Failing Forward

[Manbearcat]

In [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s Mt Pudding example, climbing is just a means to the end of getting pudding, and so narrating a loss of the divining rod - which makes the prospects of getting pudding very bleak - is more significant than simply narrating a failure to climb (= a fall down the ravine).

Yup.

On 2: as I've posted upthread, I think there is no particular connection between "fail forward" and shared narration of backstory between players and GM. However, "fail forward" clearly implies that the GM will establish stakes and narrate consequences having regard to the dramatic and thematic concerns of the players (as evinced by their play of their PCs). Thus, if the player chooses to have his/her PC scale Mt Pudding in quest of pudding, narration of failures will likely be framed in some sort of relation to that goal. (Eg as losing the pudding divining rod.)

Yup.

If the players truly want the GM to narrate the gameworld, and consequences, without regard to these sorts of dramatic concerns, then "fail forward" would seem in appropriate.

<snip>

They know that I narrated this because (i) it gave effect to the failure of the PC who tried to fish the mace out of the stream, and (ii) it increased the stakes for the other two PCs who were dealing with the servants, because one of them was the PC who wanted the mace and the other was the PC who had promised to help him get the mace.

If players don't like having that sort of knowledge about how the GM decided to introduce content into the gameworld, then "fail forward" won't work for them.

Yup and yup.

But the players contribute to setting the stakes in various ways. Eg in choice of skill to roll - Climbing vs Navigation when climbing Mt Pudding will likely involve different fictional contexts for failure, which results in different outcomes (divining rod down the ravine vs . . . ? [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]

Why Schrodinger's Gorge of course!

Here is a good opportunity for a plug of an absolutely fantastic product for folks who want to run wilderness challenges. It is a Dungeon World supplement, The Perilous Wilds, but its advice is applicable to all games.

Generic Soft Moves (minor complications) for Navigation Moves (when Undertaking a Perilous Journey) include things like:

- the weather worsens (maybe The Pie doesn't want to be found...)
- the PCs are being followed (by The Acolytes of the Fabled Pie who are trying to keep it a secret - eg Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade)
- the PCs must backtrack losing valuable time (perhaps like Lonely Mountain's keyhole, the fabled pudding of Mt Pudding is only revealed at a specific prophesied moment!)

Hard Moves (major complications) are stuff like:

- someone sustains an injury (a turned ankle from a slip or something) that hobbles/nags the effort going forward
- the PCs stumble into a major topographical impediment or outright danger (eg the narrow switchback trail abruptly ends or a sudden collapse sinkhole swallows either swallows something/one up or spits something out!)
- the PCs get separated
- the PCs get hopelessly lost

Whatever the complication, wilderness challenges are always best when the PCs are presented a couple (2-3) of (equaly-ish bad) implied options from which the adventure/challenge will branch off of based on how they approach their "turn for the worse." This gives the players just enough information to help them (a) understand the immediate situation better so they can occupy the head-space of their character and make strategic decisions w/in the shared imaginary space and (b) the small menu should focus their thoughts on the fiction, perhaps provoking a quick veto of those options while stimulating a creative deviation with an action declaration of their own devising!

GM: "I would take you as my husband," she says genuinely, "But only if you can prove your bravery by slaying the dragon that plagues our realm." What do you do?

PC: Err...dragon? Does your hot sister come as part of the deal?

---

All the time I have for now!

 

[iserith]

PC: Err...dragon? Does your hot sister come as part of the deal?

Haha!

A small quibble with your take on soft and hard moves as minor and major complications. As I understand moves, a soft move is something to which the players (and characters) can react to and do something about before a hard move sets in. A hard move is immediate and irrevocable in that moment, something the PCs can only do something about after the fact. Soft moves are thus more desirable and hard moves only something that follows a soft move the PCs failed to do anything about.

 

[Manbearcat]

Haha!

A small quibble with your take on soft and hard moves as minor and major complications. As I understand moves, a soft move is something to which the players (and characters) can react to and do something about before a hard move sets in. A hard move is immediate and irrevocable in that moment, something the PCs can only do something about after the fact. Soft moves are thus more desirable and hard moves only something that follows a soft move the PCs failed to do anything about.

Pretty close to the mark there. I think I've used that exact descriptor of hard moves on these very boards actually!

