Failing Forward

[pemerton]

I've never seen a DM say, "One roll to cross a desert". Crossing a desert is a journey the generally takes days to weeks.

That's surprising to me. (Well, depending exactly on what you mean by "one roll".)

In my BW campaign, the PCs had to travel across the Bright Desert, from the oasis of the friendly naga to the ruined tower in the foothills of the Abor-Alz.

One initial skill check was required: a Songs of Paths and Ways check (which is an Orienteering check, but in the form of an elven Skill Song, meaning that it is very slightly buffed) from the elven ronin PC. I also required each player to make a Forte (=CON) check against a moderately high DC (Ob 4, from memory) to see how much temp Fort lose ("tax", in the terminology of BW) was suffered.

Had the Songs of Paths and Ways check succeeded, that would have been it. It failed, though, which led to the fouled waterhole and out of that the initial altercation with the dark elf. Another Forte check was then required before getting to the tower, plus the failure on a Tracking check against the dark elf meant that when the PCs got to the tower the well there had been filled with rubble by the dark elf (at least, that's as best I recall it - the well certainly was filled with rubble, and I think it was the failure at Tracking that was the trigger for that).

In my 4e game, when the PCs had to fly their Thundercloud Tower down the Obelisk of Ice and across the Elemental Chaos on their way to the Demonweb Pits, that was resolved as a Complexity 1 skill challenge (I think - looking at the date of that post I linked to it was over a year ago!, though it seems like just the other week) which is only a handful of rolls.

Also in my 4e game, the 41 day travel through dozens of layers of the Abyss, from Thanatos (300-ish?) to The Barrens (100, I think) was resolved in a couple of minutes of narration by me. I think there was some sort of check involved in the larger context of a skill challenge - again, my memory is a little hazy - but it may well have been an auto-success for the invoker/wizard PC, who can't fail an Arcana or Religion check except in very unusual circumstances (due to very big bonuses, including the +6 buff from being a Sage of Ages).

Going back to my BW game, we resolved 2 years of recuperation and study in the ruined tower in less than a session. (The main rolls required were upkeep rolls, which is a BW mechanic designed to force the players to make hard choices between doing the training or studying they would like, and doing fairly mundane work to maintain their standard of living - these rolls are generally one or two per season for each PC.)

In general, I don't find there to be any necessary correlation between the number of rolls required as part of resolution, and the ingame arduousness or time required for the task at hand.

 

[Imaro]

And has a player stated a Belief for his/her PC that s/he travel to the Misty Lake? Or has a player given any sort of informal or implicit signal that s/he is interested in the Misty Lake? Where is the Misty Lake coming from, in this imagined scenario?

Let's focus on character-driven goals.

In this hypothetical sandbox, the GM has not authored in a Misty Lake (let's suppose); but one of the players authors for his/her PC the goal of travelling to the Misty Lake to speak with the spirit of said Lake, so as to learn such-and-such piece of backstory information - maybe to learn where the ancient vorpal sword Excelsior can now be found.

What does the GM do?

If the answer is that the GM introduces a Misty Lake into the sandbox - then how are you talking about some approach which is different from my preferred approach?

If the answer is that the GM does not introduce a Misty Lake into the sandbox - then the campaign is exhibiting the very feature that I, personally, dislike, namely, the use of GM's pre-authored secret backstory (the secret, in this case, being the absence of a Misty Like), to determine in advance that a certain player (and PC) goal must fail.

There is a third possibility, I guess, namely that the players will never come up with goals or orientations for their PCs that can't be satisfied within the pre-authored sandbox. One reason for this might be because, like [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION], the players are simply "pinballing". Another might be that the GM, knowing the players so well, has already answered all the character-driven goals that they might come up with in the initial design of the sandbox. This second reason seems improbable to me, based on my own practical experience both of campaign setting design and of the way that actual play drives player imagination and character development. What's your experience in these respects?

Let me repeat... the sandbox is authored after the PC's create their characters... so it incorporates their goals beforehand not after the fact as you presented above or in the moment as is done in your playstyle, so I guess there is a 4th way.

How I and my group usually prep for a campaign is a session zero that takes place near the end of whatever game we are currently playing... this sesion zero serves a few purposes, among them being...

