Failing Forward

[pemerton]

I've had a read through the thread and a few posts stood out.

I'm generally in favor of it, in theory, even if I don't always remember to practice it as a GM.

My only issue with it is that, sometimes, failure really is part of the deal.

<snip>

I just find success to be unfulfilling when it's guaranteed.

"Fail forward" isn't an alternative to failure, and moreso, therefore, isn't a way of guaranteeing success. It's a particular method of narrating the result of a failed check. It's a way of giving effect to failure.

As far as fail forward D&D DM advice goes, I just stick the old standby: if you intend for the PCs to not fail, then don't roll dice.

<snip>

I'm really unclear on what a fail forward mechanic would look like, other than a degrees of success/failure style rule. Are there other forms it can take? Are we classifying GUMSHOE's skill system as fail forward?

I think [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] gave a good example of a "fail forward" mechanic that is not degrees of success/failure: namely, task succeeds but intent fails.

Degrees of success/failure seems to me to be more closely aligned to a causal interpretation of the resolution system: the degree of numerical success correlates to the degree of causal effectiveness of the character's effort.

Whereas "fail forward", at least as I'm familiar with it from designers like Luke Crane, is about narrating consequences, not interpreting ingame causal processes.

In the example of the cursed angel feather I mentioned upthread, for instance, the task (aura reading) succeeds - but the answer is not the one the player (and PC) was hoping for. Task succeeds, intent fails.

The example of the mace is a bit different - the PC's task fails under the most narrow description (he doesn't pick up the mace) but it succeeds under a broader description (the party recovers the mace) but the mode of success thwarts the player (and PC's) intent (because the PC doesn't have the mace to use as leverage against the other PC).

I am not a fan of the concept because it specifically supports game play that is supposed to lead to expected outcomes.

As a DM, when players do the unexpected, or improvise to mitigate failures, it takes the game in interesting directions that would never have been possible if I was using a mechanic to ensure that the adventure "stayed on track".

<snip>

I am also not all that fond of narrative style games compared to traditional rpgs, but lets assume that I planned on running one. If the purpose of this game is to create a collaborative story with the players, isn't using a mechanic to channel their input towards the narrative that I want to tell depriving the players the chance to shape the story on their own?

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

Fail Forward is the tool of the Railroading Game Master. Obviously, the entire game will grind to a halt if there's nowhere else to go but forward on the railroad. Sandboxes don't have this problem. Neither do games that don't have a success/failure dichotomy.

I think these posts evince a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of "fail forward" as a technique. It has nothing to do with keeping the game "on track" or the GM deciding that something "HAS to happen in a specific way".

It's about a certain sort of narrative dynamism - something has to happen, but it is not "in a specific way". It's about responding to the particularities of the situation and the ongoing game and the players' signals.

In the example of the cursed angel feather, it never occurred to me until the player declared that his PC approached the peddler in the bazaar to see if any magical trinkets were for sale, and I decided to have the peddler offer to sell an angel feather.

In the example of the mace, having the mace flow down the stream didn't even make sense as "failing forward" except for the fact that, due to other events that had happened in the session, a couple of the PCs were following some servants who were washing a priest's vestments in the stream below the keep.

These aren't predetermined outcomes. They're more-or-less spontaneous responses to, and riffs on, the evolving in-game situation.

There is a connection here between "fail forward" and the (mostly but not completely tangential) discussion about player vs GM world-building. "Fail forward" is a GM-side technique. It's about the GM maintaining control over scene-framing and narration, because the player - in failing to succeed on a check - did not acquire the authority to stipulate the content of the ingame situation. But GM control over narration and backstory isn't - under any definition I'm familiar with - equivalent to railroading. It's just the GM doing his/her job within a fairly traditional assignment of RPG responsibilities.

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?

I've given a couple of examples upthread and elaborated on them in this post.

"Fail forward", at least as I understand it, is not about putting "the plot" behind a secret door. It's a technique generally associated with games in which there is no "plot" and no "adventure design" in the sense that you use that phrase.

It's a technique for maintaining narrative dynamism in the face of failed checks. It depends upon a certain fluidity of backstory that is pretty much the opposite of "the plot" or "adventure design".

if the GM needs you to find the secret door, the GM should not make you roll for it. Because rolling has the possibility of failure, and the GM is not prepared for this failure. So the PCs are going to succeed no matter what. So there's no need to roll dice at all. Because the only time you roll dice is if the action can succeed, can fail, and has some cost or consequence to failure. Right?

If the dramatic question of the encounter is "can you find the secret door" and the GM knows the players will find it regardless of what they do, that's obviously a bogus encounter.

I don't see this as very relevant to "fail forward". For a start, how do the players even know there is a secret door to find? Assuming that they don't - this is written in the GM's secret notes - then, from their point of view, the dramatic question of the encounter is not "Can you find the secret door"?

Fail forward is about narrative dynamism. So it is concerned with the narrative as the players experience it, not with the narrative as understood only by reference to the GM's secret backstory.

