Failing Forward

[iserith]

Failing a climb roll involves the person climbing failing to climb. It can be no progress or a fall. Dropping a divining rod is failing to hold on to it, not failing to climb. Falling into the ravine and dropping the rods are full effects for failure, but they are full effects of failure for two completely different things.

It depends entirely on the player's stated goal and approach for the character and the context of the situation described at that time. In some cases, the mechanics make be invoked to test whether the character falls into the ravine; in other cases, they may be invoked to test some other stakes.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Depending on the RPG, a goal of play might be an exciting, memorable story emerging as a result of what happens at the table. D&D 5e, for example. Achieving that goal of play might require some attention to actually making it exciting and memorable. Some might put more attention into it than others, but I would go so far as to say that we all worry about it to some extent, be that how we adjudicate tasks and conflicts or what kind of content we include for players to experience.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement here, but it is a secondary issue, and not going to be fruitful to debate. I don't share this view. If you feel differently that is totally fine. This is something people disagree about a lot but not a subject I have a lot of interest in discussing these days. Generally it isn't all that important what people believe on this front, it only matters when the concept of story is being used to advance a particular mode of play over others (i.e. you should do X instead of Y because its is better for the story). Subject for another thread I think.

If the GM sets the stakes, as you say, then nothing is being sidestepped, right?. There are no "initial stakes." There are only ever the stakes the GM sets which are then tested by the mechanics and/or dice.

Again, if all fail forward is is setting the stakes, or setting them a particular way, I'm not really sure I grasp what it is. But by manbearcat's example, there is clearly an implied apparent stake to the failed roll (you fall down the ravine). That is the threat everyone discerns going into the roll. What seems to be happening is the actual stake (the side step) is that falling down the ravine was never really a potential outcome because what is really on the table is losing your divining rod. To me that reads like, the GM is altering the stakes to suit the drama of the situation and keep things going forward, when a more standard reading of a failed roll would be falling. True, he may have set those stakes in advance, but it is still a bit of a sidestep because he is circumventing the obvious outcome of the failed roll for a more dramatically appropriate one or one that leads to advancement in the adventure or goal (not saying this is bad, I am just genuinely trying to wrap my head around what failed forward is because as soon as i seem to have it pinned down, someone throws a curve ball). I'm not saying failed forward is a bad technique either. I am just saying what I see here, doesn't seem suited to my table and I am trying to figure out why.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It depends entirely on the player's stated goal and approach for the character and the context of the situation described at that time. In some cases, the mechanics make be invoked to test whether the character falls into the ravine; in other cases, they may be invoked to test some other stakes.

That is what I would just call a ruling based on what the player's stated aim is and what the situation is. The GM always has the ability to determine what failure means in the context of play. But that doesn't really feel like Fail Forward as Pemerton and others are describing it.

 

[iserith]

Again, if all fail forward is is setting the stakes, or setting them a particular way, I'm not really sure I grasp what it is. But by manbearcat's example, there is clearly an implied apparent stake to the failed roll (you fall down the ravine). That is the threat everyone discerns going into the roll. What seems to be happening is the actual stake (the side step) is that falling down the ravine was never really a potential outcome because what is really on the table is losing your divining rod. To me that reads like, the GM is altering the stakes to suit the drama of the situation and keep things going forward, when a more standard reading of a failed roll would be falling. True, he may have set those stakes in advance, but it is still a bit of a sidestep because he is circumventing the obvious outcome of the failed roll for a more dramatically appropriate one or one that leads to advancement in the adventure or goal (not saying this is bad, I am just genuinely trying to wrap my head around what failed forward is because as soon as i seem to have it pinned down, someone throws a curve ball). I'm not saying failed forward is a bad technique either. I am just saying what I see here, doesn't seem suited to my table and I am trying to figure out why.

My guess would be that you appear to view things as Maxperson seems to do, which is that there are "actual" or "obvious" stakes that "everyone discerns," which is really just a subjective statement of what you think the stakes should be for a given situation. I can see a lot of different stakes and outcomes for the situation described, depending on the details up to that point, and I would choose whichever one will help me achieve the goals of play. You see "Climb or Fall." Does that seem accurate to you?

 

[iserith]

That is what I would just call a ruling based on what the player's stated aim is and what the situation is. The GM always has the ability to determine what failure means in the context of play.

Right, and thus it would seem you could stomach Fail Forward.

But that doesn't really feel like Fail Forward as Pemerton and others are describing it.

I'm explaining how I see it; I'll leave it to Pemerton and others to explain how they see it. 13th Age SRD defines it as:

"Outside of battle, when failure would tend to slow action down rather than move the action along, instead interpret it as a near-success or event that happens to carry unwanted consequences or side effects. The character probably still fails to achieve the desired goal, but that's because something happens on the way to the goal rather than because nothing happens. In any case, the story and action still keep moving."

I bolded the key part in my view where I find many objections to the approach come from. If I want my character to climb the ravine unscathed and I botch a roll the GM calls for, then losing my divining rod means I failed to achieve my desired goal.

 

[Maxperson]

It depends entirely on the player's stated goal and approach for the character and the context of the situation described at that time. In some cases, the mechanics make be invoked to test whether the character falls into the ravine; in other cases, they may be invoked to test some other stakes.

In my opinion, mechanics should almost always test what they are intended to test. Climbing should test you climbing. Failure should involve that test. Failing to climb or falling. I'm not big on mixing mechanics with goals. If the goal of my PC is to climb the cliff and then activate the pylon on top to summon an angel, a failed climb check has nothing to do with that pylon. It has to do with climbing. When I get to the top, failing to activate that pylon has nothing to do with climbing. It's dependent on knowledge or engineering or something applicable.

Now, that doesn't mean that there can't be any connection at all. If you have to hold the key to the pylon while you climb, you could incur a penalty to your climbing ability. If you fall, you could drop the key. However, to me a failed climb check shouldn't result in just dropping that key.

Now I'm going to confuse things a bit. I could see this happening.

DM: Climbing up the cliff is tough. It will be a DC 17 climb and holding the key will be a -3 circumstance penalty as you climb.

Player: (rolls a 19) 16 after the penalty.

DM: That's very close. You feel yourself slipping and you know that you are about to fall. However, if you drop the key you can grab an outcropping of stone and save yourself.

In that example, dropping the key is not the result of the failed climb check. Falling is. Dropping it could remove the penalty and stop the failed check, though.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My guess would be that you appear to view things as Maxperson seems to do, which is that there are "actual" or "obvious" stakes that "everyone discerns," which is really just a subjective statement of what you think the stakes should be for a given situation. I can see a lot of different stakes and outcomes for the situation described, depending on the details up to that point, and I would choose whichever one will help me achieve the goals of play. You see "Climb or Fall." Does that seem accurate to you?

What I am saying is every situation is going to have some obvious outcomes for particular rolls. If I am a player and trying to climb a wall, and the GM asks for a Climb Skill (or whatever skill or ability in the game covers that action) I am going to assume the stakes have something to do with not climbing the wall. If I fail and the GM says "You make it over the wall but drop your swiss army knife in the process" that is going to feel a bit odd to me, just given how my group tends to run things. Certainly the GM is free to set loss of the army knife as a stake, but I don't think that is at all an apparent stake given what the player knows of the situation going in. I am not saying dropping the knife is a bad stake to set if you want the game to advance forward toward a particular goal or if you find that the most exciting option. For my style of play, I don't see it adding anything except confusion.

But even with your point conceded, that just leads me to ask how failing forward is different stake setting. We can certainly have a discussion over appropriate setting of stakes. I can clearly see what Pemerton and others are talking about when they describe fail forward. But I am genuinely having difficulty understanding what it is as you describe it. Not saying your wrong, I just can't really see the distinction between failing forward and the GM setting stakes in your post.

 

[Janx]

Now this is muddying things for me, because if it is just a matter of setting the stakes, I don't really see what fail forward is. If it is a matter of taking a failure and turning it into something more productive for the adventure or storyline, that I can grasp. But in any game, the GM is setting the stakes for failure. To me fail forward sounds like it is meant to sidestep the initially set stakes (i.e. stake seems to be you tumble to your death or fall down the side of the mountain, but in actuality once the failed roll occurs, it is about losing a vital piece of equipment or not----so falling down the ravine was never really a potential outcome in hindsight).

