Failing Forward

[Reinhart]

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.

Nothing about what the author wrote actually indicates he believes what you're saying he believes. And I know him, so I can safely say you're completely misconstruing his intent. In fact, what you've written above is both irrelevant and incorrect. Knowing the possible outcomes is not contradictory to tension. When Dirty Harry points his revolver at the punk's head and pulls his trigger he either has a bullet or he doesn't. And assuming he's telling the truth, no one there knows if he does or doesn't. It's a binary event with two very well defined outcomes, but there is still a palpable tension. So you don't need "anything can happen" levels uncertainty to create tension.

That's because tension isn't just established by uncertainty; it also requires a sense of stakes. Of course you can set the stakes either in mechanical or narrative terms as you prefer, based on your play-style. Regardless, it's vital that the players believe that there are interesting consequences to their actions; Otherwise, you have no tension. What's wrong with Approach 1 isn't that the different outcomes are known, it's that the stakes aren't relevant and interesting to the events and characters at hand.

But again, this is all besides the point so let's not waste further words on it.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Okay. That's clearer and I agree. Equipment being used logically can be lost or broken during a climb. I used a similar example where the rod was being carried in hand while climbing as one of the few ways I could see the rod lost as a result of a failed climb check. A rod in a pack? Nope. Not connected.

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."

Not and be directly connected to a climb check they can't. There is a disconnect there and that's what throws it off. Only things directly being used for the climb check itself have a direct connection to the check.

 

[grendel111111]

Nothing about what the author wrote actually indicates he believes what you're saying he believes. And I know him, so I can safely say you're completely misconstruing his intent. In fact, what you've written above is both irrelevant and incorrect. Knowing the possible outcomes is not contradictory to tension. When Dirty Harry points his revolver at the punk's head and pulls his trigger he either has a bullet or he doesn't. And assuming he's telling the truth, no one there knows if he does or doesn't. It's a binary event with two very well defined outcomes, but there is still a palpable tension. So you don't need "anything can happen" levels uncertainty to create tension.

That's because tension isn't just established by uncertainty; it also requires a sense of stakes. Of course you can set the stakes either in mechanical or narrative terms as you prefer, based on your play-style. Regardless, it's vital that the players believe that there are interesting consequences to their actions; Otherwise, you have no tension. What's wrong with Approach 1 isn't that the different outcomes are known, it's that the stakes aren't relevant and interesting to the events and characters at hand.

But again, this is all besides the point so let's not waste further words on it.

What I have written above is my experience and about my preference, so in a thread about "Do you like fail forward? and why or why not?" it is relevant.
This is a thread about what you like about fail forward correct? and there is more than one way to run fail forward, correct?
It wasn't until reading what You linked to that it became really clear what it is that I find dissatisfying about some applications of fail forward other than the simple disconnect that some of us feel.
The knowing of the possible outcomes is a tension killer "for me". It isn't a tension killer "for you". Again neither right or wrong, just different.
I think "for me" it is the difference between feeling like I am in a script writing room deciding that Indi is going over the cliff and "how are we going to save him" and feeling like you are Indi going over that cliff, and not knowing how this is going to end.
So again "for me" as "a player" I like fail forward when used as the DM decides the outcomes before the dice are rolled, but I don't know them until after the dice are rolled (And I only know the one that takes affect).

In each of his examples you could have removed the point where the DM explains the 2 possible outcomes, still used fail forward with the same results and it would "to me" have felt like it was a more in character experience. It would also have the advantage for me of hiding some of the more blatant disconnects (If you fail the lock pick roll it will start raining).

However I should have separated it from my reply to you. But as it was connected to the piece you linked to so I didn't, Sorry.
Clearly I misunderstood the end of the artical when he was saying "In each example, there's a bad way to handle failure that is quick, simple, obvious... and wrong:" I misinterpreted that if you don't use the suggest approach you are "Wrong".

 

[pemerton]

Equipment being used logically can be lost or broken during a climb.

<snip>

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."

Not and be directly connected to a climb check they can't. There is a disconnect there and that's what throws it off. Only things directly being used for the climb check itself have a direct connection to the check.

I also am a believer that your equipment is your equipment. You have it or you don't.

I am going to push [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s point a little harder.

Clearly, when climbing a mountain while wearing a cold-weather cloak and while carrying a backpack there is a chance that the cloak or pack can get snagged, or that it can come loose and fall. Avoiding such things is part of the skill of being a mountaineer.

One way to represent the connection between skill, and such potential consequences, is for the loss of equipment to be "in play" as a possible outcome for a failed Climbing check.

But if you don't do it that way - and I believe, from your posts, that neither of you does - then how do you do it? To the best of my knowledge no edition of D&D has ever had a "Chance of equipment snag while mountain climbing" table - and in any event, a purely random table wouldn't factor in the crucial dimension of mountaineering skill.

I want a game that represents "realistic" choices given the fantasy mileu that my characters have to face. So I am generally anti-metagaming.

