Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Failing Forward
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6814319" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>When I think "fail forward", I think foremost of Burning Wheel. In 13th Age and his new intro to the 20th anniversary edition of Over the Edge, Tweet attributes the self-conscious terminology and exposition of "fail forward" to Luke Crane (BW) and Ron Edwards. I don't know Sorcerer very well, which is probably why for me it is Luke Crane and BW that is foremost in my mind on "fail forward".</p><p></p><p>The way that Luke Crane explains "fail forward" in the BW rules is that, in narrating failure, the GM should focus on <em>intent</em> rather than <em>task</em>. That is to say, the player (and PC) intent for the declared action is not realised, and something undesired arises instead. Whether or not this is due to a failed <em>task</em> then becomes a secondary consideration - the GM is encouraged to narrate as seems likely to drive the game forward, given what has come before and given the dramatic orientation of the PC (which, in BW, is partly expressed through Beliefs and Instincts as PC build elements).</p><p></p><p>This is why I think there is a non-accidental connection between "fail forward" as a technique and character-driven story. The GM, in focusing on <em>intent</em> to narrate failure, is focusing on what the character wanted, and why s/he didn't get it. And does so in a way that engaged with the dramatic orientation of that PC, so as to continue to provoke action declarations which will be resolved and generate unfolding consequences using the same methodology.</p><p></p><p>This can be true. Some railroads can be good stories. But for me, in RPGing, the riveting quality of the story is not all that matters. Authorship - including how authorship and influence over authorship is distributed among players and GM - also matters to me.</p><p></p><p>Real life, though, isn't primarily about trying to influence the content of a shared fiction.</p><p></p><p>Whereas, for me at least, that's what playing an RPG involves. So the action declaration "I look for the . . ." isn't (primarily) about seeking information or evidence of some already-given truth. It's about participating in the shared creation of a fiction about a character looking for such-and-such.</p><p></p><p>If something is <em>really</em> impossible, then (in my preferred approach) no action declaration takes place. I just tell the player that it's not possible for his/her PC to do that thing.</p><p></p><p>In that context I was talking about my narrations of failure.</p><p></p><p>A player can have his/her PC hope to meet a Dark Elf in the desert, though. In BW that is via the Circles mechanic; in 4e it would most likely be a Streetwise check. There are rules for setting the DC, and the unlikeliness of the location is part of those rules. But it can be done: the PCs in my game were rescued from the ocean because the player of the elven princess made a successful Circles check to meet an elven sea-captain (in the fiction, the sea-captain new that the princess was missing, and was searching for her at sea).</p><p></p><p>As with Circles, Scavenging has DCs associated with it. In my session on Sunday the mage PC used his Second Sight to look for magic items in the chambers of an (allegedly) evil priest. We discussed the situation a bit, and then I set a DC (including setting the stakes - because using Second Sight makes it harder for the character to operate on the mundane physical plane, I made it clear that a failed check would mean that the priest was able to get the drop on the PC and knock him out with a blow from behind). The roll was made, and succeeded, and the character found a magic item (that I had to make up on the spot, given I had given this no prior thought).</p><p></p><p>As you describe this, this sounds like fairly orthodox scene-framing: the GM frames the PC into some sort of conflict or challenge where the stakes of the situation are something in which the player (and the PC, as built/played by the player) are emotionally/thematically invested.</p><p></p><p>Whether the GM comes up with the idea for the scene during the session, in the shower a week before the session, or from reading a module, is (in my view) not a big deal. Actually <em>framing</em> the scene in the course of play can require some deftness - eg if it comes from nowhere, relative to the preceding fiction, it can look pretty heavy-handed. And if the players are on a roll in respect of X, a GM might want to be careful about suddenly veering the focus of play onto Y.</p><p></p><p>The big question for me, in the context of this thread, is: once the GM frames the scene, how is its resolution handled? In my experience (play experience, observing other groups playing, experience of reading others' account of their games) plenty of GMs have a pre-authored destination for the scene, at least in a rough-and-ready sense. (Eg the cleric PC will join with his/her fellow brethren in defending the temple against attack, and the defenders will win that fight). If the choices of the player(s), or the roll of the dice, send things in a different direction then things become unstuck.</p><p></p><p>Related to this: I believe that many GMs hold back from framing scenes that are as "full-blooded" as they might be, precisely because they don't want to run the risk of things unfolding in a way that departs too far from their pre-authored version of how the situation unfolds.</p><p></p><p>I would like to think that my game is good melodrama!