Failing Forward

[Balesir]

What I don't understand is how do you handle NPCs, NPC organizations, the stuff that's going on behind the scenes that drives the world whether the PCs do something or not?

Pretty easily, I think. When the situation/game rules call for the GM to make a move like "reveal an unwelcome truth", "impending trouble" or "offer an opportunity", then any previously established (or even newly invented) NPCs or organisations can be used to shape the revealed "truth". Such organisations or characters can come from PC backgrounds, GM world briefings or previous adventures; they then form a "pallette" of possible causes of events and complications until the particular PC relation to the "background element" is resolved. This is the sort of role that Icons are intended to serve in when playing 13th Age - and each PC will have relationships to 1-3 of them defined at game start.

 

[grendel111111]

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.

I have a question about this.
If they pass the search test does that mean they get the mace and the PC's brother was not evil till possessed?
And if they fail they get the mace and the black arrows which constituted evidence that the PC mage's brother was evil before being possessed by a balrog?

Or is a pass they find the mace and no additional information (Brother could still be good or evil before possession)?

 

[Balesir]

An exact mathematical percentile would be doing the following:
Take the roll needed, divide the chance of success in half, if you roll under half the mace is there and you find it, over half the mace is there and you find the arrows as well as the mace, then if you fail you need to divide that in half too, a bad fail the location of the mace, a "good" fail you find the location of the mace and the arrows.

Um, did you miss the reason I was using a d10 for both rolls? That is why the conversion to a percentile system is trivial.

Suppose that the "chance the mace is there" is 50% (as you appear to have assumed) - so roll 2 is a 6+ for the mace to be present. Further suppose that the roll to search successfully is 8+ on a d10 roll with your skill (graded 0-6) added.

For a skill 0 character this breaks down as a 15% chance to find the mace and 85% to not find the mace. If you don't find the mace, there is a roughly 59% chance (50/85) that the mace is actually not there, but since this is not germane to immediate play there is really no compelling reason to check this at the time. Each level of character skill increases the chance of finding the mace by 5%, so that a skill 6 character has a 45% chance to find the mace (and, if this character fails to find the mace, there is about a 91% chance (50/55) that it is not there to be found, but there is similarly no real reason why anyone needs to know whether it actually is there or not at the time the roll is made).

So, two systems:

1) Roll a d10 + character skill for 8+ and roll a separate d10 for 6+ to see if the mace is there to be found; success on both rolls mean the mace is found, otherwise it is not found

2) Roll d% plus 5 times character skill; 85+ means the mace is found, otherwise it isn't.

These are mathematically exactly equivalent. The only difference would seem to be that in (1) the GM will always end up knowing whether the mace is there or not. I actively do not want this to be a feature of the system; I am further a bit baffled why any style of play would require it or even be advantaged by it.

 

[grendel111111]

Um, did you miss the reason I was using a d10 for both rolls? That is why the conversion to a percentile system is trivial.

Suppose that the "chance the mace is there" is 50% (as you appear to have assumed) - so roll 2 is a 6+ for the mace to be present. Further suppose that the roll to search successfully is 8+ on a d10 roll with your skill (graded 0-6) added.

For a skill 0 character this breaks down as a 15% chance to find the mace and 85% to not find the mace. If you don't find the mace, there is a roughly 59% chance (50/85) that the mace is actually not there, but since this is not germane to immediate play there is really no compelling reason to check this at the time. Each level of character skill increases the chance of finding the mace by 5%, so that a skill 6 character has a 45% chance to find the mace (and, if this character fails to find the mace, there is about a 91% chance (50/55) that it is not there to be found, but there is similarly no real reason why anyone needs to know whether it actually is there or not at the time the roll is made).

So, two systems:

1) Roll a d10 + character skill for 8+ and roll a separate d10 for 6+ to see if the mace is there to be found; success on both rolls mean the mace is found, otherwise it is not found

2) Roll d% plus 5 times character skill; 85+ means the mace is found, otherwise it isn't.

These are mathematically exactly equivalent. The only difference would seem to be that in (1) the GM will always end up knowing whether the mace is there or not. I actively do not want this to be a feature of the system; I am further a bit baffled why any style of play would require it or even be advantaged by it.

I'm actually not sure the reason for the roll in the first place. I personally want to know if the mace is there or not. If it is there and is essential then they will find it. If not they will find the clues instead. The only reason for the roll for me would be to find out how quickly they find this information or if they find additional information.

