Failing Forward

[grendel111111]

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").

I agree with both of these statements, about fail forward being a cluster of ideas (and some being better for some styles than others), and that pre-authoring is a continuum.
I have a very strong preference for pre-authoring when I am a player (not so much when I am a DM).
Every game has a level of "non-pre-authoring" in terms of unexpected things happen.
Where I diverge from fail forward (and this may be just because of my love of math and probability and how it interacts, and how I view it in the game, etc.) is that I dislike the tying of abstract thing to characters abilities.

In the example of the mace here is the way I see it playing out.
The DM does not know if the mace in the tower. With the fail forward example they will find it if it is there, and if it isn't there they will find the alternative path. So the difference between the 2 is not "did they search good enough" but is the thing they are looking for there.

My preference is (if you need to decide and the DM can't) just roll a die not tied to a skill (50/50).

One response to this was "we are tying it to "failure" not to the skill" but mathematically that is utter rubbish. You might mean that you don't care if it's tied to the skill, but it is easy to show that it is inversely proportional to your skill.
Skill will succeed on (p) so chance of failure is (1-p) so chance of mace not being there is (1-p)
As p goes up the chance of the mace being there goes down.

As soon as a DM says to me "If you pass the roll you will find the mace, but if you fail the mace is not here and I will give you a clue to it's location" the "Schrodingerness" of the situation is staring me straight in the face.

I do not see why tying the location of the mace to your search skill is any better than tying it to just to a random roll. Or just deciding which result would be more interesting and just going with that. (Having a chase here would be fun, lets go with that)

I do understand those who have a strong narrative approach most likely won't have the issue (I am not trying to make them start having the issue), and won't see the issue (because it doesn't come up for them), but it is an issue for some people. However it doesn't stop us from finding good things in fail forward that we can use in our games. I have already found serveral new things and approaches from discussions like this that I have added to my game.

 

[grendel111111]

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.

It is a "valuable precept of GMing and adventure design" in some gaming approaches, it is not however universally true.

I personally like a well designed, pre-authored, detailed world.

It's not the only games I play in but it is a style I enjoy.

People who are worried about "the dreaded "DM's Pre-Written Story"" may be going it because they like that style of play and want to see what they can add from failing forward with out losing the style they like.

 

[Nagol]

I agree with both of these statements, about fail forward being a cluster of ideas (and some being better for some styles than others), and that pre-authoring is a continuum.
I have a very strong preference for pre-authoring when I am a player (not so much when I am a DM).
Every game has a level of "non-pre-authoring" in terms of unexpected things happen.
Where I diverge from fail forward (and this may be just because of my love of math and probability and how it interacts, and how I view it in the game, etc.) is that I dislike the tying of abstract thing to characters abilities.

<snip>

One response to this was "we are tying it to "failure" not to the skill" but mathematically that is utter rubbish. You might mean that you don't care if it's tied to the skill, but it is easy to show that it is inversely proportional to your skill.

<snip>

Urm, no it is not. You can fail without rolling a die regardless of skill level. Heck, the group can fail whilst only rolling successes!

 

[Umbran]

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.

Then, I suspect that you were given a hard time because it really isn't specific to 4e (for reasons I noted, among others), and thus calling out as a 4e thing is illogical and not even-handed. Coupled with your stated dislike, it would likely have come across as unreasonable edition warring.

 

[grendel111111]

Urm, no it is not. You can fail without rolling a die regardless of skill level. Heck, the group can fail whilst only rolling successes!

Yes I can see both of those. I am referring (and it seems I didn't make it clear) to examples such as the "mace of Schrodinger" where a skill roll is made and the result is that the location of the mace is determined at that point. Or a lock pick roll fails so it starts raining.
Other examples I have no problem with (And it mainly becomes a problem when the DM "explains" it before making the roll. (If you make the roll you will get through the door, but if you fail you get through the door, but it is raining and your equipment is now wet.)

 

[pemerton]

In the example of the mace here is the way I see it playing out.
The DM does not know if the mace in the tower. With the fail forward example they will find it if it is there, and if it isn't there they will find the alternative path. So the difference between the 2 is not "did they search good enough" but is the thing they are looking for there.

<snip>

As soon as a DM says to me "If you pass the roll you will find the mace, but if you fail the mace is not here and I will give you a clue to it's location" the "Schrodingerness" of the situation is staring me straight in the face.

<snip>

I do not see why tying the location of the mace to your search skill is any better than tying it to just to a random roll. Or just deciding which result would be more interesting and just going with that.

I just wanted to note that this is not a discussion of the actual play example that I posted upthread, but of some hypothetical example.

In the actual play example, the failed Scavenging check did not produce a clue to the mace's location, nor any "alternative path". It led to the discovery of an undesired thing (namely, black arrows which constituted evidence that the PC mage's brother was evil before being possessed by a balrog).

The reason for tying these results to skill checks is that the player, by investing resources in the skill check (PC build, bonuses at the time, etc), can increase the chances of getting what s/he (and his/her PC) wants and avoiding what is not wanted.

