NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="grendel111111" data-source="post: 6794605" data-attributes="member: 6803870">Here is a very clear example of story first vs. gamist approach to RPG's. The characters death due to being trapped at the bottom of a pit is less satifying or heroic than being killed in a dramatic stand off over a lava pit. So if your focus is primarily on having a good story then this kind of ending to the story is not OK.But if it OK for you that a story ends like this then it is just how it ends. You lost this time around, lets start a new game.In terms of time at the table saying "you die from the large sword that the sneaky goblin thrust into your side." takes no more time than "you slip into unconsciousness and slowly die from dehydration." But it feels less heroic. So in a heroic action focused game this would not be desirable, in a "realism" game then dying at the bottom of a pit because you feel and broke your leg is an acceptable end to the story.There are so many different ways to get out of the situation.One of my favorites would be "as you slip into unconsciousness you think back to the day you left the town and the note you had written to your young apprentice (or insert other NPC the player knows) saying you will return in 4 days, but that if you didn't he was to organize a search party and come looking for you.......... then hand over the NPC who becomes their new PC till they have completed the rescue.They are then on a timer to find their original character before he or she dies at the bottom of the pit. (Players get bonus points if they end up with the rescuer trapped in the same pit as the person they try to rescue and die together).It almost feels like "fail forward" is trying to take credit for anything a DM does. Which makes it a fairly meaningless idea to discuss. I suspect that not everyone would view it as all encompassing as this, but it is clearly more than "succeed at a cost". I'm just unclear where the line gets drawn. Is levels of success and failure part of fail forward? As far as I know it has been around long before this term was used (even critical success and critical failure are a form of this).</blockquote>

Verification