As for what style would use this style is one that doesn't want probabilities of abstract things to be dependent on characters skills.
That it isn't relevant to you, or that you don't see the point of it is basically unimportant.
What is more important is can you accept that it is important for some people.

I can see that using the full on fail forward approach is enjoyable and fun for many people. It is a great way for them to play the game and accept that it is because they assure me it is, even if it doesn't always work for me.

Can you see that having a game where the skills of the players do not influence the probabilities of unrelated things might be important for some people just because they assure you that this is the case, even if it doesn't work for you?

And yes "for me" the DM knowing is a massive advantage.

 

[pemerton]

But whether the mace is there or not is not related to the skill in play at all. It might seem like it's related, but it's not. Either the mace is there, in which case the party finds it or not, or the mace is not there, in which case they don't find it.

Not every failure will be taken to indicate that the mace is not there to be found; all it means is that the characters' best shot at finding it has failed to uncover it. Given how destructively thorough most players can be in their imaginations when "pixel bitching" a room, I will grant that the chances that the mace is there and still undiscovered by a balls-out search is slim, but strictly it's just "unknown".

As an aside, this is one of the things I'm liking a great deal about Dungeon World, so far (still reading and digesting - not run it, yet). Part of the GM's Agenda given in DW is "Play to find out what happens". This discussion has made me realise some of the dimensions of this; it is really talking about the "author only what you have to" that [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] mentioned upthread. If the PCs fail to find the mace (that might or might not have been there), what do you as GM take as "known"? Simply that they failed to find the mace - no more than that. It might now plausibly turn up somewhere else, or it might not (whereas, had the PCs found it, it obviously could not turn up elsewhere unless they either took it there or lost it again). Each resolution in play sets the parameters within which future resolutions happen, and as a GM you can be as surprised by what happens as the players.

two systems:

1) Roll a d10 + character skill for 8+ and roll a separate d10 for 6+ to see if the mace is there to be found; success on both rolls mean the mace is found, otherwise it is not found

2) Roll d% plus 5 times character skill; 85+ means the mace is found, otherwise it isn't.

These are mathematically exactly equivalent. The only difference would seem to be that in (1) the GM will always end up knowing whether the mace is there or not. I actively do not want this to be a feature of the system; I am further a bit baffled why any style of play would require it or even be advantaged by it.

In the fiction, either the mace is there or it is not. But at the table, why does anyone need to know until a player declares that his/her PC looks for it?

In "fail forward"-style play, the point of having (say) a high Scavenging skill is that, when you declare actions for your PC that involve scavenging for gear (like lost maces in ruined towers), you are more likely to have things turn out as you want (eg you are more likely to find said lost mace). In this way, having a high skill bonus is a player-side resource. It shifts control over the shared fiction from the GM to the player.

That is the connection between the skill check and the presence or otherwise of the mace.

I'm actually not sure the reason for the roll in the first place. I personally want to know if the mace is there or not. If it is there and is essential then they will find it. If not they will find the clues instead. The only reason for the roll for me would be to find out how quickly they find this information or if they find additional information.

The reason for the check is fairly straightforward: the PCs want to find the mace in the ruined tower, and the check determines whether or not they do.

I'm not sure what you mean by the mace being "essential". Essential for what? From the point of view of the PC mage, it is essential that he find it because (i) he wants to learn to fight with a mace, and (ii) he wants to enchant it. For the other PCs its more peripheral (though after this event one of the other PCs promised to help recover the mace in return for something-or-other that I can't recall). But there is no pre-authored plot in respect of which finding the mace is an essential component.

As for what style would use this style is one that doesn't want probabilities of abstract things to be dependent on characters skills.

<snip>

Can you see that having a game where the skills of the players do not influence the probabilities of unrelated things might be important for some people just because they assure you that this is the case, even if it doesn't work for you?

And yes "for me" the DM knowing is a massive advantage.

Are you able to articulate the nature of the advantage?

The main difference I can see is that if the GM knows (and knows because s/he decides in advance, rather than allowing the decision to be shaped by player-side checks and resource expenditure) then the GM can control the plot.

If the DM is causing it to rain because of a failed climb check, the reason he is doing it is to make the "story" more interesting, not because the skill was checked. The skill only deals with climbing.

