Failing Forward

[Imaro]

That seems more a statement than a question.

I didn't make it clear but it was both, a statement from me but I was also wondering if you see the similarity in you and @Neonchameleon's arguments with said rhetoric...

I'm saying nothing about brain damage, at least no more than afflicts humans in general (myself included). We are very good at misleading ourselves, and holding onto positions long after rational issues have been addressed. I do not know it is happening with anyone in this thread, of course. But when we start considering unnamed masses collectively, these effects should also be considered.

The issue is that on the one hand you talk about flexibility and being more open... yet your line of thinking seems inflexible and totally closed off to the possibility that one can have a rational preference for not liking something... it could be as simple as I don't find it fun (which when dealing with leisure activities is probably the most rational explanation one can give for preference).

Both @Neonchameleon and your posts ring of a..."You just don't know any better" or "You've been taught wrong" mentality and pre-supposes that one cannot be both conscious of their dislikes and have a rational reason for them... instead one is either being irrational or one is being inflexible when it comes to playstyles... @Neonchameleon goes even further in insinuating that somehow experiencing a game/games that use a particular playstyle (of course the one he doesn't particularly like) is the only cause he's witnessed for not accepting the playstyle he himself enjoys... It all just seems a little presumptuous IMO... as opposed to looking at all possible causes and/or giving people the benefit of the doubt in knowing what they do or don't enjoy...

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is not necessarily much of an argument against it. Many preferences - in food, in literature, in movies and TV, color of clothes to wear, in all sorts of things, are likely learned behaviors.

I wasn't trying to make an argument. I was just expressing that I wasn't convinced by the poster's assertion that this is a learned behavior from D&D and WOD.

In terms of tastes. I am not saying I think tastes are purely innate. It is obvious that someone who grows up in a society where cheese is common would be more inclined to like it than someone who grows up in a society where diary products are not consumed. And we can cultivate tastes over time. Still I don't know that D&D caused people to want to stay in character. I'm curious where the causality is supposed to be there. My first experience with RPGs wasn't with D&D at all and my immediate reaction to play was how I loved being a character in another world, I loved feeling like I was in my character's head, seeing the world through his eyes.

My point is once someone has gone through the effort of trying things, once they've been open minded and given things a shot on multiple occasions, it is a bit snobbish to suggest they are just not open minded enough or they are merely operating on a learned response (one could just as easily hurl that back at someone who likes Fate points or any other mechanic).

I play games with these mechanics. I like Doctor Who: Adventures in Space and Time and I like Savage Worlds, both feature this sort of point system. I still enjoy both games, but I do have trouble not noticing when points are used for those sorts of things (particularly in doctor who).

Yeah. So, an andecdote: I have a friend who sometimes plays in my games. He, like everyone, has food preferences. For one, he hates cheese. He doesn't have an allergy, nor is he lactose intolerant, or any similar biological issue with it. He simply dislikes it, in any form. There is no flavor or texture of cheese that appeals to him. When he's been over over to my house for dinner, more than once, he's taken from a dish, eaten it, and said it was wonderful, complimenting the dish. And then been told that it contains a considerable amount of cheese - and his opinion of the dish has retroactive changed to him not liking it much at all.

This is common in humans. Many of our "reasons" are just rationalizations for emotional reactions, not actually root causes. My friend has an emotional reaction to the idea of cheese. If the idea of cheese, however, is not in his mind, he has no issue with the actuality of cheese.

So, I'm just saying that preferences need not be written in stone for all time, and that occasionally challenging the supremacy of accepted preferences is a good thing. We should challenge assumptions - INCLUDING OUR OWN.

There is a difference between someone refusing to try something, or changing their opinion simply because something is present in a dish, and a person trying something again and again and finding they don't like it much. I'm all for gamers giving things a try and not letting a single mechanic dissuade them from playing a game they may well enjoy. I also understand the challenge of getting players to try something that contains an element they are resistant to. But I do think we also have to respect peoples' preferences and accept that sometimes people don't like things we do, and that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them (even if you are talking about learned tastes). I mean if someone came to my house from a country where they don't eat dairy, I wouldn't get pushy about pressuring them to try pizza or grilled cheese. And I certainly wouldn't dismiss their complaints that it smells bad to them or is too pungent by saying "oh that is just because you of how you were taught to eat".

Some of that seems to be going on here. People are saying they are not into Fate Points, which is a fair opinion to have, and it is kind of being dismissed as a learned response from playing too much D&D or wold of darkness. Even though plenty of the folks here have played other games (I don't even really play D&D these days, or world of darkness).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm saying nothing about brain damage, at least no more than afflicts humans in general (myself included). We are very good at misleading ourselves, and holding onto positions long after rational issues have been addressed. I do not know it is happening with anyone in this thread, of course. But when we start considering unnamed masses collectively, these effects should also be considered.

