Failing Forward

[Umbran]

So you would be happy if we used (Cha) intimidation to scare the mountain into letting us climb without dropping anything?

Reductio ad absurdum has the tendency of backfiring when you look more like you are trying to be difficult than you are trying to get at something substantive. Wriggling your way into a corner case of absolute logic that a casual discussion didn't deal with explicitly does not mean the opponent needs to throw their hands in the air and accept you are correct.

Which is to say - in a discussion of good faith, trying to be reasonable is preferable to 'gotchas'. Leave room for colloquial use of language, please and thanks.

 

[grendel111111]

Reductio ad absurdum has the tendency of backfiring when you look more like you are trying to be difficult than you are trying to get at something substantive. Wriggling your way into a corner case of absolute logic that a casual discussion didn't deal with explicitly does not mean the opponent needs to throw their hands in the air and accept you are correct.

Which is to say - in a discussion of good faith, trying to be reasonable is preferable to 'gotchas'. Leave room for colloquial use of language, please and thanks.

Where I was going with it (before I got distracted and forgot to get back to it) was that I could see someone deciding to use Cha for a climbing check if it was described right and this is due to using the right ability for what is being described as the stakes.
So the characters are going up the mountain. If the goal is to get to the top - climbing check.
If the goal is to get to the top without losing an important item (getting to the top is not in question) - survival check (packing skills).
If the goal it to get to the top quickly before your objective gets beyond your grasp - so they decide to hire a guide (getting to the top is not in question, just time). The quality of the guide you track down and persuade to take you is the thing that is being checked (Cha)Persuasion, modified by local contacts etc.
The point was that Cha could be a valid thing to roll for a climb check if it matched what was at risk for failure of the roll.

For me matching the ability to the outcome or results of the action is far more important than to matching it to the action being done.

For example: if the characters are crossing a river and the DM decides that a failed swim roll Str(Athletics) results in being attacked by a crocodile.
The disconnect of failure to swim = attacked I find irritating.
If there is a chance that anyone swimming might be attacked by a crocodile, then someone who is stronger shouldn't have less chance of being attacked by the crocodile.
However a survival roll before going would alert them to the danger, and they might choose a different course of action.

What I could see in this situation would be a failed swim roll causes you to be in the water for longer. increasing the chance of being attacked.
Those who make their swim check are attacked on 1-2 on a d20. those who failed will be attacked on a 1-4.
While the difference is subtle in the first example the failed swim "causes" the crocodile to attack. In the second the swim check means they are in the water longer thus increasing the danger.

It is a similar situation when someone is picking a lock and the "fail forward" it that they open the lock but a wandering monster comes along. I am much happier with it taking a long time and so more checks for wandering monsters are made, as the failed roll result in it taking longer, not in making a monster appear.

It wasn't trying to gottcha anyone, I was trying to show that different people need different levels of connectedness between the rolls being made and the results in generates. I like a high level of connectedness, other like less. Neither is wrong (just preference).

 

[Umbran]

Where I was going with it (before I got distracted and forgot to get back to it) was that I could see someone deciding to use Cha for a climbing check if it was described right and this is due to using the right ability for what is being described as the stakes.
So the characters are going up the mountain. If the goal is to get to the top - climbing check.
If the goal is to get to the top without losing an important item (getting to the top is not in question) - survival check (packing skills).
If the goal it to get to the top quickly before your objective gets beyond your grasp - so they decide to hire a guide (getting to the top is not in question, just time). The quality of the guide you track down and persuade to take you is the thing that is being checked (Cha)Persuasion, modified by local contacts etc.
The point was that Cha could be a valid thing to roll for a climb check if it matched what was at risk for failure of the roll.

Ah. I'd instead say that Cha is a valid thing to roll to find a guide who could help you get to the top, not that Cha was appropriate for a climbing check. Remember that there are systems that allow you to do odd pairings of skill and stat (so, you might use INT + Climbing when asked what you know about the technical aspects of climbing). If you are making a Persuasion roll, you aren't using Climbing skill, so it isn't a Climbing check, you see.

Unless, of course, you're playing in a game in which spirits of the land/mountain may be invoked, in which case Cha may well be right for a climbing check

 

[Maxperson]

Ah. I'd instead say that Cha is a valid thing to roll to find a guide who could help you get to the top, not that Cha was appropriate for a climbing check. Remember that there are systems that allow you to do odd pairings of skill and stat (so, you might use INT + Climbing when asked what you know about the technical aspects of climbing). If you are making a Persuasion roll, you aren't using Climbing skill, so it isn't a Climbing check, you see.

