Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The roots of 4e exposed?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7464174" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>This is another example of terminology drift.</p><p></p><p>"Fail forward" is a technique that was championed by certain indie designers. The 13th Age rulebook (p 42) describes it thus:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">A simple but powerful improvement you can make to your game is to redefine failure as “things go wrong” instead of “the PC isn’t good enough.” Ron Edwards, Luke Crane, and other indie RPG designers have championed this idea, and they’re exactly right. You can call it “fail forward” or “no whiffing."</p><p></p><p>In Luke Crane's Burning Wheel ruleset, it is elaborated in this way (Gold edition, pp 31-32):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">When the dice are rolled and don’t produce enough successes to meet the obstacle, the character fails. What does this mean? It means the [player's] stated intent does not come to pass. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">When a test is failed, the GM introduces a complication. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Try not to present flat negative results - "You don’t pick the lock." Strive to introduce complications through failure as much as possible.</p><p></p><p>As Luke Crane presents it, the <em>forward</em> in "fail forward" is not <em>that the PC gets to go forward in the desired direction</em>. It's that <em>the events of play</em> keep going forward, although in some way that is at odds with the player's intent in having declared the action.</p><p></p><p>In the 13th Age rulebook, the description of "fail forward" goes on:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">A more constructive way to interpret failure is as a near-success or event that happens to carry unwanted consequences or side effects. The character probably still fails to achieve the desired goal, but that’s because something happens on the way to the goal rather than because nothing happens.</p><p></p><p>The idea of "fail forward" as "near-success", or "success with complications", has become increasingly common. In this variant usage, the <em>forward</em> is precisely that the PC gets to proceed in the direction the player hoped. Whereas the Luke Crane-type "fail forward" is a technique that is intended to support player-driven RPGing, by substituting <em>dramatic outcomes of player-delcared checks</em> for a GM pre-authored storyline. But the more recent, and increasingly common, "success with complications" notion of "fail forward" is a technique for facilitating GM pre-authored storylines, by ensuring that no "unpassable" obstacles get in their way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7464174, member: 42582"] This is another example of terminology drift. "Fail forward" is a technique that was championed by certain indie designers. The 13th Age rulebook (p 42) describes it thus: [indent]A simple but powerful improvement you can make to your game is to redefine failure as “things go wrong” instead of “the PC isn’t good enough.” Ron Edwards, Luke Crane, and other indie RPG designers have championed this idea, and they’re exactly right. You can call it “fail forward” or “no whiffing."[/indent] In Luke Crane's Burning Wheel ruleset, it is elaborated in this way (Gold edition, pp 31-32): [indent]When the dice are rolled and don’t produce enough successes to meet the obstacle, the character fails. What does this mean? It means the [player's] stated intent does not come to pass. . . . When a test is failed, the GM introduces a complication. . . . Try not to present flat negative results - "You don’t pick the lock." Strive to introduce complications through failure as much as possible.[/indent] As Luke Crane presents it, the [I]forward[/I] in "fail forward" is not [I]that the PC gets to go forward in the desired direction[/I]. It's that [I]the events of play[/I] keep going forward, although in some way that is at odds with the player's intent in having declared the action. In the 13th Age rulebook, the description of "fail forward" goes on: [indent]A more constructive way to interpret failure is as a near-success or event that happens to carry unwanted consequences or side effects. The character probably still fails to achieve the desired goal, but that’s because something happens on the way to the goal rather than because nothing happens.[/indent] The idea of "fail forward" as "near-success", or "success with complications", has become increasingly common. In this variant usage, the [I]forward[/I] is precisely that the PC gets to proceed in the direction the player hoped. Whereas the Luke Crane-type "fail forward" is a technique that is intended to support player-driven RPGing, by substituting [I]dramatic outcomes of player-delcared checks[/I] for a GM pre-authored storyline. But the more recent, and increasingly common, "success with complications" notion of "fail forward" is a technique for facilitating GM pre-authored storylines, by ensuring that no "unpassable" obstacles get in their way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The roots of 4e exposed?
Top