Soft moves (such as Show Signs of An Approaching Threat or Reveal An Unwelcome Truth) are triggered (a) every time a scene opens (every scene needs to be framed around conflict/danger/adventure), (b) when a player rolls a 7-9, or (c) whenever something needs to/should happen to move the action forward (where a hard move wasn't triggered). Hard moves (Use a Monster/Danger/Location Move, Use Up Their Resources, Deal Damage) are triggered (a) when a soft move isn't dealt with by the PCs (thus the danger of something like Show Signs of An Approaching Threat becomes manifest), or (b) when a player rolls a 6- and marks XP (but the GM can go with a soft move in the stead of a hard move if they wish).

Quick play example of an Undertake a Perilous Journey (a wilderness conflict) going very south due to a 6- on the Scout's roll, hence I Used a Danger Move for the scout failing to ferret out a topographical hazard before it could trigger a calamity. The PCs were transiting the frozen, highland wasteland between the ruins of World's End Bluff to the hobgoblin outpost of Earthmaw:

[sblock]

Saerie's player:
Alright. We're right up against our ration allotment, so we can't afford something to happen there. So no goblins on Quartermaster. I'll have Otthor take care of managing our provisions and overseeing setting up and breaking down camp, etc. With his 8 on his QM check, we'll consume the right amount of rations. I'll take Trailblazer. My 10+ will get us there quicker and cut down on some rations used. That leaves Scout. The goblins know this territory best. They know the signs of dangerous geographical hazards, the wind fields in case storms blow in suddenly, and they should know where dangerous avian predators lair. They can take the Scout role. Here we go for them:

Scout (Goblins)
2, 3 + 0 = 5

Here comes trouble!

During camp along the way, I want to speak with the dog and find out what the old boy knows about what happened in this settlement.

I'll also talk to Otthor about, upon our return, picking up the corpse of the poor young man that was changed. The old Remorhaz tunnel where I mercilessly slew him will be easy to find. Hopefully we can locate the two refugee families and they can give him a fitting burial in their cemetary. Surely they know the family. They might even be his kin.

GM (Me):

Regarding the dog:

Despite his deafness, you're able to communicate with the dog somewhat. This is what he is able to relay:

Some time ago, people started going crazy and killing each other. One man gouged another man's eyes out, for no reason, in the middle of broad daylight and bashed his head in with a rock. The dog actually discovered him. He was found just sitting there, with the body, babbling incoherently. When he developed strange symptoms, the townsfolk executed him and burned the body. People became terrified that there was a sickness and folks weren't leaving their houses much. But more of the same followed not long after. The murdered were buried in the cemetery. The "sick" were executed and burned.

Things got really, really bad shortly thereafter when the goats started all going mad, stampeding and killing people and each other. More people died but several of the goats were put down. All bodies were burned. The men who were outside fighting the goats began to lose their minds and change. It seemed like people did better if they stayed inside so the whole town banded together, fought off the afflicted, and barricaded themselves in the common building, thinking that they could wait it out and that there would be safety in numbers. When tempers erupted later that night, two families fled the settlement together, sure the place was cursed. They tried to convince everyone else to leave with them. No one else would go. The dog's master stayed so he stayed with him.

By the next morning, everyone had killed each other or began changing and then cocooning. The dog hid for days and then tried to escape when everything was still. That is when you guys showed up and everything happened.

Regarding the Perilous Journey:

You cut off a significant amount of travel via a handy shortcut you discover (2 rations off of your total used, so you spend 8 instead of 10). You locate some elevation on the icy tundra and use the prolonged downslope to lessen the wolves burden and sustain momentum on the ice. For a good 4 hours, the wolves expend no real energy and they're able to take turns resting on the front of the sleds.

The land starts to rise and fall and is fraught with boulders and sharp rocks on the final approach. The elevating earth ascends angrily toward the White Dragon's domain and the entrance to the Coldlands beyond. In the distance, you can see the great open cavern, cut naturally into the bottom of the mountainside's face. Earthmaw.

The small goblin stands up and points, beginning to celebrate. The moment that he does so, a terrible sound begins beneath you. To date, the goblins have guided you away from the lairs of nesting Wyverns, Perytons, and navigated around the dangerous terrain of false-floors. However, when the sound of cracking ice begins and a jagged, zig-zagging line accelerates in front of the sleds (the cowardly, but useful, goblin was able to tie/rig together both sleds, creating something of a master sled with a larger platform (1) that could be pulled by all 8 wolves and (2) that he could drive as neither of the other goblins are proficient enough), terror turns his celebrations into a shriek. Almost immediately thereafter, the false layer of thin ice gives way and the crevasse reveals itself with a terrible noise. The cracking, gravelly yawn of the glacier threatens to swallow you all as the back end of the sled goes in first.

The goblin driver leaps for safety above and barely finds it.

