So, here's a question the answer to which might be relevant. How often do you get to play, and how long are your sessions?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Failing Forward
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
So, here's a question the answer to which might be relevant. How often do you get to play, and how long are your sessions?
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Once every week for one group and once every two for another. Sessions last anywhere from 3-6 hours. These tend to be long campaigns as well.
I don't think this has had much impact on the lethality in my sessions though. There have been times (when I was in college for example or when some people in another group of mine moved) where I was playing less frequently or for shorter sessions. I dealt with character deaths the same in those (actually we might have had more character deaths because people seemed to be more reckless in those sessions). But the only major difference really has been campaign length. When you meet every week or every other week, a longterm campaign is much easier to pull off. If you are meeting with less regularity, that seems to be better suited for tighter campaigns.
It isn't a grind with one death after another. I don't use a system where characters will tend to drop like flies; but character deaths do happen and I am not worried as a GM when or where they occur (if it is down a chasm on your way to retrieve some pudding, so be it). In the present campaigns, characters have been fairly lucky but also fairly cautious. There were about 3-4 chasm-like moments where they made their last ditch rolls to avoid certain death. But we do have some players characters missing body parts and permanently drained of core abilities in the current campaigns. In the last campaign, right before these ones (mostly same groups) we had a lot more character death (again largely due to luck and recklessness). My aim isn't to kill the players, but I don't protect them from bad die rolls either.
Either way though, I am not here to advocate for campaigns where characters die or failure happens (if you don't like that, that is cool). I was just making the point that, personally that is what I like. I have had my own characters die falling off cliffs and I consider that one of the more exciting things that can happen in a campaign (Because from then on, any time you climb a wall, cliff or mountain, the stakes are clearly life or death). For me that adds to the excitement of play (though it can suck in the moment when you splatter on the ground).
I should add, I haven't always run things this way. There was a time when I did more to protect PCs (and I bought into the idea that characters should only die for doing really stupid or reckless things). But I changed my mind on that, and I find my games are a lot more fun this way.
Last edited:
The issue at hand isn't really lethality, in and of itself. Death is only one form of failure.
It has been my observation that player tolerance of certain forms of stumbling blocks (those that don't lead to interesting decisions or actions, or have particular emotional payoffs) drops with shorter and less frequent sessions. Just like their tolerance of talking through characters going through mundane shopping for equipment drops under similar circumstances. If you don't have a lot of time to play, you have to pack the fun of play in a smaller space.
I have a group that plays twice a month, and the playtime each session is short - maybe three hours. They really don't have time to muddle about with stuff that isn't exciting. Sessions must be kept in motion, without a lot of muddling about with things that don't really engage the players. That's one of the reasons for my choice of Ashen Stars - it gets rid of some stuff that these players don't care about, and has a system that's well-build for simply resolved, but cinematic, action.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I can understand that. And again, I am not saying others should play the way I do. I certainly think playing for your group's preferences is important. So if this works for you, that is what you ought to be doing.
I suppose your group is closer to my every other week group. We usually play for more than three hours but sessions start at one and can potentially end at 5 (some days we go to 6 or even 7). Typically though we end closer to five. Part of why I might be able to get away with this approach is probably less to do with time constraints and more to do with the fact that I am a very impatient GM. So even though I don't worry about obstacles putting an end to their pudding or random character death, I don't waste a lot of time. My descriptions are very brief, I prompt players if no one is saying anything, I try keep things engaged socially. I am just not interested in making sure each session hits all the right notes or that we come away from an adventure with a sense that we achieved some kind of story objective. I suppose my approach two fold, I strive to respect the free will of the player characters and try to provide a world that feels very big, very responsive in a real way and filled with real people. Realism isn't the aim, I just want things to feel real.
Does this mean some sessions are less exciting than others? Absolutely yes. You will have lulls in action and excitement. Over the long haul though, I think that works. At least for me. When things crank up, the stakes feel very real and the emotions at the table can be quite palpable. Part of this, I think, stems from things occasionally falling into 'daily routine' where players feel like they live in a safe world because they have that down time and tend to regular matters. It also means at the start of each session the players can kind of re-evaluate and say "wait do we really need to be doing this? maybe we should go back to the city and deal with Fred's lost sword instead". That is something I am fine with.
