AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I think you misunderstand me, or perhaps I have misrepresented myself. I have no script in play, as GM, though I am speculating about potential scenarios and their range of outcomes. However, the players have expressed intent which will surely play out as action declarations, and I wish to honor a fail forward mentality in engaging those declarations.
Now, certainly, PC actions, successful or not, may change the direction of the current fiction, but there is nothing about player-facing principles that works at odds to a fail forward framework. Story Now, to me, does not indicate a lack of goals or destination; instead, it means destination is determined through player exploration of their characters and that mechanics, rather than GM-scripted plot, determine how and if the PCs achieve those goals.
Essentially, what you are suggesting is that "play to see what happens" and fail forward are at odds, and I do not believe that must be so.
[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] - interesting discussion!
If the players declare that their PCs are heading for X by striking out through the wilderness, then we have intent and task. It seems that there are several possible ways this can unfold at the table.
(1) The GM simply says "yes" and narrates the arrival, perhaps with a bit of travel drama laid on top. Ipso facto there can't be anything of significant cost here. This is how most travel in my Prince Valiant game, and some of the travel in my 4e and BW games, happens.
Cortex+ Vikings is a bit different, because the PCs tend not to have a particular destination in mind, and the travel is punctuated by me dropping in appropriate action scenes (this actually gives it more of an "Arthurian wanderings" feel than Prince Valiant, where we use the map of Britain on the inside cover of the Pendgraon hardback that shipped as part of the PV kickstarter).
(2) A version of (1) where the GM "bargains" with the players - you arrive fine, but knock of XYZ, where that might be money, rations, healing surges, etc. I'm sure I've done this in 4e but can't recall an occasion at present. Traveller also lends itself to this - where XYZ is purchase of a high passage - but in my game the PCs have only ever travelled using their own starship.
(3) Successful arrival is put at stake, and so some sort of check has to be made. What counts as "successful" is pretty crucial here. It may require fleshing out the intent behind the task.
If what's at stake is arrival per se, then maybe the stakes are whether or not the PCs arrive at all!
But if "success" means arriving on time, or arriving at a refuge, or arriving so I can reconnect with my loved ones, then it seems that the stakes might be some sort of threat to those things - arriving late, or failing to prevent a "Scouring of the Shire" situation, or loved ones being under threat (which could be as simple as, say, a drought).
In 4e, a complexity with these sorts of stakes is that it's not always straightforward to frame them into a check. Whereas some systems have (say) a relationship stat which would factor into a check where the intent is to reconnect with loved ones, 4e tends not to have that sort of thing. So it would make sense to try and make sure stakes, stats/mechanics and resolution framing are all well-aligned.
Obviously there's a lot more that could be said, and lots of possibilities, but I think I've got enough for a post!
Just generally replying to you guy's input in these two posts above:
Actually, rereading the thread opener, I DO find that the assumption is that the journey will end successfully, and that was in fact the default assumption in the analysis which took place on page 1. Now, [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] phrased it as an assumption "I presume a "fail forward" ethos, and so simply not arriving at their destination or getting lost is off the table." This was the core of my original analysis.
Now, when I responded to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I thought I was going a bit on a tangent by applying a more classic story now, play to see what happens kind of a process to elucidate how it might contrast with the "party must reach Winterhaven" sort of starter post assumption. Admittedly this assumed that there was some degree of 'script' (IE maybe they were playing out KotS or something like that) vs simply "the players set this as their goal." In the later case, then play to see what happens could allow for either "play to see how they get there" or it could allow for "play to see IF they get there." Again, the above quoted bit from the post lead me to assume that the former case was more prevalent, though IIRC I did touch on both in my story now post.
I think what this shows us is that there are a wide range of things that could be in play here, depending on exactly what desires the players expressed. Given that darkbard states this is a type of narratively driven play without any set plot lines, either of [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s or my points can be further developed.
Given the statements about "travel is dangerous" I would be likely to take it that a "man against nature" type of conflict is in play here, with the stakes being a risk to whatever goal the PCs have which is driving them to travel to Winterhaven, plus whatever resources they might stake on it. They might also stand to gain things, XP and treasure perhaps at the least.