I don't have a problem with that interpretation.

Bob is climbing Mount Pudding
Bob has to make a Jump to cross a chasm
Bob fails the die roll. Rolled an 8, needed a 10.
What does Failure mean (stakes?)?

A GM thinking simply, could assume that it's succeed and end up on the other side, fail and end up just short of the other side and fall into the chasm (taking falling damage).

Another GM could assume that there's variations of failure. What if you tripped on the run up to the ledge and haven't actually jumped yet?

Still another GM could be thinking "holy crap, this is the first challenge, we're 5 minutes into our gaming tonight and Bob just died."

FailForward could be viewed as a mind expanding tool for GM's 1 and 3 who need to consider that not everything has to be binary.

Personally, I see that sometimes, it's OK for Bob to fall, take damage and see what happens next. Other times, maybe I'd like to not kill him off in the first 5 minutes. Maybe he'll turn back if it's a near death experience. Or I can just yank his chain by making it harder now instead of killing him (which pretty much shuts down any fun).

I am pretty sure, that at some point, if Bob keeps jumping and failing, he needs to take damage. And eventually die. But that kind of game play is frustrating in video games (why I don't play platformers), and if falling and taking damage are the only possible outcomes of failing a jump, then that's jarring and damaging to immersion as well because of the lack of variance. Real failure is organic and variable.

So, depending on the situation, I'll throw Bob a bone and give him a setback instead of more boring damage. Heck, making him choose between fetching his wand that he thinks he needs or going on without it might stimulate better activity than my original boring material for 23 chasm jumps to reach the top...

 

[iserith]

In my opinion, mechanics should almost always test what they are intended to test. Climbing should test you climbing. Failure should involve that test. Failing to climb or falling. I'm not big on mixing mechanics with goals. If the goal of my PC is to climb the cliff and then activate the pylon on top to summon an angel, a failed climb check has nothing to do with that pylon. It has to do with climbing. When I get to the top, failing to activate that pylon has nothing to do with climbing. It's dependent on knowledge or engineering or something applicable.

Now, that doesn't mean that there can't be any connection at all. If you have to hold the key to the pylon while you climb, you could incur a penalty to your climbing ability. If you fall, you could drop the key. However, to me a failed climb check shouldn't result in just dropping that key.

Now I'm going to confuse things a bit. I could see this happening.

DM: Climbing up the cliff is tough. It will be a DC 17 climb and holding the key will be a -3 circumstance penalty as you climb.

Player: (rolls a 19) 16 after the penalty.

DM: That's very close. You feel yourself slipping and you know that you are about to fall. However, if you drop the key you can grab an outcropping of stone and save yourself.

In that example, dropping the key is not the result of the failed climb check. Falling is. Dropping it could remove the penalty and stop the failed check, though.

I think this goes to show that the context of the fictional situation that is unfolding relative to the player's stated goal and approach will determine whether and which mechanics apply and what those stakes may be. Which is my point as to the use of techniques like Fail Forward. In some cases, "Yes" or "No" are fine stakes. In other cases, "Yes" or "Yes, but..." are more interesting. I see no value in limiting myself to one or the other.

 

[iserith]

What I am saying is every situation is going to have some obvious outcomes for particular rolls. If I am a player and trying to climb a wall, and the GM asks for a Climb Skill (or whatever skill or ability in the game covers that action) I am going to assume the stakes have something to do with not climbing the wall. If I fail and the GM says "You make it over the wall but drop your swiss army knife in the process" that is going to feel a bit odd to me, just given how my group tends to run things. Certainly the GM is free to set loss of the army knife as a stake, but I don't think that is at all an apparent stake given what the player knows of the situation going in. I am not saying dropping the knife is a bad stake to set if you want the game to advance forward toward a particular goal or if you find that the most exciting option. For my style of play, I don't see it adding anything except confusion.

I recommend the GM discuss the stakes prior to the roll. You can see examples of this in my thread on adjudication in D&D 5e.

But even with your point conceded, that just leads me to ask how failing forward is different stake setting.

I don't think it is any different as I indicated in my first post in this thread. And when one thinks about it this way, it becomes a lot more palatable, right?