1. The DM presents a very high level overview of his game/world/setting (An African-inspired fantasy setting)
2. Brainstorm character concepts while making sure genre wise we are all on the same page...No ninjas if we are playing in an African-themed campaign world.
3. Actual character creation where backstory and goals are also established
4. Character connections/relationships are created including contacts, family, friends, etc.


Now once these things are created we go back to finish out the game we are currently playing and the person GM'ing the next game creates his sandbox which is built with the players goals, relationships, etc. in mind but (and this is where I think it differs from your approach the most) also with things from the GM's own creative process included as well... Since most of us have been gaming for over 15 years together (my son and nephew are more recent attendees) these are usually things the DM knows will speak to the interests of the players at his table and with the characters fleshed out beforehand he has much better insight into tying his own creations to the characters in a meaningful or at least intriguing way. Of course since this is a sandbox the players can choose what they do or don't want to pursue. Not sure if that helps clarify, and not even sure if you wanted to know about my own processes and tools for game prep since you didn't ask but I figure it couldn't hurt clarity any.

 

[Maxperson]

If [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] says that he's find a pre-authored game a "pinball" experience, who are you (or I) to contradict him?

Maybe you're misrepresent what he said slightly, but as you just worded it, I'm someone who can factually call him wrong. Pre-authored =/= pinball. That's a fact. Now, if he is really just saying that he has just experienced the pinball effect in the few pre-authored games that he has played in, and isn't extending that statement out to all pre-authored games, I have nothing to contradict.

To me, it's fairly simple: either the GM imposes outcomes on action declarations independetly of the players and their dice rolls, or doesn't. The example of the mace and of the waterhole have been used in this respect. Various posters (including both of you, I believe) have said that it is good for a game to have consequences arise (the mace not in the tower, the waterhole fouled by a dark elf, whatever else) that were not part of the framing of the players' action declaration and that flow from the GM's already-established conception of the setting.

That's a False Dichotomy. The DM could use both methods in any measurements of the two. In fact, I think I've rarely seen a DM who does use outcomes of action independently of die rolls. Even if something unknown to the players is involved, the result still takes the player die rolls into account. The unknown (hidden backstory) doesn't determine the result of the actions, it just adds to what both the players and the DM can draw on for the narration. If there is going to be a symbol on a shield, I can draw upon the pre-authored content and use the symbol of the Flaming Fists, rather than just having to come up with something on the fly. The outcome of the roll is the same.

I don't share that preference. I don't find that sort of thing good for my game. I also, personally, don't find that it adds depth or "realism" to the gameworld. Neither of you may agree for your own part, but I don't see how you can contradict my own account of my own preferences.

I haven't been trying to contradict you at any point in this discussion. I've just been telling you that my method isn't as bad as you are making it out to be. You may not like it, but it isn't what you have been saying. I may be misunderstanding you, but as you are writing your responses, you seem to be misunderstanding/misstating things.

As to railroading: different RPGers have different thresholds for GM vs player agency. A long way upthread, I said that "fail forward" was put forward self-consciously as a technique by game designer who wanted their RPG sessions to produce stories (in some non-trivial sense of that word) without pre-authorship by the GM. It is a way of introducing new fiction and new backstory as part of the outcome of adjudicating action resolution, rather than as an input into it.

Fail forward is independent of our playstyles. You can use it, and I can use it. Pre-authorship doesn't stop fail forward. Even if it was invented for your playstyle, that doesn't preclude its use in other styles.

 

[Imaro]

That's surprising to me. (Well, depending exactly on what you mean by "one roll".)

In my BW campaign, the PCs had to travel across the Bright Desert, from the oasis of the friendly naga to the ruined tower in the foothills of the Abor-Alz.

One initial skill check was required: a Songs of Paths and Ways check (which is an Orienteering check, but in the form of an elven Skill Song, meaning that it is very slightly buffed) from the elven ronin PC. I also required each player to make a Forte (=CON) check against a moderately high DC (Ob 4, from memory) to see how much temp Fort lose ("tax", in the terminology of BW) was suffered.

