Failing Forward

[ExploderWizard]

Well, I think rather that failure is interesting if it involves meaningful stakes. Sure, those stakes can involve the narrowing down of the characters' options - and this can even be beneficial in that cutting off the simpler options can get the players thinking about the more interesting ones. But, generally, I find that simply narrowing down options is a pretty poor basis for stakes - particularly if it is applied to most or all of the actions in the game.

And I think what Fail Forward is really saying, at its best, is "consider the stakes of any conflict carefully, and don't make them a (boring or repetitive) narrowing down of PC options". Make failure interesting by making it diverse.

Not every action is a contest. Sometimes there are no stakes. Not every game style uses complications as "story currency". Sometimes there are straightforward applications of knowledge or ability, and one can either complete them or not.

 

[The Human Target]

Last session the Paladin wanted to kick open a door.

He rolled a 1.

I could have said "Nope, you bounce off the door and look like an idiot. The door is fine. Try again."

Instead, I ruled that the Paladin blasted through the door like the Kool-Aid Man and knocked out cold the little boy who was listening with his ear pressed to the door.

The little boy being the son of the Duke they were trying to rescue from a kidnapping they had stumbled upon.

Oops!

Failing forward is great.

 

[Lanefan]

The GM certainly has a choice, in the case of the unfound secret door to the BBEG, to let it stand and have the PCs go home early. After a 6 hour game of dungeon crawling, this could be acceptable.

It's always acceptable regardless of the situation, unless the DM has somehow married the campaign's continuance to the finding of said BBEG (in which case sticking said BBEG behind a hard-to-find secret door might not have been the best option).

The GM might interpret FF as the PCs go home, and at the end of the session, an NPC steps up and mentions "hey, did you guys find the secret door on the back wall?" Or it turns out the BBEG really wasn't home, because he was in town smashing it. The PCs have failed, and the plot moves forward.

Or he can come up with some way to revealing some new info, having the bad guys make a move that enables a new attempt, or something.

Yes, and this can be done immediately, or at some later time such as while the party's away on its next adventure, or never...all depending on enough variables that there's no overarching right answer.

I think the point is, the GM finds a way to salvage game material, fun, and time.

It's important that someone find a way to salvage these things but why does it have to be the DM?

It would be a darn shame if the PCs get stuck by a stupid dice roll in a boring search scene early on in the session and he let's the PCs go home and nothing new happens, so they call it a night.

Why on earth would they call it a night? The players via their PCs can be proactive in seeking out a new adventure (at which point the DM can and reasonably should step up and provide something), or they can engage in some downtime activities including dividing such treasure as they managed to find (at which point the DM has the option of having some sort of adventure come calling), etc.

Lan-"mentioning [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] here to get his eyes on this thread, as he's often gone on about fail-forward in the past"-efan

 

[McNabb Games]

I've seen this type of mechanic referred to as the "yes, then" method. I find it to be a good improvisational skill for a host or gm to have as part of their toolbox but I haven't actually made mechanics that heavily relied on it. I think it's a great way to ensure that gms are able to improvise to better account for the creative answers players inevitably come up with.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I still don't understand what "fail forward" means. The example everyone always gives is that the players need to find a secret door to advance the plot, and all I can say to that is, the GM shouldn't have put the plot behind a secret door. That is a failure of adventure design. Why do we need a whole category of mechanics to deal with that?

 

[Morrus]

I still don't understand what "fail forward" means. The example everyone always gives is that the players need to find a secret door to advance the plot, and all I can say to that is, the GM shouldn't have put the plot behind a secret door. That is a failure of adventure design. Why do we need a whole category of mechanics to deal with that?

Because sometimes they're fun, and because Tolkien did it. And fail-forward is an easy way to do that, so why not do it?

That particular example, though, like my locked door, is kinda weak. I feel that long distance travel benefits from it -- the dice determine the condition you arrive in, not *whether* you arrive.

That's kinda like saying "Having a monster which kills PCs is a failure of game design. Why do we need a whole category of mechanics [i.e. combat rules] to deal with that?"

 

[ExploderWizard]

Last session the Paladin wanted to kick open a door.

He rolled a 1.

I could have said "Nope, you bounce off the door and look like an idiot. The door is fine. Try again."

Instead, I ruled that the Paladin blasted through the door like the Kool-Aid Man and knocked out cold the little boy who was listening with his ear pressed to the door.

The little boy being the son of the Duke they were trying to rescue from a kidnapping they had stumbled upon.

Oops!

Failing forward is great.

Let me guess. If someone didn't kick in that door then the game would come to a standstill?

That is pretty funny. It reminds me of that scene in the movie Ed Wood when they were filming Bride of the Monster. Tor Johnson was struggling with a stuck door on the set and kept knocking the fake door frame around. Ed kept calling out direction " Remember your motivation. Your upset. Not THAT upset. You have to get through that door."

So IMHO fail forward is only applicable when the DM decides that something HAS to happen in a specific way. If this is the case then just tell the story to the players because the dice are just inconvenient clutter that interfere with the perfect plot.

 

[Nagol]

Let me guess. If someone didn't kick in that door then the game would come to a standstill?

That is pretty funny. It reminds me of that scene in the movie Ed Wood when they were filming Bride of the Monster. Tor Johnson was struggling with a stuck door on the set and kept knocking the fake door frame around. Ed kept calling out direction " Remember your motivation. Your upset. Not THAT upset. You have to get through that door."

So IMHO fail forward is only applicable when the DM decides that something HAS to happen in a specific way. If this is the case then just tell the story to the players because the dice are just inconvenient clutter that interfere with the perfect plot.

There are genres where the fail-forward is effectively expected: superheroes and serials to name a couple. Fail-forward doesn't maintain the group on rails; those failures can and generally should have consequence in campaign play. What it maintains is group momentum. The heroes may not manage to save the train from crashing off the broken bridge -- and that wreck may have long-term consequences in the game -- but they do manage to extricate themselves and take note of <fill in a clue> the character can react against.

It sees the most use at my table in genres/campaigns where the PCs are expected to be a more reactive force -- superheroes, procedurals, pulp noir, etc.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I still don't understand what "fail forward" means. The example everyone always gives is that the players need to find a secret door to advance the plot, and all I can say to that is, the GM shouldn't have put the plot behind a secret door. That is a failure of adventure design. Why do we need a whole category of mechanics to deal with that?

As best as I can see, fail forward is actually two completely different things that are being (unfortunately) associated by sharing the same name.

fail forward (adj)
1. (of game mechanics) having or exhibiting graduated degrees of success or failure

fail forward (verb)
1. planned or ad hoc alteration of stakes by the DM in order to push the game toward an intended goal

 

[Nagol]

As best as I can see, fail forward is actually two completely different things that are being (unfortunately) associated by sharing the same name.

fail forward (adj)
1. (of game mechanics) having or exhibiting graduated degrees of success or failure

fail forward (verb)
1. planned or ad hoc alteration of stakes by the DM in order to push the game toward an intended goal

I'd suggest an alteration to the second proposal:


fail forward (verb)
1. planned or ad hoc alteration of stakes by the DM in order to push the game away from an undesirable outcome