Letting Failure Play A Part

My party had planned to break into the local noble’s house during a party. They planned to snoop about and look for proof of his corruption. The party prepares and waits for the cover of night. Sneaking in close, the party approaches the door to the house. The rogue gets out their thieves’ tools and goes to pick the lock. The player rolls and fails spectacularly. They cannot get through the door, and have no other way inside. The players are unsure what to do. Do they try again? Or try to knock the door down? The players debate as the encounter slows to a stop. Does it have to be this way? Can we still simulate some aspect of failing the check and still keep the game moving forwards? Perhaps with a way that encourages collaborative storytelling? By embracing the principle of Failing Forward, we can do that.

What is Fail Forwards?

At a quick glance, a lot of situations determined by dice rolls in 5e can seem to have two outcomes. In combat, either an attack hits or misses. We can refer to this thinking as “Binary Rolls”, where the decision either succeeds or fails. Binary Rolls can keep a game moving quickly. The player has a number (DC) to meet on a die roll. They can add numbers to that with proficiency or by using a spell or ability, but ultimately that roll will cause either a yes or no. While this method streamlines gameplay, Binary Rolls can lead to an abrupt stop in gameplay. In our example about lock-picking, the entry to the doorway has now become impassable. If no other way exists to get inside the noble’s house, then ultimately the encounter comes to a grinding halt as the players feel like they cannot proceed. Sometimes this can work in a story, but if plot progression requires you to get through that door, then the story will stall until the players do.

Failing forwards can resolve this issue by allowing the game to proceed, incorporating failing to meet the DC of the challenge by adding a complication, some cost that gets added on to the success. To rephrase it, we acknowledge the failure of the roll, but move the game forwards. This method prevents the loss of momentum and provides unforeseen twists that can be the foundation for creative critical thinking. By reimagining the results of failure, we allow the game to move forward with additional elements.

Revisiting this encounter with a Fail Forward mindset, we can approach the failed lock picking check differently. When the player rolls and cannot meet the DC, many things could happen instead of a full failure. Perhaps the door unlocks, but the lock pick breaks off inside it. While the party has moved forward, that failed roll has had an added complication to their success. The lock picking tools have now broken. The rogue will not have them for the rest of the encounter, and the broken pieces might leave clues that someone had entered the building. Using Fail Forwards, we have kept the game moving but added an interesting complication instead of a total failure.

When to Fail Forwards

Now we understand the concept of Fail Forwards, and how it pertains to gameplay. This method means that a failed roll will not result in an inability to proceed, but ‌will add a complication to its success. We now want to determine when to incorporate Fail Forwards and when to avoid it. 

Preventing a loss of game momentum is a great example of when to use Fail Forwards. Back to our lock-picking example. I am sure you already thought, “If they cannot go in the front door, what about a back door? Or a servant’s entrance? Even a window!”. That line of thinking highlights an excellent point. In many situations, a failed roll (or sets of rolls) might just mean the first choice cannot work. The party has to use the window instead of the front door. In that case, the failure does not stop the party from proceeding. In some ways it already Fails Forwards as one of many options for the party. Careful encounter planning can help with this, as you can make sure that if the party needs to accomplish something to proceed, they have multiple ways to do it. You can certainly still employ methods to allow the door to cause some complications, but it is unnecessary for continuing the game forwards. We don’t have to worry about a failed check stopping the party.

Imagine, however, if the door was instead a locked door in a dungeon, or a secret passageway. The party cannot open the door or find the passage, so the game grinds to a halt. Multiple characters might try the same course of action, putting roll after roll towards trying to succeed. When your players dogpile, it becomes a steady stream of ability checks to accomplish a goal, eventually. They will eventually proceed, but in a narratively boring way. Here, it makes sense to remove the roll entirely, if the party absolutely needs to proceed. Easily accomplished most of the time, but these situations can come when you want to build a realistic world at the sake of an efficient encounter design. Sometimes it would make sense for an obstacle to only have one or two methods to pass it. 

The chance to succeed with a complication can provide a thought-provoking twist to the direction the party takes. Failing forward creates an opportunity for improvisation and collaboration at the table. When learning to improv, they recommend answering questions in a way that promotes continued collaboration. Instead of saying “Yes” or “No” to a player, instead you should say “Yes, and” or “No, but”. This allows the player to engage as well, inviting them to contribute. Fall Forwards incorporates that response for skill and ability checks. Instead of saying “You do not get a discount”, you instead say “Yes, you get the discount, but the Merchant eyes up your lute, and motions for you to put it on the table as trade”. It expands upon the results in ways that the players might not expect and presents fresh challenges.

