Failing Forward

[iserith]

I think he might be saying that for him the outcome doesn't feel like it "reasonably" follows from the established fiction and/or the mechanics he's using to interface with said fiction. The problem I see is that whether something feels reasonable or not is a totally subjective call.

Sure it's subjective, but if we can't agree it's reasonable that somebody tries and fails to climb a thing, makes noise in the process, and draws unwanted attention, then I would say we're in a very strange place in this discussion.

 

[Imaro]

Sure it's subjective, but if we can't agree it's reasonable that somebody tries and fails to climb a thing, makes noise in the process, and draws unwanted attention, then I would say we're in a very strange place in this discussion.

Of course this is where it gets kind of weird if there is a mechanic that is used to determine whether someone is quiet or not in the fiction (Say a stealth skill)... If making noise is a possible outcome shouldn't I be using that mechanic to interface with the fiction instead?

 

[iserith]

Of course this is where it gets kind of weird if there is a mechanic that is used to determine whether someone is quiet or not in the fiction (Say a stealth skill)... If making noise is a possible outcome shouldn't I be using that mechanic to interface with the fiction instead?

Depends on the stated goal and approach described by the player. There was nothing in the example to suggest the player was having his or her character try to act in a stealthy fashion. He or she was established simply as trying to climb out of the closed pit.

 

[Imaro]

Depends on the stated goal and approach described by the player. There was nothing in the example to suggest the player was having his or her character try to act in a stealthy fashion. He or she was established simply as trying to climb out of the closed pit.

I would assume in a dangerous environment where someone who means to do you harm could be alerted by the sound of your actions trying to do something as quietly as possible would be a given... but I guess it has to be specifically called out...

 

[iserith]

I would assume in a dangerous environment where someone who means to do you harm could be alerted by the sound of your actions trying to do something as quietly as possible would be a given... but I guess it has to be specifically called out...

There is not enough context in the example to say one way or another. All we know is that a character tried to climb and failed with reasonable results ensuing. Can you imagine a character failing to climb and being noisy about it, consequently drawing unwanted attention? If so, then it's reasonable.

 

[Imaro]

There is not enough context in the example to say one way or another. All we know is that a character tried to climb and failed with reasonable results ensuing. Can you imagine a character failing to climb and being noisy about it, consequently drawing unwanted attention? If so, then it's reasonable.

I guess... if you say so. I can also imagine a character failing to climb, slipping and cracking his skull open on the side of the wall... so I guess that's "reasonable" as well.

 

[pemerton]

I can also imagine a character failing to climb, slipping and cracking his skull open on the side of the wall... so I guess that's "reasonable" as well.

In 4e, this issue of stakes-setting while climbing is handled in a slightly convoluted way: first, there is a somewhat process-sim "dice of damage per 10' fallen" rule (d10, rather than D&D's more traditional d6); second, there is GM advice on what height of precipice to use to achieve a given danger level for a given level of PC. Within this 4e context, it is reasonable for 1st level PCs to fight goblins on the edge of a 20' cliff - though the GM should be factoring this into his/her overall intentions around the deadliness of the encounter - but it is probably not reasonable for the PCs to fight goblins on the edge of a 200' cliff, where any fall will almost certainly be deadly for a 1st level PC.

In Burning Wheel, there are no general falling rules. The GM is given some advice (I can't remember whether it's in the core rules or the Adventure Burner) on what sorts of damage to stake as a consequence for various sorts of failed checks. In a recent session in my game, in which one of the PCs was trapped in a cave behind a deadfall and wriggled out through a small gap being led by his pet snakes, I imposed a Midi wound as the consequence for a failed check (described as the PC not being able to glide down slopes as easily as his snakes, and slipping and falling and bumping his head). A Midi wound imposes a 2D penalty - perhaps analogous to -5 or a bit more in 4e - and generally takes a month or two of rest to heal.

