Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7512464" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Alright, lots of things I want to address here.  I'm not going to quote anyone's particular text here, but it will relate to each participants' (thus far) posts.1)  Fail Forward (FF) vs Success With Complications/At a Cost (SWC)These are two different GMing techniques or components of a ruleset.  I'm going to use Dungeon World and D&D 4e to untangle them.Dungeon WorldThe 7-9 move is the primary mechanism through which Dungeon World sustains its "snowballing danger/narrative" effect.  7-9 is "Success With Complications/At a Cost".  The player gets some of what they want/moves further toward their goal, but a decision-point which complicates things is introduced or new looming threat emerges to (potentially) interpose itself between the PC/group and their goal.The 6- result is a hard failure.  When this occurs, the immediate situation has changed dramatically and irrevocably for the worse (something bad happens immediately or some impending doom is realized with no chance for mitigation).  The gamestate is changed in a way that (a) isn't desirable for the PCs but (b) is compelling to the players because something interesting has happened in relation to their expressed dramatic needs and the game's agenda.  They haven't moved closer toward realizing their intent.  They've removed further away or failure has been cemented (depending on the fictional positioning in context with GMing principles).  This is "Fail Forward."D&D 4eIn Skill Challenges, all success before the last are the equivalent of the DW 7-9.  The last success in a SC is the equivalent of a DW 10+ (where the fictional positioning of the conflict expresses that "this move" will lock in attainment of the sought goal).  All failures in a SC should be forward with the situation changing dramatically for the worse or irrevocably if its the 3rd failure of the challenge (thereby cementing defeat in the conflict).2)  How does system (in particular player-facing, codified resolution and transparent principles/agenda which constrain GM decision-making) play into subverting or enabling GM-sided plot control techniques (Force) when deploying SWC or FF?Simple.- The more opaque the system is, the more GM Force is enabled.- The less player-facing a system is, the more GM Force is enabled.- The more abstract/zoomed out/vanilla a system is with respect to its goals of play, the more GM Force is enabled.- The more latitude a GM is granted to ignore rules or change things in order to achieve their vision of what should make a good game, the more GM Force is enabled.- The less a system bakes in an overt premise to be addressed during play, the more GM Force is enabled.- The less systematized dramatic needs that express PC protagonism are, the more GM Force is enabled.So, plainly, if there was a continuum of GM Force like so...<Force Subverted ------------------------------------ Force Enabled>...you would find Dungeon World, Burning Wheel, Torchbearer on the far left.  On the far right, you would find AD&D 2e.  Because of the above, SWC and FF works in the service of an emergent narrative for those games on the left.  If you grafted SWC and FF onto AD&D 2e's action resolution system, its default would be to work in the service of GM-side plot control.</blockquote>

Verification