Failing Forward

[Bedrockgames]

I think this goes to show that the context of the fictional situation that is unfolding relative to the player's stated goal and approach will determine whether and which mechanics apply and what those stakes may be. Which is my point as to the use of techniques like Fail Forward. In some cases, "Yes" or "No" are fine stakes. In other cases, "Yes" or "Yes, but..." are more interesting. I see no value in limiting myself to one or the other.

I think most GMs would say "Yes but..." is perfectly fine depending on the context (because stake setting is very situation dependent). But I guess fail forward seems to be saying more than that to me. If it is just about taking a bigger more complex look at potential stakes for a given situation, that doesn't sound all that different from what goes on at any number of tables (but I don't understand why its called failing forward in that case). Maybe I am getting hung up on forward, but it appears not to simply be a tool for getting the GM to think more broadly about stakes, but rather has a focus on momentum and maintain that sense of things progressing. Put another way, it seems to be either about 1) not allowing a failed roll to interfere with the flow of the story or 2) turning a failed roll into a plot point that advances the story in a new or exciting direction. Is this correct?

 

[iserith]

I think most GMs would say "Yes but..." is perfectly fine depending on the context (because stake setting is very situation dependent). But I guess fail forward seems to be saying more than that to me. If it is just about taking a bigger more complex look at potential stakes for a given situation, that doesn't sound all that different from what goes on at any number of tables (but I don't understand why its called failing forward in that case). Maybe I am getting hung up on forward, but it appears not to simply be a tool for getting the GM to think more broadly about stakes, but rather has a focus on momentum and maintain that sense of things progressing. Put another way, it seems to be either about 1) not allowing a failed roll to interfere with the flow of the story or 2) turning a failed roll into a plot point that advances the story in a new or exciting direction. Is this correct?

My personal read on it is that the GM is encouraged to set the stakes in the most interesting way that follows from the fiction up to that point. If falling down the ravine is an interesting failure in that situation, then that's the cost of failure. If losing the divining rod is more interesting, do that instead.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

13th Age SRD defines it as:

"Outside of battle, when failure would tend to slow action down rather than move the action along, instead interpret it 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. In any case, the story and action still keep moving."

I bolded the key part in my view where I find many objections to the approach come from.

I didn't vote in the poll because the concept of 'fail forward' is not a clear-cut deal. In my mind, the critical piece of the concept is highlighted in bold in the above quote, but I will repeat here anyway.

"The story and action keeps moving."

The PCs fail at something, lets say finding a secret door. The GM should have a plan to keep the story alive, even if it means the original goal is no longer achievable.
Maybe that means having a minion appear in the previously secured area, encouraging the PCs to retrace their steps. Maybe that means having an alternate pathway to get into the BBEG's lair. Maybe that means the PCs leave the dungeon and return to find the BBEG has retaliated and taken over the town.

I believe the most important aspect of 'fail forward' is reminding the GM to plan contingencies. There is an excellent article somewhere around regarding how to run mystery games and the core concept is the rule of three. Always have three clues, leads, paths, etc.. from one set-piece to the next... because it is very likely your players will miss at least two of them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think it is any different as I indicated in my first post in this thread. And when one thinks about it this way, it becomes a lot more palatable, right?

It isn't about palatability. It is about suitability for what I want at the table (if your a friend and you run a fail forward type game, I will play and I won't act like it is making me sick or something). But as a GM I have a way of running things I've developed that works for me. Any tool I bring in, I do so because it adds to the game and helps me in my goal of having an ongoing sustainable campaign. This tool, as people are describing it, sounds like it would present some issues for me. For instance your definition in the post, is the player succeeds but with a complication. That is where I think it breaks down being useful for me. That doesn't mean some failed rolls in the game won't trigger complications, but I don't need failed forward to tell me that (I just need to know that the players are doing something that naturally comes with the risk of causing X to happen). But if the players are trying to do something concrete like pick a lock with their Trade: Mechanical skill (which is the skill that would be used in the system I run) then failure is going to mean they don't pick the lock, not that they manage to pick it, but a monster catches up to them before they open the door, or they pick it but their picking tools warp in the key hole. I can see why some GMs might choose to take that route, for me that wouldn't enhance gameplay; it simply wouldn't be a good fit.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My personal read on it is that the GM is encouraged to set the stakes in the most interesting way that follows from the fiction up to that point. If falling down the ravine is an interesting failure in that situation, then that's the cost of failure. If losing the divining rod is more interesting, do that instead.

If that is the case, it isn't how I would want to do things. I would prefer the stakes be set by what feels most likely and appropriate given what the player is attempting to do.

 

[iserith]

But if the players are trying to do something concrete like pick a lock with their Trade: Mechanical skill (which is the skill that would be used in the system I run) then failure is going to mean they don't pick the lock, not that they manage to pick it, but a monster catches up to them before they open the door, or they pick it but their picking tools warp in the key hole. I can see why some GMs might choose to take that route, for me that wouldn't enhance gameplay; it simply wouldn't be a good fit.

I would find any of those failure conditions to be suitable and interesting, given the right fictional circumstances up to that point.

I would prefer the stakes be set by what feels most likely and appropriate given what the player is attempting to do.

I wonder if you think I'm advocating something other than what you just said here.

 

[iserith]

For instance your definition in the post, is the player succeeds but with a complication. That is where I think it breaks down being useful for me.

"Success with a complication" can be a little misleading, so let me rephrase: "achieves the intended goal but with a complication." The character failed to achieve the goal scot-free, which is what the player (and character, likely) desired. D&D 5e calls it "progress combined with a setback."

 

[Bedrockgames]

I wonder if you think I'm advocating something other than what you just said here.

I guess what I am saying is I see falling as the most likely and appropriate outcome. Whether it is interesting or not isn't really a factor for me. If I was giving 'most interesting' primacy I might choose another outcome. But the outcome I want is the one that seems most plausible given the situation, the roll result, etc. If this method works for you, that is great. I just think as you are presenting it to me, it either doesn't add anything (because I can already determine what the most plausible stakes are without it) or it complicates the stakes in a way that potentially pulls us from my other goals and interests at the table.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"Success with a complication" can be a little misleading, so let me rephrase: "achieves the intended goal but with a complication." The character failed to achieve the goal scot-free, which is what the player (and character, likely) desired. D&D 5e calls it "progress combined with a setback."

That is fine. You can rephrase it. I think I get what you are saying. And it seems like an entirely worthy approach to play. It just doesn't resonate with me.

 

[iserith]

I guess what I am saying is I see falling as the most likely and appropriate outcome. Whether it is interesting or not isn't really a factor for me. If I was giving 'most interesting' primacy I might choose another outcome. But the outcome I want is the one that seems most plausible given the situation, the roll result, etc. If this method works for you, that is great. I just think as you are presenting it to me, it either doesn't add anything (because I can already determine what the most plausible stakes are without it) or it complicates the stakes in a way that potentially pulls us from my other goals and interests at the table.

Plausible and interesting aren't mutually exclusive though. Given the right circumstances, it is both plausible and interesting to either fall into the ravine or drop one's divining rod in instead of falling. I certainly wouldn't choose to make a failure condition implausible and interesting. No more than I would choose to make a failure condition plausible and uninteresting.