There’s a concept in DMing called ‘failing up.’* In essence, its about making NAt 1s more than just about ‘well you failed’ in such a way as the momentum of the story stops dead. Let’s say a thief, with proficency and levels and lots of skills, fails to pick a lock - a nat 1. The lock cannot be picked, the door cannot be opened, the narrative and momentum stops dead as the aprty has to stand around and discuss what happens next. In failing up, however, the DM changes the parametres so that a nat 1 becomes less about failure and more ‘success with consequences’ (similar to what Monster Of The Week has as a built-in mechanic’). The thief rolls a nat 1 - he picks the lock, but the lock breaks loudly enough to alert the guards, and sudden this stealth mission is turning pear-shaped. The fighter rolls a nat 1: he moves the heavy boulder, but he throws his back out, and the party has no time to stop and rest - for the next while he’s going to be disadvantaged on a lot of checks. The wizard rolls a nat 1 on their arcana - they know enough to read the spell, but not enough to pick-up the curse built into the text, and so on.
Failure should not be dead-end, narratively.
*Okay, the exact name escapes me for the moment and I’m having a damned hard time figuring out if my source was Matt Coville or The Angry GM or someone else, but failing up works just as well.
