Failing Forward

[pemerton]

For me the issue is Schrödinger's nickel-silver mace. Until the players search, it is both there and not there. Only when they search do you discover if it is or is not there. The roll you are doing here does not determine if the player "finds" the mace, but rather it determines if the mace is there. If it is there they will find it, but if they are bad at searching they won't just not find it but it will not be there.

It's not the players who search and do or don't find the mace - it's the PCs.

The reason I emphasise that distinction is because it relates to the other distinction I've been making - between the ingame consistency or "reality" of the gameworld, and the real-world activity of authoring the gameworld. Within the gameworld - from the ingame perspective - it is not "Schroedinger's mace". It was never there, as it had been taken from the ruins by the dark elf.

But at the table, the authorship is in response to the check.

This also illustrates an aspect of "fail forward" that has been discussed upthread, that what is at stake is not just (or even primarily) whether or not the PCs succeed in their task, but whether things turn out as they wanted.

I prefer "pre-authoring" which at it's most basic level means that the DM will know the state of play before the roll is made, either the mace is there or it is not there.

<snip>

The DM know the current situation and and the players discover the current situation.

This difference from "fail forward" highlights what, to me, is key - that "fail forward" is a technique that is intended to drive dramatic and narrative momentum without GM pre-authorship. (At least as it has been systematised in those games which make a point of calling it out as a technique.)

Once the GM knows what the answer is to the location of the mace in advance, and that is taken as fixed regardless of the dynamics of play when (if at all) the search actually occurs, then the focus of play has moved away from dramatic momentum to something else. (Eg exploring the GM's world/mystery/etc).

In the discussion of the trapdoor begun by [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] upthread, the possibility of a jailer turning up to taunt (and perhaps free) the trapped PC was discussed. If that jailer is authored by the GM not in advance, but because it is a useful element of the fiction for maintaining narrative momentum, then the logic is no different from "fail forward" as illustrated in the example of the mace.

But whereas in some approaches to GMing needing to introduce the jailer post hoc is seen as a failing that, ideally at least, would be avoided, in "fail forward" games that sort of approach is made integral to the running of the game.

For me using a players search skill to determine if something is there or not is a jump to far.

Too far in respect of . . . ?

 

[grendel111111]

It's not the players who search and do or don't find the mace - it's the PCs.

The reason I emphasise that distinction is because it relates to the other distinction I've been making - between the ingame consistency or "reality" of the gameworld, and the real-world activity of authoring the gameworld. Within the gameworld - from the ingame perspective - it is not "Schroedinger's mace". It was never there, as it had been taken from the ruins by the dark elf.

But at the table, the authorship is in response to the check.

This also illustrates an aspect of "fail forward" that has been discussed upthread, that what is at stake is not just (or even primarily) whether or not the PCs succeed in their task, but whether things turn out as they wanted.

This difference from "fail forward" highlights what, to me, is key - that "fail forward" is a technique that is intended to drive dramatic and narrative momentum without GM pre-authorship. (At least as it has been systematised in those games which make a point of calling it out as a technique.)

I see your distinction between the two, but for me I like there to be less of a distinction between What the character does and what is authored at the table. As a player I want to "look through" the PC's eyes. I want to decide what to do based on what he or she would do, not based on what would make a "better story".

I see why you like the avoiding of "pre-authorship", as it is something you dislike in your games (possibly as strongly as others like having it). For you it is a negative, for others a positive. I like the style of game that results from this kind of play and the benefits of the more "advanced" fail forward techniques don't really add enough to the game for me to compensate for what I feel they take away.
As a player I like to have as similar perspective as my character as is possible. That is why I like checks to align closer to what is being checked for.
I can see why in you example of the mace you are happy with the mace never having been there. I see how it works for your game and your style.
For me the check has a real concrete meaning (I know it doesn't for you). It means they are searching for something. The check determines if they find it or not. but that is where the 2 approaches differ. I explained my preference above, and I see why you like your preference. The reason it grinds against me is because the roll is being modified by characters abilities, to determine something totally unrelated to the character. Why does bill the bumbling idiot trying to search result in a 80% chance that the mace is on the other side to the continent, but if Omar the Observant looks there is 20% chance.
For me that is not a fair use of probability.
I would much rather know the DM was playing "fair", and knew where the mace was, and the search result told me how good my searching was.

