Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6511037" data-attributes="member: 97077">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.</blockquote>