In general, judging a reasonable consequence requires skill as a GM. (As I and other posters have been noting for much of this thread.) [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] has expressed a concern that:

narrative context might make it interesting for you and 2 players, but not for the other 3 players at the table. A different narrative context might make it interested for one of those first 2 players, 2 of the second three, but not everyone else.​

Personally I don't tend to find this to be an issue - most of the time, most of the table is pretty interested in what is going on even if not all the PCs are involved; and if all the PCs are involved then the consequence that is narrated can be one that engages all the players via their PCs (eg the discovery of the black arrows).

Maxperson, is there some particular instance of this that you have in mind? Do you think there are many players who would not be curious about what happens when the jailer turns up to taunt (and perhaps free, if things work out right) the PC trapped in a pit?

 

[pemerton]

Based on your criteria, the problem that 3.x and Pathfinder have (I can't really comment on 5e, having never played it) is that they're not attempting to emulate a genre, or provide a specific "experience" with mechanics that support a particular style, they're simply trying to replicate "D&D as its own genre." There's no real thought to whether "D&D as genre" is ITSELF coherent or particularly workable, but that's ultimately beside the point as far as the rules are concerned.

<snip>

D&D 3.x is mechanically not structured to support either the Savage/4e style "fail forward," or Burning Wheel's.

I don't have a lot of experience with 3E/PF, but what you say here strikes me as plausible. It seems to build on a certain tendency in later AD&D. (Whereas I think earlier D&D, including the earlier period of AD&D, did have a particular experience in mind as a goal of play - such that, for instance, particular rules could be critiqued on the basis that they did or did not contribute to that experience.)

4e is the obvious outlier, because it had a very specific, codified, and structured "play experience" that its mechanics were specifically designed to implement.

<snip>

One of the commonalities was that both 4e and Savage Worlds assume broad levels of character competency. And I think this adds a strong supporting dimension for a system that wants to support "fail forward."

<snip>

When your characters feel competent to tackle problems across a broader swath of available options, it's easier as a GM to frame those options into the fiction.

<snip>

Burning Wheel, interestingly, seems to take an opposite approach --- your characters are broadly not competent, but are expected to attempt to do things in which they are not competent because they are compelled to by their beliefs and instincts. In this case, I think "fail forward" is a downright necessary component.

I agree that 4e both posits and actually delivers PCs who are broadly competent (though some still find the fighter a little narrow, that hasn't been an issue in my own 4e campaign), and that this facilitates a loose, "opening one door as another closes"-style of GMing. Upthread [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] talked about designing encounters around PC competencies, but in 4e I haven't tended to worry too much about this - and often the PCs have capabilities that I don't know about or have forgotten about (4e PC sheets are very long and complicated). Generally the players, via their PCs, have the resources to make a decent fist of taking on just about any challenge in any of a range of ways (combat, social, subterfuge, etc).

In my BW game we started with 5 Lifepath humans (but only 4 Lifepaths for the mechanically stronger elves). These PCs are pretty competent in their areas of specialisation - direct comparisons to D&D are tricky but I'd say comparable to 5th level or so AD&D PCs - but the game takes for granted that some, even many, challenges will arise that fall outside these areas of specialisation, and so the PCs will fail a lot of the time.

I agree with you that, in that sort of game, "fail forward" is a must. Otherwise the game would just grind to a halt as some sort of baroque parody of someone's bad RQ or RM campaign from 30-odd years ago.

 

[Imaro]

In 4e, this issue of stakes-setting while climbing is handled in a slightly convoluted way: first, there is a somewhat process-sim "dice of damage per 10' fallen" rule (d10, rather than D&D's more traditional d6); second, there is GM advice on what height of precipice to use to achieve a given danger level for a given level of PC. Within this 4e context, it is reasonable for 1st level PCs to fight goblins on the edge of a 20' cliff - though the GM should be factoring this into his/her overall intentions around the deadliness of the encounter - but it is probably not reasonable for the PCs to fight goblins on the edge of a 200' cliff, where any fall will almost certainly be deadly for a 1st level PC.

