Failing Forward

[Ilbranteloth]

[MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] - the BW rules for "intent and task" can be downloaded for free from DriveThruRPG here. It is elaborated in the Adventure Burner, which is the closest thing BW has to a GM's guide - at the moment I don't have that ready-to-hand to quote, but it elaborates on the relationship between intent and task in failure narration. The key passage on p 31 of BW Gold is this:

When the dice are rolled and don’t produce enough successes to meet the obstacle, the character fails. What does this mean? It means the stated intent does not come to pass.​

Page 32 continues:

When a test is failed, the GM introduces a complication.

“You can try to pick the lock, but you don’t have much time. It is highly likely that the guards will return before you finish.”​

Try not to present flat negative results - "You don’t pick the lock.” Strive to introduce complications through failure as much as possible.​

This has nothing to do with things that "the DM finds unacceptable". It certainly has nothing to do with "lazy DMs". As per the passage I've quoted upthread from Eero Tuivonen, narrating complications that are appropriate to the player's specified intent and task, and that deploy and build on existing backstory, and that challenge the player (and thereby the PC) in an engaging way, is a GM skill that is not trivial to master.

The reason is does not relate to things that are "unacceptable", or to "blocking", is because in these games there is no "scenario." The GM does not prepare that sort of backstory in advance. The backstory is narrated in response to the failures, in the forms of the complications and consequences that result from the PCs trying things but not realising their intents.

Whether or not, in the course of this, the PCs do or don't succeed at the tasks in question is secondary.

Based on your examples, as I said, I think that you're talking about an entirely different understanding of the term 'failing forward.' My interpretation is based solely on how I've seen the term used and/or discussed elsewhere, which is directly related to 'unacceptable results.'

What you're describing makes perfect sense, whether there is a predetermined scenario or not. Essentially there are alternative options to failure aside from just outright failure. I just don't understand how the term 'failing forward' came to be used to describe that process. There usually are (but not always) alternatives to outright failure.

If this is how 'failing forward' is defined, I'm all for it. Although eventually, there is always the possibility of just failure. Sometimes you slip and fall.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Neonchameleon]

If this is how 'failing forward' is defined, I'm all for it. Although eventually, there is always the possibility of just failure. Sometimes you slip and fall.

Slipping and falling is quite literally failing forward. Forward in this case being straight down because that is the direction the PCs are going. It would not be failing forward to climb two feet and then slip and fall and end up unharmed at the bottom of the wall the PC is trying to climb up.

What Failing Forward means is that after a roll the PCs never find themselves in (a) the same place they found themselves before the roll or (b) the same place they were before the roll - just with one fewer option. (Or even bouncing between two bad positions).

To repeat the "Forward" in Failing Forward doesn't mean that the PC must get closer to their objective. It's not a vector. It means that they must move with each roll - it's a scalar. Even if they get further from the objective by their failure they've gone somewhere and can come from a different angle and so they've failed forward.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Slipping and falling is quite literally failing forward. Forward in this case being straight down because that is the direction the PCs are going. It would not be failing forward to climb two feet and then slip and fall and end up unharmed at the bottom of the wall the PC is trying to climb up.

What Failing Forward means is that after a roll the PCs never find themselves in (a) the same place they found themselves before the roll or (b) the same place they were before the roll - just with one fewer option. (Or even bouncing between two bad positions).

To repeat the "Forward" in Failing Forward doesn't mean that the PC must get closer to their objective. It's not a vector. It means that they must move with each roll - it's a scalar. Even if they get further from the objective by their failure they've gone somewhere and can come from a different angle and so they've failed forward.

It's a lot fewer options if you fall and die. But a good clarification.

Just to make sure I didn't miss something (after being involved in the discussion for some time), the description of failing forward at the beginning of this thread was exactly what I've seen elsewhere.

From the initial post:

I was curious how folks felt about this concept? I'm a fan.

