Failing Forward

[BryonD]

Within this 4e context, it is reasonable for 1st level PCs to fight goblins on the edge of a 20' cliff - though the GM should be factoring this into his/her overall intentions around the deadliness of the encounter - but it is probably not reasonable for the PCs to fight goblins on the edge of a 200' cliff, where any fall will almost certainly be deadly for a 1st level PC.

If I may threadjack for a moment, Not long ago I was given quite a hard time for claiming that this approach was common and endorsed by the 4E approach. [/threadjack]

On topic, this point ties closely to the debate at hand. I think there are larger issues than how to handle bad rolls which are mudding the water for this conversation.

As has been discussed many times before, the willingness to change the world to fit the mechanics is a big deal. Some people, myself included, feel strongly that the mechanics should serve the narrative structure. A few pages back the concept of Schrodinger's mace was offered and is a good example here.
Failing a search can be a set back and a true meta problem for game play. The "may or may not be there" approach solves that problem. But if a problem is solved by a solution that does more harm to the fun than the problem itself, then it is a bad solution.
I make no claim whatsoever that the "harm to fun" is remotely the same for every group. But there is a presentation of debate as if these issues may be taken for granted when they can't be.

For me, the mace is either there or it is not there. There are much better solutions, such as simply having some other sideplot arise which presents hazards which were avoidable but will lead to a new chance to find the mace (anything from having it handed out with no roll to return to Go and try again, probably something in between).

I think the key point is that solving the "failing" issue, or even having a productive conversation on it, requires some openness to different tastes and preferences on numerous contextual assumptions.

 

[pemerton]

Quick question... so 4e sets the stakes for the consequences of a failed climb check, correct? If so, how does fail forward work here? If I as a player have read the rules and know that damage is the consequence of a failed check, do you as DM still reserve the right to create additional/other consequences... such as the alerting of the guards? If so as DM should you let me as a player know about these added consequences or should any and all "reasonable" consequences be expected

I would say that the answer to this is "yes" - a 4e GM who imposes the sort of consequence you describe is not imposing any consequence that goes outside the rules or seeming intent of the system.

The most natural way to handle the whole thing, if it was meant to carry significant weight during play, would be as a skill challenge. The alerting of the guards would be a narrated consequence of failure but, assuming that that failure does not also bring the skill challenge to an end, the players get to declare further skill checks to try and alter the situation in their favour.

I like this design because it gives the player a say so in whether this complication is something he wants to experience with his character (no guessing games on the part of the GM), but at the same time uses a limited resource (so you don't run into a situation where every complication is avoided by a particular player) to create a real decision point for the player around what is or isn't the type of complications he/she wants their character to experience.

This seems to have some similarities to a Fate "compel".

Personally I prefer slightly tighter GM control over the narration of consequences, because of the conflict-of-interest issues that can arise on the part of players. Avoiding "guessing games" can then be handled in other ways (eg conversation).

 

[pemerton]

If I may threadjack for a moment, Not long ago I was given quite a hard time for claiming that this approach was common and endorsed by the 4E approach.

I believe you are referring to the "Why does 5e SUCK?" thread.

You were not given a hard time for suggesting that 4e has level-appropriate numbers. You were criticised, by some posters, for seeming not to follow the relevant techniques for narrating the fiction in 4e. Eg you appeared to assert, or at least imply, that the height of a given cliff, within the fiction, would be described differently depending on the level of the PCs adjacent to it. Whereas nothing in the 4e books suggests such an absurd approach to the gameworld, and I have never heard of any GM actually running the game that way.

[/threadjack]

On topic, this point ties closely to the debate at hand. I think there are larger issues than how to handle bad rolls which are mudding the water for this conversation.

Schrodinger's mace was offered and is a good example here.

<snip>

For me, the mace is either there or it is not there.

Of course, in the fiction, the mace is either there or is not. The relevant question is when that authorship decision is taken.

There are much better solutions, such as simply having some other sideplot arise

In games that deploy "fail forward" in a systematic fashion there is no such thing as a "sideplot". The notion of a "sideplot" only has meaning in the context of there being a principal, non-"side" plot - one that (presumably) has been pre-authored by the GM.

In the sorts of games that deploy "fail forward" in a systematic fashion, "the plot" is whatever results from adjudicating the players' action declarations for their PCs. If a PC has finding the mace as a goal, and the player declares that the PC searches for it, then the location of the mace has become a central part of "the plot". If the search check succeeds, "the plot" is what the player (and PC) wanted - namely, the PC finds the mace. If the search check fails, then the GM is at liberty to introduce a complicating or vexing "plot" (ie "fail forward) - such as, in this case, the discovery of black arrows in the ruins of the (formerly) private workshop of the (now) balrog-possessed brother.

