in part about good design in where an obstacle must serve a purpose. My opinion on what serves a purpose, though, often goes against what is usually recommended.

I really like the levels of success mechanic and use it a lot, especially for anything knowledge based.
I definitely agree about building games and game elements with purpose not only as they fit being a game component, but also as the fit in the world as it is presented.

You may find that some people disagree about "you're writing a story" and rather that you are experiencing a world, and that makes a difference.
What you are setting out to do in your game does effect choices that you make. Writing a story implies that the key result is the story that happens, Things should be chosen based on what would make a good story (but from whose perspective, the players, the DM, an outside observer? it could be all 3). Then story elements are key, build to a climax, a certain level of script immunity is needed, keep the story moving to a resolution, "Random" events happen not randomly, but because they add to and enhance the story.

On the other hand if your goal is to experience a world through the game, then different choices can be made. Random things happen because in life random things happen. Hitting a dead end and having to find another way to achieve you goals or even needing to change your goals, is perfectly fine if you're not tied to "story". Characters don't have to die in a story satisfying way, because it is a game and the mechanics have given the result you got. "Time for a new clone". I had a DM ask after one game where my character died if I wanted him to save my character as my story wasn't "finished". But to me his story was finished, he didn't reach all his goals, but that is part of life.

People who have a preference for one style of game over the other will see elements of the other approach as a failing and unsatisfying because it's not meeting their gaming needs.

One example is a locked door that serves as the entrance to a dungeon. Outright failure is not an option, they must get through the door. But if the rogue fails to pick the lock there are still other options. A knock spell. Kicking in the door. Finding an alternative entrance, etc. Fail forward proponents would probably recommend not having an outright fail option.

Second, current design concepts recommend placing things like locked doors unless there's a purpose for them. This also seems to be a common recommendation regarding random-based adventures. But people lock doors. It might just be their bedroom, with little of value, and doesn't further the story as well. But it does further the goal of building a believable and immersive world.

I see a 3 way pull on design:
1 story
2 experiencing a world (or building a believable and immersive world)
3 game elements

Sometimes they all pull in the same direction and sometimes they pull against each other. When they pull against each other you need to make a choice as to which you prioritize and it may not be the same decision every time.

so in the locked door example
number 1 says the door is locked and must be passed for good story.
number 2 says the door is locked if it makes sense, who locked it, why did they lock it, does it result in an impossible situation (such as a person being in the room with no key, so no chance of leaving, but has been here for months clearly with no food or water, waiting for someone to stumble up and open the door for them.)
Number 3 says if something is essential don't put it behind a locked or secret door.

One of my favorite openings to an adventure is B4. It's in a pyramid with only a secret door for access. but the door is wedged open by a corpse with a crossbow bolt in it. The door is automatically found and the trap that killed the interloper is triggered and empty. The "secret door isn't a blockage and it makes it clear the party are heading into a heavily trapped area.

As for fate. If you are using fate to avoid tying it to skill checks, then no, you wouldn't want to tie it only to failed skill checks. But, if you're using the 'failed forward' concept, then one option you have as a DM is to describe a failure that is foiled by fate. This usually feels a bit more fair to the players, than when one of them succeeds, and finds that their success is suddenly negated due to fate. As I said, this could potentially be viewed as 'more realistic' and if that's what you want, then that's fine.

I'm not a fan of disassociated mechanics in general, so I haven't implemented a fate mechanic, and certainly am not interested in a banked fate system for my game. YMMV of course.

Ilbranteloth

I use a fate mechanic in leverage and other games I play not so much in D and D, but again people should see it as a possible mechanic they can use to create the game they are looking for.

PS I am really enjoying this discussion.