What mechanical system are you talking about here? What you say is not true for "fail forward" systems, where a check deals with intent as well as task.

Failure to negotiate with the king isn't going to cause an earthquake that the party doesn't want to happen to become part of the story.

Within a system based around "fail forward", a failed check made to resolve negotiations with the king might lead the GM to narrate an earthquake, if that made sense within the narrative and dramatic context. Why not?

Story aspects should remain story only. If the DM thinks it will make for a more interesting story to have it rain while the climb is going on, it's fine for the DM to make it rain, but it should be due to an independent DM reason. It should not be because of a failed climb check.

<snip>

Why would players become frustrated that being more successful at checks makes them more successful at checks? They are in fact getting what they want or they wouldn't have invested the resources to be good at those skills in the first place.

These first of these two passages answers the second.

If the GM is going to introduce complications that muck up the plans of, or thwart the desires of, players who make successful checks, then (from the player's point of view) what is the point of devoting resources to making successful checks?

 

[pemerton]

In something like FATE, I can "wing it" for a combat encounter with ease

<snip>

D&D traditionally has so many tactical fiddly bits (the equivalent D&D critter is an 8" tall column of small typeface print) that this approach doesn't work well. The GM must prepare beforehand.

D&D gives you very little leeway to prep any other way because it's so stinkin' hard to prep encounters. Either you've got to pre-plan those encounters, or someone else has to, but for the most part "winging it" all the time probably isn't going to cut it.

This has already attracted responses from [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]. Here's my go at it.

In my 4e game, I typically have antagonist stat blocks written up. But when/how they appear, or even whether they appear, is something that I decide during the course of play. For non-combat challenges, an advance write-up is not normally necessary.

About half the combat encounters involve maps drawn up in advance, based on knowledge that the PCs are heading to (or are in) a certain place; the others involve maps drawn up impromptu.

Back when I was running RM and before that AD&D, similar principles applied. (In both games stat blocks tend to be simpler than 4e.)

As far as selling me prep is concerned, I am happy to pay for statblocks, good maps and good encounters. I'll also pay for good "general" backstory (eg the stuff about Lolth and Torog in 4e's Underdark book; the campaign background in the original OA book; etc). But intricately pre-authored plot of the AP type is of no use to me. Likewise fetch quests, McGuffins and all the other "filler"-type stuff that makes up an AP.

You've already stipulated that to get to the pudding they need the rod and the mace.

Who has stipulated that?

Of course there are side plots. Or at least there should be. Unless you are implying that the result of every check always moves them on a shorter or longer path towards their goal. In which case it's a railroad.

<ship>

They should run across things that have nothing to do with the current goal. And if they choose to follow that path for a short period of time and come back, it's a side-plot. If they choose to follow that path and not come back, it's the new plot.

To me this line of thinking is very much tied to the entire notion of "pre-authoring" to begin with. "Where's the plot? How are the PCs supposed to follow it? And if they get off of it, are they supposed to get back on it or not?"
Scene framing approaches don't really follow this line of thinking at all. Scene framing approaches say, "You're this character, framed in the fiction this way, with these goals/responsibilities/obligations. Here's what you understand is going on around you. Where do you want to go, and what do you want to accomplish when you get there?" Lather, rinse, repeat.

When I'm running a campaign, I literally have NO IDEA what's going to happen, or how it will end. NONE. For all I know the BBEG's might actually win . . . or maybe the PCs decide after killing the BBEG that they kind of liked the cut of his jib, and decide to finish what he started. Who knows?

What innerdude says here resonates strongly with me. There is no "side plot" because there is no "main plot" to which it forms an aside. The mace became relevant to play at all only because one of the players (i) decided that, some 14 years before the campaign started, at the point at which his PC had to abandon the tower that is now ruined due to an orc attack, his PC had forged but then left behind a nickel-silver mace, and (ii) decided that one of his PC's goals now was to recover that mace.

And I certainly don't see why the PCs should run across things that have nothing to do with their current goals. I'm not a great believer in filler.

there's still a plot. There are still side-plots, sub-plots, whatever you want. You just don't know which was which until after the fact.

If you don't know that it's a side plot til after the fact, then no GMing decisions can be made on the basis of the side plot/main plot distinction. Which is to say that the notion of side plot has no work to do from the point of view of GMing techniques.

The same goes for BBEG, McGuffin etc.