Fair enough, but if you want to examine it on a large scale, it should be with a lot more than mere speculation that this is a learned response from D&D and WOD.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Here is where rules really help and relying on what the GM thinks my character's capabilities are doesn't suffice. It comes down a little bit like @Neonchameleon is describing; my character knows far more about the world in which they live than I ever will - my brain is pretty fully engaged getting and maintaining all I know, never mind all some other guy knows! So I need a proxy, a substitute model, if I am to strategise in a way that feels adequate to me from the character's point of view.

This will necessarily involve also having some clear model of how the world outside the character works. To know my capabilities in dealing with the environment, I will need to know something about how the environment will respond.

Given these elements of a world model - which is not identical to the character's world model (because getting to that is impossible in less than a lifetime), but is a proxy sufficient for evaluating and moulding plans about the objectives that are relevant to the play in which we are engaging - I can start up the engine to build plans, evaluate possibilities, identify contingencies and so on. If I have to ask the GM for constant clarifications and guidance, this ability simply fails. It becomes a stunted husk of what I think of as true "strategising", where a bare minimum of options and contingencies are evaluated. In the "system thinking" terminology I was using above, much of the evaluation is being done by my "system 1" brain after I have translated the rules into its terms, but it is being guided by the "system 2" brain concerning constraints and objectives, with additional input for any maths required. This is quite hard work, but also fun as I reach a sort of state of buzzing consciousness that's hard to explain, with plans and possibilities forming and reforming as the situation in the game changes.

Does that cover the ground you had in mind?

Yes; absolutely.

I have a response, but feel I first ought to clarify what kind of D&D players I'm talking about. I've DMed 2E, 3E/Pathfinder and 5E, and the players I've encountered over the years have overwhelmingly been of the same sort: surprisingly unaware of the game rules beyond (1) what character abilities they're really excited about, and (2) whatever character rules they've enjoyed interacting with in the past. Most of the time, for most of the players I've met*, the difference between a rule and a ruling is completely opaque.

Are these players incapable of the kind of strategizing you describe? I would answer, absolutely not: judging by the kind of ideas they bounce around when confronted with an evolving problem, they are at any time fomenting seven or eight different plans each, balancing their own goals with their character's goals, demonstrating a strong awareness of what the likely consequences of their actions might be.

I understand that there's a different "mouth feel" to this kind of strategizing, and the kind that happens when interacting directly with a rules system, but I'm asserting based on my experience with both that this is a difference of qualities, not degree.

*Of course I'm sensible to the fact that this is a self-selected subset of players who can't be taken to represent even D&D as a whole, but that's where my biases lie and anyhow their representativeness isn't germane to my point.

Sorry. I quoted multiple people in that post - and for some reason didn't respond to your comment. Post edited.

Many thanks. I consider myself a playstyle pragmatist--different tools for different jobs, intellectual purity be damned--and I find it frustrating to get painted with other views.

 

[Bluenose]

I think there is a reasonable complaint about this sort of technique though. There are plenty of gamers who really enjoy the sense of being there in their character's shoes and giving them world editing abilities like this can both take them out of their character's headspace and blur the line between the character and the setting. For these kinds of players, the GMs role in saying "yes there is a chandelier" or "no there isn't" is pretty crucial and if you shift that to the player it becomes an issue. Not saying these kinds of points are bad. But there is a play style and player type where they are not the ideal choice.

Assuredly there are also people who find regularly asking someone else (the GM) whether things that their characters would certainly notice (such as the presence of a chandelier) are actually present will affect their immersion in their character.

Perhaps we should coin a term for that to go with "Story Game". And then we can declare that because they don't allow immersion in your character for some players then they're not Real RPGs.

 

[pemerton]

A couple of people have mentioned me ( [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]).

I haven't read the thread, other than their posts, but here is a post on "fail forward".

As I understand it (from designers like Luke Crane, Ron Edwards, Robin Laws and Jonathan Tweet), "fail forward" is a technique for (i) ensuring the game has a story-like progression without (ii) GM railroading.

The basic idea is that, when a player fails a roll/check, instead of the GM narrating that no progress is made, the GM narrates an adverse but still dynamic consequence happening. What the adverse consequence is should be made up on the spot, weaving in considerations that have been made relevant by the play of the game to that point, the various signals that the players have sent via the build and play of their PCs, etc.

In classic D&D play, there are GMs who are good at designing interesting dungeons, and GMs whose dungeons suck. In "fail forward"-type play, a good GM is one who can narrate failures that keep driving events forward and the fully engage the players (and their PCs) even though the PCs aren't getting what they want.

