Failing Forward

[Umbran]

The effects thus described are pretty meta, though, and I wonder how that fits with the "character immersion" agendas?

Put water in the bottom of the pit, and the character will be immersed.

 

[GMMichael]

I think you mean "the player(s)" rather than "the PC(s)". The PC is dead, so anything (s)he might have learned is pretty much moot...

The effects thus described are pretty meta, though, and I wonder how that fits with the "character immersion" agendas?

I'll take half-credit. At least I didn't say "the player is dead."

Effect #2 isn't so meta: the surviving characters have good reason to learn from their dead comrade's mistakes. Immersion is usually better served by having more options instead of fewer - but it's also sort of hokey to discover that no matter what situation you're in, you can just fail your way forward.

 

[Nagol]

The DM knows the capabilities of the party (and players). If he created a situation where the PCs only have one way in or out of something, that's his fault.

It's a combination of style, player strategy, and luck, actually. If the DM is running a prepared adventure or has a style where the adventures are created blind to PC abilities, it can happen more frequently. Even in tailored adventures it can happen. The adventure might expect to act as a spotlight for a often-prepared but under utilised ability that the player arbitrarily decides to drop causing the situation to develop or the PCs may decide to blow all of a particular type of ability (commonly movement or detection, occasionally some form of special combat ability) early in the day and press on into an area where those abilities are required. That's assuming of course the DM is perfectly effective at tracking the abilities of multiple characters and juggling that against all situations that develop organically at the table at all times.

<snip>

If you've read the thread, fail forward can have nothing directly to do with the roll at hand. Like the rod falling out of the backpack as the result of a failed climb check.

Just because some use a tool in a particular way we don't like doesn't make the tool bad.

Whereas unless it is directly related to the task at hand, those things will not be used as part of a roll. I can and do use them elsewhere, though.

I'll use the failure as a starting point for introducing new elements into the environment if I am going to fail-forward out of a situation "Your latest climb got up only about half a foot before losing grip of the slick rock surface. The pit covering groans slightly as it collapses inward. There are heads in silhouette in reflected torchlight over the opening. What do you do?"

 

[Manbearcat]

Just a real quick aside (I should get some kind of medal for this brevity):

Failure = for player to meet or exceed resolution mechanic target (eg difficulty class, # of dice needing a 3+) and for character to realize their intent, sometimes at all and sometimes merely in the way they hoped to.

Forward = referencing narrative momentum and the pace of play.

Upthread I posted a play example of my own game where the PCs were undergoing a perilous journey across a glacial wasteland to reach a hobgoblin stronghold (to resupply, gather intel, and parlay). Failed scout check led to a scene where the dogsled fell partially through the false floor of a glacial crevasse. One of the PCs ended up falling into an underground river. Play was transitioned to two separate scenes:

1) The PCs that made it out made it to Earthmaw's front door.

2) The PC at the bottom of the drink was emptied out in the utter darkness of Earthmaw's basement garbage chute. He was down some HPs, soaked to the bone/freezing to death, and being stalked by two predators (which were the hobgoblin dragon-sorcerer king's pets) in the pitch black. But he is at Earthmaw!

That is fail forward.

 

[Balesir]

If you've read the thread, fail forward can have nothing directly to do with the roll at hand. Like the rod falling out of the backpack as the result of a failed climb check.

I think if you read the original post you may find that it wasn't a climb check. I am reasonably confident of this because the system noted was Dungeon World, and that doesn't have climb checks, as such.

 

[Balesir]

Put water in the bottom of the pit, and the character will be immersed.

Along with the "Laugh at this post" button, we really could do with a "Groan at this post" button...

 

[Maxperson]

I think if you read the original post you may find that it wasn't a climb check. I am reasonably confident of this because the system noted was Dungeon World, and that doesn't have climb checks, as such.

Utterly irrelevant. Threads evolve and OP has no control over where the thread goes. Climb checks entered this thread a loooooooong time ago. What's your point?

 

[Balesir]

Utterly irrelevant. Threads evolve and OP has no control over where the thread goes. Climb checks entered this thread a loooooooong time ago. What's your point?