I think that realism is a red herring. There is nothing unrealistic about dropping one's pudding divining rod while climbing. If anything, the classic D&D approach where climbers sometimes fall (failed climbing check) but never lose their gear (there is no systematic mechanic, in classic D&D, for losing gear via drop or break or snag) is quite unrealistic.

Nor is there anything unrealistic about the various actual play examples that I have given upthread. There is nothing unrealistic about searching a tower for a lost mace and discovering that it is not there, but rather has been looted by a dark elf adversary, and instead discovering that one's balrog-possessed brother may have been evil all along - as be-tokened by the black arrows in his (formerly) private workroom.

The issue is not about realism. It's about the ways in which backstory is authored and brought into play as part of action resolution. At the table, is it primarily an input or an output?

 

[pemerton]

Having a quick look at the article that [MENTION=13080]Reinhart[/MENTION] linked to upthread, I don't agree with this:

When people talk about Fail Forward in RPGs, they mean that failure should not stop the action, and failure should always have interesting consequences.

I suggest that we stop saying "fail forward" now, because it's confusing, it's business jargon, and googling it finds all the wrong links. I don't need to make up yet another term to replace it. Instead, I suggest we just start using the term for it from Fate Core, "succeed at a cost."​

"Succeed at a cost" is only one way of ensuring that failure has interesting consequences, and often not the most interesting or most appropriate. Most of the actual play examples I've given upthread don't involve succeeding at a cost. Nor does [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s example of losing the rod while climbing Mt Pudding.

EDIT: The language of "succeed at a cost" also produces comments like this one to the linked article, which echoes things that have been posted in this thread:

t's important that it's not always 'failing forward' or whatever we decide to call it. Sometimes it's just outright failing.
​

In fact there is nothing wrong with failure always producing interesting consequences which drive the action on - which is what game designers like Luke Crane, Robin Laws, Ron Edwards, Jonathan Tweet, Vincent Baker etc have in mind in advocating "fail forward" as a technique. This is completely orthogonal to whether the PCs always, frequently or only sometimes get what they want. In 4e, which is a very heroic game, the tendency is towards "frequently". In BW, which tends towards grittiness, it is more like "sometimes". Others who know the Apocalypse engine better than me can comment on the sort of frequency of success it tends to produce. But all these systems deploy "fail forward" in the sense of "the consequences of failure should be a challenging new situation that drives the action onward."

 

[Maxperson]

I am going to push [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s point a little harder.

Clearly, when climbing a mountain while wearing a cold-weather cloak and while carrying a backpack there is a chance that the cloak or pack can get snagged, or that it can come loose and fall. Avoiding such things is part of the skill of being a mountaineer.

Sure. That's bad luck, though. It's also possible to get frostbite while climbing a mountain, and it's possible to start an avalanche while climbing a mountain, sprain an ankle while climbing a mountain and so on. A failed climb check involves climbing or the failure to do so. I occasionally call for a fate roll in my game, and sometimes bad luck or good luck happens in addition the results of whatever else is going on. If the PC fumbles that fate roll while climbing, bad luck happens. What doesn't happen is for it to happen instead of a failed climb check. The PCs don't get to continue on their merry way is if they had succeeded at the check and just lose a piece of equipment.

One way to represent the connection between skill, and such potential consequences, is for the loss of equipment to be "in play" as a possible outcome for a failed Climbing check.

When directly connected, sure.

But if you don't do it that way - and I believe, from your posts, that neither of you does - then how do you do it? To the best of my knowledge no edition of D&D has ever had a "Chance of equipment snag while mountain climbing" table - and in any event, a purely random table wouldn't factor in the crucial dimension of mountaineering skill.

As I said, I have fate rolls that can alter things for better or for worse. I also have skill fumbles, and if you roll multiple 1's in a row, bad things directly connected to the event at hand start to happen.

I think that realism is a red herring. There is nothing unrealistic about dropping one's pudding divining rod while climbing. If anything, the classic D&D approach where climbers sometimes fall (failed climbing check) but never lose their gear (there is no systematic mechanic, in classic D&D, for losing gear via drop or break or snag) is quite unrealistic.

It isn't that it's unrealistic to drop a rod while climbing. It's that it's not realistic for the climb check to be the reason. Climb checks check climbing and that's it. They don't check rods falling out of your pocket. Something else has to come into play before that happens.

Nor is there anything unrealistic about the various actual play examples that I have given upthread. There is nothing unrealistic about searching a tower for a lost mace and discovering that it is not there, but rather has been looted by a dark elf adversary, and instead discovering that one's balrog-possessed brother may have been evil all along - as be-tokened by the black arrows in his (formerly) private workroom.

In and of themselves, no. They aren't unrealistic. What makes it unrealistic or not is how those things are brought into play. I failed a climb check so it started raining and slowed my climb down is not a realistic result of a climb check, even though rain is realistic. Rain has nothing to do with a climb check.

 

[Mecheon]

It isn't that it's unrealistic to drop a rod while climbing. It's that it's not realistic for the climb check to be the reason. Climb checks check climbing and that's it. They don't check rods falling out of your pocket. Something else has to come into play before that happens.

