Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6780546" data-attributes="member: 87792">Failing forward is a patch over a design flaw - what happens when someone fails a roll? In far, far too many RPGs the answer is "Nothing happens" or failing that "You cross one option off - try another skill?" Which fundamentally isn't interesting.oD&D has no need for Failing Forward - it's a timed game. Faff around too long and there's another wandering monster check. But most games aren't in so artificial an environment as the dungeon. This means that games that work on a simple pass/fail metric (and there are loads) can easily devolve into dice-fests as people take it in turns to see who can pick the lock. A clearly tedious and irritating form of play.Fail Forward is using the DMing advice to fix the system - borderline Oberoni Fallacy. It's vastly better than nothing. But this doesn't make it actually good. I'd far rather use something with consequences for failure like Apocalypse World/Dungeon World (hard moves). Cortex Plus (risking complications), oD&D (timer with wandering monster checks) or 4e (skill challenges being a "Three strikes and you're out" system) than I would simple Fail Forward. Fixing the game is better than giving the GM advice as to how to patch things - which is itself better than not raising this as an issue.</blockquote>