Unless, of course, you're playing in a game in which spirits of the land/mountain may be invoked, in which case Cha may well be right for a climbing check

I agree. I had a thought along the Cha check lines and I'm not sure of how I'd handle it, so I thought I'd ask. What if you were climbing the mountain and there were onlookers and you wanted to climb with flair and with the goal of impressing the onlookers. Would Cha be appropriate then?

 

[Umbran]

I agree. I had a thought along the Cha check lines and I'm not sure of how I'd handle it, so I thought I'd ask. What if you were climbing the mountain and there were onlookers and you wanted to climb with flair and with the goal of impressing the onlookers. Would Cha be appropriate then?

I think we need to be careful of compound goals: of the form get to the top *AND* thisotherthing. Usually, I think one should only be able to accomplish one major goal for one check. If you want to achieve multiple goals, that probably means multiple checks.

If the character wants to climb a technically easy stretch of mountain, in view of onlookers, and impress them, sure, Charisma could be important then - because what they want is a performance. If the character wants to get to the top of K2 or Everest - a climb that will kill people who are not entirely focused on the technical aspects of the climb - then I don't think it would be appropriate.

Which is to say, I suppose, the player doesn't necessarily get to set all the stakes all the time. It is okay if the GM says that for certain goals, some stakes are not avoidable.

 

[Maxperson]

I think we need to be careful of compound goals: get to the top *AND* thisotherthing. Usually, I think one should only be able to accomplish one major goal for one check.

If the character wants to climb a technically easy stretch of mountain, in view of onlookers, and impress them, sure, Charisma could be important then - because what they want is a performance. If the character wants to get to the top of K2 or Everest - a climb that will kill people who are not entirely focused on the technical aspects of the climb - then I don't think it would be appropriate.

Which is to say, I suppose, the player doesn't necessarily get to set all the stakes all the time. It is okay if the GM says that for certain goals, some stakes are not avoidable.

Okay. People can be reckless, though, and we read about them dying all the time. However, sometimes they succeed at their foolish endeavors.

I have been giving this some thought while waiting for your reply. A PC wants to make a hard climb like Everest and look flashy doing it. What if we did something like this? The PC has a Dex bonus of 4 and a climb proficiency bonus of 2. He has a cha bonus of 2. I was thinking we could add them together and divide by 2, rounding down. So this PC would go from +6 to +4 and take a hit on skill, but look good making the climb if successful.

What do you think?

 

[Umbran]

I have been giving this some thought while waiting for your reply. A PC wants to make a hard climb like Everest and look flashy doing it. What if we did something like this? The PC has a Dex bonus of 4 and a climb proficiency bonus of 2. He has a cha bonus of 2. I was thinking we could add them together and divide by 2, rounding down. So this PC would go from +6 to +4 and take a hit on skill, but look good making the climb if successful.

What do you think?

I think I want to ask - who the heck is watching up at the top of the climb, that we need to use this construction? Not to mean that we need to dig into this particular example, but that the devil is in the details, and sometimes exploring the details will give us a better answer.

I suppose that your construction is as good as most others we'd find for the situation. Fine for a quick and dirty way to keep things moving. But it does have an edge-case flaw if made into a general table-rule policy. Consider the following:

A PC wants to make a hard climb like Everest. The PC has a Dex bonus of 0 and a climb proficiency bonus of 2. He has a Cha bonus of 4. The player then realizes that they are better at "get to the top flashy" than they are at "just get to the top", which doesn't make a whole lot of sense - taking showy risks for the folks in the penny seats should not make the tough climb more likely to succeed! The construction allows the player to substitute Charisma (or whatever happens to be a high stat for them) into just about anything to improve their chances, which isn't appropriate. A clever player now tries to find ways for their fighter to apply Strength to crossword puzzles? Probably not where this was intended to go.

This is why I say the GM should also have some say in the stakes - editorial or veto power, if you will, to keep the efforts sensible.