However, adding these elements can prove counterproductive ‌and Binary Rolls instead perform better. Optional encounters or rewards can make more sense when achieving them comes down to a single roll. If the results of the roll would add something purely optional or bonus to what the party wants to accomplish, then letting the players fail makes entire sense. A chest with healing potions in a dungeon could benefit the party, but will not prevent them from continuing in their quest. In that case, it makes sense to have a flat chance of failure occur. Binary Rolls also keep a game moving swiftly. With a definite failure, the party will have reason to move on to other options.

Types of Fail Forward

Success at a Cost

When we talked about our lock-picking example, we allowed success but with an added complication. When our rogue tried to open the door and failed the DC, the door unlocked at the cost of the broken and stuck thieves’ tools. Instead of just employing a Binary Roll result of a failure, we had success, but at a cost. This complication of losing a tool and potentially leaving evidence does not stop the game, but represents an added twist to the encounter. The party will have to overcome this fresh obstacle besides moving forwards. In the short term, this can mean opening locked doors without a lock pick set, and potentially having to remove the broken elements from the lock on the door.

The DMG recommends that these on a close of the DC, suggesting a failure of a 1 or a 2 and sometimes even if you exactly meet the DC. This takes a static DC 12 and makes it a DC 10-12, with added effects on anything below a 12. The idea focuses on the fact that while you progress, something else pops up to complicate the situation because of that narrow miss of the DC. This complication introduces an unknown element of challenge to the encounter and gives the party obstacles to overcome. Players do not feel stuck because of the failed state of a Binary Roll, and you get the chance to give them a new (minor) challenge that changes things up.

Degrees of Failure (and Success)

While you can succeed at a cost, you can have a gradient of failure. Instead of a near miss progressing with a complication, a slight failure can offer a minor negative result. While this sounds like it would punish more than assist, it can lessen the blow of a failure. Our party made it through the front door, and now has gotten to the lockbox in the noble’s study. Checking the box reveals that while it is unlocked, a nasty trap would fill the room with poison gas. The rogue attempts to disable the trap and fails again. It is REALLY not his night.

Employing a Binary Roll here would mean that no matter how much the failure, the same result would happen. Imagine a DC 15 to disarm the trap. A 5 and 10 rolls would give the same result, either a failure to disarm or springing the trap. But we can have different levels of failure. Where the trap originally said “DC 15 Sleight of Hand to Disarm, upon failure the trap triggers” we can now say “DC 15 sleight of Hand to Disarm. Failure by less than 10 results in a failure to disarm. Failure by 10 or more cannot disarm and trigger the trap.”

This creates a different Fail Forward situation by creating a range of results based on the amount of failure. With the binary result, any miss could set off the trap. Now a near miss could allow for the party to try again, with the potential for a worse result down the road. The situation goes from a simple and somewhat short end to a tense moment as the rogue tries to circumvent the trap. Social Encounters also benefit from a range of different failures. Imagine the party is trying to talk their way through the gates of a town. The guards want to inspect their packs, but the party resists. The Bard tried to get the guards to look elsewhere. In a Binary Roll, the bard would either succeed or fail. With “Degrees of Failure”, however, you can include some flair to it. If the bard gets a “Minor Failure” of less than 5, the guards proceed as they intended. With a major failure, however, situations can get interesting. Maybe the bard accidentally insulted the guard, or let it slip that they have a pack full of rare meats and cheeses. The guards could confiscate the contraband or jail the bard for the evening. 

You can also implement the opposite and provide “Degrees of Success” that allow for a range of options based on the roll over the DC. While not Failing Forward, I find these quite useful to use when rolls involve remembering and retrieving information. It inverts the original idea and rewards higher rolls. Perhaps the party bard does an exceptional job of charming the shopkeeper, achieving 10 above the DC you had set. In that case, you can offer an extra discount or bonus item with their purchase. They passed, but so spectacularly that they gained an additional advantage.

Adding ranges of success and failure provide powerful results that can change the outcome of roll,, but you will want to use these sparingly. With the format adding extra effects to lower rolls, you are effectively creating a “light failure” and “heavy failure”, and that low roll will now have some extra sting to it. Adding more to a failing roll can make players avoid trying skills that don’t have high modifiers. Why risk a bad persuasion check if failing could mean so much more? While this can foster teamwork, it can also punish players for using their character in less than optimal ways. If the barbarian causes more harm than good when attempting to bargain, they might not try, and rather wait for a more charismatic member instead.

