TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
That is not my reading of the examples at all.
D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
The Firebird
Hero
In the lock picking, fail forward case: success means you get in, no cook. Fail means you get in, cook.
What you're describing changes success to you get in, cook, but you also skillfully avoid the cook.
For me that would be ok because it doesn't make the cooks presence dependent on your lockpicking skill.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
To me, they both reduce to "success, no conflict; failure, conflict". The framing you put around them could possibly be of interest for determining next steps, but is generally just for color.
Let's walk through the screaming cook scenario as I see it. The character's goal is to break into the estate to get a map. I'm assuming they've done a bit of investigation and decided to sneak in during the middle of the night when the risk of running into someone is at a minimum because breaking in during the middle of the day when everyone is awake makes little sense.
Fail forward:
Player: I try the door.
GM: It's locked, you'll need a [whatever is needed] to open it.
Player: Okay ... dang I only got a [some low number not good enough to pick the lock]
- the player knows they failed
GM: [ignoring the failure]. The lock clicks and you can open the door.
- the GM, who wants the characters to get into the house to retrieve the map, adds the screaming cook NPC
Player: I open the door
- the player now knows that there's going to be something bad, because of a bad roll they know the feces is flying towards the fan.
GM: There's a cook in the kitchen fixing a late night snack. They scream loudly enough to wake the neighborhood, what do you do?
- This to me feels contrived. More importantly, it's not really a surprise to the player because they knew something bad was going to happen.
Player: We go in [and deal with the screaming NPC, etc..]
My take? The players are forced into a specific set of actions and decisions because of a bad roll. They have to quiet the cook, it's going to be a quick smash-and grab to get the map. Meanwhile because finding the map is critical to the GM, the map has to be easily discoverable and retrievable. The GM is making a decision on how to form the narrative based on the failed roll, but also not interfering with the "find the map" goal. Depending on the game the GM may have had a tense scenario set up with protective ward guarding the map or similar in mind, that's no longer an option because there is no time in-game for it.
The way I would run it:
Player: I try the door.
DM: It's locked, you'll need a slight of hand check to open it.
Player: Okay ... dang I only got an 8.
DM: [looking at notes, the DC is 15]. The lock is just too tough for you, you can't open it.
Player: Dangit. We really need the map so guys, what was our backup plan? Anyone else have ideas on how to get in, or do we want to sneak around and try to find a different entrance? We only have a few minutes before the patrol will be by!
The players now have an interesting puzzle. Do they look for another way in knowing the guards will be by soon? Maybe the paladin can find a window and misty step through, although that will leave them potentially vulnerable. Perhaps the druid could shape shift and crawl under the door. The barbarian suggests the cleric cast silence and he busts the door down. Someone else mentions the kennel is connected to the house and that door is likely unlocked if they can figure out a way to quiet the dogs (they're always looking for a way for Animal Handling to be useful).
There are other options still available to them. Perhaps they could bluff their way into the estate or pretend to be collectors. For that matter maybe they decide the map is just not worth the risk at this point and they go on to pursue other goals.
For me this is more dynamic, fun and engaging. As a DM it may take a bit more planning or improv because I want some viable, if riskier, options. I have to think about what happens if they fail, the campaign shouldn't end because of bad luck. Meanwhile when it comes to the cook I may have even decided that there's a 1 in 20 chance that there will be someone or some pet in the back kitchen. But it will always follow the logic of the setting, not the narrative demands of a story. As a Gm I don't want to drive the narrative for the players, the world will respond to what the characters do but it's the players driving the narrative not me.
As always do what works best for you. Fail forward just isn't for me.
Fail forward:
Player: I try the door.
GM: It's locked, you'll need a [whatever is needed] to open it.
Player: Okay ... dang I only got a [some low number not good enough to pick the lock]
- the player knows they failed
GM: [ignoring the failure]. The lock clicks and you can open the door.
- the GM, who wants the characters to get into the house to retrieve the map, adds the screaming cook NPC
Player: I open the door
- the player now knows that there's going to be something bad, because of a bad roll they know the feces is flying towards the fan.
GM: There's a cook in the kitchen fixing a late night snack. They scream loudly enough to wake the neighborhood, what do you do?
- This to me feels contrived. More importantly, it's not really a surprise to the player because they knew something bad was going to happen.
Player: We go in [and deal with the screaming NPC, etc..]
