Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7716202" data-attributes="member: 42582">A lot of discussion of consequences seems to focus on consequences to the PCs, which take place in the fiction. But those consequences are purely imaginary. From the point of view of gameplay, surely the relevant consequences are those that happen in the real world, to the players.In classic D&amp;D there are more ways for the numbers on a PC sheet to get smaller (level drain, magic items failing saving throws, permanent PC death requiring generation of a new PC, etc). But what is the significance of this for the player? If s/he is still allowed to roll up a new PC and join in the dungeon-delving, what has s/he lost?The context for most contemporary D&amp;D play is so different from classic dungeon-crawling - and, therefore, the consequences of changing those numbers on the PC sheet - that serious comparisons are very hard to make.This just suggests that you have little or no familiarity with &quot;fail forward&quot; as a technique. It is not &quot;rewarded, but less so&quot;. It is &quot;failure as consequence that drives the game forward rather than stalls the action.&quot; The technique was pioneered in indie games like Sorcerer and Burning Wheel.Typical examples would be things like: a failed casting roll means that, instead of the desired spell effect, you've summoned a demon; a failed lock-pick check means that, before you can pick the lock, the guards arrive; a failed searching or perception check means that, instead of finding what you were looking for, you find something that you would rather not have (eg because it is evidence of stuff you were hoping wasn't true).You seem to be conflating &quot;fail forward&quot; with &quot;success at a cost&quot;. The latter is what &quot;fail forward&quot; can mutate into in games that are more-or-less driven by a pre-conceived story (eg the GUMSHOE system uses this to make sure the players get the clues). But that is not an artefact of &quot;fail forward&quot;, that is an artefact of games driven by pre-conceived stories. Which goes back to the point about the very great differences between contemporary and classic D&amp;D play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7716202, member: 42582"] A lot of discussion of consequences seems to focus on consequences [i]to the PCs[/i], which take place [i]in the fiction[/i]. But those consequences are purely imaginary. From the point of view of gameplay, surely the relevant consequences are those that happen [i]in the real world[/i], to the players. In classic D&D there are more ways for the numbers on a PC sheet to get smaller (level drain, magic items failing saving throws, permanent PC death requiring generation of a new PC, etc). But what is the significance of this for the player? If s/he is still allowed to roll up a new PC and join in the dungeon-delving, what has s/he lost? The context for most contemporary D&D play is so different from classic dungeon-crawling - and, therefore, the consequences of changing those numbers on the PC sheet - that serious comparisons are very hard to make. This just suggests that you have little or no familiarity with "fail forward" as a technique. It is not "rewarded, but less so". It is "failure as consequence that drives the game forward rather than stalls the action." The technique was pioneered in indie games like Sorcerer and Burning Wheel. Typical examples would be things like: a failed casting roll means that, instead of the desired spell effect, you've summoned a demon; a failed lock-pick check means that, before you can pick the lock, the guards arrive; a failed searching or perception check means that, instead of finding what you were looking for, you find something that you would rather not have (eg because it is evidence of stuff you were hoping wasn't true). You seem to be conflating "fail forward" with "success at a cost". The latter is what "fail forward" can mutate into in games that are more-or-less driven by a pre-conceived story (eg the GUMSHOE system uses this to make sure the players get the clues). But that is not an artefact of "fail forward", that is an artefact of games driven by pre-conceived stories. Which goes back to the point about the very great differences between contemporary and classic D&D play. [/QUOTE]

Verification