Once the GM knows what the answer is to the location of the mace in advance, and that is taken as fixed regardless of the dynamics of play when (if at all) the search actually occurs, then the focus of play has moved away from dramatic momentum to something else. (Eg exploring the GM's world/mystery/etc).

How does exploring the DM's world not have "dramatic momentum"? How is the DM knowing where something is supposedly detracting from the game? My games have a lot of dramatic momentum even without using more extreme versions of fail forward. The DM could well know that the mace is there or not there, so the same possible outcomes are still all there. The difference being only did the players roll determine the location and the finding or just the finding?

In the discussion of the trapdoor begun by @Nagol upthread, the possibility of a jailer turning up to taunt (and perhaps free) the trapped PC was discussed. If that jailer is authored by the GM not in advance, but because it is a useful element of the fiction for maintaining narrative momentum, then the logic is no different from "fail forward" as illustrated in the example of the mace.

But whereas in some approaches to GMing needing to introduce the jailer post hoc is seen as a failing that, ideally at least, would be avoided, in "fail forward" games that sort of approach is made integral to the running of the game.

Too far in respect of . . . ?

The adding of a jailer is an interesting question. I have no problem with the DM adding a jailer to what is happening, it is interesting and keeps the game moving forward. I don't see a point in adding a jailer only if you roll low on an ability or skill check. If it is interesting to add a jailer then add a jailer. adding a jailer only if they roll low on an unrelated skill doesn't add anything to the game as far as I can see. If the DM sees that the action is slowing or the narrative is not moving and so decides to add something to the what is happening, why tie it to any skill roll?
My preference is that complications get added and characters use their skills to deal with those complications, rather than skills are assumed to work and failure adds complications. After all complications will happen to both good and bad doctors, but the good doctor use their skills to deal with the complication. ( I realise it is a different way to look at skills than you are used to).


If fail forward is seen as a series of approaches (many of which I use) this is going to far from how I want the game to run. I am happy using grades of success and failure, alternative fail conditions such as time or creating too much noise, letting rolls stand, etc.
For me the cut off point is when the PC view and the player view separate so much and when skill checks determine unrelated effects. (starting of rain, Schrödinger's situations.) I clearly see why they are not a problem for you and that they can enhance the game for you and others. For me they don't work for the games of D and D that I want to have. (ironically I think they work fantastically for leverage, and think it is a good fit).

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

The adding of a jailer is an interesting question. I have no problem with the DM adding a jailer to what is happening, it is interesting and keeps the game moving forward. I don't see a point in adding a jailer only if you roll low on an ability or skill check. If it is interesting to add a jailer then add a jailer. adding a jailer only if they roll low on an unrelated skill doesn't add anything to the game as far as I can see. If the DM sees that the action is slowing or the narrative is not moving and so decides to add something to the what is happening, why tie it to any skill roll?
My preference is that complications get added and characters use their skills to deal with those complications, rather than skills are assumed to work and failure adds complications. After all complications will happen to both good and bad doctors, but the good doctor use their skills to deal with the complication. ( I realise it is a different way to look at skills than you are used to).

I don't tie it to a skill roll; I tie it to *failure*. It the situation is losing momentum / entering stasis or ko to borrow a term from Go then a something new enters the environment changing the opportunities present for the PCs. Typically, there is a specific roll or attempt that I use as a segue.

Why tie it to failure? Because almost everyone wants to be the active agent and advance the situation on his own. If the PCs are able to maintain their own momentum, it is best they be allowed to do so. That doesn't mean complications don't rear up while the PCs are succeeding; it means those forms of complication aren't fail-forward examples.

If fail forward is seen as a series of approaches (many of which I use) this is going to far from how I want the game to run. I am happy using grades of success and failure, alternative fail conditions such as time or creating too much noise, letting rolls stand, etc.
For me the cut off point is when the PC view and the player view separate so much and when skill checks determine unrelated effects. (starting of rain, Schrödinger's situations.) I clearly see why they are not a problem for you and that they can enhance the game for you and others. For me they don't work for the games of D and D that I want to have. (ironically I think they work fantastically for leverage, and think it is a good fit).

 

[innerdude]

At the table, the authorship is in response to the check.

This also illustrates an aspect of "fail forward" that has been discussed upthread, that what is at stake is not just (or even primarily) whether or not the PCs succeed in their task, but whether things turn out as they wanted.

