Failing Forward

[ExploderWizard]

That seems extremely partisan. And an obviously false-dichotomy for those of us that do both.

I'm not saying that you can't do both, or that you can't enjoy each for what it is, but you can't do both at the same time.

This is really the heart of the matter. At times the the DM needs to narrate things. While doing so the DM is not playing a role unless it is the role of an NPC who actually performing the narration in the game world.

The role of player character requires no narration. If you find yourself narrating something then your role has become story teller instead of Hrolf the Bloody, the fighter you were supposedly playing.

The group simply needs to decide if they have more fun playing story tellers crafting a narrative or fictional characters exploring a fictional world. 5E is flexible enough for a group to do either one as they wish.

 

[Umbran]

I am also saying that I cannot enjoy story-telling, and I find it highly disruptive to an RPG. That's why I'm not saying that everyone should avoid playing FATE - for all I know, they might actually enjoy it - I'm just saying that it's primarily a story-telling game rather than an RPG. Conflating the two does a disservice to both.

The issue here is simple - your personal preferences, and what disrupts *you*, does not really define what a game is or isn't, in general. It defines whether a game works well for you, or not.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The issue here is simple - your personal preferences, and what disrupts *you*, does not really define what a game is or isn't, in general. It defines whether a game works well for you, or not.

I like RPGs, and I don't like story-telling games (STGs). I don't like Fate, but Fate isn't an STG (rather than an RPG) because I dislike it; I dislike it because it's an STG (rather than an RPG).

And those aren't just labels, either. Labels are convenient, but even if you wanted to categorize them as two equal sub-groups of RPG (say, Traditional RPG vs Story-based RPG), then the real thematic and mechanical differences between the two would still be as flagrant. I would still enjoy the former and eschew the latter.

Some games can be played either way, and don't necessarily fall one way or the other. In such a case, I could probably enjoy it if it was played as an RPG, even if I wouldn't enjoy it as an STG.

 

[Bluenose]

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. Traditional role-playing games are objective simulations. Role-playing is the act of making decisions as your character, not telling stories about your character.

It's fine if you want to collectively tell a story, and if you want some sort of rule-set to guide you, but that should never be mistaken for role-playing. The two are as different as night and day.

People have different reasons for playing RPGs and character immersion is not only just one of them but it isn't one that makes it more or less of a simulation. And I'm not sure what you mean by 'objective' in this context, but I'm doubtful that it's particularly a notable quality of early D&D.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

People have different reasons for playing RPGs and character immersion is not only just one of them but it isn't one that makes it more or less of a simulation. And I'm not sure what you mean by 'objective' in this context, but I'm doubtful that it's particularly a notable quality of early D&D.

An objective reality, in this context, is just one which is defined without input from external sources. It doesn't matter how you look at it, or what you want it to be, because your opinions and preferences aren't going to change anything. It is what it is, and the in-game reality is that every aspect of its existence was defined long before you arrived on the scene.

Early RPGs, in the name of fairness, placed a strong emphasis on the GM writing down lots of details about the environment. By saying that it didn't exist if it wasn't written down beforehand, it prevented the GM from cheating (either for or against the players). The most extreme example of this can probably be found in Synnibarr, which features an actual rule allowing any player to challenge the GM about any point, and proving a variation from the notes would cause the entire adventure to be thrown out as invalid.

In time, this stance softened somewhat, to allow greater flexibility for things that the GM may have not thought about beforehand. Instead of the pre-game dungeon notes being the final arbiter, the GM was given that power directly, and great effort was made to emphasize fairness so that the players could trust the GM on such matters.

 

[Umbran]

And those aren't just labels, either. Labels are convenient, but even if you wanted to categorize them as two equal sub-groups of RPG (say, Traditional RPG vs Story-based RPG), then the real thematic and mechanical differences between the two would still be as flagrant. I would still enjoy the former and eschew the latter.

I think there may be some arbitrary distinctions being made - it sounds like some things you don't like are being put in one box, and things you like in another, and that is an issue in discussion with people who don't care about your personal boxes.

However, let us say for a moment that those aren't just labels. There is no widely accepted, objective definition of either "role playing game" or "storytelling game". These are at best genre definitions, which are vague, and generally *inclusive*, not exclusive. You don't get to show that a novel has a detective in it, and therefore claim that it is a detective story, and *not* a western. And having a horse in it doesn't mean it *isn't* a detective novel. These things are not mutually exclusive, as you yourself seem to admit.

You have not done nearly enough to show that FATE, for example, is *not* a role-playing game. You're perfectly fine if you say, "this has enough elements that break my immersion/concentration/etc., that I don't like it." Nobody can argue with that. But as soon as you toss it over the wall and say, "that's a storytelling game, not a role-playing game" you're in the same territory as claiming one edition is, "not D&D".

Given that you have also said you don't like what you call storytelling games, it is very, very difficult for readers to believe you're not making a major value judgement on something they may happen to like. If your preference really isn't involved in the distinction, your preference shouldn't have entered the discussion. But, as it sits, you sound more like you are sitting in judgement and attempting to dismiss games, rather than discuss them with an open mind.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There is no widely accepted, objective definition of either "role playing game" or "storytelling game".

