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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Failure stakes for a travel Skill Challenge
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="darkbard" data-source="post: 7564801" data-attributes="member: 1282"><p>There has been much excellent discussion (and practical ideas that came out of that discussion) already, but I want to return to this a little more if anyone is still interested:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Over the years several of us have debated the merits of setting clear outcomes of success and failure--what is at stake--<em>before</em> the PCs begin declaring actions in an SC (or similar mechanic). I remember [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] stating that he believes adhering strictly to defined stakes in certain circumstances can work against the kind of play he is interested in, and I certainly opined that I struggle in the tension between setting clear stakes like this (how else can the PCs know what is at stake and how to leverage PC options if the goalposts move?) and allowing PC action declarations to morph the fiction beyond those original stakes, which is really the overarching philosophy of Story Now play.</p><p></p><p>Earlier in this thread I claimed Story Now play and "fail forward" are not inherently at odds (and I believe this to be self-evident), but [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s comments above suggest to me that there is a line that can be crossed where one of these play goals can infringe upon the other. In the context of this thread, this has taken the following form: "fail forward" presumes that the PCs will meet their goal (travel to destination X) <strong>so that play does not grind to a halt</strong>, even if they fail the SC, but a failure brings consequences set by the GM; Story Now play presumes the very real possibility that PC actions and their outcomes mean even their very arrival at their desired destination is malleable, <strong>so long as play does not grind to a halt</strong>; instead they are presented with interesting complications, the resolution of which all players involved are invested in "playing to see what happens."</p><p></p><p>So in this case, I need to revise my OP to allow for the possibility that not reaching their destination is a possible outcome of failing the SC, so long as the complications that account for this are at least as interesting as reaching the destination. Earlier, I was thinking too narrowly about how to implement "fail forward" in this instance, I think. (And, of course, this has been what much of the discussion in this thread has involved anyway!)</p><p></p><p>Anywho, mostly just thinking aloud here, but also curious if anyone wants to chime in further on this point.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="darkbard, post: 7564801, member: 1282"] There has been much excellent discussion (and practical ideas that came out of that discussion) already, but I want to return to this a little more if anyone is still interested: Over the years several of us have debated the merits of setting clear outcomes of success and failure--what is at stake--[I]before[/I] the PCs begin declaring actions in an SC (or similar mechanic). I remember [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] stating that he believes adhering strictly to defined stakes in certain circumstances can work against the kind of play he is interested in, and I certainly opined that I struggle in the tension between setting clear stakes like this (how else can the PCs know what is at stake and how to leverage PC options if the goalposts move?) and allowing PC action declarations to morph the fiction beyond those original stakes, which is really the overarching philosophy of Story Now play. Earlier in this thread I claimed Story Now play and "fail forward" are not inherently at odds (and I believe this to be self-evident), but [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s comments above suggest to me that there is a line that can be crossed where one of these play goals can infringe upon the other. In the context of this thread, this has taken the following form: "fail forward" presumes that the PCs will meet their goal (travel to destination X) [B]so that play does not grind to a halt[/B], even if they fail the SC, but a failure brings consequences set by the GM; Story Now play presumes the very real possibility that PC actions and their outcomes mean even their very arrival at their desired destination is malleable, [B]so long as play does not grind to a halt[/B]; instead they are presented with interesting complications, the resolution of which all players involved are invested in "playing to see what happens." So in this case, I need to revise my OP to allow for the possibility that not reaching their destination is a possible outcome of failing the SC, so long as the complications that account for this are at least as interesting as reaching the destination. Earlier, I was thinking too narrowly about how to implement "fail forward" in this instance, I think. (And, of course, this has been what much of the discussion in this thread has involved anyway!) Anywho, mostly just thinking aloud here, but also curious if anyone wants to chime in further on this point. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Failure stakes for a travel Skill Challenge
Top