My take? The players are forced into a specific set of actions and decisions because of a bad roll. They have to quiet the cook, it's going to be a quick smash-and grab to get the map. Meanwhile because finding the map is critical to the GM, the map has to be easily discoverable and retrievable. The GM is making a decision on how to form the narrative based on the failed roll, but also not interfering with the "find the map" goal. Depending on the game the GM may have had a tense scenario set up with protective ward guarding the map or similar in mind, that's no longer an option because there is no time in-game for it.
The way I would run it:
Player: I try the door.
DM: It's locked, you'll need a slight of hand check to open it.
Player: Okay ... dang I only got an 8.
DM: [looking at notes, the DC is 15]. The lock is just too tough for you, you can't open it.
Player: Dangit. We really need the map so guys, what was our backup plan? Anyone else have ideas on how to get in, or do we want to sneak around and try to find a different entrance? We only have a few minutes before the patrol will be by!
The players now have an interesting puzzle. Do they look for another way in knowing the guards will be by soon? Maybe the paladin can find a window and misty step through, although that will leave them potentially vulnerable. Perhaps the druid could shape shift and crawl under the door. The barbarian suggests the cleric cast silence and he busts the door down. Someone else mentions the kennel is connected to the house and that door is likely unlocked if they can figure out a way to quiet the dogs (they're always looking for a way for Animal Handling to be useful).
There are other options still available to them. Perhaps they could bluff their way into the estate or pretend to be collectors. For that matter maybe they decide the map is just not worth the risk at this point and they go on to pursue other goals.
For me this is more dynamic, fun and engaging. As a DM it may take a bit more planning or improv because I want some viable, if riskier, options. I have to think about what happens if they fail, the campaign shouldn't end because of bad luck. Meanwhile when it comes to the cook I may have even decided that there's a 1 in 20 chance that there will be someone or some pet in the back kitchen. But it will always follow the logic of the setting, not the narrative demands of a story. As a Gm I don't want to drive the narrative for the players, the world will respond to what the characters do but it's the players driving the narrative not me.
As always do what works best for you. Fail forward just isn't for me.
The Firebird
Hero
Fair enough. But man I struggle with the term color as it's been used in this thread. The NPC is there or they aren't, and that matters. For me.
Enrahim
Explorer
I looked up the exact rule in question. In ShadowDark if your light go out, the environement become deadly meaning you roll random encounter every crawling round. This is about 2-3 times as often as more common. I have a hard time seeing the causal relationship that suddently make the cave a lot more crowded once there are no light around. Rather I would expect hostile creatures to be attracted to a light source that can be seen from far away. For a few encounters you could argue the strongly disadvantaged characters makes for a less intimidating target, but that doesn't fly with a lot of them.
Of course a good lock picker spends less time and makes less noise than an amateur; making there both being less time for the creature to show up, and less danger for anyone coming around to check out what is going on. Causal relationship stablished.
FrozenNorth
Hero
So, if you roll a cook on a random table, does it suddenly become less implausible?
The criticism that was made against « fail forward » was that a character picked the lock, and when a failure was rolled, the GM « created » a cook in the kitchen that noticed the break in attempt, with the character having to deal with the cook before they alerted the house.
I fail to see how that is meaningfully different from a trad game, where the character picked the lock, then the DM rolled on a random table and then the GM « created » the cook because that is what was rolled on the random table.
If anything, the second example seems more implausible: in the first, the GM is constrained by what is realistic, while in the second, they are constrained by the table, even if « table of things included in a random person’s home » includes things that wouldn’t reasonably be found in a kitchen.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
I mean, my settings theoretically have billions of NPCs that "exist" in the setting. But the only ones that matter are the ones that actually interact with the PCs.
The Firebird
Hero
In Shadowdark iirc the monsters all have darkvision, so the light doesn't help them see anything. They avoid it as a threat.
In the cook scenario, if the cook was alerted to the intrusion by the noise made during lockpicking, that's not as much of an issue for me. But that's not what is happening in the scenario: the cook just happens to be in the kitchen because of the failed roll.
What happens when the character progresses in lockpicking? The world lacks for cooks and the orphans go hungry.
Like the cook?
Pedantic
Legend
This has always just looked like incomplete design to me. Surely you could just list the time it takes to perform the action and what failure/success look like? Damaging the door and/or leaving traces are modifiers, making it easier or harder to achieve, and acting silently is clearly a general modifier to most actions, possibly paired with another skill check.
All of these parameters are just things you could write down in your lockpicking skill, making them known to players who can then decide how to apply them, which risks are worth taking at which times and so on.
Similar Threads