Essentially, it's a mechanic, fairly common these days, which ensures that the game doesn't grind to a halt on a failed skill check. Instead of the task at hand failing and stopping the game, the task is successful but with an attached disadvantage.

So, if the way into a dungeon is to pick the lock, and failing to do so would mean the party could not continue, the lock gets picked but a trap is set off. Or something. That was a terrible example; don't use it as a basis for judging the concept!

Some people love this; some games adopt it whole-heartedly. Other people dislike it, saying that the players should just think their way around to another solution and that the GM should be able to handle that. I'm in the former group; I think it's very useful, and use it for travel in my own RPG design.
So what do you think?

And the first post by Saelorn in this thread:

I think that it makes for a silly world, if outright failure is never a possibility. If you're testing whether someone can pick a lock, and there is no chance of failing to pick that lock, then the game mechanic is not providing a reasonable model of the activity.

A further consideration is that defining one direction as "forward" would imply that the GM is trying to direct the course of action of the player characters, which violates the GM's role as neutral arbiter. As the GM, I should not become attached to the outcome of any action. Whether they succeed or fail in opening that lock, either path is equally valid.

If you insist on meddling with the PCs and enforcing certain outcomes, there are subtler ways to do it. You could have the NPCs decide to use a cheaper lock, or a type of lock which one of the PCs is so familiar that no roll is necessary.

So I think it's pretty clear that the definition of 'failing forward' is not universally accepted or understood. I still think that if the actual intended definition is what you and Pemerton have described, then it's a poor term to use, simply because without any clarifying definition the term really sounds like it means something closer to what the initial post, Saelorn, and many others (myself included), thought, in which failure still puts you closer (moving forward) to your actual intended goal.

Which means, unfortunately, that this poll isn't very helpful. I voted 'No' but based on what you (and Pemerton) have described I would vote yes. The discussion has been helpful, though.

Ilbranteloth

 

[pemerton]

I think that [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and I are on the same page when it comes to understanding "fail forward".

It's a lot fewer options if you fall and die. But a good clarification.

In the same part of the BW core rules that I was quoting from above, there is a discussion of when "fail and you die" should be on the table. The short version is "not often".

the description of failing forward at the beginning of this thread was exactly what I've seen elsewhere.

<snip>

So I think it's pretty clear that the definition of 'failing forward' is not universally accepted or understood.

Fair enough. I'm familiar with the term from the sources I mentioned above, where I think it's fairly clear that it has the meaning I've been putting forward in this thread.

I guess if it's combined with the idea of "the scenario", then the alternative notion you have been working with might emerge - it would be an adaptation of an anti-railroading technique to be helpful in more GM-pre-authored play.

 

[Manbearcat]

You can climb a mountain without gear, though. Gear management makes it much easier and is better represented by circumstance bonuses in my opinion.

I don't abstract gear management. If the PCs don't go buy the gear and then let me that they use it to aid their mountain climb, they don't have or use gear. If they do, then the gear is a direct part of the climb and bad stuff can happen to it while climbing.

I'm not sure I made clear what I was after as your response answers "a question" (about your preferences) but it doesn't address what I was trying to dig down into. I'll try another angle:

1) Gear deployment and management in climbing/mountaineering (not just belaying equipment or hand climbing equipment, but also your pack, your garb, etc) is a component of competency in these endeavors. Consequently, from a sheer causal logic perspective, it makes sense (within the fiction) to have catastrophic gear failure or gear loss be "in play" for a GM to use as a failure-driven complication when a player misses a target number.

If players aren't using belaying equipment, hammers/pitons, or pegs/crampons during a climb, then whatever other gear they are carrying (be it a divining rod/pouch of coins/weapon/healing potion on your belt, your cold-weather-cloak, or your backpack) could be "in play."

Latches/leather/wool/ties fail, tear, or come free/break (of their own volition, due to impact, or getting catastrophically snagged).

2) If (1) is true, I don't see how it hinders player agency for a GM to evolve the post-resolution fiction to "gear a, b, or c, falls down the crevice...what are you going to do about it (if anything)" vs "you fall x feet."

