Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 6784717" data-attributes="member: 23935">Depends on the style used.  I am not a fan of utilising consequence that does not follow from the failure since that can muddy in-character thought processes in ways I find disconcerting as a player.  More typically in my case, the failure will in addition trigger an event / effect in the environment that is already plausibly present, but presently undetected or apparently inconsequential.  If there is an option to introduce a new stake (such as dropping a valuable item), I'll present that to the table as a choice in advance --> the player fails a climb check* sufficiently badly that a fall is a normal consequence and the player is presented with the option to accept the fall or drop the item as he desperately grabs for holds.Can the technique be used to railroad?  Sure.  Any technique that relies on GM force can be used to railroad.  The GM needs to guard against (or at least be honest with himself and the table) as he would with any other technique.* this is a poor example for the way I typically use fail-forward which is more about when the players have painted themselves into a corner and the situation is threatening to enter stasis and/or the table is furiously pursuing a self-created red herring out to sea.</blockquote>