What I don't understand is how do you handle NPCs, NPC organizations, the stuff that's going on behind the scenes that drives the world whether the PCs do something or not?

Like anything else - you make it up as is needed, and/or as seems appropriate, as the game unfolds.

And apropos of this:

I have a question about this.
If they pass the search test does that mean they get the mace and the PC's brother was not evil till possessed?
And if they fail they get the mace and the black arrows which constituted evidence that the PC mage's brother was evil before being possessed by a balrog?

Or is a pass they find the mace and no additional information (Brother could still be good or evil before possession)?

If the check had succeeded, the PCs would have found the mace they were looking for.

The backstory about the brother would still have been up for grabs: you can't establish an ingame fact about the brother via a successful Scavenging check. It would require a successful Balrog-wise or Great Masters-wise or Brothers-wise check, or something along those lines.

EDIT: Another example of NPC backstory authoring from my BW game.

As I set out in this post, the PCs in my BW game think they have uncovered a death cult priest. And as far as my pre-prep is concerned, I am inclined to think that they have also. (I had written up the death cult priest one day catching the train to work.)

But nothing definitive about the status of the priest has been established in play, and so the whole thing is still up for grabs. If the accused priest's champion wins the trial by combat, I might even decide that her story is true!

These things don't need to be decided in advance.

 

[Maxperson]

What mechanical system are you talking about here? What you say is not true for "fail forward" systems, where a check deals with intent as well as task.

It's a safe assumption that unless I specify otherwise, I'm talking D&D

If the GM is going to introduce complications that muck up the plans of, or thwart the desires of, players who make successful checks, then (from the player's point of view) what is the point of devoting resources to making successful checks?

You'll need to explain further. I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

This has already attracted responses from [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]. Here's my go at it.

In my 4e game, I typically have antagonist stat blocks written up. But when/how they appear, or even whether they appear, is something that I decide during the course of play. For non-combat challenges, an advance write-up is not normally necessary.

About half the combat encounters involve maps drawn up in advance, based on knowledge that the PCs are heading to (or are in) a certain place; the others involve maps drawn up impromptu.

Back when I was running RM and before that AD&D, similar principles applied. (In both games stat blocks tend to be simpler than 4e.)

As far as selling me prep is concerned, I am happy to pay for statblocks, good maps and good encounters. I'll also pay for good "general" backstory (eg the stuff about Lolth and Torog in 4e's Underdark book; the campaign background in the original OA book; etc). But intricately pre-authored plot of the AP type is of no use to me. Likewise fetch quests, McGuffins and all the other "filler"-type stuff that makes up an AP.

Who has stipulated that?

In an earlier post you (or whoever first) outlined that they had to get the rod to find the pudding, and the mace to kill the monster (Jell-o? I don't remember which dessert was involved).

What innerdude says here resonates strongly with me. There is no "side plot" because there is no "main plot" to which it forms an aside. The mace became relevant to play at all only because one of the players (i) decided that, some 14 years before the campaign started, at the point at which his PC had to abandon the tower that is now ruined due to an orc attack, his PC had forged but then left behind a nickel-silver mace, and (ii) decided that one of his PC's goals now was to recover that mace.

And I certainly don't see why the PCs should run across things that have nothing to do with their current goals. I'm not a great believer in filler.

If you don't know that it's a side plot til after the fact, then no GMing decisions can be made on the basis of the side plot/main plot distinction. Which is to say that the notion of side plot has no work to do from the point of view of GMing techniques.

I don't believe in filler either (well, it exists, but I don't like it...). My point is that the group might have a specific goal - get the pudding. In the process of searching for the mace in the tower, they learn of a potential cookie in another location. They can decide to ignore it and continue to search for the pudding, they can opt to look for the cookie now, and if so they can return to looking for the pudding or not later, or they can look for the cookie after they find the pudding, etc. Heck, they could even decide that the pudding and cookie just aren't worth the trouble and go someplace else.

But when exploring a world, you'll come across all sorts of things, any of which might be more interesting than what you're currently doing, or worth checking out now the the opportunity presents itself. It could just be a secret passage in the tower that they find after they've located the mace. It doesn't have anything to do with the pudding at all.

If everything that the PCs do lead eventually lead them to the pudding, and you don't introduce any elements that would give them alternative options for their adventuring fun for the day, then it's just a railroad. No matter what you do today, you will be heading toward the pudding. It's the details that are unknown and we'll be filling those in. I'm not saying that's bad, it all depends on what the group wants. I just don't see that as realistic.