From this point of view, the dramatic question is more likely to be "Can we proceed through this apparently blocked passageway?" The players then declare some sort of check aimed at some sort of goal - in Burning Wheel this could be anything from Ditch Digging (to hack their way through the walls) to Secret Passage-wise (to recollect knowledge about secret door methods and locations); in 4e it would most likely be a Dungeoneering check (similar to Secret Passage-wise) or Perception check (to spot a secret door) or STR check (to hack through).

If the check succeeds, the PCs succeed in their task and in their intent - so they spot a secret door, or successfully dig through the wall, or recollect some relevant fact about secret passages, or whatever else follows from the way the check was framed.

If the check fails, then the GM narrates some dynamic failure instead. The PCs spot a secret door, but also a trip wire. (This is somewhat analogous to the cursed feather.) The PCs recollect that the secret doors in this area can only be opened via speaking the right magical phrase following a blood sacrifice. The PCs make a hole in the wall, but break their tools in the process. Or whatever else seems appropriate to the task and intent declared, plus the broader context of player and PC goals, what makes for a meaningful consequence (tools are more important in Burning Wheel than 4e, for instance), etc.

The contrast with "adventure design" should be fairly clear: adventure design is about establishing a secret backstory; whereas "fail forward" depends upon a readiness to create new backstory in order to narrate meaningful consequences for failure that maintain narrative dynamism - such as the curse on the angel feather, or the trip wire on the secret door.

But to again draw the link to the world-building discussion in this thread - this is not the players building the world. It is the GM building the world, in response to players' declared actions and the results of player dice rolls.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

At that moment of play, the player was stipulating something about the gameworld - namely, that the end of the baleful polymorph effect (as stipulated by the rules), was due to the intervention of a deity. And the player was also playing his PC, and in particular giving voice to his PC's faith in that deity.

There are so many things wrong with this statement that I hardly know where to begin. Let it suffice to say that it was not the character who decided that the world worked this way, and in the instant of deciding that this was true, whoever made that decision was not acting as the character. The character was merely providing color commentary based on personal opinion, and that part was role-playing, even though it was probably untrue (in light of the game rules).

But yes, this is getting off-topic. There's no need to continue that discussion here.

 

[pemerton]

We're extremely unlikely to convince Saelorn, or anyone else, to be less absolutist about actor-stance play, but it seems harmless to leave them to their own play.

I'm not bothered by anyone else's play. I only get a bit frustrated when they deny that my play is happening, or is even possible.

The claim that you can't have both player narration and in-character immersion simultaneously isn't just a statement of play preferences. It's a claim about what is possible for others to do in RPGing.

That's why I posted an anecdote that refuted the claim. (It's an anecdote I've posted many times before, because I keep seeing this claim about what is and isn't possible by way of immersion being made.)

EDIT: [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] has also, many times, refuted this claim. Even in this thread he has made the point that player narration can be a key technique for maintaining in-character immersion, because it ensures that the character is able to act as someone who actually inhabits the gameworld rather than being a stranger in it.

 

[Balesir]

Are these players incapable of the kind of strategizing you describe? I would answer, absolutely not: judging by the kind of ideas they bounce around when confronted with an evolving problem, they are at any time fomenting seven or eight different plans each, balancing their own goals with their character's goals, demonstrating a strong awareness of what the likely consequences of their actions might be.

That's an interesting observation and brings to mind a couple of thoughts:

1) I note that you talk about the characters being "confronted with an evolving problem", when the times we get "seriously strategising" tends to be more proactive on the characters' part; they are not faced with a problem so much as trying to create opportunities. If there is a problem to focus on, I can see that this might allow a more focussed channel of communication concerning its salient details.

2) I wonder whether the styles that players like are affected by their Myers-Briggs type, maybe? Specifically this bit about whether you Judge or Perceive extrovertedly? This is nothing more than speculation, obviously, but it feels as if it might have some bearing - would be interesting to test it empirically. My own tendency is to Perceive Introvertedly and Judge Extrovertedly; this might explain wanting the world model inside my head rather than coming from the GM, but being happy to find out what happens collaboratively. If you were of the opposite tendency, I'm guessing the collaborative establishment of the situational parameters would feel more natural, but the democratisation of the outcome would feel less so, maybe?

I understand that there's a different "mouth feel" to this kind of strategizing, and the kind that happens when interacting directly with a rules system, but I'm asserting based on my experience with both that this is a difference of qualities, not degree.

"Mouth feel" is a nice way to put it - as an enjoyer of wine I can relate to that! It also relates to taste, which seems appropriate, and I can say that, for me, GM-fed world model seems like a rather crude, un-nuanced sense of taste (and sight, and hearing...)

There are so many things wrong with this statement that I hardly know where to begin. Let it suffice to say that it was not the character who decided that the world worked this way, and in the instant of deciding that this was true, whoever made that decision was not acting as the character. The character was merely providing color commentary based on personal opinion, and that part was role-playing, even though it was probably untrue (in light of the game rules).

I agree with you that the character is simply expressing their belief - but that is almost always the way the situation is understood as I have experienced FATE and several other "player story resource" games.

