iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Which equates failure to progress. Ok I guess, but it seems kind of contrived. You failed, but I'm going to make it a partial success (i.e. progress) and throw some more bad stuff at you, just because you rolled low on the dice.
The perception check suddenly results in a random encounter. Huh?
I get the fact that it avoids one set of problems, but it seems to introduce a new set for DMs that prefer cause and effect.
This may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I think it's important to divorce the idea of failure on a check necessarily equaling failure of an action. When the rules talk about failure, it's invariably failure of the die roll plus modifiers to meet or beat a DC(or AC for that matter). This then tells the DM that the PC either makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback. A check is just to help the DM resolve uncertainty so he or she can narrate the result of the adventurers' actions. It doesn't actually say anything in and of itself in a causal way - it's the check that failed, not necessarily the PCs.
Training oneself to think this way may be difficult, however, given many years of ruling failure on a die roll equaling total failure of an action. It helps to set the stakes before the roll and make it clear to the players. So in that example I used, I might say, "Okay, you want to spend some time searching the room. Go ahead and make a Wisdom (Perception) check. If the check succeeds, you'll find something interesting. If the check fails, you'll find something interesting, but in the doing you'll make some noise and draw unwanted attention." This is also a good way to make sure everyone's on the same page with regard to the stakes of a situation and to increase the tension while making the roll.