I tend not to prep story at all. The PCs make their decisions based on what they find, etc. But there are lots of potential plot threads for them to develop. Since I DM D&D in the Forgotten Realms I have lots of world material to work with, which I have added to extensively over the last 30 years, mostly through playing. Actually, it's we, because the players have added a lot to it themselves. So if they are in Daggerford, there are a good number of people that I (and often they) already know about, they know what they do, what they like, and if they are involved in anything beyond just a craft or something in the city. There are all sorts of adventure locales, some with maps and other details, others without. Rumors, secret organizations, etc. abound. The story is written as the PCs intersect with this complex world. All they have to do is wander around a bit, start asking questions, eavesdropping, or if they are somewhat renowned, somebody might search them out. A monster might attack, a storm might cause some destruction, or disease breaks out. They can choose what they decide to follow or investigate.

What I don't understand is, if everything was randomly determined, and particularly if the location of a given object, person, etc. is partially dependent upon the success or failure of a roll, how can you develop a campaign world with depth and consistency if you as the DM don't know stuff about it beforehand? I have potential antagonists going about their plans whether the PCs intervene or not. Even if they don't directly engage with them, their actions can still have an impact.

The same goes for BBEG, McGuffin etc.

Like anything else - you make it up as is needed, and/or as seems appropriate, as the game unfolds.

And apropos of this:

If the check had succeeded, the PCs would have found the mace they were looking for.

The backstory about the brother would still have been up for grabs: you can't establish an ingame fact about the brother via a successful Scavenging check. It would require a successful Balrog-wise or Great Masters-wise or Brothers-wise check, or something along those lines.

EDIT: Another example of NPC backstory authoring from my BW game.

As I set out in this post, the PCs in my BW game think they have uncovered a death cult priest. And as far as my pre-prep is concerned, I am inclined to think that they have also. (I had written up the death cult priest one day catching the train to work.)

But nothing definitive about the status of the priest has been established in play, and so the whole thing is still up for grabs. If the accused priest's champion wins the trial by combat, I might even decide that her story is true!

These things don't need to be decided in advance.

So I guess this is where it starts to lose me. Depending on the circumstance, I'd agree, not everything is determined ahead of time. There are some random events, encounters, NPCs, etc. I'm OK with that as part of the basic framework of the world. But I also view it as a living, breathing world that needs consistency. When you start with a clean slate, never adventured in the world before. Fair enough. But once those NPCs have been met, they exist. If they run into them again, there needs to be consistency. I guess if you're just keeping track of things as you build it you'll end up in the same place, but I get the feeling that more involved, deeper plots are difficult to pull together in that approach.

I guess you could say my approach is to write a background story - there is a rough timeline of 'planned' events typically in a given region. I might have other things in play on a larger scale. They don't have to be heavily details, and the timeline can easily change, especially based on what the PCs do. Based on your description, you have some of this already, a few maps, some stat blocks, etc. I guess the major difference is that I also have some active stories. If you're familiar with FR publications, this would be the 'current clack' section. Other rumors and activities may be developed on the fly.

I guess that the reality is that there is a continuum of prepared and random/on-the-fly things all of the time. A published adventure tends to lean heavily on the pre-planned. At the very least there's an intended end-game. I'm comfortable more in the middle. I like to think through things a bit more (duh) so I have a lot of semi-pre-planned activities going on in my head, and sometimes on (digital) paper to give me a head start in the event that the PCs intersect that story. After each session I typically have a bunch of ideas in reaction to the session. As that percolates over the week it tends to coalesce into a sort of 'prep' for the upcoming session, although it may never end up written down.

But I always have a pretty good idea of the various directions things can go if they stick with the current goal. If they change their goal (which they have done quite frequently), then it gets interesting. But that's also why I have a good idea of most of what's going on in the background so I can react quickly and consistently.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

If the GM is going to introduce complications that muck up the plans of, or thwart the desires of, players who make successful checks, then (from the player's point of view) what is the point of devoting resources to making successful checks?

Isn't that kind of the job of the DM? I mean, after they survive a combat, there's something else presenting a challenge, twist, or something, unless they've actually made it to their goal?

For example, let's say this scene isn't prewritten...