This difference from "fail forward" highlights what, to me, is key - that "fail forward" is a technique that is intended to drive dramatic and narrative momentum without GM pre-authorship. (At least as it has been systematised in those games which make a point of calling it out as a technique.)

Once the GM knows what the answer is to the location of the mace in advance, and that is taken as fixed regardless of the dynamics of play when (if at all) the search actually occurs, then the focus of play has moved away from dramatic momentum to something else. (Eg exploring the GM's world/mystery/etc).

In the discussion of the trapdoor begun by @Nagol upthread, the possibility of a jailer turning up to taunt (and perhaps free) the trapped PC was discussed. If that jailer is authored by the GM not in advance, but because it is a useful element of the fiction for maintaining narrative momentum, then the logic is no different from "fail forward" as illustrated in the example of the mace.

But whereas in some approaches to GMing needing to introduce the jailer post hoc is seen as a failing that, ideally at least, would be avoided, in "fail forward" games that sort of approach is made integral to the running of the game.

The longer I GM, the less enamored I become with "pre-authoring." Sure, there are certain, specific (and altogether rare) situations where absolutely nothing the PCs do in a given scene has any real effect . . . but I've repeatedly found that more often than not, taking a hardline "pre-authoring" approach kills a game's momentum.

PC: "I look for X!"

GM: "You find nothing."

PC: "Okay, I look more closely at Item Z in Room Y....."

GM: "You find nothing."

PC: "What about--"

GM: "You find nothing."

PC: "I ask the clerk about X."

GM: "He tells you nothing you don't already know."

If I wanted to play a game that works like this, I'd cut out the middle man and just fire up a game of Zork or King's Quest and be done with it.

I regularly change what I've previously "pre-authored" in a scene based on a check a player just made, because I've found it's more interesting to give the player/character what they want . . . because THEN they have to make an interesting decision afterwards. Savage Worlds supports this as well with the concept of degree of success. "Getting a raise" on a search check, for example, opens up an opportunity as a GM to say, "Well normally you wouldn't have noticed this, but you were particularly perceptive and found this...."

One technique I've had great success with is to provide clues that reinforce a player's current line of thought/action. A search check, a persuasion/diplomacy check, or whatever, reveals a nugget that confirms or hints at something the player/PC already discovered previously. And there may have been absolutely nothing there before the player rolled the dice.

I'll also use this technique If I absolutely HAVE to use some "pre-authoring" in a particular scene. Even if the PCs don't get anything tangible out of their failure, if it's at all possible I'll try to frame it in such a way that it logically supports a conclusion that will help them move forward. Sometimes, helping PCs eliminate a course of action can be helpful in directing their focus.

I used to think that doing this sort of thing would "weaken" the "story," or "make things too easy," or somehow diminish players' sense of accomplishment, but in fact the opposite is true. My players remained far more engaged because it builds a sense of momentum.

The other thing that starts happening when the players get the right "feel" for it is they'll start doing their own pre-authoring . . . and then all I have to do is confirm it. "Oh yep, that thing you were talking about what the guards were probably doing? Well, you see X [which supports their supposition]."

 

[Manbearcat]

These conversations inevitably always break down on the fault line of having differing needs for granularity and simulation of process within a system's resolution mechanics. The questions then become:

1) How burdensome (descriptive, not pejorative) on table handling time and overall pacing does the micro-resolution of tasks become.

2) Is the burden brought about by that granularity a net gain to the play (eg in player agency or immersion of the character's OODA Loop or emotional quality) or a net loss (the compound probability math damaging the model's output so genre emulation becomes an impossibility)?

3) Are we accurately simulating discrete processes (inputs and outputs) in the first place?

4) Are our litmus tests for various levels of granularity within a system's own conflict resolution mechanics arbitrary or reasoned, coherent, and sensible?

For my money, the answers to these are never in favor of granular process simulation.

- The people systemitizing these discrete processes don't do so accurately and coherently, thus damaging the OODA Loop experience/agency of the people they're supposed to be catering to in the first place (their point for existing in the first place).

- There is a continuum of granularity within varying conflict resolution mechanics which, upon evaluation, is often arbitrary and odd when you consider the goals (immersion, OODA Loop/emotion habitation) of systemitizing it in the first place.

- The discrete processes overburden play with pace/momentum-jarring tedium and don't routinely (or anything near it) lead to interesting outcomes as an outgrowth of merely playing the game correctly.