Had the Songs of Paths and Ways check succeeded, that would have been it. It failed, though, which led to the fouled waterhole and out of that the initial altercation with the dark elf. Another Forte check was then required before getting to the tower, plus the failure on a Tracking check against the dark elf meant that when the PCs got to the tower the well there had been filled with rubble by the dark elf (at least, that's as best I recall it - the well certainly was filled with rubble, and I think it was the failure at Tracking that was the trigger for that).

In my 4e game, when the PCs had to fly their Thundercloud Tower down the Obelisk of Ice and across the Elemental Chaos on their way to the Demonweb Pits, that was resolved as a Complexity 1 skill challenge (I think - looking at the date of that post I linked to it was over a year ago!, though it seems like just the other week) which is only a handful of rolls.

Also in my 4e game, the 41 day travel through dozens of layers of the Abyss, from Thanatos (300-ish?) to The Barrens (100, I think) was resolved in a couple of minutes of narration by me. I think there was some sort of check involved in the larger context of a skill challenge - again, my memory is a little hazy - but it may well have been an auto-success for the invoker/wizard PC, who can't fail an Arcana or Religion check except in very unusual circumstances (due to very big bonuses, including the +6 buff from being a Sage of Ages).

Going back to my BW game, we resolved 2 years of recuperation and study in the ruined tower in less than a session. (The main rolls required were upkeep rolls, which is a BW mechanic designed to force the players to make hard choices between doing the training or studying they would like, and doing fairly mundane work to maintain their standard of living - these rolls are generally one or two per season for each PC.)

In general, I don't find there to be any necessary correlation between the number of rolls required as part of resolution, and the ingame arduousness or time required for the task at hand.

I think what he's getting at is if a DM is going to introduce the mountain as one of many hazzards in any playstyle... he wouldn't have you make a single roll to "cross the dessert safely"... that's not a playstyle thing it's a miscommunication or bad DM'ing thing.

 

[Maxperson]

Do I think the system pushes me away from it, especially if I've embraced a mindset that I shouldn't be doing it? Yes.

This also applies to our playstyle. The mindset that you shouldn't railroad applies to every playstyle other than railroad, and a game with pre-authoring pushes you away from railroading by having different and interesting content in every direction. No need to force any direction when all directions are fun and interesting.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] has actually posted his own experience - of sandbox play feeling like "pinballing".

That's his fault, though. A sandbox game is going to feel aimless if the player isn't imaginative enough and/or doesn't have the drive to give the game aim. While he's bouncing around feeling aimless, my barbarian has decided to unite the tribes of the north so that I can forge together a large enough horde to sack Cormyr, because what a tale that would make. Same sandbox, but I have no pinball effect going on whatsoever. A sandbox is what you the player make of it (the very essence of player agency), and he makes it aimless.

 

[Maxperson]

How would that work? For instance, how would a failed attempt to find a mace, or to read the magical aura of an angel feather, push the PCs towards the Misty Lake?

DM: The mace is gone, and in its place is a note saying, "If you want the mace, come to Misty Lake."

 

[TwoSix]

And I'm surprised that you can't see it still falls firmly under "pre-authored" as in not "created in the moment". See I get that it's a step closer to your style... the problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that it is still pre-authoring and by extension pre-authoring actually can be used for campaigns about character dramatic needs and character driven goals... because you're not trying to discuss or understand the other side, you've already made your mind up about it.

Honestly, I think the whole "pre-authored" idea is somewhat of a tangent to the larger sticking point, which is "hidden backstory." It's about how often are things happening in the game world outside the influence of the PCs that can come up later and materially impact their odds of success. I know a lot of gamers who view NPCs pursuing agendas separately from the actions of the PCs to be the height of verisimilitude, and I think it's that playstyle that some of us find most in opposition to our preferences with narrative focused games.

 

[TwoSix]

And I'm not saying that it can't happen, but our playstyle is not prone to it. Cool ideas to test out and show players can come up in your playstyle just as easily I think.

And I think you're incorrect about these tendencies, but manage to ameliorate the possible flaws through self-awareness and good DMing practices. (And good for you to do so!)

Since our dueling anecdotes carry equal weight, it's not really something we can do anything about beyond agreeing to disagree.

 

[TwoSix]

DM: The mace is gone, and in its place is a note saying, "If you want the mace, come to Misty Lake."

"I don't know about this Misty Lake, Scoob. Sounds creeeeeepy!"