Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9678306" data-attributes="member: 29398">Ideally the DM has the attitude of whatever happens, happens.I've had fail-forward explained (and have seen this repeated even in this thread) that a fail can sometimes (not always!) be turned into what I read as a success-with-complication.&nbsp; For example, instead of failing to climb the wall you succeed in climbing it but now there's a bunch of guards on the other side who are about to shoot you.Another example I've seen is that on a fail roll when searching for a secret door, you in fact find it anyway because something unexpected and nasty comes out of it from the other side.Then why do the provided examples never maintain the failure state?Of course.If the roll is, at root, a binary succeed-fail determination of the results of a stated action then only one or the other outcome may be true; and the roll dictates which.You either climb the wall or you don't.&nbsp; You either jump the gap or you don't.&nbsp; You either convince the Baron or you don't.&nbsp; Anything other than this is superfluous to the actual outcome of the action as determined by the roll.No, it is not a failure.&nbsp; In fact, it's an outright success - you climbed the cliff and made it to the top.Why you're climbing that cliff is completely irrelevant.&nbsp; All we're resolving here is the actual declared action of climbing the cliff, and if the roll says you failed on that then you ain't getting to the top.No, the goal was only to climb the cliff.&nbsp; Saving your friend is a completely different thing that we'll deal with if-when you get to the cliff-top.You don't get to concatenate several distinct actions and resolutions into one roll.I'll admit mistakes; but once they've happened, they've happened.&nbsp; No going back.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 9678306, member: 29398"] Ideally the DM has the attitude of whatever happens, happens. I've had fail-forward explained (and have seen this repeated even in this thread) that a fail can sometimes (not always!) be turned into what I read as a success-with-complication. For example, instead of failing to climb the wall you succeed in climbing it but now there's a bunch of guards on the other side who are about to shoot you. Another example I've seen is that on a fail roll when searching for a secret door, you in fact find it anyway because something unexpected and nasty comes out of it from the other side. Then why do the provided examples never maintain the failure state? Of course. If the roll is, at root, a binary succeed-fail determination of the results of a stated action then only one or the other outcome may be true; and the roll dictates which. You either climb the wall or you don't. You either jump the gap or you don't. You either convince the Baron or you don't. Anything other than this is superfluous to the actual outcome of the action as determined by the roll. No, it is not a failure. In fact, it's an outright success - you climbed the cliff and made it to the top. [B]Why[/B] you're climbing that cliff is [I]completely irrelevant[/I]. All we're resolving here is the actual declared action of climbing the cliff, and if the roll says you failed on that then you ain't getting to the top. No, the goal was only to climb the cliff. Saving your friend is a completely different thing that we'll deal with if-when you get to the cliff-top. You don't get to concatenate several distinct actions and resolutions into one roll. I'll admit mistakes; but once they've happened, they've happened. No going back. [/QUOTE]

Verification