- Compound probability math wonkifies expectant outcomes thus rendering archetype emulation and overall genre emulation a losing affair (leading to the inevitable "well it is its own genre!" - now - proclamations...because the model that it spits out is so wobbly and ineffectual at producing the tropes it was designed to).

Hence, my advocacy for the systems and techniques that I advocate for (after running a ridiculous amount of process sim with multiple systems over the span of 32 years).

 

[Manbearcat]

The longer I GM, the less enamored I become with "pre-authoring." Sure, there are certain, specific (and altogether rare) situations where absolutely nothing the PCs do in a given scene has any real effect . . . but I've repeatedly found that more often than not, taking a hardline "pre-authoring" approach kills a game's momentum.

Over the course of the many decades I've run games, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the game needs:

1) A clear and focused vision/goal/premise (this includes genre)
2) PC build mechanics and a coherent rewards cycle for the players that aligns with their character's interests/motivations
3) Transparent, user-friendly (with respect to intuitiveness, table handling time, and mental overhead) resolution mechanics and a coherent and abundantly clear GMing approach/ethos that perpetuates the robust testing of 2 which in turn yields 1 as the inevitable output of play.

 

[pemerton]

These conversations inevitably always break down on the fault line of having differing needs for granularity and simulation of process within a system's resolution mechanics. The questions then become:

1) How burdensome (descriptive, not pejorative) on table handling time and overall pacing does the micro-resolution of tasks become.

2) Is the burden brought about by that granularity a net gain to the play (eg in player agency or immersion of the character's OODA Loop or emotional quality) or a net loss (the compound probability math damaging the model's output so genre emulation becomes an impossibility)?

3) Are we accurately simulating discrete processes (inputs and outputs) in the first place?

4) Are our litmus tests for various levels of granularity within a system's own conflict resolution mechanics arbitrary or reasoned, coherent, and sensible?

For my money, the answers to these are never in favor of granular process simulation.

<snip>

Hence, my advocacy for the systems and techniques that I advocate for (after running a ridiculous amount of process sim with multiple systems over the span of 32 years).

I don't think our preferences fully overlap in respect of this particular issue. I think that BW manages to present quite a granular system (at least on the PC build side, and that inevitably bleeds over to the action resolution side) but avoids or overcomes many of the traditional problems that RM, RQ, Classic Traveller etc didn't manage to solve.

For me, the litmus test is not so much granularity as process sim (which may or may not be granular) and pre-authorship of the fiction.

 

[innerdude]

These conversations inevitably always break down on the fault line of having differing needs for granularity and simulation of process within a system's resolution mechanics.

Interestingly, though, for purposes of this thread, highly granular process sim doesn't preclude a GM from using "fail forward" techniques if they so choose. Such an approach would seem to cut against the purpose of using a granular process in the first place, obviously, but you can still use "fail forward" regardless.

But to your real point --- I think the vast majority of conflicts that arise over a particular action or scene resolution probably occur because the GM and players disagreed on what was at stake---not because the resolution mechanics "failed them." No RPG resolution mechanic is ever going to satisfy participants if the player and GM have differing ideas about what particular actions/consequences "mean" in context of the scene.

From this perspective it's easy to see why combat traditionally gets so much focus in RPGs---because the GM doesn't have to do ANYTHING to set the stakes; death is always an assumed stake.

- The discrete processes overburden play with pace/momentum-jarring tedium and don't routinely (or anything near it) lead to interesting outcomes as an outgrowth of merely playing the game correctly.

This has always been my problem with GURPS, frankly. Playing GURPS rules-as-written never seems to result in the "payoff" promised in the presentation of the rules. To really get what the players want out of it, they either have to A) powergame the crap out of it to get their characters to even remotely resemble what they see "in their head", B) drastically reduce the level of granularity (the whole idea of BANG! skills from GURPS 4e comes to mind)---but then why are you playing GURPS in the first place?, and/or C) make liberal use of "fail forward" techniques / GM fiat to simply keep things running . . . and then once again, why are you using GURPS in the first place, when there's so many other systems that do this so much better?

*Edit -- I just read [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s follow-up reply, and now I'm wondering --- is "fail forward" inherently antithetical to process sim? Is there any "coherent" way the two can reasonably co-exist?

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't think our preferences fully overlap in respect of this particular issue.

It suspect so as well!

