Failing Forward

[Janx]

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).

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.

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

To your last question, the answer is: Because not everybody runs their game that way.

My group tends to have the GM make a custom adventure based on the last session and player feedback on what their PC was going to next. The players tacitly agree to pursue the plothook for that session. Which following the example, means this session was "hunt the BBEG down in his lair and kill him" because it's obviously based on what we wanted to do last week, and we know there's no material for going to the Southlands just for the heck of it.

If the GM makes a mistake in planning that out, and the whole thing hinges on a search check that fails, the party may get stumped for what to do next.

In my version of the example, the GM has some culpability. And it's easy enough once he realizes it has actually happened, to make an adjustment.

If the players are still working through alternative solutions, there's no need for the GM to apply an FF, the PCs are already doing their own.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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

I would say that if you are playing a game then the desired outcome is whatever outcome arises from actual play.

If there is a desired outcome apart from that then you have no need to play a game, it simply is what you want it to be.

 

[Umbran]

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

The absolute statement's a bit too strong, but... For one thing, the GM will typically know that there's a problem before the players. The GM also knows better what's available to work with to move forward.

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)

Where is that "something" coming from? How many times have people talked (and complained) about how long it takes to prepare adventures? If the PCs seek a new adventure in the middle of a session, is the GM likely to just have something that matches on hand, already prepped and ready to go? Not all GMs are magicians with, *poof* an adventure right out of their hat!

And, if the GM is going to improvise a whole new adventure on the spot, why not just improvise a way for the PCs to continue on the current adventure?

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.

Picture this:

"Well, gee, we know the BBEG was going to smuggle 500 people into slavery to the orcs. But, I guess we'll just go shopping instead!"
"Nah, I don't wanna go shopping! I wanna quibble over who gets what magic item!"
"Okay, that sounds like a fun use of the next three hours of our time..."

Sound realistic?

 

[Manbearcat]

My best attempt at an abridged breakdown of Fail Forward, an example, its use, systemitizing it, and why it is problematic for certain RPGers.

Break action resolution out into two parts:

a) Intent component of action (required scene context and stakes).

Example: I'm chasing this guy across the rooftops so I can catch him and finger him for crime n and/or uncover his his co-conspirators/sponsors and indict them.

b) The physical manifestation of the Task component of action within the shared fiction (stakes-neutral).

Example: I pursue, free-running across the slippery, rain-soaked rooftops and leap from this building to the next! (Roll Athletics, Body + Heart, Strength - whatever).

Assume whatever fortune resolution method the game uses indicates the action is a failure. Using the Fail Forward technique, the GM will render the fallout of this action resolution in such a way that (a) is not attained/complicated/attainable at a steep cost (that the player can buy into if they're wiling to accept said cost and its attendant fallout) while (b) is successful. Essential, of course is that this is not rendered in a way such that the action stops in a dead end. For instance:

GM: The rain-shrouded night does little to foil your dextrous, devil-may-care parkour! You easily step on the elevated ledge and fly through the air toward the next building as your prey attempts to put some distance between you. When you land, he smiles at you from across the way and discorporates into a swarm of bats and flies away...something (relevant - maybe smithy tongs or an inkwell or something) clangs on the ground where once your prey stood.

That is one option. There are several others that introduce mere complications (perhaps rotten joists of the building you and the perp land on cannot manage the load and it collapses, leaving you both diminished - resource-wise - and in the debris on the next floor down).

---

This can be somewhat systematized (such as joker dice in a pool that dictates some sort of complication even on successes or some sort of boon even on failures...or the 7-9 success with complications - soft move - or the 6- result that is rendered as a soft move rather than an outright failure), but it is always, in part at the least, technique/principle driven.

---

Why is it problematic for some RPGers. For some folks, they don't want intent (a) to have primacy in action resolution (neither within the mechanics nor in the GMing principles that guide the rendering of the evolved fiction), such as it does above. For other folks, forget about primacy, they don't want intent to have any role at all in the action resolution mechanics. They want or have always played (therefore internalized the paradigm as legitimate RPGing) with the assumption that the resolution mechanics hew very closely to a physics engine for the imaginary world where the action takes place. Others still have play priorities that require the mechanics and GM directives put success and failure in binary, opposing (and as transparent as possible) positions such that some iteration of "score" (as a proxy for skillfulness during play) can be tallied.

For those three groups, Fail Forward fails hard for them because of this.

---

Finally, Fail Forward has absolutely 0 to do with railroading. It is pretty much universally found in low-to-no prep systems whereby player agency and dynamic, "play to find out what happens" narrative (eg - the opposite of the removal of agency and an "All Roads Lead to Rome" table dynamic) is the paramount play priority.

 

[Nagol]

I would say that if you are playing a game then the desired outcome is whatever outcome arises from actual play.

If there is a desired outcome apart from that then you have no need to play a game, it simply is what you want it to be.

Knowing one thing is undesirable does not mean you have a specific outcome in mind. Imagine a large sports field with a fenced off hole. The players can go anywhere on the field except into the hole. Why? Because falling in the hole is a problem for play.

 

[Umbran]

So IMHO fail forward is only applicable when the DM decides that something HAS to happen in a specific way.