A PC is climbing a very high cliff, using pitons and rope. It's nearly impossible to be quiet, the hope is that there is nobody within earshot. He works his way up the cliff, mostly successful skill checks, an occasionally not-life-threatening failure (although they didn't know that at the time), and he reaches the top of the rocky cliff, that had a significant overhang, and is now working on climbing up the steep incline to a stone wall.

Just as he looks over the wall, a guard patrol is coming by and sees him. A fight immediately breaks out between our hero and the two guards. He manages to throw one of them off the side, but the other one successfully pushes him off. The rope holds, but he's hanging hundreds of feet above the ground, unable to reach the wall because of the overhang, so starts climbing back up the rope.

At the same time, the guard that didn't fall is hammering out the pitons. Causing our hero to fall a back a bit of the way he has climbed back up...

You know the rest.

He made successful skill checks, and successfully climbed the cliff, but didn't succeed in the goal of getting to the top undiscovered.

So there were a bunch of skill checks involved. They could have involved climb and stealth checks, with a passive perception, or active perception checks by the guards, etc. One option would have been that on one of the climb checks, it failed, but not by much.

Instead of having different stealth/perception checks, the DM decided that the hero was able to continue climbing, but the guard heard the hammering.

Why do it this way? Well, there are a lot of potential checks that could be made. A climb check when hammering in each piton, then a climb check to move the next 30' or so, and another for the next piton. In addition, checking against the passive perception each time a piton is hammered in, although there is no DC to check passive perception against, so it's either an active check, or the hero must roll a stealth check. He also may need to roll a stealth check while climbing to the next location where he'll hammer in a piton.

There are a lot of potential checks. Oh, yeah, and a bunch of fate checks to see if he pulls loose some rocks, or disturbs a nest full of birds, or a piton breaks free, or the rope gets snagged, etc.

So somewhere in here there is a sort of sweet spot where the right number and the right types of skill and event checks occur, combined with the right amount of narrative developed from the results of the skill checks.

Climbing several hundred feet 30' skill check at a time would get very, very long. But a single check isn't sufficient either.

A failed skill check could indicate he couldn't find a clear path to climb, a piton pulled loose, he drops a piton or the hammer, the rope gets snagged, the birds, loose rocks, etc. All of those seem to fit within the purview of the climb checks.

Some sort of perception check is needed by the guards. Probably the easiest is to use passive perception (they don't really think anybody is likely to be trying to climb up), and assign a penalty to the stealth checks for using a hammer. Or a flat DC can be set, saying anybody within 300 ft can hear it, up to 500' is a DC 12, 1000' is a DC 15, etc.

How many checks? That's the tricky one. That's where I like using the degrees of success/failure. If a moderate failure indicates an amount of time to recover, then a success over the amount needed can be used the same way. So, if the hero beats the DC by 7, then the next 7 rounds (210 feet) are traversed successfully, with little incident. A single stealth check covers the period, and continue on.

With fail forward, you can make some assumptions, and fill in the narrative blanks with fewer checks, and the end result of those checks potentially have a wider variety of results.

Now in this situation, I think what Pemerton is asking, is what if the hero made it all the way to the top, undetected, and a separate fate check indicated something very bad happened, and the slate of the final rock face came loose and slid off the clifftop, causing our hero to fall (and maybe the rope catches him). That just doesn't seem fair that he succeeded, and yet is still knocked back down.

The reality is that it's the same thing. In the end he's hanging by the rope and has to climb back up. Whether it's by design (the rock was designated as loose before he even climbed it), randomly (the fate roll declared it), a failed skill check (the DM picked the narrative based on the failed skill check), or because he failed against the perception of the guards and was knocked back off. The only real difference with the final one is that it would enter a combat phase and the PCs skills and design choices would come into play. But it's easy enough to add a Dexterity save when the rock starts sliding off.

The point is, any one of these mechanics will allow you to get to the same end result. But ultimately I think what is bugging Pemerton is that it removes the player's choices and the PCs actions from the equation, making it unfair. It's not unlike the save or die (or no save and die) of the AD&D 1st edition days. The sphere of annihilation trap in Tomb of Horrors is like that. No matter what you do, or how much time you put into your character development, they are suddenly gone, irrevocably, just because they decided to look into the dark hole.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Nagol]

Isn't that kind of the job of the DM? I mean, after they survive a combat, there's something else presenting a challenge, twist, or something, unless they've actually made it to their goal?