To lighten the impact of failure, I like to bring the player into the event. When they fail, create the scene with them. In our bard example, the player might find it an excellent opportunity to show the blind spot of their ordinarily suave party face. If the player leans into the play, awarding inspiration for the situation can give a silver lining as well.

Critical Success or Failure Out of Combat

One of the more common rule clarifications I have seen given at the table involves rolling a 1 or 20 outside of combat. The official 5e rules state that critical hits only happen in combat, and that critical failures do not exist at all. But when a player rolls a 1 or a 20 in the game, it always feels exciting, and I have seen many DMs work that into game play through house rules. They bring additional Natural 20 results in the other elements of the game, and add some sort of boon or bonus when you hit that magical number.

Now Critical Successes and Failures are not something I would consider wholly Fail Forward. They just change the extreme ends of the dice rolls, and can add some extra benefits or hindrances to them. But they have a few ways to allow a failed roll to push the game forwards, or a super success feels more exciting. While they do not entirely create new options of progress, they can alter the game play and allow for additional story elements. It made sense to keep them here.

My favorite examples have to do with any sort of knowledge gathering rolls. The party has come across some ancient glyphs in a dungeon, and the wizard wants to know if they can translate them. Upon rolling an Arcana Check, the wizard gets a Natural 20! Typically, that would just be a success as long as it meets the DC. If it does, you give the wizard the information and you proceed through the game. However, if you use Critical Success Rules, give a little more. Besides translating the runes, the wizard also can tell that they had magic running through them recently. With this additional knowledge, the wizard can deduce that someone with magical talent entered the dungeon. They might even still lurk somewhere ahead.

On the opposite side, a Critical Failure will give some additional complications to the failure. In trying to charm a nearby horse, the Ranger rolls a natural 1 on the animal handling check. Critical Failure dictates something else would happen besides the failure. Perhaps the Ranger’s gentle voice enrages the horse, who then makes an attack against the Ranger, and probably knocks them over. A Natural 1 Insight check might even turn up incorrect or even the opposite information!

Critical Failures can make players feel like they get kicked when they are down. The roll already failed, but the dreaded 1 means that the player now gets some sort of hindrance. While Natural 1s do not arise all that often statistically, with a 1 in 20 chance, it can feel like a big occasion when one arises. One method to improve and possibly elevate a Critical Failure is to bring the player into the situation, similar to how we handle degrees of failure and success. Have the player tell you and the rest of the party how they fail so magnificently to fit a Critical Failure. Let them explain and act it out. At that point, you can determine what sort of additional penalty comes from the critical and offer inspiration if the player played along. 

In my experience, I have found that letting a player describe how they failed an action can lessen the failure and sometimes introduce a little humor into a session. Everyone can step back and take a laugh at how the situation unfolded in such a way to lead to failure. The offered point of inspiration makes this Fail Forward in my mind. Although the roll failed, this token can help the entire group progress in the forward. For embracing the failed check as part of the narrative, I can provide a silver lining to this exceptionally stormy cloud.

Examples of Fail Forward

Social Encounters

When we look at the Social Interaction Guidelines as written in the Dungeon Masters Guide, they already incorporate a few methods that allow for a range of results. As written, the act of socially engaging with an NPC offers the party a chance to bring their creativity to the table, trying to improve their standing. The end of the process, however, has the results fall back to being Binary Rolls. You have set your DCs, but the party either passes or fails.While this can work in a lot of situations, I see a place for some additions.

Instead of passing or failing, we can readily incorporate complications to success. When the party just misses the DC by a few points, the NPC in question will want something in return for whatever the party desires. What they want can depend on the level of failure. For Example, maybe the party tries to petition the local duke for aid for a nearby town in need of militia support. The duke, already indifferent to their cause, seems difficult to sway. The party just barely fails their rolls, and this would normally mean a failure. However, our Duke sees some potential in this situation. He will move his militia to help the party, but he wants something in return. Maybe a secret that the party holds dear. Or maybe something big, like their support in his plans. With a slight change, you now have a potential way to both prevent a stop in game play and a way to add elements into the narrative.

Ranges of successes and failures also fit in well. In our example with the merchant and guard, we see how we can create new storytelling opportunities by offering different results for different amounts. On the high end, an NPC might give more than expected when an exceptionally high success score. Inversely, a spectacularly low roll could land a player in hot water, either making the NPC hostile to the character or causing a more immediate result.

Exploration

The exploration pillar can encompass an assortment of activities in the game. From traveling the world to adventuring in dungeons, and even the occasional breaking and entering, we can consider all of this part of the exploration pillar. 

