Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6785885" data-attributes="member: 85870">This is interesting, because this seems to go along with my general &quot;off the cuff&quot; times when I turn off &quot;fail forward,&quot; based on stakes and opposed rolls. In most cases, opposed rolls operate at a very low level of abstraction --- there's typically a very direct interplay between two opposing mechanics, or checks based on those mechanics. Thus, &quot;fail forward&quot; isn't generally appropriate, because the level of abstraction is low. For very &quot;high stakes&quot; actions, this is also generally the case --- If something absolutely critical is at stake, the nature of a given check is generally highly specific. The stakes at hand and the consequences of success and failure are generally quite clear to the player. As such, &quot;fail forward&quot; in these instances often plays against what's happening &quot;in frame&quot; in the game world. In thinking about it, though, I'm not sure that even &quot;very high stakes&quot; actions can't have elements of &quot;fail forward&quot; in them. This would be something interesting to discuss; I might posit a hypothetical around this in another post to see what people think. I'm also re-thinking somewhat what I said earlier about &quot;low stakes&quot; checks. In hindsight, I don't know that it's a good idea to include &quot;low stakes&quot; mechanical checks very often as a GM. In context, it's not that a given check is ever totally &quot;low stakes,&quot; it's that there's a strong clarity from the viewpoint of the players that there are other viable options should failure occur. It's &quot;low stakes&quot; in the sense that progress is not halted outright, it's only stalled temporarily. From a player and character viewpoint, though, a check is always at least &quot;medium stakes&quot; in the sense that any course of action represents an investment, and failure always represents to some degree a loss of resources (even if it's just time).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 6785885, member: 85870"] This is interesting, because this seems to go along with my general "off the cuff" times when I turn off "fail forward," based on stakes and opposed rolls. In most cases, opposed rolls operate at a very low level of abstraction --- there's typically a very direct interplay between two opposing mechanics, or checks based on those mechanics. Thus, "fail forward" isn't generally appropriate, because the level of abstraction is low. For very "high stakes" actions, this is also generally the case --- If something absolutely critical is at stake, the nature of a given check is generally highly specific. The stakes at hand and the consequences of success and failure are generally quite clear to the player. As such, "fail forward" in these instances often plays against what's happening "in frame" in the game world. In thinking about it, though, I'm not sure that even "very high stakes" actions can't have elements of "fail forward" in them. This would be something interesting to discuss; I might posit a hypothetical around this in another post to see what people think. I'm also re-thinking somewhat what I said earlier about "low stakes" checks. In hindsight, I don't know that it's a good idea to include "low stakes" mechanical checks very often as a GM. In context, it's not that a given check is ever totally "low stakes," it's that there's a strong clarity from the viewpoint of the players that there are other viable options should failure occur. It's "low stakes" in the sense that progress is not halted outright, it's only stalled temporarily. From a player and character viewpoint, though, a check is always at least "medium stakes" in the sense that any course of action represents an investment, and failure always represents to some degree a loss of resources (even if it's just time). [/QUOTE]

Verification