The Dumbing Down of RPGs

[Celebrim]

If they can try again with the situation unchanged then there is no consequence to failure.

I didn't saw that the situation doesn't change. Sure, something about the situation gets 'worse', even if in fact the door is now open. It's just that in practice changing the drapes is mainly what 'fail forward' does. It's that illusionism for GM's I mentioned.

As I mentioned Gygaxian D&D always has the situation changing due to Wandering Monster Rolls making it a timed game.

No, no, no, no, no. The situation changes in Gygaxian D&D because hit points go down and eventually run out. That wandering monster showing up isn't a consequence to failure unless it tangibly decreases the players resources. The wandering monster showing up after all, is potentially a good thing - bringing XP and loot. In practice though it's a bad thing, bringing lost resources and lost opportunity costs precisely because Gygaxian D&D has this logistical subgame. In 'fail forward' games, there is really no way to do that. All you do is change the drapes.

I've seen it happen four or five times in a row - and frequently all the PCs rolling until someone passes.

That's just failure to understand the mechanics. Bad gameplaying or bad GMing doesn't make for a bad system.

That's because nowhere does fail forward say that you must transform each failure into a success with consequences.

No, but any generalized idea that all failures bring mitigating consequences is just as bad. But seriously, you are just really confused. If the concept of 'fail forward' is that all failure brings negative consequences, then Gauntlet (the old coin op video game) is the premier example of 'fail forward'. 'Elf, your life force is draining!'. But of course, by negative you don't actually mean negative.

It says that each failure must make the situation worse...

No, it's says failure must be interesting.

If someone fails a jump check to longjump over a pit, having them land unpleasantly in the bottom of the pit is failing forward.

Seriously? If that is failing forward then Gygaxian D&D is failing forward par excellence. If that's failing forward you've invented nothing new. There is no novelty to the mechanic at all. The realization that failure can have negative consequences and indeed should have negative consequences is nothing new to gaming. No one needed to verbalize that. No one needed to add the qualifier 'forward' to that.

And ironically, even in this thread Umbran (using the term much more correctly) called out 'falling to the bottom of a pit' as an example of not failing forward. If the bottom of the pit isn't interesting, you didn't fail forward you just failed. If falling into and getting out of the pit isn't interesting, fail forward suggests you shouldn't have narrated that consequence.

Because it's a failure that moves things forward by changing the in game situation. But it's certainly a fail.

But it only matters if the player/character is losing something. Color of hardship isn't actual failure.

If someone tries to bluff that they are the prince and fails their bluff check so someone calls "Arrest this impostor" to the guards (who start to do so), that's failing forward. It's also failing.

But its also valid 'try again, only the stakes are getting higher'. That's why I said that allowing someone to try again is perfectly valid failing forward. All that failing forward requires is that trying again is interesting.

Fail Forward therefore demonstrably does not transform "each failure into a success with consequences".

Well, I disagree. Outside the community of Ron Edwards style 'everyone else is doing badwrongfun' snobs, even when the promoters of failing forward have the opportunity to demonstrate the value of the concept in the most advantageous situation possible - writing examples of play in rule books where they are under no time pressure to create interesting failure - the results are often laughable and mockable.

It does transform a small subset of failures into technical successes that make the situation worse. Like the lockpicking example. But if it's only a small subset that get transformed (as it is) your entire argument about slapstick comedy vanishes in a puff of smoke.

No, because my argument about slapstick comedy doesn't depend on one particular transformation. All it depends on is consistent application of the concept. You see the problem with 'failure is always interesting' is that it doesn't really correspond to actual experience in any meaningful way, so the more often it happens and the more forced that result seems, the more ridiculous the story you are generating becomes. There is nothing naturalistic about 'fail forward' happening all the time. Consistent fail forward (or success backwards!) is perfectly fine for a session of Paranoia or Toon. But is hardly universally genera appropriate.