The simplest example I can think of comes from trying to see hidden enemies. When traveling from one location to another, one or more players might want to watch for enemies. This can cause a few options, but one is a contested check. The character rolls their perception score vs monster’s Stealth Score.anything below the DC would cause a failure, with the characters not seeing their hidden assailants. But we can change that. A near miss, coming within a few points of the DC, could bring complications. The party saw the enemies, but the enemies also realize this as well. Combat will start immediately, but no advantage given. Maybe the player watching tripped while staring into the forest, and now has to contend with proceeding while prone. We can also provide a gradient of failure as well. If the character gets within 5 of the stealth score, they notice movement but do not know what causes the movement, or the location of the cause. This does not fail utterly, but it gives them something to act upon. The players can wave it off as a small animal or the wind, or they can stop and investigate.

Navigating the wilderness also provides a chance for an option to allow success, but with complications. The rules in the DMG have the Dungeon Master set a DC. If the navigator fails, the party becomes lost for 1d6 hours, and can make the check again. This works, but adding in range to our rolls can improve the situation. If the party just fails, perhaps they find the way, but encounter an obstacle. The castle is on the other side of the swamp. Crossing the swap could lead to an interesting encounter for the party, one that they will need to think about overcoming. Degrees of failure also work here. Perhaps if the roll misses the DC by 5 or less, the party takes 1d4 additional hours instead of the full 1d6. Or after 1d6 they succeed instead of having a re-roll. Instead of a flat roll resulting in a penalty, we now have a range that provides more options.

Combat

I dislike the idea of using Fail Forward in Combat encounters. A large amount of the game hinges on the balance that exists in combat, and allowing a hit that just misses doing something can unbalance the game, and potentially turn combat into a much messier encounter.. The same goes for degrees of failure. The results of a saving throw already exist. To punish a player in the heat of battle for a low roll is just going to raise frustrations. At least directly related to the act of players and monsters fighting one another, it makes more sense to stick with quick Binary Rolls. They work well here, giving quick and clear answers that simulate the fast-paced action in combat.

If I would use Fail Forward options for anything, it would have to do with any sort of Dynamic Environment that I use in my encounters. If the area has traps or hazards, for example, I might try to incorporate success but at a cost. It could mean a round of being suspended in the air if the party steps into a snare. If you, however, roll just shy, perhaps the snare catches your foot, but does not catch you. The play gets knocked prone, which just will consume half of your movement. In these situations, we lessen the cost of failure, which can allow a character to proceed forwards with less of a penalty than previous.

A Final Word of Caution

Adding the ability to Fail Forward by adding complications to success and a range of failure can help to keep momentum moving forwards, but can cause some unwanted side effects. By adding these elements, you tell your party that success will always be obtainable. When you have encounters that have Binary Rolls, the party might not realize they cannot proceed, frustrating themselves while trying to resolve the encounter. So when implementing these options, it pays to not have every option to have a range of success or failure for them. 

If used too often, providing ranges can trivialize dice roll results. When the player has to reach a 15, it presents a challenge. The party can work together to try to get the best possible outcome, strategically employing their resources in order to overcome important obstacles. When that DC becomes a less solid thing, the impact of reaching those high rolls can lessen. Players might feel less focused on working together if they know that getting somewhere close will achieve them something. So while these options can bring great use, ‌employ them alongside binary rolls, not replace them entirely.

Other Options

Instead of complications, one can focus on offering multiple ways for a party to achieve a goal. With our noble’s door example, providing a window to break or a servant to bribe creates alternate ways to achieve the same goal, but makes the players work for it. It still allows the players to move forward with their failure, but does not rely on letting them continue onwards despite the dice rolls. While not always achievable, it will reduce down the times that the players potentially stall out.

Final Thoughts

Dungeons and Dragons, as written, can rely on a lot of Binary Actions that have a pass or fail condition. While these quick pass or fail outcomes can help keep a game moving smoothly, sometimes the shades of gray can get lost. Sometimes a failure can also prevent a game from moving forwards. Incorporating ranges of success and failure or success with a complication can avoid this, and it fosters the concept of Fail Forwards. That, win or lose, the adventure will continue forwards and not lose momentum. Incorporating elements such as complications to success, degrees of success and failure, and even critical successes on Ability Checks can provide more depth to your game. These options foster collaborative storytelling at the table. They can take a simple roll and change it from a simple pass or fail to something much more rewarding. These options have a lot of power to shape how your players perceive the game and their path to success. While they have great use, use them with care.

Do you use any Fail Forward options at your table? How have you liked them?

Have you had a time where a binary choice leads to dog piling or a loss in game progression?

Either way, I would love to hear about it below!