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

[SableWyvern]

Fail forward takes this into effect. Here's something I found on an old reddit post, with the idea that the PC is chasing a mysterious assassin:

The problem that I, personally, have with this (and which is only a problem because of the style of play I'm generally looking for, and not because it's wrong in any kind of objective sense), is because I feel that it presumes that it is up to the GM to ensure the players have a way to continue pursuing/tracking/engaging with the assassin (or the assassin's employers), no matter what the outcome of the roll is.

I generally prefer games where the assassin might get away clean, depending on relative skill, luck and the context of the moment within the gameworld, without too much thought about what would allow the current storyline to move forward. At this point, the players might come up with a new line of enquiry that allows them to continue their original investigation, or it might be time to write this off as a loss. You win some, you lose some.

This doesn't make fail forward wrong. It doesn't make anyone wrong for wanting fail forward in their games. It does make it unsuitable for the games I typically run. Not because I don't understand it, but because its use is designed to support a different (but equally valid) set of expectations and assumptions about how a game should play out.

Note: I'm not interested in defending my preferences to someone who thinks I have to prove that some other decision I might make in a different circumstance will involve weighing all relevant factors in exactly the same ratios of importance. Sometimes, something being interesting does, in fact matter to me; that doesn't change anything I've said above. I'm also not going to respond if someone tries to claim I'm throwing around objective claims or that I should focus more on my own feelings instead of absolutes. If that's really what someone takes from what I've just said, no meaningful dialogue is possible. I have worded everything I've said as careful as I can to avoid such accusations; if it's still not enough, I give up.

 

[zakael19]

@pemerton just to share Daggerheart's specific guidance for your note, it calls the "narrating failure as your PC sucking ass" out under the Pitfalls to Avoid: Undermining the Heroes section:

Even at level 1, the heroes possess both talent and experience. This is a heroic fantasy game, and so the characters are assumed to be skilled in the basics of adventuring.

When a roll doesn’t go well, things go badly and the character doesn’t get what they want. Rather than describing the PCs being incompetent, it’s often better to show how the failure was impacted by their target’s prowess, environmental factors, or unexpected surprises. An easy way to make this work is to describe the cool or smart move the character was making, then say “But…” and narrate a surprise, complication, or escalation.

(it does also note that hey, maybe you're doing a comedic tone and the character tripping over their own sword is fine, but that's not the default at all)

 

[FrozenNorth]

Awful lot of D&D before 4e (and games inspired by D&D before 4e). But I agree that how many DMs do anything in particular is not a relevant factor.

I was only referring to versions of D&D for which I feel sufficiently confident I correctly remember a reference to failing forward. Failing forward may have been raised in earlier DMGs or other advice for earlier editions, I do not remember.

 

[zakael19]

The problem that I, personally, have with this (and which is only a problem because of the style of play I'm generally looking for, and not because it's wrong in any kind of objective sense), is because I feel that it presumes that it is up to the GM to ensure the players have a way to continue pursuing/tracking/engaging with the assassin (or the assassin's employers), no matter what the outcome of the roll is.

Right, I think this sort of thing only really matters if your focus is on maintaining a specific narrative thread. There's also lots of ways to gracefully give the players a couple of immediate potential nudges forward on a failure that aren't quite "you immediately get something" but more "hey, do you want to...?"

I think there's a lot of different avenues this stuff can go, but Imo the key is "the DM is going to keep tossing suggestions or conversation starters out there to avoid aimless wandering."

 

[Faolyn]

I did not say this. I would not run it like this.

Then what would you do if the player tried to do something you had not prepared for?

This is also not my position. The reason I adopted the "mean between two extremes" language was to reject this idea that I don't like improvisation, so I am disappointed that it is being characterized this way. (unless you mean someone else by 'people', but I was referred to specifically and I used the 'platonic ideal' language, so I see it as directed at me).

So what is your position? You just saying "that's not what I said" doesn't tell us what you are saying.

That is not what I said.

Yes you did. You took improvisation to be "fudging".

You ask 'hey GM, did you improvise that or do you have notes for everything in advance?'

OK. So you wouldn't actually be able to tell then.

 

[Faolyn]

My games don't look all that much like @Lanefan's but saying that they're playing wrong if it's their preferred style isn't great. Meanwhile I do want a game where I try things and they don't work even if it's momentarily frustrating. I want to earn my successes, victory is sweetest when you've known defeat.

Again, he literally said those sessions were frustrating, to the point they cheered when it was over. And I don't recall Lanefan answering me when I asked if they had enjoyed those sessions or not.

Victory is sweet, yes. Spending that much time on an epic battle, a dangerous (but maybe smallish) dungeon, or some other major undertaking, sure. Two and a half sessions, which Lanefan has said, IIRC, are in the 4-6 hour range each, or even longer, on what he also said was a "simple" puzzle, is not, to me, a sweet victory.

 

[Faolyn]

For me, the knowledge would come when (unless the GM is a truly amazing improviser with a perfect memory) the GM slipped up and contradicted herself, or looked up at the ceiling while trying to think something up rather than looked down at her notes to read what's there, or narrated a room that can't be where it is because it's established there's another room already there (this last one is where I fail, every damn time!).

A perfect GM can wing it well enough that we-as-players can't tell the difference if-when she shifts from notes to winging to notes; it all comes across smoothly and seamlessly. When I'm DMing that's the standard I try for, though will likely never achieve.

Because you never slip up or make nonsensical errors when reading from notes?

 

[Faolyn]

The cook only comes into existence because of an unrelated event. The bears are going to be in the woods whether or not you go for a hike.

If you like that form of fail forward, go for it. I wouldn't care for it as a player or GM.

The cook would also be there whether or not you break in at all, let alone unsuccessfully.

 

[Faolyn]

Given that game, odds are high it would have been every bit as frustrating only in different ways.

That doesn't actually put the game in a good light...

 

[Faolyn]

It was a lockpicking check, not a stealth check.

So? Assuming something like 5e or LU, is the cook's passive Perception higher than the thief's passive Stealth? Is the cook actively standing in the direction from which the PC is entering? If not, why would they automatically know they came in?