Failing Forward

[Sunseeker]

I like failing forward, because I've played in a game or two where continuation, especially in a story-based game, hinges on a single roll of a single stat, if that roll fails the entire game stops. To me, that just seems inconceivably silly.

 

[Bluenose]

I like systems where there's a bit more nuance than Succeed with No Problems or Fail with No Recourse, and I also like it when there's a mechanic that lets me turn a failure into a success by accepting some sort of consequence. For rather obvious reasons I think it's a bad fit for D&D, which already has spells which ensure Success with No Problems in virtually all non-combat situations, to make skills less reliable and with more down-sides.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Great in theory, but hard to implement in a covincing manner.

The hard task is to define a fail which triggers the situation.

In your example, Morrus, the party might have other ways to get through the door: the fighter may bash it down, the mage might have lots of different options. If any of these methods are still available and possible, the thief's failure to pick the lock doesn't mean a failure for the party's attempt to get past the door. The GM might wait for other approaches and not implement the fail forward.

But what if the players are unsuccessful in different ways or don't consider all the way the GM can think of? Say, the fighter unsuccessfully tries to bash the door down and the mage doesn't have the inspiration to use Gaseous Form to get to the other side and simply turn the key.

The GM still sees approaches to the problem, but the players don't. And now? Having the lock Deus-ex-machina-like open while the thief feels a prick in his finger?

Ideally one would use the fail forward mechanism on the party's last attempt at the task, but how would one notice this?

 

[delericho]

So what do you think?

It's a good tool for a DM to have in his toolbox. But it isn't, and shouldn't be, the only tool you have. Sometimes, a failure can just be a failure.

Essentially, it's a mechanic, fairly common these days, which ensures that the game doesn't grind to a halt on a failed skill check.

IME, most such instances are a failure of game design - the designer forgot to consider "but what if they fail?" It's no different from an adventure designed assuming the PCs will just fight their way through everything, without considering the possibility that they might at least try to talk.

So, if the way into a dungeon is to pick the lock, and failing to do so would mean the party could not continue, the lock gets picked but a trap is set off. Or something. That was a terrible example; don't use it as a basis for judging the concept!

Accepting your disclaimer about the quality of the example, it does show exactly the problem: basically, a barrier which must be passed and which can only be passed in one particular way is a bad idea.

Other people dislike it, saying that the players should just think their way around to another solution and that the GM should be able to handle that.

I'd go further than that - the GM (or adventure designer) should have at least considered alternative solutions when setting up the situation. I generally try to consider at least four broad approaches: brute force, negotiation, deception, or evasion. Obviously, not all apply in all cases - locked doors tend to be immune to deception (but you could still batter it down, pick the lock, or find another way in).

 

[Jhaelen]

Specifically, "fail forward" is not, as I understand it, "Succeed, but at cost," as FATE games often put it. It is "Fail, but there is a pretty clear path to try something else." And, as such it isn't so much a mechanic, as a bit of advice for the GM to not have all progress in an adventure blocked by a failure.

All right, that changes just about everything I was going to write.

As outlined by Morrus, 'fail forward' seems to be a concept to solve a problem that a well designed adventure presented by an experienced GM should never have. I simply don't design adventures in a way that they're grinding to a halt if a skill check doesn't succeed. If the players are at a loss how to continue with an adventure, there's always other things to do, other clues to follow. I realize it's a common problem of 'official' adventure modules, though.

Umbran's understanding, however, describes exactly why it's never a problem in my games, i.e. apparently I've already internalized the concept. Imho, it's a lot easier to avoid the problem when playing homebrew adventures in a homebrew setting because then the GM is basically omniscient and has (or should have) a very clear vision about the grand scheme of things. The 'worst' that can happen is if the players are trying a totally unexpected approach, catching the GM completely unprepared. But that's a different topic.

 

[Mercule]

Well, "fail forward" is not usually applied to combat and character death. It is more usually applied to tasks or events the PCs have to get through to move onward in the adventure.