Sure, but having the complication trigger off of a success means the player who invested resources in something so as to not have problems accomplishing something only to have problems accomplishing something too well (or whatever).

For example, let's say this scene isn't prewritten...

A PC is climbing a very high cliff, using pitons and rope. It's nearly impossible to be quiet, the hope is that there is nobody within earshot. He works his way up the cliff, mostly successful skill checks, an occasionally not-life-threatening failure (although they didn't know that at the time), and he reaches the top of the rocky cliff, that had a significant overhang, and is now working on climbing up the steep incline to a stone wall.

Just as he looks over the wall, a guard patrol is coming by and sees him. A fight immediately breaks out between our hero and the two guards. He manages to throw one of them off the side, but the other one successfully pushes him off. The rope holds, but he's hanging hundreds of feet above the ground, unable to reach the wall because of the overhang, so starts climbing back up the rope.

At the same time, the guard that didn't fall is hammering out the pitons. Causing our hero to fall a back a bit of the way he has climbed back up...

You know the rest.

He made successful skill checks, and successfully climbed the cliff, but didn't succeed in the goal of getting to the top undiscovered.

So there were a bunch of skill checks involved. They could have involved climb and stealth checks, with a passive perception, or active perception checks by the guards, etc. One option would have been that on one of the climb checks, it failed, but not by much.

Instead of having different stealth/perception checks, the DM decided that the hero was able to continue climbing, but the guard heard the hammering.

Why do it this way? Well, there are a lot of potential checks that could be made. A climb check when hammering in each piton, then a climb check to move the next 30' or so, and another for the next piton. In addition, checking against the passive perception each time a piton is hammered in, although there is no DC to check passive perception against, so it's either an active check, or the hero must roll a stealth check. He also may need to roll a stealth check while climbing to the next location where he'll hammer in a piton.

There are a lot of potential checks. Oh, yeah, and a bunch of fate checks to see if he pulls loose some rocks, or disturbs a nest full of birds, or a piton breaks free, or the rope gets snagged, etc.

So somewhere in here there is a sort of sweet spot where the right number and the right types of skill and event checks occur, combined with the right amount of narrative developed from the results of the skill checks.

Climbing several hundred feet 30' skill check at a time would get very, very long. But a single check isn't sufficient either.

A failed skill check could indicate he couldn't find a clear path to climb, a piton pulled loose, he drops a piton or the hammer, the rope gets snagged, the birds, loose rocks, etc. All of those seem to fit within the purview of the climb checks.

Some sort of perception check is needed by the guards. Probably the easiest is to use passive perception (they don't really think anybody is likely to be trying to climb up), and assign a penalty to the stealth checks for using a hammer. Or a flat DC can be set, saying anybody within 300 ft can hear it, up to 500' is a DC 12, 1000' is a DC 15, etc.

How many checks? That's the tricky one. That's where I like using the degrees of success/failure. If a moderate failure indicates an amount of time to recover, then a success over the amount needed can be used the same way. So, if the hero beats the DC by 7, then the next 7 rounds (210 feet) are traversed successfully, with little incident. A single stealth check covers the period, and continue on.

With fail forward, you can make some assumptions, and fill in the narrative blanks with fewer checks, and the end result of those checks potentially have a wider variety of results.

Now in this situation, I think what Pemerton is asking, is what if the hero made it all the way to the top, undetected, and a separate fate check indicated something very bad happened, and the slate of the final rock face came loose and slid off the clifftop, causing our hero to fall (and maybe the rope catches him). That just doesn't seem fair that he succeeded, and yet is still knocked back down.

I think that is fair (if annoying) so long as the mechanic is normally in play. What I wouldn't consider fair is because the climber did so well at climbing, he forgot to stop and pulled a Daffy Duck -- climbing to the top and then continuing the climb down or because the climbed so well he made it all the way onto the back of a patrol horse and now has to figure out how to get off without alerting the very close guards. In other words, a complication directly attributable to over-success.

The reality is that it's the same thing. In the end he's hanging by the rope and has to climb back up.

<snip>

Although in your example the PC finds himself in the same circumstance, it is no the same thing. In one recounting, the PC fared well at his task to be blindsided by sheer bad luck that can strike any time anywhere in that game. In the other recounting, the PC was spotted because insufficient care was given to making noise (if everyone can clearly hear it within 300', he must be using a jackhammer on those pitons!).