A "role-playing game" is "a game where you primarily play a role"; "role-playing" is defined as "making decisions, from the perspective of the character". A "story-telling game" is "a game where you primarily tell a story"; "story-telling" is defined as "telling a story, as an author would". These definitions are descriptive, based on the meaning of words which are commonly understood. If you don't like them, then substitute in the sentence fragment wherever I've used the specific term, and it gets to the same point.

There might be some ambiguity, in many circumstances, but no sane individual could read the FATE Core rules and come away thinking that it puts immersion and role-playing ahead of telling a story. I could spend hours quoting the rule book on that point, but it would be a waste of time, because this is not in dispute.

The only dispute is whether FATE counts as an RPG, in spite of its obvious focus on story-telling rather than role-playing. That's just semantics, though, and doesn't change any of the underlying facts. FATE and other games with a strong focus on story-telling rather than role-playing are objectively distinct from traditional role-playing games. If meaningful discussion is to be had on the topic, then we need some sort of label to distinguish between them.

Once we have established a spectrum between role-playing and story-telling (or however you want to label them), then we can discuss why I don't like Fail Forward, and we could further discuss how it might still be preferable given a suitably-distasteful alternative (even though Fail Forward is bad, it's not as bad as the players sitting around frustrated for four hours because they can't find a door). Or someone else could mention how they do like Fail Forward, because their preference is more toward a collaborative story-telling experience rather than immersive role-playing. At that point, it comes down to a simple matter of preference. Evading the topic, by dismissing useful labels, doesn't get us anywhere.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I voted good in certain circumstances. I think there is often a place for failure. In some situations however, where the game cannot really continue, then I agree with success at a cost/setback.

I believe ideally however you should very rarely have situations where the game cant continue, based on a single failed dice roll. In situations like critical info on a knowledge check, I prefer the shadowrun idea where you get increasing better/bonus info the higher you roll. So there is no prospect of the game not moving forward, it will, but the players may not have all the info that might otherwise have been available to them.

 

[ExploderWizard]

An objective reality, in this context, is just one which is defined without input from external sources. It doesn't matter how you look at it, or what you want it to be, because your opinions and preferences aren't going to change anything. It is what it is, and the in-game reality is that every aspect of its existence was defined long before you arrived on the scene.

Early RPGs, in the name of fairness, placed a strong emphasis on the GM writing down lots of details about the environment. By saying that it didn't exist if it wasn't written down beforehand, it prevented the GM from cheating (either for or against the players). The most extreme example of this can probably be found in Synnibarr, which features an actual rule allowing any player to challenge the GM about any point, and proving a variation from the notes would cause the entire adventure to be thrown out as invalid.

In time, this stance softened somewhat, to allow greater flexibility for things that the GM may have not thought about beforehand. Instead of the pre-game dungeon notes being the final arbiter, the GM was given that power directly, and great effort was made to emphasize fairness so that the players could trust the GM on such matters.

I'm not familiar with Synnibarr at all but original D&D promoted DM flexibility from the beginning. The game was designed primarily around exploration. There wasn't any plot that could go wrong so there wasn't a way for the players to get off track. The track was wherever the players happen to be at the moment. DMs were encouraged to be flexible and fair. There was no brick wall that brought the game to a screeching halt. If a secret door wasn't discovered then the players explored somewhere else. A failure simply meant choosing another path, of which there were many, so the concept of failing forward wasn't needed.

This is because failing forward has one requirement that the original game didn't feature, which is defining what "forward" means.

A "role-playing game" is "a game where you primarily play a role"; "role-playing" is defined as "making decisions, from the perspective of the character". A "story-telling game" is "a game where you primarily tell a story"; "story-telling" is defined as "telling a story, as an author would". These definitions are descriptive, based on the meaning of words which are commonly understood. If you don't like them, then substitute in the sentence fragment wherever I've used the specific term, and it gets to the same point.

Not exactly. A character isn't a requirement to role play. You could play a role playing game in which the participants play themselves in an imagined scenario. All you really need to role play is to approach the imagined scenario or game from within your defined role. That may be, and most commonly ends up being, a fictitious character created for the game.

The rest is simply defining the nature of that role. FATE is a role playing game. The participants adopt the roles of story tellers from various perspectives. It is the nature of the role that defines the type of game since both traditional rpgs and story focused rpgs feature roles for the players.

Stories have a flow, which canbe disrupted by failure points, thus there is a need for fail forward mechanics on occasion. The story has a direction and thus a reference point for fail forward.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Failing forward is a patch over a design flaw - what happens when someone fails a roll? In far, far too many RPGs the answer is "Nothing happens" or failing that "You cross one option off - try another skill?" Which fundamentally isn't interesting.

oD&D has no need for Failing Forward - it's a timed game. Faff around too long and there's another wandering monster check. But most games aren't in so artificial an environment as the dungeon. This means that games that work on a simple pass/fail metric (and there are loads) can easily devolve into dice-fests as people take it in turns to see who can pick the lock. A clearly tedious and irritating form of play.

Fail Forward is using the DMing advice to fix the system - borderline Oberoni Fallacy. It's vastly better than nothing. But this doesn't make it actually good. I'd far rather use something with consequences for failure like Apocalypse World/Dungeon World (hard moves). Cortex Plus (risking complications), oD&D (timer with wandering monster checks) or 4e (skill challenges being a "Three strikes and you're out" system) than I would simple Fail Forward. Fixing the game is better than giving the GM advice as to how to patch things - which is itself better than not raising this as an issue.