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

[zakael19]

One, picking the lock in a fail forward game is generating the result fully using a mechanic.

Two, a random table is the most quantum-like state imaginable, because unless it's the most heavily-curated table imaginable, it will contain results that are make far less sense than anything the GM is likely to come up with on the fly.

Three, while yes, some games, especially PbtA games, will say "on a 6-, pick 2: X, Y, Z


So basically a video game with a large but limited tree of options.


So something made up to fit the circumstances is inherently less plausible than something rolled on a table?


By what makes sense.

Or--and this is a wacky idea--saying, "Player, you managed to pick the lock but screwed up badly somehow in the process. What happens?

Get the players to tell you what their player did. If you don't mind them narrating their successes, why can't they narrate their failures?

My favorite line on a 7-9 (success but complicated) is the roughly “the GM will present you with a lesser success, cost, complication, or a choice between.”

It’s most fun for me to let them pick between the rock and hard place, and like you said sometimes say why.

I love seeing players being as creative as I am, and sometimes more so.

 

[Pedantic]

I believe it was @Maxperson that introduced this use of challenge. When I replied to his concerns, I thought it made sense to adapt the language he seemed to want to use to discuss these matters.

Sure, I'm commenting on an issue I had with the framing you both were using.

If you want to adapt a different parlance, that doesn't affect the underlying issue here: it is ambiguous what toolset we should use as it is unclear what problem we seek to resolve? Is it whether the door opens, or is it if the thief enters unnoticed?

Does it matter? If there's a factor that renders noise relevant (i.e. someone to hear it) then a player might want to do something about it. If not, then it doesn't matter if of they do, though perhaps they'll feel it a worthwhile precaution to take anyway, working without full information.

I sort of take the opposite view from conflict resolution here; anything that can be resolved with a single action can't be a challenge, because the player doesn't have the ability to really make decisions about how to deal with it. It's why I jumped to "get the heirloom" from "open the locked door."

The door is trivial. The only real outcomes are "can't get in," "get in without be resource expenditure," or "get in without resource expenditure." You need a higher complexity goal with multiple action declarations between the players and success to really have a challenge.

 

[The Firebird]

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.

We discussed this already...it is better if there is an explicit connection between this and the result. For example, if the failed check causes noise and this attracts the cook, then that's an improvement. However, it doesn't address the core issue of the cook's existence being predicated on a failed lockpicking roll.

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.

See, it is exactly what I see going on. To the players, it appears that their choices would have mattered--"oh no, there is a cook here, we should have gone in through the window". But if they went through the window then there wouldn't have been a cook in the kitchen. It appears the choice matters, but it doesn't.

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.

So the players succeed on all of their checks--where is the cook?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree that probably the biggest issue I have is that the attempted action still succeeded when it should have failed according to the rules of the game. But can the consequence of failure be that they have to find an alternative? To me that is still a consequence and frequently the most likely one.

The better way to look at it is on a successful roll, things go well, on an unsuccessful roll, things go poorly.

 

[Umbran]

"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.

That isn't a point of contention. Nobody thinks you actually secretly want to do it.

The points of contention seem to be whether the stated reasons for not liking the technique are:

1) based on the realities of the technique, instead of false impressions/strawmen.

2) self/internally consistent.

For us the cook(and countless other things) should be present or not before the unconnected die roll is made.

So, a question - do your players never meaningfully interact with things in the world that aren't explicitly in your notes before play begins?

 

[pemerton]

Indeed, but ideally they're not quantum: there's an in-fiction reason those wanderers are there

You think there's no in fiction reason why the cook is in the kitchen?

When breaking into a kitchen and failing the roll, why can't the narration be that a previously undetected alarm goes off

I dunno, why can't it?

 

[hawkeyefan]

We discussed this already...it is better if there is an explicit connection between this and the result. For example, if the failed check causes noise and this attracts the cook, then that's an improvement. However, it doesn't address the core issue of the cook's existence being predicated on a failed lockpicking roll.

But wouldn't it be up to the GM to simply make that connection and narrate it accordingly? As I said, the cook's existence isn't contingent on the roll, it's her presence. So what brought her here?

The GM can decide that.

See, it is exactly what I see going on. To the players, it appears that their choices would have mattered--"oh no, there is a cook here, we should have gone in through the window". But if they went through the window then there wouldn't have been a cook in the kitchen. It appears the choice matters, but it doesn't.

It's about the outcome, though, isn't it? They failed the roll... so something bad happens. If one GM narrates it so that the something bad is totally unconnected to the lockpick, and another narrates it so that there is a connection... I'd say the second GM did a better job.

If the players had decided to go in through the second floor, then they'd not likely encounter a cook. She'd likely be in the kitchen, or quietly in bed... who knows? She's not involved at this point.

Whatever obstacles they'd face on the second floor will be things that make sense for going in up there. Waking the lord. Or perhaps the lord's children. Or maybe there's a hound that sleeps with one of the kids, and it may become aware of any intruders.

These would be things that make sense for and follow from the situation.

So the players succeed on all of their checks--where is the cook?

Maybe in the kitchen unaware that a thief has just sneaked in, her back to the door as she cuts onions for the lord's breakfast. Or maybe in her quarters nearby having not been roused by the fidgeting of the lock, or the cot that she sleeps on in the corner of the kitchen snoring loudly.

 

[Campbell]

Who was trying to sell someone? Not me. Not @Umbran that I could tell.

A discussion was happening about the differences between fail forward and rolling on a table. Then a comment was made that people were losing sight of things because we are focusing on the cook scenario, but could be any complication. That statement ignored that the traditional DMs don't want to use the technique, so other complications than the cook aren't really relevant. Which is all I said and meant.

The cook is just representative of concept of fail forward, like the quantum ogre is used for illusionism debates, and trolls are used for metagaming debates.

No sales. No misrepresentation.

People are responding as if the people who are taking exception to the fail forward example are trying to sell them on fail forward as technique, rather than show why we view the example as reductive analysis of other people's play. The cook example is representative of poor use of fail forward as a technique because the example does not include any of the telegraphing that goes along with it and the consequence does not follow from the established fiction in any meaningful way. Presenting fail forward as a technique with accuracy and grace might not be important to those objecting it to it, but their failure to do so ought to be something they are accountable for because this sort of misrepresentation spreads. I know because I have had to address these concerns with players I've recruited into my games who get false impressions of various play techniques to online discussions this one.

 

[Maxperson]

You're saying that because you as GM don't want total control over a setting, you enjoy when a creature's presence is indicated by a die roll.

But that's what the lockpick attempt is doing. We're just having it do double-duty, so to speak. It's a die roll that tells you of the presence of the cook.

Yes, we all understand that. The double duty is the part we dislike.

 

[Faolyn]

If the characters absolutely must get through the door, why is it locked in the first place? Why not just leave it unlocked or give them a key beforehand?

Because whoever owns the door isn't going out of their way to make life easy for the PCs.

Giving the characters options to keep the game moving should always be a priority, it's just a question of how that happens. I also don't see why every action must move the game forward. Sometimes you try something and it doesn't work. That's life. If it's the only possible option for moving the story forward and it's gated behind a check, that's poor planning and design on the GM's part.

Yes, that's true. That's why fail forward exists--to help minimize poor planning and design.

Your examples of the assassin to me don't represent what some people call fail forward.

Spoiler: Reddit post you quoted because quotes inside quotes

a. You lunge at the assassin, ripping off his cloak. He shrugs it off and makes good his escape, but now you have an article of his clothing and possibly a clue to his identity. (The player gets a new challenge/storyline)

b. The assassin turns around and throws a dagger at you. It is poisoned. Someone will need to identify the poison in order to cure it- a possible clue (A new challenge and the player gets more than she bargained for)

c. You lose track of the assassin in a dark alleyway. Suddenly, he lunges at you out of the shadows (The player gets put at a disadvantage, but gets another chance at her goal)

d. You grab the assassin and wound them. He struggles with you, quickly escaping your grasp. he scurries up a wall and looks down at you, bleeding. You get the sense he is memorizing your face. (The player/party now has a new antagonist, the nameless assassin is now a character.)

These all are new options presented to the players that they can pursue if they choose. Even the "the assassin lunges out of the darkness" because the choice is on the player as to whether they want to bravely run away.

You missed the antecedent: the PC is chasing the assassin and wants to catch them.

In the scenario as described, the action was to pick a lock. What else could happen other than the lockpicking making noise? If there was an alarm trap on the lock it would have gone off whether the check was successful or not. If the door makes noise when opened, it's going to make noise when opened no matter how the lock is dealt with.

Have you mapped out the existence, location, and routine of every being in the location? Have you determined the squeakiness of every single hinge and floorboard? Probably not. So what does it actually matter if the hinge doesn't squeak on a success?

The point of the roll is "can the PCs get in?" Yes, they can--but there's a complication. Or no they can't, but they learn of another way.

I don't see any issue with the character trying to do something and nothing happening as a result other than what they attempted did not work. It happens now and then in my game when, for example they're trying to open a heavy door. They attempt an athletics check but they aren't strong enough. So a few things could happen here. If there's no time pressure they don't open it but it feels like it budged just a little bit, give me another check to see how long it takes to push it open, perhaps with everyone pushing. They could search the area, perhaps I placed a hidden lever. They could try to find another way around, knock politely or just give up on finding the treasure hidden behind the door. What doesn't happen is the game does not come to a screeching halt.

It's just a different preference. I, as GM don't move the story forward, the players do.

So tell me, do you list all of these things ahead of time? If the players want to get through the door, they can: pick the lock, break the door down, find the hidden lever, knock

If so, and the players fail on all of these rolls, or simply don't think to do one, the game still comes to a screeching halt.