Failing Forward

[Manbearcat]

As an aside...I have a small confession to make. Part of the reason I enjoy coming up with absurd play examples has nothing to do with elucidation...it is because I get to watch grown men (myself included) then carry on totally serious conversation about Pudding Mountain and Mommy Kissing Booboos Away for the next several days!

 

[iserith]

Who said anything about unscathed?

Have you ever known a player to ask that they accomplish something and be harmed or setback in the process? Or is it safe to assume, at least for the purposes of this discussion, that the player seeking to have his character scale Mt. Pudding is seeking the best possible outcome which is that they get there without harm or setback?

"Makes progress" does not equal succeed. So you initally fail at the climb, and the DM determines that halfway up you lost your divining rod...so far this is just fine. But you're still only halfway up, at the point you lost the rod (in my view the action stops here to give the player-as-character a chance to choose what to do next) meaning you have not succeeded in the climb and thus the narrative agrees with the dice. If the player-as-character chooses to continue the climb this would prompt another check to see if she makes it the rest of the way up; and if she instead chooses to climb back down and try to recover the rod you're into a different check, and so on.

Lan-"mmmm...pudding"-efan

Sure, you can play semantic games all you want here to justify the call you want to make at your table. I don't think it furthers the discussion though or anyone's understanding of what fail forward is about.

I'll say again: If my goal is to get to the top of Mt. Pudding unscathed then botch the ability check, getting to the top of Mt. Pudding having lost my divining rod is still a failure, not a success.

 

[Lanefan]

Have a look at the last page of posts between me, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] and [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]. I think you are conflating means and ends here, whereas - in play which makes extensive use of "fail forward" - the difference between means and ends (or what BW calls task and intent) is pretty crucial.

Returning again to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s Mt Pudding example: the goal is to get to the top of Mt Pudding and find the pudding. Without the divining rod, that goal is no longer automatically achieved simply by getting to the top of the mountain. So when the failed climbing check is adjudicated as "You lose your diving rod down the crevasse as you narrowly avoid going into it yourself," the character has not achieved his/her goal, and in fact has become less likely to achieve it.

Of course. But as I said in my post just above this one the action should stop at the point where she loses the rod, not once she's got to the top without it; because it's at the time of loss where she has to make a choice: to go back down and try to recover the rod (climb check required), or continue on up (climb check required*) and if she makes it then try to find the pudding without the rod to help (search check required, I suppose).

* - unless she loses the rod when she's already at the top of the mountain, but that to me is granting success where a failure was rolled.

You're rolling checks for tasks, not intent. You state your intent, sure: "I'm going to climb Mt Pudding and get me some yummy pudding!" - but then you roll for the tasks involved - a climb check to get there; a search check to find the pudding if its location isn't immediately obvious, and then probably another climb check to get back down. A failure on any of these rolls can be either an end point (you fall and die, all the pudding is gone, etc,) or a decision point (partway up you lose your divining rod, what do you do now?). And note specifically there I ask "what do you do now?", as what happens next is up to the player; not me.

"Fail forward" is not primarily a way through a bottleneck. The whole idea of a "bottleneck", or of a session designed to avoid bottlenecks, suggests the type of prescripting of adventures that "fail forward" is an alternative to.

It's not a one-or-the-other situation here. Failures happen in pre-scripted adventures too; the question is how to deal with them, and how to present and narrate different forms of failure that can potentially keep things moving and-or provide more options and choices for the PCs. And as [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] says, outright failure *should* always be a possible (but certainly not the only possible) outcome from a roll of "fail".

I guess what it comes down to for me is that fail-forward for me still has to be a fail. If the goal which you rolled the check for was to climb the mountain and you rolled a fail, that tells me that no matter what else has happened you are not now at the top of the mountain. (in fact, that's the only thing it tells me!) If the DM narrates this failure as you reach the top but lose the divining rod in the process, that's not a failure narration at all; instead she's narrated some sort of succeed-backward and in fact given you more than the roll warranted.

You have missed the several times over where we have mentioned that it isn't really a predestined end we are aiming at in general. You're resurrecting a boogeyman. The *players* have a goal.

It doesn't matter whose flippin' goal it is - the DM's, the players', or the characters' - it's still a goal and there realistically will (or should) still be times when said goal turns out via dice rolls to be unattainable for whatever reason. A short-term goal might be to find the pudding at the top of Mt Pudding; a longer-term goal might be to slay the kidnappers, rescue the sleeping Prince and spoon a bit of this magical pudding into his mouth to wake him up. This goal might have been dreamed up by the DM, or by the players, or simply come about as an outgrowth of the run of play...but sometimes things just don't work out right. Maybe nobody can climb Mt Pudding and Princey-boy has to wait until someone gains the power of flight and can bypass the hazardous bits; meanwhile the PCs go off and do enough adventuring that their wizard can cast 3rd-level spells. Maybe nobody can find where the Prince has been hidden once the pudding has been obtained. And so on.