One of the two armored goblin brothers is almost immediately claimed by the deadly darkness below. His brother dives for him and grabs hold of his arm...both of them hanging dangerously by a hand meagerly grasping the sled.

Saerie's bear-friend Rawr is easily able to use his claws to hang onto the sled but the dog is going to go over if he isn't saved. And you two are going to need to defy some danger as well and figure this thing out.

The wolves are up top, howling and growling...trying desperately to pull the precarious sled out. But it is far, far too much weight for them and, despite their efforts, they are slowly sliding backward toward the indifferent chasm...

Otthor's player:
The first thing I'm going to do is position my body so that when the dog falls, she falls into me. I'll accept the blow and try to hang on so she doesn't fall.

Defy Danger (Con)
4, 2 + 1 = 7

Success with a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice.

GM (Me):
The dog's mouth loses its grip on the rope tying the two sleds together. She falls hard into your body and lets out a terrified howl that resounds in the darkness below. You're able to intercept her such that her paws and mouth are able to hang onto the many ropes that bind the sleds.

However, in doing so, your own grip is compromised and you lose it. You fall to the end of the sled with the two goblins, barely hanging on to the last bit of rope and wood. There are no handholds to climb here. If you're going to get out of it, you'll need to find another way.

Saerie's player:
As Otthor rescues the dog, I'm going to shout to Rawr. "Get up top, Rawr! Now!" I'm thinking that if he can get his weight off of the sleds and the two of us can get top-side, we can probably anchor things and keep the wolves from going over the precipice. He must weigh 350 to 400 lbs, if not more, so just getting that much weight off of things should help immensely. My weight, plus his, plus the two of us pulling the sled out might do the trick!

Is his bum paw (hobbled tag) still a problem enough that he can't climb?

GM (Me):
He is pretty close to healed. Besides, the situation is so dire that adrenaline alone would allow him to make the climb if nothing else. He'll be able to make it no problem. You go ahead and Defy Danger.

Saerie's player:
Alright, given that the dog is stably holding onto the ropes of the sled, I'm going to use his furry body as hand-holds and to pull myself up top and over the edge.

So + 1 to Defy Danger but I can't get a 10 +.

Defy Danger (Str)
2, 4 + 0 (+ 1 dog) = 7

Whew. Good thing I went with the dog's Intervene!

Success with a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice.

GM (Me):
As you're cresting the top, your climbing over the dog loosens the grip of his muzzle on the rope. Further, in your efforts, the ties to your cornpurse that hold it tautly in place have been severed. You see them both begin to drop to the chasm below.

You can grab only one.

Saerie's player:
I reach down and grab the dog by the scruff of his neck, pull him back to the rope that he had his muzzled wrapped around. When he is secure, I crest the top, listening closely for the sound of the coin purse hitting the bottom so that I might be able to discern how far down the drop is.

GM (Me):
Within about 3-4 seconds, you hear the sound of a sploosh as the coin purse meets a watery grave in a subterranean (freezing no doubt...but flowing) body of water. Your only means to replenish your waning rations in this barren wasteland and your borderline empty quiver at the trading outpost of Earthmaw...gone.

Saerie's player:
I flinch at the sound of the splash but I have no time to ponder it...

When I get to the top, I'm grabbing the harness and putting it firmly in Rawr's muzzle so that he can keep it from fully going over and maybe help pull the huge weight of the two wooden sleds and my companions. "Everything you have Rawr! PULL!"

I'm looking for a thick spot in the ice that I can drive a piton into it to anchor a rope in.

GM (Me):
Sounds good. We'll get to that in a minute.

Otthor, both yourself and the goblins are in grave danger and at risk of dropping. What are you going to do about it?[/quote]

Otthor's player:
When I see Rawr and Saerie make it to the top and I feel the downward slide of the sleds end, I know deliverance is on its way. As we begin to slowly rise I can hear the grunts and gasps for breath. A look next to me reveals the goblin holding the sled by one hand and his brother in the other is struggling mightily. His mental and physical fortitude to hang on are failing. I let go with one hand knowing that it will likely cost me. Having a much longer reach than the goblin, I can grab his brother's furs. With my physical strength waning, I rely on my spirit and tenacity, hoping to inspire not only the goblin but myself. "Hang on! MMMMRPH! You're going to make it!"

Defy Danger (Cha)
4, 3 + 1 = 8

Success with a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice.

GM (Me):
The load off the goblin brother immediately invigorates him as his other hand firmly grasps the sled. Your heroic efforts and seeing his brother have to firm hand-holds on the sled instills further strength in him to survive.

