Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8270589" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Good post.I definitely agree that Fail Forward that doesn't include (a) multiple, interesting pressure points (mechanically affecting the gamestate as well as changing the fiction adversely) and (b) well-structured and principled complication w/ teeth handling is absolutely a problem.&nbsp; This is the primary reason why I didn't love 13th Age's noncombat resolution system.However, 4e's handling of it was extremely good because of the following:* A Conflict Resolution Framework (the Skill Challenge - which is basically AW and Blade's Clocks) that establishes a Win/Loss Con thrives on Fail Forward and Success w/ Complications.&nbsp; Every micro-failure must be some iteration of Fail Forward because until the Loss Con has been achieved (and the conflict lost) while every micro-success must be some iteration of Success w/ Complication until the Win Con has been achieved (and the conflict won).* 4e had sufficient pressure points (they weren't as robust as something like Blades or Dungeon World...but they were consequential enough to call &quot;teeth&quot;) to mechanically affect the gamestate when a PC/Team endured a micro-failure in a Skill Challenge (therefore you're Failing Forward);&nbsp; Healing Surge or 25 % HPs (if you've got a nested combat), Disease/Condition Track (either an attack or moving down the line), Coin/Residiuum, Companion Character/Cohort, locked Encounter/Daily Power on a Magic Item/Boon/Vehicle until Long Rest, -2 forward, next move at Hard DC, new fictional positioning that locks out/winnows certain options (so PCs can't deploy their big guns).So really, a good Conflict Resolution framework w/ WIn/Loss Cons and sufficiently robust Complications w/ Teeth will is what you need to make Fail Forward functionally and dynamically propel play.&nbsp; You don't have to have both, but they absolutely work in concert.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8270589, member: 6696971"] Good post. I definitely agree that Fail Forward that doesn't include (a) multiple, interesting pressure points (mechanically affecting the gamestate as well as changing the fiction adversely) and (b) well-structured and principled complication w/ teeth handling is absolutely a problem. This is the primary reason why I didn't love 13th Age's noncombat resolution system. However, 4e's handling of it was extremely good because of the following: * A Conflict Resolution Framework (the Skill Challenge - which is basically AW and Blade's Clocks) that establishes a Win/Loss Con thrives on Fail Forward and Success w/ Complications. Every micro-failure must be some iteration of Fail Forward because until the Loss Con has been achieved (and the conflict lost) while every micro-success must be some iteration of Success w/ Complication until the Win Con has been achieved (and the conflict won). * 4e had sufficient pressure points (they weren't as robust as something like Blades or Dungeon World...but they were consequential enough to call "teeth") to mechanically affect the gamestate when a PC/Team endured a micro-failure in a Skill Challenge (therefore you're Failing Forward); Healing Surge or 25 % HPs (if you've got a nested combat), Disease/Condition Track (either an attack or moving down the line), Coin/Residiuum, Companion Character/Cohort, locked Encounter/Daily Power on a Magic Item/Boon/Vehicle until Long Rest, -2 forward, next move at Hard DC, new fictional positioning that locks out/winnows certain options (so PCs can't deploy their big guns). So really, a good Conflict Resolution framework w/ WIn/Loss Cons and sufficiently robust Complications w/ Teeth will is what you need to make Fail Forward functionally and dynamically propel play. You don't have to have both, but they absolutely work in concert. [/QUOTE]

Verification