Lan-"the individual sessions might be short but the overall game is endless; so no matter how many times you fail there's always time to try again"-efan

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'll say again: If my goal is to get to the top of Mt. Pudding unscathed then botch the ability check, getting to the top of Mt. Pudding having lost my divining rod is still a failure, not a success.

Do you lose anything in that failure? Do you have to re-evaluate anything? What happens as a consequence of that failure, and it is markedly different from what would happen had you had a success? Do you have to try again?

I feel like, if you do a speedrun of Super Mario Brothers, than any time you waste time means that you've failed. You're not completing the game in the fastest possible time. You lose one life, you've failed to do the speedrun. Start over.

But if all you want to do is beat Super Mario Brothers, then the time you waste isn't of critical importance. So you ended with 120 on the clock instead of 140 - it doesn't matter. Spend all the lives, up to your last one, it's fine. Important, even - they're resources.

If the goal of Mt. Pudding is just to get pudding, the setbacks you suffer on the way there aren't meaningful. So you had to backtrack a bit - it doesn't matter, you still have the pudding.

If the goal of Mt. Pudding is to find the pudding with the divining rod, the setback of missing your divining rod is meaningful, but it's not clear what that failure means - are you unable to put the pudding to use? Is someone going to punish you for missing the divining rod? Do your enemies now have the divining rod and can use it to find the Other Pudding?

These are pretty different goals, and will fundamentally alter the approach to Mt. Pudding and what is considered meaningful failure in ascending it.

 

[iserith]

Do you lose anything in that failure? Do you have to re-evaluate anything? What happens as a consequence of that failure, and it is markedly different from what would happen had you had a success? Do you have to try again?

I feel like, if you do a speedrun of Super Mario Brothers, than any time you waste time means that you've failed. You're not completing the game in the fastest possible time. You lose one life, you've failed to do the speedrun. Start over.

But if all you want to do is beat Super Mario Brothers, then the time you waste isn't of critical importance. So you ended with 120 on the clock instead of 140 - it doesn't matter. Spend all the lives, up to your last one, it's fine. Important, even - they're resources.

If the goal of Mt. Pudding is just to get pudding, the setbacks you suffer on the way there aren't meaningful. So you had to backtrack a bit - it doesn't matter, you still have the pudding.

If the goal of Mt. Pudding is to find the pudding with the divining rod, the setback of missing your divining rod is meaningful, but it's not clear what that failure means - are you unable to put the pudding to use? Is someone going to punish you for missing the divining rod? Do your enemies now have the divining rod and can use it to find the Other Pudding?

These are pretty different goals, and will fundamentally alter the approach to Mt. Pudding and what is considered meaningful failure in ascending it.

I think this was covered several times by other posters quite well, including @pemerton.

I'll add that I may have muddied the example. We were talking about failing to climb a ravine and dropping a rod down it upon failing a check, not making it to the top of Mt. Pudding without a rod as a result of the check. Just want to bring that back into focus. Apologies.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Do you lose anything in that failure? Do you have to re-evaluate anything? What happens as a consequence of that failure, and it is markedly different from what would happen had you had a success? Do you have to try again?

I feel like, if you do a speedrun of Super Mario Brothers, than any time you waste time means that you've failed. You're not completing the game in the fastest possible time. You lose one life, you've failed to do the speedrun. Start over.

But if all you want to do is beat Super Mario Brothers, then the time you waste isn't of critical importance. So you ended with 120 on the clock instead of 140 - it doesn't matter. Spend all the lives, up to your last one, it's fine. Important, even - they're resources.

If the goal of Mt. Pudding is just to get pudding, the setbacks you suffer on the way there aren't meaningful. So you had to backtrack a bit - it doesn't matter, you still have the pudding.

If the goal of Mt. Pudding is to find the pudding with the divining rod, the setback of missing your divining rod is meaningful, but it's not clear what that failure means - are you unable to put the pudding to use? Is someone going to punish you for missing the divining rod? Do your enemies now have the divining rod and can use it to find the Other Pudding?

These are pretty different goals, and will fundamentally alter the approach to Mt. Pudding and what is considered meaningful failure in ascending it.

OK.

If you're going up Mount Pudding with a divining rod it's probably because someone hid either a giant gold sovereign or a giant silver dollar in the pudding and for whatever reason you want that. The divining rod is to help you find it. Not getting that is a serious setback - and not having your divining rod makes it a lot harder. You could get the actual pudding from the bottom of the mountain.