My "point", to the extent that I have one, is that you have expounded at great length concerning how you don't see that dropping a piece of equipment is connected with "climbing", when:

a) in the original scenario the roll was not a "climb" roll, but rather a "navigate obstacle" roll, making the objection "dropping equipment has nothing to do with skill at climbing" somewhat irrelevant, and

b) the fact that, when one is in a difficult spot while climbing, it is sometimes necessary to squirm and slide one's body against the rock in just such a way as is quite plausibly going to lead to gear being pulled out of loops and belts, packs being ripped and similar "equipment or wardrobe malfunction" failure scenarios means that it was never a particularly implausible result of the roll in the first place, as I see it, even assuming that the roll was a "climb" roll.

Essentially, your objection to the loss of a bit of kit as a climbing failure seemed weak (at best) to me from the outset. The fact that you have repeatedly brought it up eventually incentivised me to post an objection. If you don't like the idea of failed climbing leading to a climber forcing a move and losing gear as a result, fine - but please realise that it is really just a particular quirk of your world model that makes it a non-sequitur.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

If you've read the thread, fail forward can have nothing directly to do with the roll at hand. Like the rod falling out of the backpack as the result of a failed climb check.

This is where a number of us disagree. It all depends on what you're considering in play for the climb check. The extreme narrow view is that the climb check determines solely whether you succeed and move forward up the wall/cliff, and failure means you fall. In other words, the roll is specifically about a task during that situation, and nothing else. The reality is this doesn't allow even a simple you didn't fall but you also didn't move forward.

Others feel that it can encompass more than that. Using a degrees of success/failure allows other things to happen, such as pulling some loose rocks free that starts a small rockslide and causes minor damage. You don't fall, but still suffer consequences and don't move forward. Or your piton pulls loose, and again you don't fall, but don't move forward. Or your pack gets caught on rocks and roots and you must free yourself.

The rod falling out of your pack is a step beyond that in general concept in that it's looking at the situation rather than the specific skill or task. So instead of failing to simply move up the wall/cliff, or falling, you have a setback that may require some action on your part to resolve.

In a non fail forward approach, many DMs might have had something like the rod fall out of the pack if they rolled a 1 on their climb check. Or maybe it falls out as you tumble down the mountainside, and it's stuck up on a ledge and you must retrieve it before you can continue.

The point is that it's a widening of what the check covers. The wider net the check throws, the more options you have as a DM, and the fewer additional checks you'll need.

It's largely about mechanical economics, and how many possibilities do you want to cover, and how many different checks do you need to do it with? By tying the events to the successes and failures of a skill check, you are creating a hybrid of DM fiat and letting the dice decide. The dice say whether it's good or bad, and by how much, but the DM leverages the fact that he's a human and not a table with 'x' number of choices to tell you specifically what it is.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Just a real quick aside (I should get some kind of medal for this brevity):

Failure = for player to meet or exceed resolution mechanic target (eg difficulty class, # of dice needing a 3+) and for character to realize their intent, sometimes at all and sometimes merely in the way they hoped to.

Forward = referencing narrative momentum and the pace of play.

Upthread I posted a play example of my own game where the PCs were undergoing a perilous journey across a glacial wasteland to reach a hobgoblin stronghold (to resupply, gather intel, and parlay). Failed scout check led to a scene where the dogsled fell partially through the false floor of a glacial crevasse. One of the PCs ended up falling into an underground river. Play was transitioned to two separate scenes:

1) The PCs that made it out made it to Earthmaw's front door.

2) The PC at the bottom of the drink was emptied out in the utter darkness of Earthmaw's basement garbage chute. He was down some HPs, soaked to the bone/freezing to death, and being stalked by two predators (which were the hobgoblin dragon-sorcerer king's pets) in the pitch black. But he is at Earthmaw!

That is fail forward.

Which is exactly why fail forward is the worst description of the concept.

'It's going to take a little longer to get to the top, make another climb check.'

'Check fails.'

'You fall to the bottom and die.'

The player failed, and the narrative moved forward. In fact so far forward he made it to the end.

No matter what the result is, it's always moving the narrative forward. Even the guy stuck in the pit moved the narrative forward. In fact, I don't think it's actually possible to move a narrative backwards. I guess you could retcon, or say 'oops, I forgot about something so, do-over.'

Ilbranteloth