The sled very, very slowly rises as the weight is still immense. But unfortunately for you, your fingers are growing so very weary. There is little chance that you can just hold on like this for the time it will take for the sled to rise to the top...

[/sblock]

That is a sufficient enough portion of a play anecdote to show a wilderness conflict (like Bob and his noble effort to summit Mount Pudding) and how a hard move triggered by a 6- (hard failure) and success at a cost/complication to the overall intent of the effort (with a soft move triggered by a 7-9) propels play, and snowballs, in Dungeon World.

 

[pemerton]

Schrodinger's Gorge of course!

FTW!

In my BW game, the PCs had to spend a week crossing the Bright Desert, from an oasis protected by a good naga to the ruined tower that had once been the redoubt of the PC mage, in the foothills of the Abor-Alz.

I used the standard Fort checks to avoid tax to Fort, and when the Orientation check failed they (i) had to make an extra Fort check, and (ii) found the first pool at the edge of the desert already fouled by a dark elven adversary. A subsequent failed attempt to track down the elf meant that, when they got to the tower, he had also had time to dump rocks into its well.

I always seem to move towards NPC adversaries rather than nature as an adversary.

 

[pemerton]

I would much rather base the outcome on the princess' personality and motives.

<snip>

I would not ask for a roll and just give her answer based on her personality.

As I mentioned upthread, I think that "fail forward" relies upon leaving elements of backstory loose and flexible, so that they can be narrated as appropriate in order to maintain the narrative momentum.

This includes such things as NPC personalities and motives. One of my favourite comments on this particular issue comes from Paul Czege:

I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

II want to feel like if I solved a mystery or chased down a bandit, it was due to a combination of my skill puzzling through things, my characters abilities and circumstances. I wouldn't want to feel like I was always going to be able succeed simply because my character had set it as an important goal.

I thought we were generally on the same page, but I don't get why you say "I will always succeed simply because my character set it as an important goal".

To go back to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s toy example, if I lose my diving rod then there is a good chance I will not succeed in finding the pudding at the top of Mt Pudding.

Or, to refer to the actual play examples I've mentioned and linked to upthread:

* Just because the mace washes up in the stream where the servants are doing the laundry doesn't mean the PC is guaranteed to get it. As it happens, he did, but only because the other PC who had promised to help followed the servants to the loft where they hid the mace, and then stole it.

* Just because the feather is an angel feather doesn't mean that the PC is guaranteed to be able to turn it into a fire-protection item. First he might have to find a way to lift the curse.

* I mentioned the PCs travelling on a ship that sank. They didn't want the ship to sink. They wanted to be able to defeat the ghost ship. But because, rather than holding the crew together as a cohesive team, they had played a role in sowing fear and disunity, they failed in this.​

Relating the last of those dot points to "fail forward" as a technique: keeping the ship's crew together was an important goal for at least one of the PCs, but they failed and the ship sank. In this context, "fail forward" means that rather than make rolls to see if they drown, the next situation I narrate (as GM) has the PCs floating in the water clinging to wreckage, much of their equipment (and loot) lost, hoping that they get rescued. And as it happens, the elven princess PC has a very good bonus for Circles (the BW attribute that is checked when the player wants his/her PC to encounter a helpful NPC) and so an elven ship out searching for the missing princess came by and rescued them. Which then triggered a new series of challenges - as the captain of the elven ship discovered that two of the PCs are ill-omened sorcerers - leading, ultimately, to the PCs being dumped on the shore of the Bright Desert.

Where a new series of challenges then unfolded. Etc.

If you asked my players, I think they would say that this BW game is one of the hardest, grittiest and most failure-ridden they've ever played in - that's BW's main schtick. Much moreso than the 4e campaign we're in, or then previous RM or 3E campaigns that various members of the group have played in.

But they're never at a loss as to what the situation is that's confronting them, nor as to why it matters to them. That's what "fail forward" is for.

 

[Lanefan]

"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."

But the character still achieved the goal - which is by definition a success, not a failure. Failure means the goal was not achieved; this seems pretty black-and-white to me.

Now obviously there can be different degrees of failure - failing to climb a mountain could mean you get to a certain point and just can't find a way to go further, or the cold gets to you and forces you to turn back, or you slip and fall a bit but your gear holds you so no harm done, or you fall to your death. But in no case do you succeed in making it to the top.

What you're defining as "fail" is instead better termed as just a different degree of success...which is not what a failed skill check roll is telling you. The failed skill check is telling all involved that the character did not achieve whatever the particular goal was, and it's then up to the DM and-or players to come up with a narration to that effect; and this narration is where fail-forward (or sideways, or backwards) comes in as that's where the potential for a different direction lies.