The reason why "you fall x feet or you fail to climb" was effective (and used solely) in AD&D isn't an aspect of player agency driven by causal logic. It is a "gamist system artifact" because it interfaces directly with (a) the HP mechanics, and (b) the wandering monster mechanics (which drive the system as much as the battle for daily resource recharges and xp for gold).

I am a little confused as to why it is important for you that everyone has the same level of abstraction for all action, but I will accept that for you this is very important.

I'm not sure where it is in my prior post (or any other post) where you see that I put forward this position. I presume that you're mistaking my personal preferences for my ruminating upon (and asking clarifying questions) why it is that people will have varying needs for degrees of abstraction in varying component parts of resolution mechanics. I then wonder about how this comports with (supports with coherency) peoples' varying "agency thresholds".

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] answers my question in the way that I expected (and I agree with):

As for why combat is different. Combat happens much more frequently and already involves more rolling. Certain things must be accepted in order for the game to play smoothly and not bog down. A bogged down game is not fun for most people in my experience. It's why I accept that my character is effectively frozen in time while 50 goblins can all move and attack before my character can move so much as an inch due to losing initiative.

This is what I was looking for. However, I'd like to extend the question further into "how does extremely abstract resolution mechanics for the majority of the game's conflicts interact with" the "I don't have requisite agency in climbing/mountaineering (et al) if I cannot make causal-logic-driven, OODA Loop inhabiting decisions where play outcomes are a natural outgrowth of process simulating resolution mechanics" paradigm? I have several natural questions that stem forth from the maintenance of those two, at-tension positions. If the answer to all of them is just "because my mental model is what it is due to internalizing this paradigm for decades +", then so be it. But let us just say that.

If it is something else, then clarity and enlightenment would be appreciated!

Hence the reason I'm not saying my approach is they way the game is "supposed" to be played, or that anyone else should play the game with my preferred style unless they like that style.

Neither am I. I'm not sure why you are putting that forth. Merely discussing a technique, what dynamics it perpetuates, what system infrastructure does it interface well with is not telling you that you should use it. This is a thread about understanding the technique of "Failing Forward." My efforts are intended to forward that end.

Or this:

I don't think anyone has said that it will, have they?

But this isn't a thread about how D&D should be designed. It's a thread in the General forum about whether or not people like "fail forward" as a technique, and why.

Part of the reason that how it interacts with the system is so very important is because it changes the system. They interact with each other.

Agreed. Very much. Which is why I, directly above, asked people to start interacting with specific play examples if they were interested in having nuanced conversation about "Failing Forward" rather than the generic conversation driven by the generic example of Bob, Mount Pudding, the failed Navigation check leading to an interaction with a hazard (crevice), and the Pudding Divining Rod (which was meant to triangulate a starting point).

By all means, (anyone) engage (specifically) with the detailed play posts for a detailed conversation about how the technique supports, and is supported by, system.

And if I don't like the dungeon world approach to role playing how is pushing D and D more towards that style of game going to make me like it more?

Dungeon World is D&D. As is 13th Age. As is D&D 4e. As is D&D 5e. All of them feature "Failing Forward" as a component of their conflict resolution mechanics.

A big part of running D and D games is deciding which techniques will create the kind of game that you and your players will enjoy, and employing those that support the experience you want to have. As a result fail forward in all it's forms forms could be moving you towards the style of game (and system) that you want or moving you away from it.

No disagreement there.

 

[Emerikol]

This is the classic debate between playing styles. I want a game that represents "realistic" choices given the fantasy mileu that my characters have to face. So I am generally anti-metagaming. There are many ways past a lock but locks are not always openable. So that kind of "meta-planning" outside the game by DM or players is not desirable. I consider the environment and the monsters as challenges the players have to overcome in a variety of ways. The DM's job is to accurately create and simulate that environment. Obviously the creation of the environment is a skill and something worth putting effort into to ensure quality.

