Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GX.Sigma" data-source="post: 6778285" data-attributes="member: 6690511">What would "fail-forward" mean in this example, though? In my opinion, if the GM needs you to find the secret door, the GM should not make you roll for it. Because rolling has the possibility of failure, and the GM is not prepared for this failure. So the PCs are going to succeed no matter what. So there's no need to roll dice at all. Because the only time you roll dice is if the action can succeed, can fail, and has some cost or consequence to failure. Right?If the dramatic question of the encounter is "can you find the secret door" and the GM knows the players will find it regardless of what they do, that's obviously a bogus encounter. On the other hand, if the GM ensures that the players find the secret door, and the actual encounter is about "can you open it the right way" (it gets opened regardless, but on a failed DEX check it alerts the guards or whatever), that would be totally fine. I guess that's an example of a "fail forward?" But that's just basic application of adventure design fundamentals. My issue is, the following encounter could also be called a fail forward: the encounter is "can you find the secret door." The GM asks for perception checks, and the players whiff. The GM suddenly realizes that the adventure can't begin unless they find the secret door. So the GM says you find the secret door by stubbing your toe on it; you can progress, but you lose 5 hp and drop to half speed for the next minute. That's a fail forward too, right? Except this ends up being a bogus encounter, just like my first example. Props to the GM for making the most of a bad job (a railroad is better than a train wreck), but GMs should aspire to never get into that sort of pickle in the first place.I think using the term "fail forward" conflates these two very different maneuvers, and wrapping them up into a piece of jargon actually distracts from and obfuscates the important point here:A good adventure is designed with bottlenecks in mind. The designer should consider the consequences for success and failure of each encounter (as much as possible, of course). Perhaps with some sort of flowchart--possibly a very special type of flowchart known as a dungeon map. If failing a given encounter leads to failing the overall adventure, the designer can either accept it or change it; whichever works best for the given situation.So, to answer the question, "Do I like Fail Forward?" Sure. I like it about as much as swarm rules, stealth checks, and initiative order. By which I mean, use it when it makes sense, don't when it doesn't; the important thing is how it fits into the overall experience.</blockquote>

Verification