What are the consequences of not having that giant coin? You probably want it as something other than a bat-cave prop. Which means you either need something else to pay the giants, or you need to fight them (which is going to be rough). So you want that coin or things get rougher.

But you can keep going without the divining rod. And instead go diving into the pudding, wading through it, and trying to eat your way out. Not a good option either. You can do it but it's not going to be quick - and you need to avoid the Brandy Butter - or worse yet the rum-and-light. The divining rod would have saved you time - and time is really important. It keeps you safe andm means there's les to go wrong when you are gone.

 

[Imaro]

Eh, I'm staring to see where I have issues with this approach as well... mainly with causality and narrative control.

So because I didn't succeed at climbing... the DM now gets to create consequences which, while they may follow from the fiction can be unrelated to the fact that I failed at a climbing check... Looking at this from the perspective of a player... I want my consequences to flow organically from what I did or did not accomplish with my rolls. Why? Because that's the character I built... either I'm a great climber and this is one of those rare mishaps everyone suffers at some point... or I'm not that good at climbing and I knew that when I tried this, either way my character messed up climbing. What my character isn't known for are his fumbling fingers, so why am I suddenly a butterfingers or so incompetent I didn't tie down my divining rod? This approach also makes it difficult for consistency in knowing (at least in general) what the results of failing at something will be.

As a player I'd also wonder just how far these consequences can go, which was part of my objection to the earlier example where failing to find a trap while searching for it suddenly put me in the position of having activated the trap itself... I'm loosing agency here both in my character's actions and in the narrative of my character itself.

As a DM... for me it does feel kinda railroady since I am inventing what I want to happen on the fly... How do I guarantee that I not push towards the outcome I want and/or what I find fun, interesting, etc? The other side of that question being, how do I know what I find interesting or entertaining for other people's characters is what they also find entertaining or enjoyable at that moment? In the climbing example, what if a player would have preferred falling into the crevice below and taking his chances with whatever denizen was down there... if he survived? It also seems like in failing forward, regardless of the scenery of the path... the path still leads to the top of the mountain, which also feels kind of railroady... I won't go so far as to say it leads to a railroad... but I will say I can see where one can get that impression from.

 

[Imaro]

OK.

If you're going up Mount Pudding with a divining rod it's probably because someone hid either a giant gold sovereign or a giant silver dollar in the pudding and for whatever reason you want that. The divining rod is to help you find it. Not getting that is a serious setback - and not having your divining rod makes it a lot harder. You could get the actual pudding from the bottom of the mountain.

What are the consequences of not having that giant coin? You probably want it as something other than a bat-cave prop. Which means you either need something else to pay the giants, or you need to fight them (which is going to be rough). So you want that coin or things get rougher.

But you can keep going without the divining rod. And instead go diving into the pudding, wading through it, and trying to eat your way out. Not a good option either. You can do it but it's not going to be quick - and you need to avoid the Brandy Butter - or worse yet the rum-and-light. The divining rod would have saved you time - and time is really important. It keeps you safe andm means there's les to go wrong when you are gone.

This seems like you've created an entirely different goal so that the failure is an actual setback?? That seems... I don't know not a good argument for why that was a failure in the original situation.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, you can play semantic games all you want here to justify the call you want to make at your table. I don't think it furthers the discussion though or anyone's understanding of what fail forward is about.

I'll say again: If my goal is to get to the top of Mt. Pudding unscathed then botch the ability check, getting to the top of Mt. Pudding having lost my divining rod is still a failure, not a success.

I've never seen someone state to me the goal is to climb the wall, mountain, rope, etc. unscathed. They say they want to climb the whatever, get to the top, etc. Getting to the top is success and not getting there is failure. Adding in unscathed so that you can then fail them forward to the top through the loss of the rod seems like a justification to me.

 

[iserith]

I've never seen someone state to me the goal is to climb the wall, mountain, rope, etc. unscathed. They say they want to climb the whatever, get to the top, etc. Getting to the top is success and not getting there is failure. Adding in unscathed so that you can then fail them forward to the top through the loss of the rod seems like a justification to me.

I present to you the same thing I already said upthread with slightly different words: Is it a safe assumption that a player, stating a goal and approach to climbing a wall, seeks to do so without cost or complication? Or must he or she state that outright to satisfy you? If it is indeed a safe assumption that this is the full if unstated expression of a player's stated goal and approach, does it not then follow that getting up that wall with a cost or complication is, in fact, a failure of the goal?

I would say that it is.