 

[Emerikol]

I also am a believer that your equipment is your equipment. You have it or you don't. As a DM though, I very much will advise the player about the things his character might know that he as a player does not know. So I might ask the player if he intends on buying climbing equipment because his skill as a climber indicates that is a good idea.

 

[Reinhart]

Remember how I said someone should write a guide on what Fail Forward is and how to use it? Well here you go, thanks to Jon Lemich:
http://www.runagame.net/2015/12/fail-forward.html

More to the point is the mantra that follows it:

"Nothing" is not a consequence of failure.

It's literally what happens when the GM isn't doing their job.

If you want to make "nothing" happen, just sit there and play on your phone.

Your job is to make the world react to the players' actions.

"Nothing" is not a reaction.

Do your job!

 

[iserith]

Remember how I said someone should write a guide on what Fail Forward is and how to use it? Well here you go, thanks to Jon Lemich:
http://www.runagame.net/2015/12/fail-forward.html

More to the point is the mantra that follows it:

"Nothing" is not a consequence of failure.

It's literally what happens when the GM isn't doing their job.

If you want to make "nothing" happen, just sit there and play on your phone.

Your job is to make the world react to the players' actions.

"Nothing" is not a reaction.

Do your job!

Completely agree. When I sit down to play in a pickup group and I see a DM use "fail forward" type stuff, I immediately know the DM is on the top of his or her game. Anything less and I prepare for the worst.

 

[grendel111111]

Remember how I said someone should write a guide on what Fail Forward is and how to use it? Well here you go, thanks to Jon Lemich:
http://www.runagame.net/2015/12/fail-forward.html

More to the point is the mantra that follows it:

"Nothing" is not a consequence of failure.

It's literally what happens when the GM isn't doing their job.

If you want to make "nothing" happen, just sit there and play on your phone.

Your job is to make the world react to the players' actions.

"Nothing" is not a reaction.

Do your job!

This is an excellent article, it gives clear examples and clears up some misunderstandings right up until the last paragraph. Then suddenly it turns into "if you don't play the game my way you are wrong."
Honestly when presenting a style of play it is important to see that it is just that. A way to play the game, not THE way to play the game. It is not "not doing your job", if you use a different style to failing forward.

Also if he is worried about the DM doing his job why did he put the entire nights game behind a hidden door with a DC of 20 to find it? That is an idiot move to start with.

For me the biggest "fail" (Note that I use " " because it is a style difference) in the examples, is how they are presented to the players. If you roll x this will happen, if you roll y that will happen... now roll.

Here is an example of 2 ways of presenting the same situation to the players (both using fail forward):

Situation: The characters want to get to the other end of a corridor, It has collapsed in the middle and is blocked by rubble. The characters decide to dig out the corridor so they can get to the other side.

Approach 1: The corridor is filled with rubble and the roof is clearly unstable. You need to make a Str (Athletics roll) to clear the rubble. The DC is 15 and you can have 1 person help you. On a successful roll you clear the rubble but on a fail you clear the rubble but some of the roof falls and hits you so you will lose a healing surge (or what ever penalty).

Approach 2: The corridor is filled with rubble and the roof is clearly unstable. You need to make a Str (Athletics roll) to clear the rubble. The DC is 15 and you can have 1 person help you. (at this point the characters my decide to prop up the corridor as they go, using mining skills to aid in their clearing of the rubble, but we assume that they don't for this example) On making the roll they will find out the out come. Will they make it through? Will rubble fall and injure someone? Will the whole corridor fall in forever blocking their way? Will one of them get trapped under falling beams? (The DM knows that on a failed roll they will clear the rubble but some of the roof falls and hits them so they will lose a healing surge (or what ever penalty).

Approach 1 kills the tention. As soon as it is announces they know they will make it through, but might lose a resource. Approach 2 keeps the tension high. They don't know the outcome until the action is completed. As a player I far prefer this way.