No there doesn't? It could be failing to keep your things in order, so you're being sloppy with it. Or you failed to grab an edge, slipped, and it fell out from the jolt. It doesn't need to be tied to just climbing, nothing else needs to come into play.

In and of themselves, no. They aren't unrealistic. What makes it unrealistic or not is how those things are brought into play. I failed a climb check so it started raining and slowed my climb down is not a realistic result of a climb check, even though rain is realistic. Rain has nothing to do with a climb check.

We're talking about a fantasy RPG game where giant flying lizards breathe fire, acid, chlorine or other things, and elves and dwarves are everywhere. "Realism" is hardly appropriate, and rain could have everything to do with it as far as the GM wills. However, there's just one point I want to pick on...

What doesn't happen is for it to happen instead of a failed climb check. The PCs don't get to continue on their merry way is if they had succeeded at the check and just lose a piece of equipment.

What would you prefer in this scenario? That they instead keep rolling until they succeed?

Because that is horrible DMing and is dragging down the game, and everyone's enjoyment. The entire point of failing forward is to avoid those scenarios so you keep the game at a solid pace, rather than slowing down to keep doing the same skill check they've already failed. The worst example of this remains that one 5E session where they just kept rolling to unlock a door

 

[grendel111111]

No there doesn't? It could be failing to keep your things in order, so you're being sloppy with it. Or you failed to grab an edge, slipped, and it fell out from the jolt. It doesn't need to be tied to just climbing, nothing else needs to come into play.



We're talking about a fantasy RPG game where giant flying lizards breathe fire, acid, chlorine or other things, and elves and dwarves are everywhere. "Realism" is hardly appropriate, and rain could have everything to do with it as far as the GM wills. However, there's just one point I want to pick on...


What would you prefer in this scenario? That they instead keep rolling until they succeed?

Because that is horrible DMing and is dragging down the game, and everyone's enjoyment. The entire point of failing forward is to avoid those scenarios so you keep the game at a solid pace, rather than slowing down to keep doing the same skill check they've already failed. The worst example of this remains that one 5E session where they just kept rolling to unlock a door

If a single failed climb roll is thwarting your quest then the DM may not be your problem. It may just be that you are a bad player.
How about coming up with other solutions? Can't get over the mountain, we may be forced to brave the mines of Moria. Of cause LotR just stopped when they couldn't get over the mountains because Tolkin let them actually fail a check. He was such a terrible DM.

 

[Mecheon]

If a single failed climb roll is thwarting your quest then the DM may not be your problem. It may just be that you are a bad player.
How about coming up with other solutions? Can't get over the mountain, we may be forced to brave the mines of Moria. Of cause LotR just stopped when they couldn't get over the mountains because Tolkin let them actually fail a check. He was such a terrible DM.

But if the GM is demanding you have to climb this mountain or else nothing, then that's the problem

I hate to point out "That one 5E session with the PA people where they spent a while constantly rolling to unlock a door", but, well, that's it as an example

 

[Maxperson]

No there doesn't? It could be failing to keep your things in order, so you're being sloppy with it. Or you failed to grab an edge, slipped, and it fell out from the jolt. It doesn't need to be tied to just climbing, nothing else needs to come into play.

Failing to keep things in order and/or being sloppy has nothing directly to do with a climb check. It's bad luck that would cause it to fall.

We're talking about a fantasy RPG game where giant flying lizards breathe fire, acid, chlorine or other things, and elves and dwarves are everywhere. "Realism" is hardly appropriate, and rain could have everything to do with it as far as the GM wills. However, there's just one point I want to pick on...

This failed argument again? It's getting old. Fantasy realism changes some things and allows things like dragons to be realistic through the altered game universe reality, while walking off a cliff and not falling is NOT realistic. Unless there is something like the fantasy realism magic to cause you not to fall. Realism exists in D&D and every other fantasy RPG I've ever heard of, and is in fact appropriate.

That fantasy realism creates situations where things work "realistically" in the game universe that are not realistic outside of it in the real world does not mean that NOTHING REALISTIC EVUR!!!!!! Hur hur!

What would you prefer in this scenario? That they instead keep rolling until they succeed?

Because that is horrible DMing and is dragging down the game, and everyone's enjoyment. The entire point of failing forward is to avoid those scenarios so you keep the game at a solid pace, rather than slowing down to keep doing the same skill check they've already failed. The worst example of this remains that one 5E session where they just kept rolling to unlock a door

False Dichotomy. It's not auto succeed with a penalty or sit there and keep rolling until they make the climb.

I prefer it the way I do it. There is a type of fail forward where if you fail and one avenue is closed, you switch to one of the other avenues that exist and proceed forward. Maybe you pull out the scroll of flying and use it. Maybe you go back down and get some equipment for mountain climbing to enable success. There are lots of ways to succeed other than constantly rolling for climb checks until you succeed or being unable to fail to make the climb.