Fail forward is a short phrase intended to deal with a particular problem. Fail forward isn't intended to deal with a general problem of failure not carrying a negative consequence (as if failing forward games are somehow harsher than those that aren't). Fail forward isn't even just 'say yes or throw the dice' in different words. Fail forward is intended to deal with the problem of stories not advancing because a success is needed to overcome some hurdle. If the DM designs a story that can only advance if a door is opened, in traditional gaming lacking the concept of fail forward you get 'failure sucks'. If that door can only be attempted to be opened again after the PC's gain a meaningless level, and the DM has no story around 'you failed to open the door' then the game comes to a meaningless halt. If the bad guys can only be followed if they players find a clue, and they fail their search check and get away leaving no trail, then the game comes to an anticlimactic halt. Fail forward teaches the DM to watch out for and avoid these fail no where results. So for example, if the door really must be opened, then failure on your open locks check still means the door opens, but a complication occurs. Or, if the door really must be opened, then failure on your open locks check means that you can try again, but with higher stakes (and again and again if need be, as long as it is interesting and not merely mechanical rolling - in which case, like 'taking 20', dice should have never been rolled in the first place).

 

[Celebrim]

I suppose "fail forward" could be considered an example of this, but I don't really see that as dumbing down--rather, I see it as attempting to remove the scenario where bad luck on the dice, or player inability to solve a given puzzle, stops a campaign in its tracks.

Yes, exactly. That's the idea in a nutshell. I consider it only 'dumbing down' the game when it becomes not a technique in the GM's tool bag to be pulled out when the situation warrants, but an actual rule of play. Heck, deus ex machina is a valid technique in the GM's tool bag to be pulled out when the situation warrants, but imagine that as an actual rule of play.

I learned the importance of "fail forward" a decade before I ever heard the phrase. Ironically, I learned it from a scenario where the players didn't fail--but they almost failed, and left me wondering what the heck I would have done if they had. It was the grand climax of a huge campaign, the PCs were in the heart of Hell with the Lords of Hell descending on them in full fury, there was a puzzle they had to solve in order to break Hell's power, and they weren't solving it. I was faced with a choice between wrapping up my campaign with a TPK, or wussing out completely on my uber-villains. Fortunately, one of my players figured it out at the last second and the night ended on a high note, but from then on, I determined that in any such scenario I would arm myself with a backup plan. (I won't tell the players about it, though, unless I have to use it. No sense defusing the tension.)

It's amazing how much of this new stuff is just rearticulating the sort of stuff you learned in the old school.

 

[Halivar]

I think the 'softening' of both tabletop RPGs and computer RPGs have done a huge service to both hobbies by vastly increasing the number of people that stick with them. Certainly there is some degree of pride in beating a 'Nintendo-hard' game, but you can bet such things drove many more people away from video games altogether. They never had a chance to develop any interest in them because the failure consequences were too steep. Similarly, the 'well, you didn't poke a stick ahead of you so now you've fallen in a pit trap and died, roll up another character' idea has probably turned a great many people away from the entire tabletop experience.

*cough*King's Quest*cough*

 

[Neonchameleon]

I didn't saw that the situation doesn't change. Sure, something about the situation gets 'worse', even if in fact the door is now open. It's just that in practice changing the drapes is mainly what 'fail forward' does. It's that illusionism for GM's I mentioned.

And in practice old school D&D is arbitrary and makes no sense. Right. Now we've got the gratuitous mudslinging caused by misuse of techniques out of the way can we get back to the concepts please?

No, no, no, no, no. The situation changes in Gygaxian D&D because hit points go down and eventually run out. That wandering monster showing up isn't a consequence to failure unless it tangibly decreases the players resources. The wandering monster showing up after all, is potentially a good thing - bringing XP and loot. In practice though it's a bad thing, bringing lost resources and lost opportunity costs precisely because Gygaxian D&D has this logistical subgame.

As originally written wandering monsters did not carry loot. And the goal was to avoid combat because it was lethal and the XP rewards for combat were minor compared to the XP rewards for loot. 2e vastly changed the nature of the game by dropping XP for GP from the default. Fighting wandering monsters: All the risk, 20% of the XP reward, and doesn't get you deeper. Wandering monsters were a problem.

That's just failure to understand the mechanics. Bad gameplaying or bad GMing doesn't make for a bad system.

