Failing Forward

[ExploderWizard]

Knowing one thing is undesirable does not mean you have a specific outcome in mind. Imagine a large sports field with a fenced off hole. The players can go anywhere on the field except into the hole. Why? Because falling in the hole is a problem for play.

If the hole is a problem for play, why did you play in a field with a hole in it?

If an adventure is designed so that it works out unless the players do one specific thing to muck it up, then you can count on the players doing that specific thing.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

No one knows why, or how this happens exactly, but despite the astronomical odds it just does. This is assuming of course that the players have no idea that the thing that they just did was "off limits".

If they DO know of any such limitations then just not might likely happen, they will STAMPEDE towards it.

Play a little mini game when designing adventures. If you can easily identify pitfalls such that they resemble fenced in holes on a field, address them directly before players can discover them.

Identify each of these holes and run a session of PHA ( plot holes anonymous) for them. Let each of them share with the group.

" Hello everyone. I'm Bob, the super duper hidden secret door on level 6b, and I'm a plot hole"

Hi Bob

" So I'm really important and behind me is the only clue to finding the smugglers. If the players don't find me with my ridiculously high DC then they will have no idea where to go next. "

Why are you the only clue Bob

" I dunno. The DM really wants me to be a challenge but he also wants the campaign to keep moving forward. I suppose the only thing to do is make sure I get found SOMEHOW."

There is a better way we can do this Bob. Why don't we move the vital clue needed to continue to a spot that is hard to miss. Behind you, we will conceal maps, charts, and other writings that will offer valuable insight into the smugglers immediate plans. Without this cache, the players can continue but it will be more difficult without finding you.

" Wow! Thanks. Now I'm still really important and not not a plot hole!"

If you can identify them well enough to build a fence then you can fix them.

 

[Umbran]

To each of these situations it is perfectly acceptable to say " OK what do you do now?"

Yes. And for the first two, that works. But when you get to the final point in the series, they have stacked up to be a failure. That's the point.

Here the players hit what looked like a literal brick wall. Instead of banging their heads against it until it gave way, they thought of pursuing options that kept them focused on their goal.

That presupposes there *are* options that keep them focused on their goal. The situation, as presented, may not have any such options. They can be stuck.

Fail forward is the practice of presenting new options, when the scenario has otherwise dead-ended.

If the party really was that out of magic then this "failure" was actually a blessing in disguise.

Don't nitpick too much on the details of the example, please. It denotes a general logic, not a fine-detailed example.

The dark side failing forward is. The more you use it, the more that you have to KEEP using it.

First off, how the heck would you know? Certainly, the way you talk, you don't actually *use* the technique, do you? Nor do you stick around in games in which is it used, right? So, your experience with it should be minimal, and your stance theoretical, is that not correct?

Second off, it was already stated that some of the typical rule implementations of it are *supposed* to be things you keep using, as they are *intended* to help generate a significant amount of the content for play - having these generate content is a feature, not a bug.

It was not my intent to judge what others find to be fun.

My response to this is coming in PM.

 

[billd91]

My primary take on Fail Forward is that we've got another currently in-vogue buzzword for something people have been doing for decades. Just take a look at Wormy back in Dragon #62. Fred's character has a high strength, low dex and tries to break down a door. He fails - because he misses the door - but he breaks through the wall and is knocked unconscious in the effort. Success with complications to be sure, his adventuring companion has access to the chamber beyond, but there was a consequence.

There may be some value in naming this as a "thing" and recognizing its value as a gaming tool, but I do get tired of the faddishness of the current buzz.

 

[Nagol]

If the hole is a problem for play, why did you play in a field with a hole in it?

Because the rules systems suits the game I am trying to play. Other systems offer differing problems even if this situation is covered.

If an adventure is designed so that it works out unless the players do one specific thing to muck it up, then you can count on the players doing that specific thing.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

No one knows why, or how this happens exactly, but despite the astronomical odds it just does. This is assuming of course that the players have no idea that the thing that they just did was "off limits".

If they DO know of any such limitations then just not might likely happen, they will STAMPEDE towards it.

Play a little mini game when designing adventures. If you can easily identify pitfalls such that they resemble fenced in holes on a field, address them directly before players can discover them.

Identify each of these holes and run a session of PHA ( plot holes anonymous) for them. Let each of them share with the group.

" Hello everyone. I'm Bob, the super duper hidden secret door on level 6b, and I'm a plot hole"

Hi Bob

" So I'm really important and behind me is the only clue to finding the smugglers. If the players don't find me with my ridiculously high DC then they will have no idea where to go next. "

Why are you the only clue Bob

" I dunno. The DM really wants me to be a challenge but he also wants the campaign to keep moving forward. I suppose the only thing to do is make sure I get found SOMEHOW."

There is a better way we can do this Bob. Why don't we move the vital clue needed to continue to a spot that is hard to miss. Behind you, we will conceal maps, charts, and other writings that will offer valuable insight into the smugglers immediate plans. Without this cache, the players can continue but it will be more difficult without finding you.

" Wow! Thanks. Now I'm still really important and not not a plot hole!"

If you can identify them well enough to build a fence then you can fix them.

As an aside, Bob is not a plot hole. Bob is a required key made less required by the scenario alteration. "Gee, they didn't find the secret door AND set fire to the library by accident? Gee Bob, I guess you're still a problem!"