In Burning Wheel, there are no general falling rules. The GM is given some advice (I can't remember whether it's in the core rules or the Adventure Burner) on what sorts of damage to stake as a consequence for various sorts of failed checks. In a recent session in my game, in which one of the PCs was trapped in a cave behind a deadfall and wriggled out through a small gap being led by his pet snakes, I imposed a Midi wound as the consequence for a failed check (described as the PC not being able to glide down slopes as easily as his snakes, and slipping and falling and bumping his head). A Midi wound imposes a 2D penalty - perhaps analogous to -5 or a bit more in 4e - and generally takes a month or two of rest to heal.

In general, judging a reasonable consequence requires skill as a GM. (As I and other posters have been noting for much of this thread.) @Maxperson has expressed a concern that:

narrative context might make it interesting for you and 2 players, but not for the other 3 players at the table. A different narrative context might make it interested for one of those first 2 players, 2 of the second three, but not everyone else.​

Personally I don't tend to find this to be an issue - most of the time, most of the table is pretty interested in what is going on even if not all the PCs are involved; and if all the PCs are involved then the consequence that is narrated can be one that engages all the players via their PCs (eg the discovery of the black arrows).

Maxperson, is there some particular instance of this that you have in mind? Do you think there are many players who would not be curious about what happens when the jailer turns up to taunt (and perhaps free, if things work out right) the PC trapped in a pit?

Quick question... so 4e sets the stakes for the consequences of a failed climb check, correct? If so, how does fail forward work here? If I as a player have read the rules and know that damage is the consequence of a failed check, do you as DM still reserve the right to create additional/other consequences... such as the alerting of the guards? If so as DM should you let me as a player know about these added consequences or should any and all "reasonable" consequences be expected... or, and this just occurred to me, is this type of thing best established before the game starts... perhaps in pre-discussion around DM/Player responsibility.

Honestly I have no problem with the concept of FF and believe one of my favorite games right now, Numenera, uses it very well. Why? Because in Numenera the DM has the option to create an intrusion (basically a complication he made up) but must in exchange offer the player XP... additionally the player can choose to spend XP in order to cancel the intrusion if he feels he doesn't want whatever complication is offered up happening to his character. I like this design because it gives the player a say so in whether this complication is something he wants to experience with his character (no guessing games on the part of the GM), but at the same time uses a limited resource (so you don't run into a situation where every complication is avoided by a particular player) to create a real decision point for the player around what is or isn't the type of complications he/she wants their character to experience. See for me this type of mechanic preserves player agency, avoids the problem of the DM's idea on what is exciting or cool being dominant while still allowing the GM to utilize the fail forward mechanic creatively.

 

[Maxperson]

I
In general, judging a reasonable consequence requires skill as a GM. (As I and other posters have been noting for much of this thread.) [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] has expressed a concern that:

narrative context might make it interesting for you and 2 players, but not for the other 3 players at the table. A different narrative context might make it interested for one of those first 2 players, 2 of the second three, but not everyone else.​

Personally I don't tend to find this to be an issue - most of the time, most of the table is pretty interested in what is going on even if not all the PCs are involved; and if all the PCs are involved then the consequence that is narrated can be one that engages all the players via their PCs (eg the discovery of the black arrows).

Maxperson, is there some particular instance of this that you have in mind? Do you think there are many players who would not be curious about what happens when the jailer turns up to taunt (and perhaps free, if things work out right) the PC trapped in a pit?

I'm going to speak in generalities since I'm fairly bad at remembering specific examples. I tend to lose arguments with my wife badly as a result. I KNOW something happened, but can't give specific examples. Doh!

Okay. I had a group in the past where some of them have been very combat focused and that is what held their primary interest, and others have been more political/roleplaying oriented and combat held little interest for them. Fast forward to the scene where the narrative brings the jailer in. Briefly, they would all have interest. However, if narrative called for verbal roleplaying, the combat oriented players would lose interest. If it called for a fight, the roleplaying oriented people would lose interest. It was difficult for any specific narrative to hold the interest of all of them at once.

With my current group, since we are all longtime friends, ANY narrative will hold interest as even if the narrative itself is not directly interesting, we all want to see everyone else enjoying themselves, so even when a scene is a solo scene, everyone else watches to see how it turns out. That's not always a direct interest in the narrative, though.