In the first session of my current Burning Wheel game, one of the PCs tried to read the aura on a feather for sale at a bazaar. He was looking for an item to use as part of a fire-proofing enchantment; the peddler was proclaiming the feather to be an angel feather recovered from the Bright Desert. The aura reading check failed. So I narrated that the feather was indeed an angel feather, but was also cursed. The idea of a cursed angel feather I made up on the spot; the story around the curse played an important role in driving events for the next few sessions (eg the peddler received bad news from his home town and took to a ship, which the PCs also sailed on; the ship ended up being assaulted and sunk by a ghost ship; the PCs were evicted/rejected by multiple NPCs because of their ill omened character, and the curse on the feather was one aspect of this; etc).

In the most recent session of this campaign, one of the PCs went into the caves in the hills above the keep on the borderlands, hoping to recover a mace that had been dropped there an enemy dark elf. The PC (and the PC's player) knew that another PC was wanting to recover the mace, and wanted to get the mace as leverage against that other PC.

The attempt failed. So I narrated the mace (which had fallen in a stream) being dislodged and falling down through a cleft in the rocks. In the end (and throwing the player of the other PC a bone, as he had had a fairly rough couple of sessions) I had the mace washed up (probably not just by the rush of the mountain stream, but by the activities of spirits) in the stream below the keep, which enabled a third PC, who had promised the second PC to help him recover the mace, to obtain it and hand it over to that second PC.
[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] has linked "fail forward" to "no myth" or shared worldbuilding. Narrating failures in a "fail forward" way requires there to be a degree of fluidity in backstory, so that new events or agents or motivations can be introduced (eg like curses on a feather, or spirits in the mountain stream) to keep things moving forward. If all of the GM's "secret backstory" is meant to have been determined in advance, and a principle goal of play is for the players to uncover that secret backstory, then "fail forward" probably isn't going to be a useful technique.

 

[Imaro]

A couple of people have mentioned me ( @Lanefan, @Neonchameleon).

I haven't read the thread, other than their posts, but here is a post on "fail forward".

As I understand it (from designers like Luke Crane, Ron Edwards, Robin Laws and Jonathan Tweet), "fail forward" is a technique for (i) ensuring the game has a story-like progression without (ii) GM railroading.

The basic idea is that, when a player fails a roll/check, instead of the GM narrating that no progress is made, the GM narrates an adverse but still dynamic consequence happening. What the adverse consequence is should be made up on the spot, weaving in considerations that have been made relevant by the play of the game to that point, the various signals that the players have sent via the build and play of their PCs, etc.

In classic D&D play, there are GMs who are good at designing interesting dungeons, and GMs whose dungeons suck. In "fail forward"-type play, a good GM is one who can narrate failures that keep driving events forward and the fully engage the players (and their PCs) even though the PCs aren't getting what they want.

In the first session of my current Burning Wheel game, one of the PCs tried to read the aura on a feather for sale at a bazaar. He was looking for an item to use as part of a fire-proofing enchantment; the peddler was proclaiming the feather to be an angel feather recovered from the Bright Desert. The aura reading check failed. So I narrated that the feather was indeed an angel feather, but was also cursed. The idea of a cursed angel feather I made up on the spot; the story around the curse played an important role in driving events for the next few sessions (eg the peddler received bad news from his home town and took to a ship, which the PCs also sailed on; the ship ended up being assaulted and sunk by a ghost ship; the PCs were evicted/rejected by multiple NPCs because of their ill omened character, and the curse on the feather was one aspect of this; etc).

In the most recent session of this campaign, one of the PCs went into the caves in the hills above the keep on the borderlands, hoping to recover a mace that had been dropped there an enemy dark elf. The PC (and the PC's player) knew that another PC was wanting to recover the mace, and wanted to get the mace as leverage against that other PC.

The attempt failed. So I narrated the mace (which had fallen in a stream) being dislodged and falling down through a cleft in the rocks. In the end (and throwing the player of the other PC a bone, as he had had a fairly rough couple of sessions) I had the mace washed up (probably not just by the rush of the mountain stream, but by the activities of spirits) in the stream below the keep, which enabled a third PC, who had promised the second PC to help him recover the mace, to obtain it and hand it over to that second PC.

@Neonchameleon has linked "fail forward" to "no myth" or shared worldbuilding. Narrating failures in a "fail forward" way requires there to be a degree of fluidity in backstory, so that new events or agents or motivations can be introduced (eg like curses on a feather, or spirits in the mountain stream) to keep things moving forward. If all of the GM's "secret backstory" is meant to have been determined in advance, and a principle goal of play is for the players to uncover that secret backstory, then "fail forward" probably isn't going to be a useful technique.