</p><p></p><p>Elaborating on my response to [MENTION=6803870]grendel111111[/MENTION]: my ambition for my game is to have a multi-person/team-based story that mixes physical adventure with a degree of emotional drama that is comparable to classic Marvel comics. My touchstone for this is Claremont X-Men, but of course compared to me Claremont is a genius.</p><p></p><p>Another model/inspiration for me is the heroic fantasy film of the sort exemplied by Excalibur, Hero, Crouching Tiger, Tai Chi Master, etc. LotR is also an influence here. REH Conan provides me with tropes, but no so much with drama/conflict/theme.</p><p></p><p>In these sorts of stories, everything that occurs matters somehow to the protagonists, or speaks to their dramatic situation. I'm sure I don't handle it as deftly in my game as these serious authors do, but I think these works show that a fictional work doesn't have to degenerate into bad soap opera despite the narrated events having a clear focus upon/orbit about certain key protagonists.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what it would be a panacea for! But it's something that I like in my game, and it differs from what you call "mainstream roleplaying".</p><p></p><p>But the players supplying dramatic need is not all I care about. Related to that is the ability of the players, by declaring actions for their PCs and then being successful in resolution of those actions, to <em>realise</em> dramatic need. Hence my obsession with "secret backstory", which is essentially a method whereby the GM puts obstacles in the way of dramatic need that the players don't know about, and hence can be thwarted by despite their best efforts at declaring actions for their PCs that will realise their dramatic needs.</p><p></p><p>I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "depth" here, but personally I don't find that secret backstory that prevents success despite the player's declaration of an action and expenditure of resources does add much to the game.</p><p></p><p>Which brings us back to fail forward - narrating the backstory that led to failure <em>after</em> the event introduces the fictional depth and context without (in advance) robbing the player of the power to contribute to the shared fiction.</p><p></p><p>This takes us back to the earlier discussion of what counts as choosing "blind" and relying on dumb luck, as opposed to what counts as <em>agency</em> in my preferred (relatively strong) sense.</p><p></p><p>In a classic Gygax-style dungeon crawl, the players should have the capability to uncover the secret backstory. They still don't exercise full agency in my sense, because they don't establish the dramatic need, and they encounter obstacles that have been authored without any regard to dramatic need.</p><p></p><p>In a more contemporary style of play, I think that in practice most of the secret backstory is not available to the players. And even if it is, in my experience what arises is a playstyle very heavily focused on the players declaring actions for their PC that can give access to the secret backstory, which again pushes the focus of play away from dramatic need and onto exploration of the GM's pre-authored material.</p><p></p><p>That's not the sort of player agency that I prefer.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6814319, member: 42582"] When I think "fail forward", I think foremost of Burning Wheel. In 13th Age and his new intro to the 20th anniversary edition of Over the Edge, Tweet attributes the self-conscious terminology and exposition of "fail forward" to Luke Crane (BW) and Ron Edwards. I don't know Sorcerer very well, which is probably why for me it is Luke Crane and BW that is foremost in my mind on "fail forward". The way that Luke Crane explains "fail forward" in the BW rules is that, in narrating failure, the GM should focus on [I]intent[/I] rather than [I]task[/I]. That is to say, the player (and PC) intent for the declared action is not realised, and something undesired arises instead. Whether or not this is due to a failed [I]task[/I] then becomes a secondary consideration - the GM is encouraged to narrate as seems likely to drive the game forward, given what has come before and given the dramatic orientation of the PC (which, in BW, is partly expressed through Beliefs and Instincts as PC build elements). This is why I think there is a non-accidental connection between "fail forward" as a technique and character-driven story. The GM, in focusing on [I]intent[/I] to narrate failure, is focusing on what the character wanted, and why s/he didn't get it. And does so in a way that engaged with the dramatic orientation of that PC, so as to continue to provoke action declarations which will be resolved and generate unfolding consequences using the same methodology. This can be true. Some railroads can be good stories. But for me, in RPGing, the riveting quality of the story is not all that matters. Authorship - including how authorship and influence over authorship is distributed among players and GM - also matters to me. Real life, though, isn't primarily about trying to influence the content of a shared fiction. Whereas, for me at least, that's what playing an RPG involves. So the action declaration "I look for the . . ." isn't (primarily) about seeking information or evidence of some already-given truth. It's about participating in the shared creation of a fiction about a character looking for such-and-such. If something is [I]really[/I] impossible, then (in my preferred approach) no action declaration takes place. I just tell the player that it's not possible for his/her PC to do that thing. In that context I was talking about my narrations of failure. A player can have his/her PC hope to meet a Dark Elf in the desert, though. In BW that is via the Circles mechanic; in 4e it would most likely be a Streetwise check. There are rules for setting the DC, and the unlikeliness of the location is part of those