Apply also to your claims about Fail Forward. And no it isn't where repeated skills are explicitly allowed.

No, but any generalized idea that all failures bring mitigating consequences is just as bad. But seriously, you are just really confused. If the concept of 'fail forward' is that all failure brings negative consequences, then Gauntlet (the old coin op video game) is the premier example of 'fail forward'. 'Elf, your life force is draining!'. But of course, by negative you don't actually mean negative.

I do mean negative. You're just beating up on a strawman here.

No, it's says failure must be interesting.

Changing situations getting more dangerous should be interesting.

Seriously? If that is failing forward then Gygaxian D&D is failing forward par excellence. If that's failing forward you've invented nothing new. There is no novelty to the mechanic at all. The realization that failure can have negative consequences and indeed should have negative consequences is nothing new to gaming. No one needed to verbalize that. No one needed to add the qualifier 'forward' to that.

Once more you are beating up on a strawman. Getting messed up by failure is in line with failing forward. Where Fail Forward kicks in is where there would be rolls without consequences.

And ironically, even in this thread Umbran (using the term much more correctly) called out 'falling to the bottom of a pit' as an example of not failing forward. If the bottom of the pit isn't interesting, you didn't fail forward you just failed. If falling into and getting out of the pit isn't interesting, fail forward suggests you shouldn't have narrated that consequence.

That all depends on how interesting getting back out of the pit would be. If you have to get out of the pit on the side you jumped from I agree with Umbran. If the pit leads to a lair it's definitely failing forward. If you can climb out of the far side of the pit the methods are different so it's failing forward.

Well, I disagree. Outside the community of Ron Edwards style 'everyone else is doing badwrongfun' snobs, even when the promoters of failing forward have the opportunity to demonstrate the value of the concept in the most advantageous situation possible - writing examples of play in rule books where they are under no time pressure to create interesting failure - the results are often laughable and mockable.

A lot of rulebooks are often laughable and mockable - especially when they have a sole author and are self published (as most Indy games are). And for the record, Ron Edwards wasn't an 'everyone else is doing badwrongfun' snob. Simply that some ways are bad ones. Gamism wasn't his thing - but at a conceptual level he appreciated it.

No, because my argument about slapstick comedy doesn't depend on one particular transformation. All it depends on is consistent application of the concept. You see the problem with 'failure is always interesting' is that it doesn't really correspond to actual experience in any meaningful way, so the more often it happens and the more forced that result seems, the more ridiculous the story you are generating becomes. There is nothing naturalistic about 'fail forward' happening all the time. Consistent fail forward (or success backwards!) is perfectly fine for a session of Paranoia or Toon. But is hardly universally genera appropriate.

If you want to see Fail Forward in action done well, go watch Raiders of the Lost Ark. In it Indy fails at just about everything he sets out to do just about every time he tries. He just fails spectacularly and entertainingly and his attempts to cover the new unfolding situation drives things forward. That is Fail Forward as it should be done.

Yes, exactly. That's the idea in a nutshell. I consider it only 'dumbing down' the game when it becomes not a technique in the GM's tool bag to be pulled out when the situation warrants, but an actual rule of play. Heck, deus ex machina is a valid technique in the GM's tool bag to be pulled out when the situation warrants, but imagine that as an actual rule of play.

It's amazing how much of this new stuff is just rearticulating the sort of stuff you learned in the old school.

There is a reason I consider the 90s the nadir of good game design.

 

[WayneLigon]

*cough*King's Quest*cough*

How interesting you mention that. King's Quest V drove me away from video games for over ten years, except for Civilization and SimCity. The next video game I picked up was Chrono Cross.

 

[GMMichael]

What would be a possible compromise that a TRPG company could make along these lines? All the stuff you listed above is in the GM's hands, not the company's, unless you're running a prefab adventure.

What are examples of TRPG dumbing down? Simpler rules that restrict options (like the Starter Set's, "in combat you can do THIS and THIS and THIS"), excess hit points, a glut of classes so large as to render classes pointless (from 3rd ed.), automatic successes (Gumshoe's clue-searching), and, as you say, features from prefabs.