Lanefan

 

[iserith]

But the character still achieved the goal - which is by definition a success, not a failure. Failure means the goal was not achieved; this seems pretty black-and-white to me.

Now obviously there can be different degrees of failure - failing to climb a mountain could mean you get to a certain point and just can't find a way to go further, or the cold gets to you and forces you to turn back, or you slip and fall a bit but your gear holds you so no harm done, or you fall to your death. But in no case do you succeed in making it to the top.

What you're defining as "fail" is instead better termed as just a different degree of success...which is not what a failed skill check roll is telling you. The failed skill check is telling all involved that the character did not achieve whatever the particular goal was, and it's then up to the DM and-or players to come up with a narration to that effect; and this narration is where fail-forward (or sideways, or backwards) comes in as that's where the potential for a different direction lies.

Lanefan

If my goal is to climb the mountain unscathed and I arrive at the top of said mountain having lost something, then I've failed to achieve my goal.

As well, a failed check doesn't necessarily mean outright failure of the goal. It depends entirely on the game system. In D&D 5e, for example, the Basic Rules tell us that rolling below the given DC for an ability check is "...a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM." This is D&D 5e's "fail forward," and it's right in the Basic Rules (page 58). Thus "a failed skill check roll is telling you" that climbing the mountain but losing one's divining rod is perfectly fine according to the rules of the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As I mentioned upthread, I think that "fail forward" relies upon leaving elements of backstory loose and flexible, so that they can be narrated as appropriate in order to maintain the narrative momentum.

This includes such things as NPC personalities and motives. One of my favourite comments on this particular issue comes from Paul Czege:

I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

That makes sense. I can certainly see why this approach would employ such a method. This would absolutely throw a wrench in how I tend to run things, because one of my main areas of interest is creating fairly concrete NPCs whose motives and goals I understand (which helps me to decide how they react to things the PCs do). My campaigns are very much driven by the interaction between PC, NPCs and the various groups they belong to. Obviously, I do sometimes have to come up with details o the fly, but I try to base that off the information I have established in my notes.

I thought we were generally on the same page, but I don't get why you say "I will always succeed simply because my character set it as an important goal".

To go back to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s toy example, if I lose my diving rod then there is a good chance I will not succeed in finding the pudding at the top of Mt Pudding.

Okay. I may have misunderstood. I thought you were saying, eventually he gets the pudding, but along the way, if he fails rolls, rather than have results that could stop him in his tracks or send him going back home, he has set-backs that are engaging and keep him going forward to the pudding.

 

[Umbran]

Okay. I may have misunderstood. I thought you were saying, eventually he gets the pudding, but along the way, if he fails rolls, rather than have results that could stop him in his tracks or send him going back home, he has set-backs that are engaging and keep him going forward to the pudding.

Well, no, they don't stop him in his tracks, or send him back home outright. Fail Forward is supposed to leave him with meaningful choices - and "stopped in his tracks" or "nothing to do but go home," are not places of meaningful choice.

Consider it this way - as he goes up Mt. Pudding with his divining rod, the only thing in his way are the physical challenges, as locating the pudding is pretty much assured. After failing at climbing, we haven't killed him in a crevasse*, but we have left him in a state where he has to meet the remaining physical challenges *and* has no automatic way to locate the pudding. His chances of overall success have definitely decreased, and he has to wonder if going on is what he wants to do.



*We don't kill him in the crevasse because, "Ahhhhhhhh*splat!*" is a really boring way to die, and would likely leave the player feeling pretty crappy and frustrated about the whole thing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, no, they don't stop him in his tracks, or send him back home outright. Fail Forward is supposed to leave him with meaningful choices - and "stopped in his tracks" or "nothing to do but go home," are not places of meaningful choice.

Consider it this way - as he goes up Mt. Pudding with his divining rod, the only thing in his way are the physical challenges, as locating the pudding is pretty much assured. After failing at climbing, we haven't killed him in a crevasse*, but we have left him in a state where he has to meet the remaining physical challenges *and* has no automatic way to locate the pudding. His chances of overall success have definitely decreased, and he has to wonder if going on is what he wants to do.

*We don't kill him in the crevasse because, "Ahhhhhhhh*splat!*" is a really boring way to die, and would likely leave the player feeling pretty crappy and frustrated about the whole thing.

Okay. That makes sense. It is definitely a different style of play than i enjoy (I'd happily let the character splat at the bottom of the Ravine----though I'd certainly give some kind of athletics roll or something as a last ditch save to be fair). I can see why it is useful in some games though.