Well, your HO is incomplete. It is also applicable when events have unfolded in such a way as to build up a brick wall.

"Okay, so you just intimidated the crap out of the minions. The BBEG, chooses the better part of valor, flees..."
"Oh, and you just dumped the last minion (the one with the magical key) into the lava-filled moat...."
"And your wizard is spelled out for the day, so you can't get through the door..."

Brick walls can appear not only by design failure, or failure to follow GM-intended plot, but through that very unpredictable nature of player action. The fact that we *DON'T* have a pre-arranged plot means that there can be issues that arise that the GM can't have a plan for ahead of time.

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.

The first words of the post claimed your opinion was humble. However, that seems belied by the tone here, which is pretty judgemental. Humble people don't judge others, EW.

All theoretical desire for player-choice and consequences are nice, but there is the entirely real practical issue that you have a bunch of people around a table trying to play a game, and those people can paint themselves into a corner. It is okay to make the PCs pay a bit for mistakes made, but the game should go on, and the player experience shouldn't grind to a halt over them.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Well, your HO is incomplete. It is also applicable when events have unfolded in such a way as to build up a brick wall.

"Okay, so you just intimidated the crap out of the minions. The BBEG, chooses the better part of valor, flees..."
"Oh, and you just dumped the last minion (the one with the magical key) into the lava-filled moat...."
"And your wizard is spelled out for the day, so you can't get through the door..."

Brick walls can appear not only by design failure, or failure to follow GM-intended plot, but through that very unpredictable nature of player action. The fact that we *DON'T* have a pre-arranged plot means that there can be issues that arise that the GM can't have a plan for ahead of time.

To each of these situations it is perfectly acceptable to say " OK what do you do now?"

"The BBEG flees? Great! He actually fears us and knows that he can indeed be defeated." [The party doesn't know that the minion had a magical key or else would have taken it so they wouldn't react to that.]

" Hmm... he seems to have fled through that door that we can't open. We aren't in the best shape to chase him right now anyhow being very low on magic. Lets go back to town and hit the library at the mages guild. There may be a map of this place there somewhere. Perhaps we can figure out where that door leads and if there is another way to reach that area from the other side."


Here the players hit what looked like a literal brick wall. Instead of banging their heads against it until it gave way, they thought of pursuing options that kept them focused on their goal. The important part was that they did it on their own without the DM pushing them through that wall.

If the party really was that out of magic then this "failure" was actually a blessing in disguise. They would likely not be in good enough shape to face BBEG right here and now anyway. The only reason fail forward would make any sense to use here is if the DM had decided that he/she wanted the big boss fight here and now, and darn it, it was GOING to happen no matter how bad the PCs goofed.

This would then lead to the inevitable showdown that the PCs might likely lose, being out of magic. What then? Have them keep failing forward and somehow manage to beat the BBEG at some sort of cost?

How long do the marionette strings stretch? When do the players get a voice in the outcome of of their own choices?

The dark side failing forward is. The more you use it, the more that you have to KEEP using it.

The first words of the post claimed your opinion was humble. However, that seems belied by the tone here, which is pretty judgemental. Humble people don't judge others, EW.

It was not my intent to judge what others find to be fun. If listening to stories is the desired goal and everyone is enjoying themselves then have at it.

All theoretical desire for player-choice and consequences are nice, but there is the entirely real practical issue that you have a bunch of people around a table trying to play a game, and those people can paint themselves into a corner. It is okay to make the PCs pay a bit for mistakes made, but the game should go on, and the player experience shouldn't grind to a halt over them.

In a game powered by the imagination there are no corners, and the game can always go on until the participants desire to stop. Even death can't stop the game. New PCs are rolled up and play continues.

It is only when you have a predetermined course of events and/or ending in mind prior to play can these corners bring the game to a standstill.

 

[Cody C. Lewis]

Honestly I didn't read all 7 pages...

But I feel like this is best used as a tool, not a rule. And I'm sure no one would use this as an actual rule, just it shouldn't be a crutch for the GM.

 

[Nagol]

To each of these situations it is perfectly acceptable to say " OK what do you do now?"

The last time I used fail-forward was in my Conspiracy-X campaign. The PCs managed to walk into an active faerie circle (hard to find, hard to activate especially accidentally, and all the PCs went in) and were transported to a dark wintry demi-plane whose inhabitants had all escaped into the PCs world (thus instigating their investigation). After 20 minutes of the PCs bumbling around unable to figure out how to exit (dig a hole), they experienced a fail-forward.

Asking them "What do you do now?" hadn't been fruitful for the first 20 minutes there was no expectation the next iteration would go some place different.

 

[billd91]

Finally, Fail Forward has absolutely 0 to do with railroading. It is pretty much universally found in low-to-no prep systems whereby player agency and dynamic, "play to find out what happens" narrative (eg - the opposite of the removal of agency and an "All Roads Lead to Rome" table dynamic) is the paramount play priority.

Fail Forward's presence in those player agency games doesn't exclude it from usage as a railroading tool. It could certainly facilitate keeping PCs on a particular, GM-envisioned path through particular conflicts in the plot.