First let me say nice and pretty unbiased post... Thanks.

I'm curious as to your thoughts on whether the same effect as "fail forward" can be achieved by a DM who sets levels of success/failure ahead of time (this is suggested in the 5e DMG)? In other words you set different thresholds for various failure results and/or success results that have different results as opposed to a binary success/fail result. The net effect seems to be the same result as "fail forward" but instead of the DM having to make something up on the fly he is able to keep the "secret backstory" necessary to exploration and discovery play both relevant and attainable when necessary. Not sure if this is considered a separate technique from "fail forward" but it is something I use much more often in my games.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Assuredly there are also people who find regularly asking someone else (the GM) whether things that their characters would certainly notice (such as the presence of a chandelier) are actually present will affect their immersion in their character.

Perhaps we should coin a term for that to go with "Story Game". And then we can declare that because they don't allow immersion in your character for some players then they're not Real RPGs.

Yeah, I am not saying these approaches are not RPGs, and I am sure there are people for whom asking GMs questions presents a very real immersion issue (in which case, a game that has these sorts of points may be ideal). I have noticed that among players who state immersion is important to them, at least presently, they seem to lean more toward asking the GM and away from things like FATE points. That could change.

 

[pemerton]

I'm curious as to your thoughts on whether the same effect as "fail forward" can be achieved by a DM who sets levels of success/failure ahead of time (this is suggested in the 5e DMG)? In other words you set different thresholds for various failure results and/or success results that have different results as opposed to a binary success/fail result. The net effect seems to be the same result as "fail forward" but instead of the DM having to make something up on the fly he is able to keep the "secret backstory" necessary to exploration and discovery play both relevant and attainable when necessary. Not sure if this is considered a separate technique from "fail forward" but it is something I use much more often in my games.

I would think of it as a different technique. I think that, as you say, it is oriented toward exploration/discovery-type play.

Two examples of the "degree of success" approach that I think of straight away are:

* Degrees of success on a Search (or Research or Library Use, etc) roll - the more the success, the more info the GM gives the player (reflecting the greater degree of success achieved by the PC);

* Degree of success on a reaction/interaction roll - the more success, the friendlier the NPC and the more help or information s/he provides.​

These seem like methods for regulating the communication of backstory and the degree of challenge - eg the more success now, then generally the less the degree of challenge to be confronted down the track.

That seems like a different purpose from the sort of "narrative dynamism" that I think "fail forward" is aiming at.

Though both approaches might have, as one practical outcome, that a less-than-maximally-successful check doesn't bring play to a grinding halt.

 

[Umbran]

The issue is that on the one hand you talk about flexibility and being more open... yet your line of thinking seems inflexible and totally closed off to the possibility that one can have a rational preference for not liking something...

I'm not at all closed to that possibility. However, if I am presented with a supposedly rational preference, and the rational basis seems full of holes, I am, by my curious nature, going to poke at them. In humans (again, myself included) this process often reveals that the preference isn't nearly so rational as one previously believed.

And I'm good with that too! People do actually have emotional lives, and it is fine to live them, and have those irrational preferences. I have, for example, an irrational preference for my wife! I love her with the fire of a thousand suns, and no rational argument can tell you why. But, we should admit and recognize when something is an irrational preference. When we instead try to wrap irrational preferences in the cloak of rational justifications, then we run into (at least) two problems:

1) We dismiss the value of the emotional in our lives. The only real reason to wrap an emotional preference in rationalizations is that we devalue the emotional, which isn't healthy.

2) We take actions based on those reasons that are actually contrary to reality. Admittedly, in the gaming context this isn't a huge real hazard, but it isn't a good habit to be in, and does lead folks to misrepresent what's actually going on.

it could be as simple as I don't find it fun (which when dealing with leisure activities is probably the most rational explanation one can give for preference).

And you will note how I have not pursued a single person who has said, "I just don't like it"?

Both @Neonchameleon and your posts ring of a..."You just don't know any better" or "You've been taught wrong" mentality and pre-supposes that one cannot be both conscious of their dislikes and have a rational reason for them...

I pre-suppose that *everyone* myself included, has illogical biases that we don't typically perceive. Humans, on the whole, make a large number of their decisions on a snap-decision, emotional basis, and layer plausible-sounding rationalizations on after the fact. This is a known, prominent, psychological phenomenon.

It then behooves us to *question* those stated reasons, to see if they are actually true.

And, let us be frank - this is a *discussion* board. If you put an idea out there, it is open for *discussion*. This isn't a, "Confirm my personal position and don't question me," board.