Yes, exactly. That's the idea in a nutshell. I consider it only 'dumbing down' the game when it becomes not a technique in the GM's tool bag to be pulled out when the situation warrants, but an actual rule of play.

Good call - with the less-interactive nature of VRPGs compared to TRPGs, there are significant differences in how a dumbing-down effect would occur.

It's amazing how much of this new stuff is just rearticulating the sort of stuff you learned in the old school.

How was it taught in the old school? Explicitly, in a game master's guide? If the game manuals of the '80s contained better/more useful advice than the manuals of the '00s, might we call that dumbing down?

By the way, I sense two segue threads coming on:

1) How do we keep our TRPGs smarter than VRPGs?
2) What is "fail forward?" (or, "Stop Hijacking Threads")

 

[Umbran]

It's amazing how much of this new stuff is just rearticulating the sort of stuff you learned in the old school.

Except that we should note the difference between leaning it *in* the old school and learning it *from* the old school.

I learned a lot of things in the old school, because I learned a lot of things as a young gamer, and I was that back in "old school" days. But that presents a confounding bias - correlation does not imply causation. It would be a mistake to then attribute it to the school, unless it is specifically and explicitly found in the text of a game you were playing at the time, and you actually read that text and took it to heart.

I'm pretty sure I got the concept from literature, not games. In general, sci-fi and fantasy novels are "fail forward" constructions, and have been so since before the birth of Gygax.

Let us also note that the phrase "Failing Forward" was popularized by a business/economics book of that name by John Maxwell, back in 2000. I would be completely unsurprised if the first gaming use of the term amounted to someone who read the book, and noted that he or she was doing similar stuff in gaming, and connected the two, thus giving us a term for something that would otherwise take us a paragraph to explain each time we mentioned it.

So, no, not a new concept - just attaching a name to it so you can highlight it more easily. What school it is from is unimportant - that you have the concept at hand is important.

 

[Halivar]

How interesting you mention that. King's Quest V drove me away from video games for over ten years, except for Civilization and SimCity. The next video game I picked up was Chrono Cross.

OMG. I started the game, walked into town, stepped into a bar, and died. Took the cartridge back to Blockbuster and never played a King's Quest again.

 

[Celebrim]

Except that we should note the difference between leaning it *in* the old school and learning it *from* the old school.

Oh absolutely. I don't think the terms are bad things at all. Indeed, the most important contribution of Forge to gaming has been the invention of all this technical language that lets us talk about these sorts of things. In the 'old school' days, we didn't really have the ability to have this conversation, and to the extent we could have, we would have gotten lost in non-clinical language that would have muddied the waters even more than Forge speak.

Muddled as this is as we argue over the nuances of failing forward, it's far clearer of a conversation than this would have been in 1985.

It would be a mistake to then attribute it to the school, unless it is specifically and explicitly found in the text of a game you were playing at the time, and you actually read that text and took it to heart.

Well, I think it is in the text but I would be lying to say that I learned it from the text. I didn't understand what the text was trying to say until long after I'd taken the lessons to heart, and then only after that did I understand exactly what Gygax was trying (and often failing) to say.

 

[Umbran]

automatic successes (Gumshoe's clue-searching)

I think you are mis-identifying that as dumbing down.

As I noted up-thread - some forms of gaming don't lead to "smart" play. They lead to *exhaustive* play, done by rote rather than by particular brilliance on the part of the player. A game that has a way to get you out of being exhaustive, and into things that take actual thought, is NOT dumbed down.

And GUMSHOE is an excellent example of this. The act of searching for a clue "old school" by having to communicate to the GM exactly how and where you look for it, and you miss the clue if you are a millimeter off, is one of those things that tends to lead to exhaustive play, rather than smart play. You aren't smart if you only find the clue by blind guess or by methodically going through a huge list of possibilities one by one.

GUMESHOE bypasses that. You get the clue easily. That is to get you to the point where you have to *interpret* the clue - something you cannot do by rote, or by going exhaustively through a list. You actually have to think to figure out what the clue means! Thus, this is a case of getting you out of dumb play, and into smart play.