I think that BW manages to present quite a granular system (at least on the PC build side, and that inevitably bleeds over to the action resolution side) but avoids or overcomes many of the traditional problems that RM, RQ, Classic Traveller etc didn't manage to solve.

I think Burning Wheel manages to do this because it stoutly fulfills 1, 2 and 3 (in my post above yours) so robustly. Its theme/premise is clear and the PC build mechanics, resolution mechanics, GMing advice/ethos, and reward cycle are all tightly integrated with that "point of play" as fulcrum. Because it works toward a specific model (Test PC Beliefs > generate new content based on outcome coupled with "the constant demands of play" coupled with already established fiction > repeat) such that the entirety of the system is tightly wound around producing it (outcome based design), it avoids the issues that stem from typical engines that are conceived toward the goal of achieving (yettypically failing) objective simulation of process (which eschew a focused premise, a tight rewards cycle, integrated PC build mechanics + transparent/strident GMing protocol).

"The constant demands of play" is key. If this priority is central to play procedures, then you're never merely simulating causal logic (as if anyone had the computing means to do so anyway!). Whenever generating conflict coherent with an established theme is central to play, you're inevitably eschewing conflict-neutral outcomes. This is why people get hung up in these conversations so often. Having pace-atrophying, conflict-neutral outcomes and moments of play that follow those outcomes is important to ardent process-sim inclined players, even though they seem disinclined toward framing it in those terms. This is because they feel it better simulates causal process, rounding out the experience of an adventurer's life, and therefore they find it more "immersive" (I find it an abject waste of time to focus any portion of play on this, hence its removal as addition by subtraction). I think this is why they find systems where outcomes are implacably "premise/principle-guided" and tethered to conservation of narrative momentum/conflict/coherency "railroady." Being coherently "premise/principle-guided" obviously isn't "railroady" (which is about GM Force subverting player authority and the resolution mechanics by dictating outcomes to keep play on a preconceived metaplot), but they don't have a better term for it so they use that.

It is certainly much more granular with more moving parts than PBtA, Dogs, or Cortex + (or even Mouseguard), but at its core, it has much more in common with those games than it does Classic Traveler!

 

[Manbearcat]

*Edit -- I just read @pemerton's follow-up reply, and now I'm wondering --- is "fail forward" inherently antithetical to process sim? Is there any "coherent" way the two can reasonably co-exist?

"The constant demands of play" is key. If this priority is central to play procedures, then you're never merely simulating causal logic (as if anyone had the computing means to do so anyway!). Whenever generating conflict coherent with an established theme is central to play, you're inevitably eschewing conflict-neutral outcomes. This is why people get hung up in these conversations so often. Having pace-atrophying, conflict-neutral outcomes and moments of play that follow those outcomes is important to ardent process-sim inclined players, even though they seem disinclined toward framing it in those terms. This is because they feel it better simulates causal process, rounding out the experience of an adventurer's life, and therefore they find it more "immersive" (I find it an abject waste of time to focus any portion of play on this, hence its removal as addition by subtraction). I think this is why they find systems where outcomes are implacably "premise/principle-guided" and tethered to conservation of narrative momentum/conflict/coherency "railroady." Being coherently "premise/principle-guided" obviously isn't "railroady" (which is about GM Force subverting player authority and the resolution mechanics by dictating outcomes to keep play on a preconceived metaplot), but they don't have a better term for it so they use that.

I answered your query with my reply to pemerton from directly above. I don't think "fail forward" is antithetical to process simulation. I still hold (firmly due to both empirical and theoretical backing) that losing gear (or something on your person) as a result of defying climbing related dangers or navigating hazards is entirely coherent with a process-sim mindset. However, some folks have (a) different mental models for the world than my own and (b) have internalized an RPG paradigm as orthodox which I roundly contest.

What is central to failing forward is that "the demands of play" be prioritized in the outcomes they produce. This will inevitably mean that the resolution of player action declarations will not include outcomes that do not comport with that premise/theme. Burning Wheel has a process-sim chassis in its conflict resolution mechanics. Nonetheless, a good BW GM will always eschew outcomes that don't propel play inexorably toward further "Belief Testing." Some folks will decry that as "inorganic". Presumably, "organic outcomes" means the GM has 0 game-defined directives that does away with certain outcomes of which they deem important for an "immersive experience" (eg - premise-neutral outcomes that don't snowball directly back into the games defining conflicts).