 

[Neonchameleon]

*Edit -- I just read @pemerton's follow-up reply, and now I'm wondering --- is "fail forward" inherently antithetical to process sim? Is there any "coherent" way the two can reasonably co-exist?

I've never seen a description of process-sim RPGs that didn't make me think "This person actually wants the sort of play lampooned in Order of the Stick" where the entire physics and social model for the world is thin enough to slip into a hardback book.

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.

On the other hand Pathfinder's adventure paths seem to do the opposite of this, and they sell extremely well.

Based on your criteria, the problem that 3.x and Pathfinder have (I can't really comment on 5e, having never played it) is that they're not attempting to emulate a genre, or provide a specific "experience" with mechanics that support a particular style, they're simply trying to replicate "D&D as its own genre." There's no real thought to whether "D&D as genre" is ITSELF coherent or particularly workable, but that's ultimately beside the point as far as the rules are concerned.

5e's design notes were about "uniting the editions" - which is almost explicitly setting out to replicate D&D as its own genre. And this IME is what it tries to do. (It fails miserably at that as far as I'm concerned because my favourite two editions are 4e and the Rules Cyclopaedia, which are editions that set out to do what they intended to, but even 2e isn't using rules to replicate a style).

I'm still a bit baffled why FC didn't become more popular among the "I don't really like 3.x, but don't want to move to 4e" crowd.

Too much crunch was a big part of it I think - and too little marketing.

@pemerton I discussed in a thread a few months ago comparing 4e's and Savage Worlds' approaches to character fictional positioning. One of the commonalities was that both 4e and Savage Worlds assume broad levels of character competency. And I think this adds a strong supporting dimension for a system that wants to support "fail forward."
...
Burning Wheel, interestingly, seems to take an opposite approach --- your characters are broadly not competent, but are expected to attempt to do things in which they are not competent because they are compelled to by their beliefs and instincts. In this case, I think "fail forward" is a downright necessary component.

Very interesting thoughts, thank you I've been playing PBTA games recently (far simpler than Burning Wheel) - and Fail Forward is so baked into those rules it doesn't need calling out at all.

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 were putting the cart before horse. You wouldn't send first level PCs to 200 foot cliff land any more than you'd send them to the Demonweb Pits or to the lairs of elder dragons.

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.

That 4e has (a) a level system just like every other version of D&D and that you no more pitch 2000 foot cliffs at first level PCs than you pitch elder dragons at them and (b) in 4e if there is a cliff, due to the more kinaesthetic action the odds are greater that someone is going over it?

So if you're saying you're bothered by a level and CR system you should just give up on D&D entirely. If you're bothered that in 4e terrain matters more, I suppose reducing terrain to background colour can be some peoples' thing.

 

[Maxperson]

The reason for tying these results to skill checks is that the player, by investing resources in the skill check (PC build, bonuses at the time, etc), can increase the chances of getting what s/he (and his/her PC) wants and avoiding what is not wanted.

I find that players will invest those resources anyway, because they want to be good at those skills and increase their chances of success at what the skills really do. I think story should be left as story and skills left as skills. Mixing them causes disconnects for a lot of people.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The way I do things is to pre-write some of the story, but not all of it. I will create major events and the players will encounter those. Often, those major events will be things like they need the Rod of Pudding Detection found in Jell'O's cave. Do they actually NEED that rod? No. The rod is just the way I have provided to get to what they desire and is usually the easiest way to get there. If the PC's come up with a creative way to find the pudding, their method might just work. Usually it will be more difficult than if they got the rod, but not always. Sometimes what they come up with makes it easier or even successful without a roll.

 

[BryonD]

You were putting the cart before horse. You wouldn't send first level PCs to 200 foot cliff land any more than you'd send them to the Demonweb Pits or to the lairs of elder dragons.

That 4e has (a) a level system just like every other version of D&D and that you no more pitch 2000 foot cliffs at first level PCs than you pitch elder dragons at them and (b) in 4e if there is a cliff, due to the more kinaesthetic action the odds are greater that someone is going over it?

So if you're saying you're bothered by a level and CR system you should just give up on D&D entirely. If you're bothered that in 4e terrain matters more, I suppose reducing terrain to background colour can be some peoples' thing.

You are "winning" a battle that is not being fought. All I'm saying is that *IS* an example of what I claimed and was told I was wrong for claiming.

The deeper issues with the distinctions of 4E's approach have been debated to death (somewhat literally). The concept of "CR" and EL are part of 3E and PF. Obviously I'm not arguing the idea.
But there is a lot more to the old debates.

And, just for the record, I wouldn't hesitate to put 1st level characters on a 200 ft cliff. They would be fighting giants, but if a kobold pushed them off or they would die. There also might be giants there and if they picked a fight with them, they would die.

I expose PCs to things they can't beat with swords or absorb with sufficient HP all the time. Lots of fun is had.