In the Fail Forward scenario that spawned this... it is kind of overkill to go to such lengths. If the player really doesn't want certain consequences, I'd just allow them to make a check. Don't want to lose the Wand of Pudding Location on the way up? Make a Survival check before you start. If you make that check then, on the way up, if you fail a climb, I won't impose a "dropped the wand" consequence. I'll think of something else, instead, that is consistent with the preparations the players took. Because, really, the players won't be able to think of *everything* - there's always a consequence the GM can add.

 

[Maxperson]

I think I want to ask - who the heck is watching up at the top of the climb, that we need to use this construction? Not to mean that we need to dig into this particular example, but that the devil is in the details, and sometimes exploring the details will give us a better answer.

I suppose that your construction is as good as most others we'd find for the situation. Fine for a quick and dirty way to keep things moving. But it does have an edge-case flaw if made into a general table-rule policy. Consider the following:

I can see corner case situations where this would come up. Trying to get the "Sherpa" type tribe to lead you to their holy place so you can accomplish part of the quest, but first you have to prove yourself in a climb while the tribal elders watch and judge you, or a contest as part of a winter festival where everyone from the local town and the surrounding 5 villages come out to watch the climbers race for the gold at the top. In those situations, a PC might want to look cool while climbing.

A PC wants to make a hard climb like Everest. The PC has a Dex bonus of 0 and a climb proficiency bonus of 2. He has a Cha bonus of 4. The player then realizes that they are better at "get to the top flashy" than they are at "just get to the top", which doesn't make a whole lot of sense - taking showy risks for the folks in the penny seats should not make the tough climb more likely to succeed! The construction allows the player to substitute Charisma (or whatever happens to be a high stat for them) into just about anything to improve their chances, which isn't appropriate. A clever player now tries to find ways for their fighter to apply Strength to crossword puzzles? Probably not where this was intended to go.

This is why I say the GM should also have some say in the stakes - editorial or veto power, if you will, to keep the efforts sensible.

I absolutely agree that the DM should have editorial and/or veto power in cases such as that. Also, the method I came up with on the fly also punishes the skilled. Someone with 4 climb and 4 charisma will still climb at 4, while someone with a 6 climb and 4 charisma will be penalized. Given what you said and that scenario, I think that using the amount of charisma used as a negative modifier makes more sense.

If the 4 climb PC wants to use 4 charisma, he's going to look REALLY good with that 0 climb bonus. However, he could decide to only use 2 points of charisma and be climbing with a +2, but not look as flashy doing so.

In the Fail Forward scenario that spawned this... it is kind of overkill to go to such lengths. If the player really doesn't want certain consequences, I'd just allow them to make a check. Don't want to lose the Wand of Pudding Location on the way up? Make a Survival check before you start. If you make that check then, on the way up, if you fail a climb, I won't impose a "dropped the wand" consequence. I'll think of something else, instead, that is consistent with the preparations the players took. Because, really, the players won't be able to think of *everything* - there's always a consequence the GM can add.

I agree that there is always a consequence that can be added, though I still don't think that the result should also include success at getting to the top of the mountain.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't have time for my own personal commentary or to address specific facets of specific posts that I would like. However, here is a link to a blog post on Dungeon World's failure that is apropos. I'm going to include some of the relevant bits below.

I read an article about emergency treatment that totally changed how I look at failure from a narrative point of view. Serious complications are unavoidable in a hospital situation, but some hospitals keep more patients alive despite this. The key to their success is in how they quickly rescue patents when things go wrong. As the author put it the only failure is a failure to rescue.

This concept is great for gaming because it allows for bad things that aren’t direct “action failure” (ie. nullifying what you were trying to do), and brings a “raising the stakes” mentality to the table. Things are going to go wrong. If they don’t, the story we’re telling will sound like a boring Mary Sue fan fiction about how our awesome characters are all awesome and waltz in and win while everything is perfect.

When things go wrong, they’re not always predictable, preventable, or even directly related to what you were attempting. You may have stabbed the dire lion exactly how you wanted to, but in the process you also stumbled on her den so now she’s enraged because you’re between her and her cubs!

Acknowledging that tactical complications can be tangential means a “bad” result doesn’t need to block your original actions. This gives you more interesting ways to interact and engage with the in-game world, while leaving the system free to make more nuanced decisions about how success and failure work.

 

[Umbran]

I agree that there is always a consequence that can be added, though I still don't think that the result should also include success at getting to the top of the mountain.

Well, then don't do it, and avoid systems that have 'success, but at a cost' in their mechanics.