Sorry for not being clear. I was trying to make a comparison, but it looks like my train of thought got derailed.

My point really is that it's sometimes appropriate to have a "game over" condition, including the ability to totally botch an adventure to the point of being unable to finish it. A TPK is simply the most dramatic and obvious such condition, even if "fail forward" doesn't usually apply to death. Even so, I do feel that it should be fairly obvious that the PCs have "failed" the adventure and it's over -- there's little more frustrating than spinning your wheels for an entire session for no good reason. Also, not every locked or secret door should be a game over situation -- that should be reserved for (relatively) obvious decision points, just like I'd inclined to fudge the dice more during a random encounter with orcs than I am during the climactic showdown with the dragon.

I'm not entirely sure whether the "typical" advocate for "fail forward" leaves room for truly being able to fail at an adventure/reaching your goals or if it's more a matter of just having to take the long way around. I'm fully on board with reducing frustration, meaningless dead-ends, and gear-grinding. I'm not okay with no chance of real failure, whether the failure is hard (TPK) or soft (you brought the king anchovies, that's a crime and you'll never convince him, now).

 

[delericho]

My point really is that it's sometimes appropriate to have a "game over" condition, including the ability to totally botch an adventure to the point of being unable to finish it. ... Even so, I do feel that it should be fairly obvious that the PCs have "failed" the adventure and it's over -- there's little more frustrating than spinning your wheels for an entire session for no good reason.

Yep, I agree. Both success and failure should have fairly obvious signs: the PCs win when they kill the dragon; they lose if the dragon wipes out the village instead. Otherwise, players being players, they're liable to hold on to a lost cause beyond all reason or enjoyment (and then blame the DM/the game for not being enjoyable).

 

[Morrus]

I think that it makes for a silly world, if outright failure is never a possibility.

It doesn't create a world where failure is never a possibility. It creates one where a specific group of heroes played by some players continue forward in the narrative rather than stopping dead. Like in a movie. It doesn't apply to every task, or even to anybody but PCs.

I generally like fail forward, though I'm not sure if you're describing what I'm used to considering "fail forward".

Specifically, "fail forward" is not, as I understand it, "Succeed, but at cost," as FATE games often put it. It is "Fail, but there is a pretty clear path to try something else." And, as such it isn't so much a mechanic, as a bit of advice for the GM to not have all progress in an adventure blocked by a failure.

Yeah, that's a much better description than mine

I think part of good "failing forward" is picking out what mustn't be failed at. To take the original example, must the lock picking succeed, or must the party just get past that door? If it's the former then maybe some deus ex machina might be required, but if it's the latter then maybe the door has a mishap ("you were only supposed to blow the bloody door off!"...)

Well, I did say it was a terrible example!

 

[Guest 85555]

It doesn't create a world where failure is never a possibility. It creates one where a specific group of heroes played by some players continue forward in the narrative rather than stopping dead. Like in a movie. It doesn't apply to every task, or even to anybody but PCs.
!

I think if your going for something that feels more like the flow of a movie that makes a lot of sense. My play style is a little different so I am curious if this is something you feel needs to be tied to the task resolution system itself or if you are okay with it simply being more on the GM end of things. So I guess if its part of the task resolution system something like attempting to find a particular book in a library on a skill roll might not result in the actual book but maybe a lead to another location where more information can be found. But if it isn't tied to the roll itself, the players fail the roll, but after further questioning of people in the area or after a successful roll looking for a lead, they might find out about the other location. Both would largely lead to the same place, but one isn't as baked into the system.

 

[Morrus]

so I am curious if this is something you feel needs to be tied to the task resolution system itself or if you are okay with it simply being more on the GM end of things.

I don't think the word "needs" goes anywhere near my thoughts on the subject. I think it's a useful tool with different implementations and I'n curious about folks' opinions on it. I can see both of those two suggested implementations.