At the end of the day though people should do whatever helps them keep a campaign going. Right now, this is what works for me (8 years ago, i wasn't). If my campaign were to stumble due to this approach in a few years, I'd re-evaluate and consider using other tools. For me the primary aim is longevity of the campaign and gaming group.
The group in question sits down for dinner at 7 PM, and folks are leaving between 10 and 11 PM, typically. So, roughly three hours of actual play. Weeknight evenings stink for gaming because of this, but it is what I can get for this particular bunch.
I don't know if Fail Forward is for you, but scene framing can be used to keep things moving.
Well, it isn't like I'm working towards a *specific* story objective, or hitting a specific set of notes. That's the boogeyman of railroading again, I suspect. But, the result should be entertaining. It doesn't mater to me what form of entertaining it is, but it should be *some* form of entertaining. And, just having a set adventure and world and adjudicating rules doesn't do enough to that end. Fail forward is one form of throttle control at the GM's command - don't want things to slow down? Fail Forward!
Have a look at the last page of posts between me, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] and [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]. I think you are conflating means and ends here, whereas - in play which makes extensive use of "fail forward" - the difference between means and ends (or what BW calls task and intent) is pretty crucial.
Returning again to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s Mt Pudding example: the goal is to get to the top of Mt Pudding and find the pudding. Without the divining rod, that goal is no longer automatically achieved simply by getting to the top of the mountain. So when the failed climbing check is adjudicated as "You lose your diving rod down the crevasse as you narrowly avoid going into it yourself," the character has not achieved his/her goal, and in fact has become less likely to achieve it.
To give another example from my BW game:
The PCs were in the Bright Desert, south of the Abor-Alz. The party had become separated: the elven princess had been captured by orcs, the sorcerer assassin had run away from the same orcs, and the princess's retainer and the mage were still at camp waiting for the others to return.
The sorcerer resolves: to rescue the princess from the orcs I need an army of tribesman, and (to quote the player) in these parts Ancient Suel tribesmen are as thick as fleas on a dog! So the player checks his circles, adding in his relevant bonus dice derived from his reputation as a minor illusionist among the outcasts and wanderers of the wastelands. The check is a failure, and so one of the tribesmen he once knew - Wassal - captures him and the retainer as they trek through the desert sending out calls to the tribesmen. Wassal is hostile to the mage, because he blames him for bringing orcs into the desert. (In my mind, this was very loosely inspired by Conan's unanticipated reunion with the tribesmen in "The People of the Black Circle", except with less warmth and more hostility.)
Additional complications ensue, as the mage tries to explain that it his brother Joachim, possessed by a balrog, who is responsible for orcs coming into the desert (the relationship between the mage PC and Joachim, and the mage's quest to end the threat that his brother poses to the world, is one of the key driving elements in the campaign). Further complications ensue when Wassal discovers that the mage is carrying a spellbook inscribed by Joachim, and the PCs are kicked out of the tribesmen's camp into the desert.
The PCs eventually do catch up to the orcs and rescue the princess (I think with a successful Tracking check from someone), but without any help from the tribesmen this takes longer than it otherwise would, meaning that the princess suffers a relatively serious injury with lasting debilitating consequences, and her retainer is shot in the chest by an orc and barely survives.
Being injured in the course of fighting the orcs, the PCs are also unable to push on into the desert to find the pyramid the orcs (whose party included a serious siege engineer) were heading towards. Instead they have to rest for three months until the retainer is well enough to be moved, and then head to the ruined tower in the Abor-Alz.
The sorcerer resolves: to rescue the princess from the orcs I need an army of tribesman, and (to quote the player) in these parts Ancient Suel tribesmen are as thick as fleas on a dog! So the player checks his circles, adding in his relevant bonus dice derived from his reputation as a minor illusionist among the outcasts and wanderers of the wastelands. The check is a failure, and so one of the tribesmen he once knew - Wassal - captures him and the retainer as they trek through the desert sending out calls to the tribesmen. Wassal is hostile to the mage, because he blames him for bringing orcs into the desert. (In my mind, this was very loosely inspired by Conan's unanticipated reunion with the tribesmen in "The People of the Black Circle", except with less warmth and more hostility.)
