Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6790656" data-attributes="member: 6778044">OK, I'm not familiar with the sources you quote, but I read through some of your earlier examples. The one opening the door between OD&D and Burning Wheel, all I really see is a simplification of the skill check (quite similar to how I'm handling it in D&D 5e now).It recognizes that for most tasks that is within a character's capability, it's just a matter of time before success and that there are often consequences as a result. In OD&D it was just keep rolling until you succeed, and each time you fail there's a chance of consequences (wandering monster). It doesn't take into account the amount of time, or that a chance for a wandering monster likely increases the longer you have to take.Burning Wheel (and my approach) simply says that it will take some time. Burning Wheel uses a similar system to D&D's Take 10 and Take 20 rules and assigns a fixed amount of time. In my case I've randomized it. To keep it simple I've put a cutoff for absolute failure, and when I determine the results for something taking time, I take into account the various factors (noise, location, current situation in the dungeon like guards actively searching for them, and the amount of time) when determining whether anything happens in that time and what. Many times it's obvious - the opening scenes of Raiders of the Lost Ark are fantastic examples of how to adjudicate failures.I'm totally onboard with all of this, and if that's how 'Failing Forward' is defined, that great.But on everything I've read online, 'Failing Forward' is related to 'Always Say Yes' and other methods that are recommended to keep things moving. Failing Forward in these cases simply mean that the failed skill check ends in a state that the DM finds unacceptable, and thus must provide a different non-failure result.These most commonly occur in scenarios where the only way forward is 'blocked' by a skill check in an attempt to create an exciting situation. It might be a published adventure or not. Regardless, the adventure is now stuck at a point where it cannot continue without the DM providing some method to do so.DM's are being encouraged to use techniques like this on a regular basis. I agree that if you find yourself in that situation, as a DM you have to fix the mistake somehow. But by developing a DMing methodology around these concepts, I think we're creating lazy DMs. It's a good starting place. But whether running a published campaign, running one on your own, or even via random generation, using them to keep giving the PCs a way out drastically changes the nature of RPG games. Based on the many responses to this thread I'd have to say that the term 'Failing Forward' is poorly chosen if it's supposed to mean what you're describing, and at this point means something very different to many others.I'd love to see the original source material you mention to see what the original intent of the concept was. Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification