D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

The "failure" is the metagame result of not meeting the target number, not so much the narrative result.

I just thought of another fun example of "failing forward": damage on a miss.

Ah, there's the problem. I avoid metagame as much as I can.

 

[Campbell]

"Make it some other complication" ignores the point of contention about the cook scenario. Namely that many, if not most traditional DMs don't want to use fail forward as a technique.

We understand that there are countless ways to present fail forward, which just makes countless ways that we don't want to do it. For us the cook(and countless other things) should be present or not before the unconnected die roll is made.

That's fine. They don't have to. I'm not asking them to. I'm asking you and others to either present other styles of play in an accurate way that shows all the nuances of technique involved or not to present examples. The point isn't about what you and others want. It's about the reductive way you are describing the way other people play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then....don't?

Personal dislike of a technique is completely orthogonal to the technique's validity.

If we're not going to use the technique how important can it's validity to others really be? I officially accept other people like and use fail-forward in their entirely successful RPG play.

Who's with me?

 

[Maxperson]

Then....don't?

Personal dislike of a technique is completely orthogonal to the technique's validity.

You are arguing against something people here aren't saying. Nobody is saying that it's an invalid technique for those who want to use it.

 

[Maxperson]

That's fine. They don't have to. I'm not asking them to. I'm asking you and others to either present other styles of play in an accurate way that shows all the nuances of technique involved or not to present examples. The point isn't about what you and others want. It's about the reductive way you are describing the way other people play.

In what way? I've tried very hard to present it the proper light. Even to the point of disagreeing with others on my side of this with how they are portraying fail forward.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You are arguing against something people here aren't saying. Nobody is saying that it's an invalid technique for those who want to use it.

Agreed. We are allowed to not like what you like. We are also allowed to feel about it a way you do not feel, or to draw conclusions about how it reads to us that you do not draw. You can do the same. So long as you're clear that they're your personal opinions, I promise not to argue with your feelings and thoughts.

 

[Umbran]

But why is it called failure if you succeeded at what you were trying to do? It really seems like the wrong term to use.

The earliest examples i recall didn't actually have characters succed - failing forward was failing, but with an obvious sign of what other course was available - You fail to open the lock, but notice an open 3rd story window.

Also, cases when the goal was multi-faceted: A fail forward on, "I want to open the lock undetected" has both opening the lock and stealth. Failing forward might be opening the lock (so you don't stall), but be detected (still failing to achieve the full desired result).

As i recall, later, some realized that there is little practical difference between that old fail forward and, "succeed, with complication".

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes


And no. This is explicitly more quantum than the other. In the wandering monster case, the events are independent--your skill at lock picking does not affect your chances of encountering a monster. In the fail forward case, they are dependent--a skilled thief encounters fewer wanderers.

The thief's observations play a role where they didn't before, hence quantum.

I think that skill at lockpicking also includes how fast and how quietly you can pick a lock... these things are an important component of lockpicking precisely to avoid encountering anyone in the midst of it.

Earlier in the thread there was a lot of hullabaloo about repurposing terms. When I think of "quantum" in RPG terms, I tend to think of the quantum ogre problem... where the PCs are faced with two doors and whichever one they open, there will be the ogre. It's the GM presenting the illusion of choice.

I don't really see any of that going on in the cook example.

I think @Campbell is referring to a case where the player fails the check and fail forward is adjudicated as successfully opening the lock but making noise that attracts someone. This seems better to me because it is dependent on the player's actions.

But it isn't perfect imo because the existence of the cook is still predicated on failure. In this case, if the players succeeded and then entered the adjacent rooms, they would not find a cook.

Well, no... the existence of the cook is more about the setting, isn't it? The kitchen of an affluent home... that implies a cook. And other servants. The cook's presence is predicated on the failure... which it may very well be.

Which is fine if the lockpick fails and they decide to bust the door down. But picking a lock? That's not loud. It also doesn't matter whether or not the check is successful - it might actually be less noisy if they fail because if it's a deadbolt type lock the deadbolt isn't sliding.

It's not being discovered the is the issue. It's being discovered in a way that is unconnected to the declared action taken. It's "an interesting narrative" overriding the logic of the setting.

I think treating the instance of lockpicking in total isolation as if it's happening in a white room is overriding the logic of the setting.

The logic of the setting would indicate that picking a lock can be heard. That people waiting outside a door at night can be noticed. That people move about of their own volition and may be "in the wrong place at the wrong time".

Just casting all those kinds of things aside so that the lockpick roll only tells us if the lock is picked or not... that's casting aside the setting.

Their skill at lock-picking? That's the skill in question here.

Yes. Lockpicking quickly so that you are not hunched over a lock suspiciously for long is a key part of the skill. Doing so without leaving obvious damage to the lock indicating it's been compromised is part of the skill. Doing so quietly so as not to draw attention during the attempt is part of the skill.

Or to ask an even broader question, could you enjoy a trad-style game if you knew the DM was just making everything as they want along?

I ask because no-prep trad/neotrad type games are probably my most common GM style.

That's my thing, too. When I run 5e, I am mostly improvising... with a general idea based on what's come before and where the players have indicated they want to go. But I largely don't prep maps and keyed locations ahead of time. So something like the lockpick/cook example could very much happen in my 5e game.

It computes for us, because we don't control much of the real world, very often including who might be behind a door we are going to open. That lack of control in generating a likely individual to be behind or not be behind the door makes it feel more real.

But not if that roll is made by the player?

Isn't that just the opposite? Looking for reasons for the desired effect to make sense rather looking for reasons for it not to?

Yes, that was the point. If you focus so much on trying to make an example non-sensical instead of sensical, then of course it will appear non-sensical.

This is why I look at this kind of situation as an opportunity for creative GMing. How do I take this situation and a poor roll and create a new situation that logically follows and is now not good for the characters? To me, that's an interesting challenge as a GM.

 

[Campbell]

In what way? I've tried very hard to present it the proper light. Even to the point of disagreeing with others on my side of this with how they are portraying fail forward.

The point of "make it some other complication" isn't trying to sell you on it. It's to address the faulty way the technique is being described. Acting like any of this is trying to sell anyone on anything in this thread is missing the point from my perspective.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The earliest examples i recall didn't actually have characters succed - failing forward was failing, but with an obvious sign of what other course was available.

Especially when the goal was multi-faceted. A fail forward on, "I want to open the lock undetected" has both opening the lock and stealth. Failing forward might be opening the lock (so you don't stall), but be detected (still failing to achieve the full desired result).

As i recall, later, some realized that there is little practical difference between that old fail forward and, "succeed, with complication".

Except succeed with complication is more accurate to what's actually occurred.

Is it just the alliteration? We can call it "succeed sideways".