rules. But it can be done: the PCs in my game were rescued from the ocean because the player of the elven princess made a successful Circles check to meet an elven sea-captain (in the fiction, the sea-captain new that the princess was missing, and was searching for her at sea). As with Circles, Scavenging has DCs associated with it. In my session on Sunday the mage PC used his Second Sight to look for magic items in the chambers of an (allegedly) evil priest. We discussed the situation a bit, and then I set a DC (including setting the stakes - because using Second Sight makes it harder for the character to operate on the mundane physical plane, I made it clear that a failed check would mean that the priest was able to get the drop on the PC and knock him out with a blow from behind). The roll was made, and succeeded, and the character found a magic item (that I had to make up on the spot, given I had given this no prior thought). As you describe this, this sounds like fairly orthodox scene-framing: the GM frames the PC into some sort of conflict or challenge where the stakes of the situation are something in which the player (and the PC, as built/played by the player) are emotionally/thematically invested. Whether the GM comes up with the idea for the scene during the session, in the shower a week before the session, or from reading a module, is (in my view) not a big deal. Actually [I]framing[/I] the scene in the course of play can require some deftness - eg if it comes from nowhere, relative to the preceding fiction, it can look pretty heavy-handed. And if the players are on a roll in respect of X, a GM might want to be careful about suddenly veering the focus of play onto Y. The big question for me, in the context of this thread, is: once the GM frames the scene, how is its resolution handled? In my experience (play experience, observing other groups playing, experience of reading others' account of their games) plenty of GMs have a pre-authored destination for the scene, at least in a rough-and-ready sense. (Eg the cleric PC will join with his/her fellow brethren in defending the temple against attack, and the defenders will win that fight). If the choices of the player(s), or the roll of the dice, send things in a different direction then things become unstuck. Related to this: I believe that many GMs hold back from framing scenes that are as "full-blooded" as they might be, precisely because they don't want to run the risk of things unfolding in a way that departs too far from their pre-authored version of how the situation unfolds. I would like to think that my game is good melodrama! Elaborating on my response to [MENTION=6803870]grendel111111[/MENTION]: my ambition for my game is to have a multi-person/team-based story that mixes physical adventure with a degree of emotional drama that is comparable to classic Marvel comics. My touchstone for this is Claremont X-Men, but of course compared to me Claremont is a genius. Another model/inspiration for me is the heroic fantasy film of the sort exemplied by Excalibur, Hero, Crouching Tiger, Tai Chi Master, etc. LotR is also an influence here. REH Conan provides me with tropes, but no so much with drama/conflict/theme. In these sorts of stories, everything that occurs matters somehow to the protagonists, or speaks to their dramatic situation. I'm sure I don't handle it as deftly in my game as these serious authors do, but I think these works show that a fictional work doesn't have to degenerate into bad soap opera despite the narrated events having a clear focus upon/orbit about certain key protagonists. I'm not sure what it would be a panacea for! But it's something that I like in my game, and it differs from what you call "mainstream roleplaying". But the players supplying dramatic need is not all I care about. Related to that is the ability of the players, by declaring actions for their PCs and then being successful in resolution of those actions, to [I]realise[/I] dramatic need. Hence my obsession with "secret backstory", which is essentially a method whereby the GM puts obstacles in the way of dramatic need that the players don't know about, and hence can be thwarted by despite their best efforts at declaring actions for their PCs that will realise their dramatic needs. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "depth" here, but personally I don't find that secret backstory that prevents success despite the player's declaration of an action and expenditure of resources does add much to the game. Which brings us back to fail forward - narrating the backstory that led to failure [I]after[/I] the event introduces the fictional depth and context without (in advance) robbing the player of the power to contribute to the shared fiction. This takes us back to the earlier discussion of what counts as choosing "blind" and relying on dumb luck, as opposed to what counts as [I]agency[/I] in my preferred (relatively strong) sense. In a classic Gygax-style dungeon crawl, the players should have the capability to uncover the secret backstory. They still don't exercise full agency in my sense, because they don't establish the dramatic need, and they encounter obstacles that have been authored without any regard to dramatic need. In a more contemporary style of play, I think that in practice most of the secret backstory is not available to the players. And even if it is, in my experience what arises is a playstyle very heavily focused on the players declaring actions for their PC that can give access to the secret backstory, which again pushes the focus of play away from dramatic need and onto exploration of the GM's pre-authored material. That's not the sort of player agency that I prefer. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Failing Forward
Top