Something which I don't think anyone has raised yet is this: if, as a GM, I had no interesting idea about where else the mace might be other than in the ruined tower, it would have been just as reasonable for me to decide that, on the failed Scavenging check, the PCs find the mace and the black arrows. (This would be similar to the example that I mentioned some way ago upthread of the feather the peddler was offering for sale truly being an angel feather, as claimed, but having a curse on it.)

But I didn't do that because I did have an interesting idea about where else the mace might be, namely, in the hands of the dark elf.

This is a modest illustration of the general principle that - in "fail forward" play - consequences should be narrated in a way that maintains narrative and dramatic momentum.

 

[BryonD]

I believe you are referring to the "Why does 5e SUCK?" thread.

You were not given a hard time for suggesting that 4e has level-appropriate numbers. You were criticised, by some posters, for seeming not to follow the relevant techniques for narrating the fiction in 4e. Eg you appeared to assert, or at least imply, that the height of a given cliff, within the fiction, would be described differently depending on the level of the PCs adjacent to it. Whereas nothing in the 4e books suggests such an absurd approach to the gameworld, and I have never heard of any GM actually running the game that way.

[/threadjack]

I was asserting that the height of the cliff would be based on the level of the PCs, exactly as you described here. We could argue wording all day, but I was asserting what you said here.
You have advocated here the EXACT thing that I was bothered by.

On topic, this point ties closely to the debate at hand. I think there are larger issues than how to handle bad rolls which are mudding the water for this conversation.

Of course, in the fiction, the mace is either there or is not. The relevant question is when that authorship decision is taken.

In games that deploy "fail forward" in a systematic fashion there is no such thing as a "sideplot". The notion of a "sideplot" only has meaning in the context of there being a principal, non-"side" plot - one that (presumably) has been pre-authored by the GM.

In the sorts of games that deploy "fail forward" in a systematic fashion, "the plot" is whatever results from adjudicating the players' action declarations for their PCs. If a PC has finding the mace as a goal, and the player declares that the PC searches for it, then the location of the mace has become a central part of "the plot". If the search check succeeds, "the plot" is what the player (and PC) wanted - namely, the PC finds the mace. If the search check fails, then the GM is at liberty to introduce a complicating or vexing "plot" (ie "fail forward) - such as, in this case, the discovery of black arrows in the ruins of the (formerly) private workshop of the (now) balrog-possessed brother.

Something which I don't think anyone has raised yet is this: if, as a GM, I had no interesting idea about where else the mace might be other than in the ruined tower, it would have been just as reasonable for me to decide that, on the failed Scavenging check, the PCs find the mace and the black arrows. (This would be similar to the example that I mentioned some way ago upthread of the feather the peddler was offering for sale truly being an angel feather, as claimed, but having a curse on it.)

But I didn't do that because I did have an interesting idea about where else the mace might be, namely, in the hands of the dark elf.

This is a modest illustration of the general principle that - in "fail forward" play - consequences should be narrated in a way that maintains narrative and dramatic momentum.

I think you are simply playing word games with "side plot" and then going on to reestablish the point that the different playstyles have huge implications.

If you are talking about football, then my thoughts on the designated hitter rule will not be helpful.
People seem to look at all conversations about "D&D" as being about the same sport, but they really aren't. They may all be "sports" but they can be as different as football and baseball.
Which is not intended to be non constructive, but rather to point out that looking at the other perspective is really highly important.

If you were to simply ask me if I use the concept of "fail forward" I would say that it is absolutely an important part of what I keep in my quiver of options.
But in the context of how you are constraining it, I would be rather strongly opposed to it.
This is an important distinction.

 

[iserith]

Quick question... so 4e sets the stakes for the consequences of a failed climb check, correct? If so, how does fail forward work here? If I as a player have read the rules and know that damage is the consequence of a failed check, do you as DM still reserve the right to create additional/other consequences... such as the alerting of the guards? If so as DM should you let me as a player know about these added consequences or should any and all "reasonable" consequences be expected... or, and this just occurred to me, is this type of thing best established before the game starts... perhaps in pre-discussion around DM/Player responsibility.

Yes, an Athletics check for climbing has some suggested outcomes for failed checks. But this is D&D and players in such a game should be aware the DM is not beholden to the rules at all. Therefore, I think it is a good idea for the DM to always clarify the stakes prior to the roll. Some games have specific procedures that the GM must follow - Dungeon World, for example. D&D is not one of those games. Therefore, it would be perfectly reasonable for outcomes other than falling to occur after a player botches an Athletics check. The test is whether what happens follows in the fiction. Does it make sense that while climbing an equipment malfunction happens? Yes, it does. Does that require a specific "Equipment Malfunction Check?" No, I don't think so.

 

[Umbran]

Of course, in the fiction, the mace is either there or is not. The relevant question is when that authorship decision is taken.

This question is related to a valuable precept of GMing and adventure design: Don't stipulate details before you have to.

For those who are so worried about the dreaded "DM's Pre-Written Story" one utility of this is obvious - the players cannot be following a predetermined story if we don't actually pre-write the story! On the other hand, if I pre-write that, to get the pudding, they need the Rod of Pudding Detection (found in the ancient cave lair of the hermit-wizard Jell'O), and the Mace is in the River and they need that to beat the Abominable Sno-Cone Man guarding the dessert on the top of Mount Pudding... that's starting to look like a pre-written story - locations to visit in turn, with McGuffins required to reach the stated goal.

 

[Balesir]

I was asserting that the height of the cliff would be based on the level of the PCs, exactly as you described here. We could argue wording all day, but I was asserting what you said here.
You have advocated here the EXACT thing that I was bothered by.

I think the subtle distinction, here - which what you say here does nothing to dispel the ambiguity about - is the idea that the same cliff appears at differing heights depending on nearby PCs. This is not what 4E involves in any instance of it I have experienced.

The actual case is much more akin to the "timed authorship" point that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has explained and [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] has expanded on. If the "combat situation" includes a cliff, and the first party to encounter this combat happen to be first level, then the cliff may be authored at that point to be 20' tall. If the party were 20th level, the cliff might be 160' tall. Once "authored in", however, the cliff is the height it is. If a 1st level party somehow engineer a fight beside that cliff once it is established at 160', then they may very well die as a result.

On the distinction about "fail forward" meaning different things in different playing (or, I think more to the point, GMing) styles, I think you have a good point. "Fail forward" may very well be a cluster of techniques, some of which are useful for any given style. On the other hand, I am pretty sceptical about any "purist" approach to pre-authoring. I think most likely every GM has some things s/he authors on the fly - NPC intentions regarding the characters and dispositions being particularly common ones; details of the "small furnishings" in a room being another. I think it's more a matter of degrees than pure approaches.

I think a useful question as regards pre-authoring might be "what things are most usefully pre-authored, and what things are better authored in response to game situations as they develop?", rather than "what type of authoring is best*, pre-authoring or authoring-in-the-moment?"

(*: or even "do you prefer").

 

[innerdude]

I was asserting that the height of the cliff would be based on the level of the PCs, exactly as you described here. We could argue wording all day, but I was asserting what you said here. You have advocated here the EXACT thing that I was bothered by.

I think you're slightly misreading @pemerton's point. If narrative momentum is more important than "playing out" climbing a cliff, then the only reason to introduce a cliff as part of a scene frame is if the challenge is large enough and the stakes of failure are high enough that the challenge should be mechanically resolved in play.

It's not that level 20 PCs never encounter cliffs less challenging than the Cliffs of Insanity (tm). It's that cliffs that AREN'T the Cliffs of Insanity (tm) don't need to be resolved mechanically, because they're absolutely not important to the momentum of the narrative. You handwave those suckers and be done with it. In fact, if you want to apply some "fail forward" techniques to it, or want to make it more interesting, you tell the players, "You absolutely won't fail this climb, but depending on your level of success, it might introduce some complications."

I do this ALL THE TIME with my group, and Savage Worlds makes it easy to do with its gradated levels of success (standard / raise).

If you ascribe to narrative- and scene-frame based playstyle, if you're still forcing level 20 PCs to make Climb checks every time they run across a piddly 40-foot cliff, as a GM you're doing it wrong.

 

[Umbran]

I was asserting that the height of the cliff would be based on the level of the PCs, exactly as you described here. We could argue wording all day, but I was asserting what you said here.
You have advocated here the EXACT thing that I was bothered by.

Yeah, you know, I find this a tad disingenuous. GMs have been choosing the level of challenges by character level since the game was first published - even Basic D&D modules had recommended levels on them! The game rules dictate that the level of risk presented by the cliff is going to be determined largely by its height (the basic stakes being falling damage, which is height dependent). Choosing a 20 foot cliff for 1st level characters, and a 160 foot cliff for higher level characters is no different than choosing "The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh" or "Queen of the Demonweb Pits" depending on what level the characters are. This bothers you?

As has been mentioned, nobody has suggested that, in the same instance of play, different characters will see the cliff to be different heights, or that the cliff, once encountered in play, will grow over time to remain the same challenge as the character goes up in level.

 

[BryonD]

Yeah, you know, I find this a tad disingenuous. GMs have been choosing the level of challenges by character level since the game was first published - even Basic D&D modules had recommended levels on them! The game rules dictate that the level of risk presented by the cliff is going to be determined largely by its height (the basic stakes being falling damage, which is height dependent). Choosing a 20 foot cliff for 1st level characters, and a 160 foot cliff for higher level characters is no different than choosing "The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh" or "Queen of the Demonweb Pits" depending on what level the characters are. This bothers you?

As has been mentioned, nobody has suggested that, in the same instance of play, different characters will see the cliff to be different heights, or that the cliff, once encountered in play, will grow over time to remain the same challenge as the character goes up in level.

I'm not looking to rehash the battle. I'm simply pointing out that this is a perfect example of what I was talking about at the time.