Only if you have a completely fleshed out, no-escape-to-elsewhere situation, and the PCs are the ONLY driving force in the scenario can this work consistently. Otherwise the GM is forced to provide some improvisation and/or plausibly extend the situation in ways previously unanticipated. These extensions can have emergent effects including but certainly not limited to lost keys, brick walls, and holes.

Some systems provide the players with tools to escape those (and other types of) situations. Some systems don't. Some game styles work better with some more or less fail-forward intervention than others.

 

[Reinhart]

[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] wins the prize! Fail Forward is nothing new. People just didn't always have a clever term for it. Every competent GM uses fail forward in some way at some time. If you think that you don't then you likely are thinking of the term in a narrow and loaded manner.

The usefulness of naming and defining a concept like Fail Forward is that you can communicate more effectively about it. New GM's don't have to learn about these things through trial and error, and game designers can consider how they fit into systems involving task resolution and dramatic tension.

 

[Nagol]

My primary take on Fail Forward is that we've got another currently in-vogue buzzword for something people have been doing for decades. Just take a look at Wormy back in Dragon #62. Fred's character has a high strength, low dex and tries to break down a door. He fails - because he misses the door - but he breaks through the wall and is knocked unconscious in the effort. Success with complications to be sure, his adventuring companion has access to the chamber beyond, but there was a consequence.

There may be some value in naming this as a "thing" and recognizing its value as a gaming tool, but I do get tired of the faddishness of the current buzz.

Well, of course it's been used for ages -- probably since RPGing became a "thing". It reflects an underlying trope in the source material and frankly, a lot of fiction.

 

[Morrus]

[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] wins the prize! Fail Forward is nothing new.

Who said it was?

People just didn't always have a clever term for it.

The term isn't particularly new, either.

Just to clarify to folks, when I started the thread, there isn't a silent "new" in front of "fail forward" in my thread title.

 

[The Human Target]

Let me guess. If someone didn't kick in that door then the game would come to a standstill?

That is pretty funny. It reminds me of that scene in the movie Ed Wood when they were filming Bride of the Monster. Tor Johnson was struggling with a stuck door on the set and kept knocking the fake door frame around. Ed kept calling out direction " Remember your motivation. Your upset. Not THAT upset. You have to get through that door."

So IMHO fail forward is only applicable when the DM decides that something HAS to happen in a specific way. If this is the case then just tell the story to the players because the dice are just inconvenient clutter that interfere with the perfect plot.

Nope, sorry to disappoint you.

Rescuing the kid and his mother were optional. It only even came up because one player decided to go snooping on his own.

The idea that FF is only useful in a Railroad is total crap.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I agree a good number of players who use various story-forwarding techniques might be those of us who are of the improvisational or "lazy DM" types. This was mentioned earlier by someone about the game philosophy differences between the wargaming-leaning type of player, and improv/roleplaying type of player. Us in the latter camp... more often than not I don't have situations where the "failure" is actually defined ahead of time. I'm improvising as things come up.

So for example, if a door is locked... I have not necessarily determined what the "failure" is when dealing with this lock. Is not opening the door a potential "failure"? Sure. Is alerting someone on the other side a potential "failure"? Absolutely. Is the door actually a mimic in disguise? Who knows! Maybe! In all of these cases... if the potential player tries to pick the lock and does not reach the DC I arbitrarily create for it at that time... more often than not i'll just improvise whatever results I can think of based upon the roll, where the players are at in the story, what's still to come.

They are "failing forward" per se, because while their die roll was lower than the DC I set, what happened as a result of that keeps the players advancing their story. But I'm also not "railroading" them, because I'm making up the successes, failures, and consequences on the fly.

I freely admit this type of DMing flies in the face of a good number of other styles of DMs. But I'm okay with that. And which also explains how I can have absolutely no real bother or concern for when someone like DMMike says with authority and passion that failing forward is the hallmark of the railroading DM. I'm sure for his particular style of gaming, he's absolutely right. But as I have absolutely no conception of what his style is, I can't get bent out of shape that he has no concept of mine (wherein failing forward does not equal it.)

 

[Janx]

As an aside, Bob is not a plot hole. Bob is a required key made less required by the scenario alteration. "Gee, they didn't find the secret door AND set fire to the library by accident? Gee Bob, I guess you're still a problem!"

Only if you have a completely fleshed out, no-escape-to-elsewhere situation, and the PCs are the ONLY driving force in the scenario can this work consistently. Otherwise the GM is forced to provide some improvisation and/or plausibly extend the situation in ways previously unanticipated. These extensions can have emergent effects including but certainly not limited to lost keys, brick walls, and holes.

Some systems provide the players with tools to escape those (and other types of) situations. Some systems don't. Some game styles work better with some more or less fail-forward intervention than others.

I concur. I do not design my adventures with precision or perfect. They are often 1-6 pages of material to cover 4-6 hours of gaming. I do not comb over them or test them, I have no time for that.

Therefore, having a few tools to improvise my way out of a jam that comes up is sufficient for me.

I don't know that I've had to specifically do a Fail Forward. But it's good to have a reminder that it's a way out of a mental rut.

As somebody noted before, it's really just an improv theatre tool similar to "Yes, and..." though I see it more as "that doesn't work, but in doing so, you lose/break something and now a new pathway out of the scene is revealed"