Additional complications ensue, as the mage tries to explain that it his brother Joachim, possessed by a balrog, who is responsible for orcs coming into the desert (the relationship between the mage PC and Joachim, and the mage's quest to end the threat that his brother poses to the world, is one of the key driving elements in the campaign). Further complications ensue when Wassal discovers that the mage is carrying a spellbook inscribed by Joachim, and the PCs are kicked out of the tribesmen's camp into the desert.
The PCs eventually do catch up to the orcs and rescue the princess (I think with a successful Tracking check from someone), but without any help from the tribesmen this takes longer than it otherwise would, meaning that the princess suffers a relatively serious injury with lasting debilitating consequences, and her retainer is shot in the chest by an orc and barely survives.
Being injured in the course of fighting the orcs, the PCs are also unable to push on into the desert to find the pyramid the orcs (whose party included a serious siege engineer) were heading towards. Instead they have to rest for three months until the retainer is well enough to be moved, and then head to the ruined tower in the Abor-Alz.
That's just an example of the sort of play that "fail forward" tends to generate. The PCs aren't guaranteed to achieve their goal (and, in this case, they ultimately didn't). But there is a guarantee of narrative momentum.
[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] - apropos of the role of NPCs in "fail forward" play, have a look at my post just above this one. The NPC's anger at the mage for bringing orcs into the desert was a motivation made up by me on the spot, in order to explain why the tribesmen would be hostile to the PC. I also built in some other backstory too - the PC mage had been looking for an old contact "The Desert Fox", and it turned out - as Wassal the hostile tribesman explained (and as I, the GM, decided on the spot) - that the Desert Fox was actually Jabal the Red, now a leading figure in the sorcerous cabal to which the PC mage belongs. And Wassal had been bonded to the Desert Fox for many years before achieving his freedom and coming to lead his own band of warriors.
That's the sort of way in which "fail forward" leads to the creation of backstory, but as much, or even more, as part of the output of action resolution rather than as an input to action resolution.
That's the sort of way in which "fail forward" leads to the creation of backstory, but as much, or even more, as part of the output of action resolution rather than as an input to action resolution.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
That example may explain a big difference in approach, but you also just might be condensing a lot into a paragraph. When the PC failed his "check circles" roll, was that something where he basically said "I am going to check my circles", made a roll, then you narrated that he was captured, or was the capture something that was played out at the ground level.
I'm a fan and non-stop user of fail forward but still, I realise its very playstyle dependent.
If I'm running Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel its almost baked into the conflict resolution that things keep going.
On the other hand, if I'm running Tunnels and Trolls failing just means failing. And laughing and pointing, obviously.
If I'm running Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel its almost baked into the conflict resolution that things keep going.
On the other hand, if I'm running Tunnels and Trolls failing just means failing. And laughing and pointing, obviously.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Looking at this example, something like this could certainly arise in one of my games. But it wouldn't be the result of a roll so much as a result of me thinking through the NPCs and events that are ongoing. In my game, Wassal's disposition on this matter (and whether he is angry about orcs and blaming the PCs) would be something I establish for myself before the PC even attempts to deal with him (if I do have to create that sort of detail on the fly, it is going to stem from what I know of events going on in the setting nearby and Wassal's personality). If there is good reason for him to be cross and want to capture the player, that could occur. It is unlikely though if there isn't any reason for him to do so. It sounds like your approach is almost opposite of mine (not in a bad way, just procedurally you seem to be taking the roll results to help establish that sort of thing). So it sounds almost like a gift wrapped scenario. Neither you nor the players have any clear sense of what is going on with Wassal until that roll, and then the roll determines some of the contents. So it isn't just about generating a result (i.e. he finds Wassan). It is about generating some fiction around Wassan as well. Is this correct?
Similar Threads