A key difference, perhaps, is with what the GM does with these assertions of belief internally.

I do find that some players expect me, as GM, to decide if something like the Paladin's assertion here is "true" or not in the game world. From my perspective, this is the very last thing I should do! Ambiguity is a GREAT story tool! That gap between game rules and character assertion of belief gives some lovely scope for joint exploration and conflict - or, to put it another way, immense scope for a good story!

Did the Raven Queen really turn the Paladin back? Well, if I have identified the spell correctly, it can last longer than a round, depending on dice rolls. Were the rolls the way they were because of the goddess? Or because of something else? We assume that there was a game-world reason - but having either the rules or the GM stipulate what that reason was immediately would just spoil the fun! We know what the rules say happened - but we don't know the in-game "why?" Maybe we'll find out. Maybe we won't. That sounds pretty verisimilitudinous, to me...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I do find that some players expect me, as GM, to decide if something like the Paladin's assertion here is "true" or not in the game world. From my perspective, this is the very last thing I should do! Ambiguity is a GREAT story tool! That gap between game rules and character assertion of belief gives some lovely scope for joint exploration and conflict - or, to put it another way, immense scope for a good story!

It's the difference between trying to tell a story, and trying to adjudicate an impartially-biased world. If your goal is the former, then obviously you're going to use far different tools than if your goal is the latter.

One of my favorite rules, in the 5E DMG, comes from the section on Inspiration. To paraphrase, it says that some DMs prefer to focus on their role as neutral arbiter rather than story-guide, and these DMs are encouraged to ignore the Inspiration mechanic entirely.

 

[Morrus]

It's the difference between trying to tell a story, and trying to adjudicate an impartially-biased world. If your goal is the former, then obviously you're going to use far different tools than if your goal is the latter.

An RPG is neither of those things.

 

[Balesir]

It's the difference between trying to tell a story, and trying to adjudicate an impartially-biased world. If your goal is the former, then obviously you're going to use far different tools than if your goal is the latter.

This I don't understand. Given that you are trying to adjudicate impartially a pre-set world, why would you need to know whether something like this was "true" or not? Apart from some sort of deep background reason, like "the gods do not actually exist, and the power of priests comes purely from the strength of their belief", of course - such that he assertion could not be true. But, apart from something like that, why would you need to know?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not bothered by anyone else's play. I only get a bit frustrated when they deny that my play is happening, or is even possible.

The claim that you can't have both player narration and in-character immersion simultaneously isn't just a statement of play preferences. It's a claim about what is possible for others to do in RPGing.

t.

I am sure plenty of people can experience this. I am not denying experiences other people have had, or suggesting that their preference are wrong/bad/worse, etc. I do think there is a definite difference though between a game that gives players narrative control and one that doesn't (and it is easy to see how lots of people might find the narrative control disrupts their in character immersion). To me it isn't that different from a writer choosing third person limited point of view (or even first person) in order to help reinforce the reader identifying with and immersing in that character. Readers can be immersed with third person omniscient, but it is easy to see why some writers on principle might feel third person limited is a better way of bringing the reader closer to the character. It is also easy to see why a writer who really wants to drive the point home, might go with first person.

To me, mechanics where you are controlling things outside your character with means your character has no awareness of or access to (so Fate points instead of a magic spell that literally warps reality) tend to create this issue for me, where I feel like I am immersed in my character and more like I am watching my character from the third person. I can ignore that in small doses, but I find the more obvious, the more heavy handed it is, the more I tend to notice. I will still play the game. I won't be rude to a friend running something that uses these mechanics (and a lot of time games that I really like have one or two features I'm not too into.....I can overlook that). But it does change the quality of the experience for me. I don't see why this wouldn't be a problem for some peoples' immersion in the same way that too much metagaming can break it for some folks.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

An RPG is neither of those things.

No, those are the two common goals of a Game-Master, which can often come into conflict.

An RPG is a game where the players each take on the role of a character, and make decisions from that perspective. Traditionally, there is also another player who, instead of taking on the role of one character, is responsible for controlling all characters not controlled by the other players and for describing the world to the players and adjudicating the outcomes of their actions.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This I don't understand. Given that you are trying to adjudicate impartially a pre-set world, why would you need to know whether something like this was "true" or not? Apart from some sort of deep background reason, like "the gods do not actually exist, and the power of priests comes purely from the strength of their belief", of course - such that he assertion could not be true. But, apart from something like that, why would you need to know?

I didn't say that it was particularly relevant to the action at hand, what the truth of the situation actually was. What the character believes about the situation is far more relevant in determining what anyone says or does, on the scene, barring extreme circumstances.

It's just that, in a general sense, the GM owes it to the players to know what's going on in the background. The GM needs to be able to answer those sorts of questions, should they arise, in order to maintain consistency; if the players suspect that the GM doesn't actually know anything, then they are likely to lose confidence that everything is consistent, and that can really undermine enjoyment of the game as a whole. That comes down to expectations and social contract, though. If the players don't expect you to have all of the answers, then they wouldn't really lose anything by supplying their own details.