Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6799459" data-attributes="member: 48965">Quick question... so 4e sets the stakes for the consequences of a failed climb check, correct?  If so, how does fail forward work here?  If I as a player have read the rules and know that damage is the consequence of a failed check, do you as DM still reserve the right to create additional/other consequences... such as the alerting of the guards?  If so as DM should you let me as a player know about these added consequences or should any and all "reasonable" consequences be expected... or, and this just occurred to me, is this type of thing best established before the game starts... perhaps in pre-discussion around DM/Player responsibility.Honestly I have no problem with the concept of FF and believe one of my favorite games right now, Numenera,  uses it very well.  Why?  Because in Numenera the DM has the option to create an intrusion (basically a complication he made up) but must in exchange offer the player XP... additionally the player can choose to spend XP in order to cancel the intrusion if he feels he doesn't want whatever complication is offered up happening to his character.  I like this design because it gives the player a say so in whether this complication is something he wants to experience with his character (no guessing games on the part of the GM), but at the same time uses a limited resource (so you don't run into a situation where every complication is avoided by a particular player) to create a real decision point for the player around what is or isn't the type of complications he/she wants their character to experience.  See for me this type of mechanic preserves player agency, avoids the problem of the DM's idea on what is exciting or cool being dominant while still allowing the GM to utilize the fail forward mechanic creatively.</blockquote>

Verification