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

[Enrahim]

The exact wording from Failing Forward – RPG Concepts

Failing forward is the idea that you still get to unlock the door on a failed roll, but it comes at a cost. So you get into the house, but you startle a cook who screams. Now your plan of sneaking around the house slowly and avoiding all the guards is shot. You’re in the house, so you better use your opportunity, but this is going to be more of a smash and grab than a cat burglary.​

​

There's no indication the cook would have been there if the check had succeeded and, in fact, it would make no sense if they were. If this is a bad example then it should not be hard to provide a good one.

Talking about that post I also want to point out that this particular blog post seemingly uses the term fail forward differently than everyone I have seen arguing for the concept in this thread. This is the example provided as the alternative to fail forward:
There are two ways that you can do this. The first is immediate consequence. To stay with my previous example, you roll the die, you fail, the guards patrolling the estate or the town come across you and now you’re either running from the guards or you’re fighting them. It gives a threat of real punishment for what has happened and for failing the roll. It’s very straight forward.
I think I have seen this numerous times been used in this thread as an example of a different fail forward consequence than the screaming cook.

The thing this blog post is doing is currently to me seemingly mislabling "succeed with consequences" as "fail forward", rather than more appropriately point out that this is a common aspect of certain implementations of a fail forward idea. But then I again are not sure how the authority of this poster is compared with for instance Luke Crane of BW fame. After all, this blog post is much more recent than BW, so maybe it actually uses a more up to date terminology? Maybe you can shed some lights on this @pemerton ?

 

[Campbell]

I don't see how you can make the game not boring and the character's lives boring. To put it another way, if the players are engaged and having fun what difference does it make? I don't really care too much but I've seen so many times where these phrases are repeated as if they have some deeper meaning and I just don't see it. Of course I don't want my players to be bored, I just do that by giving them opportunities for their characters to move the action forward and by responding to their declared actions and words in interesting ways. I don't have have a bumper sticker like adage like "Be fans of your players" because wanting my players to have fun is just kind of a given.

What people are really trying to say as far as I can tell is that in some games it's the GM's job to push the narrative forward as opposed to my approach of giving them enough threads to follow that they can always latch on to something they find interesting.

Because it's not about the player - it's about the character, independently of who is playing them. I am fan of the characters in the same way I am of the characters of a show I might watch on television - I am emotionally invested in them, their struggles, who they are as people. I am curious about them. I want to see what decisions they make, the sorts of relationships they form, how they respond to adversity.

When I am acting on be a fan of the main characters I am not concerned with how fun it will be for the player. That's not part of the decision space. Your fun is not my job. Often some of these moments might not be fun in the here and now. What's important is I'm creating space for you to act on the creative priorities we all share.

Hopefully, we all enjoy the game, but we are not making decisions based on enjoyment. We have creative goals we are pursuing as part of play. As a player and as a GM that investment in the characters' lives is crucial. The game can be enjoyable without meeting our creative aspirations (and for me that's a bit of a loss if I'm putting creative energy into the game).

We are aiming for a specific sort of fun - that is about these characters and who they are as people.

 

[AlViking]

Talking about that post I also want to point out that this particular blog post seemingly uses the term fail forward differently than everyone I have seen arguing for the concept in this thread. This is the example provided as the alternative to fail forward:
There are two ways that you can do this. The first is immediate consequence. To stay with my previous example, you roll the die, you fail, the guards patrolling the estate or the town come across you and now you’re either running from the guards or you’re fighting them. It gives a threat of real punishment for what has happened and for failing the roll. It’s very straight forward.
I think I have seen this numerous times been used in this thread as an example of a different fail forward consequence than the screaming cook.

The thing this blog post is doing is currently to me seemingly mislabling "succeed with consequences" as "fail forward", rather than more appropriately point out that this is a common aspect of certain implementations of a fail forward idea. But then I again are not sure how the authority of this poster is compared with for instance Luke Crane of BW fame. After all, this blog post is much more recent than BW, so maybe it actually uses a more up to date terminology? Maybe you can shed some lights on this @pemerton ?

The main issue I hit when I was looking for examples is that there's so little agreement on what it even means. There's some scenarios I can see that would make sense to me - if for example the character is trying to open a window to break into the house. So they're trying to jimmy the window latch by sliding their dagger in a gap so they can pop the latch open. So I could ask for a sleight of hand check but warn them if they fail by 5 or more they're likely break the window which will cause noise (and this is a case I'd allow retries). In that scenario the window breaking is directly related to trying to pop the latch, the window breaking may or may not alert someone inside but their character has no way of knowing and it's not automatic. Either way they can now open the window and yes, breaking the window may alert someone if there is anyone close enough to clearly hear it. Other examples are that you try to stop an assassin and fail but you rip off a medallion that gives you a clue on how to track them down. Once in a while, those kind of things are fine.

I guess maybe the biggest issues that I have is that I think sometimes failure should just be failure. I just don't see it as a big issue where the GM has to jump through hoops to make the result more interesting. There will always be options to move the game forward, let the players decide which one to use. It's all of course personal preference.

 

[Enrahim]

In make the characters' lives not boring the important bit is the characters' lives bit is crucial. It's about centering character and immediate situation in your decisions when you pick your next move. Sure, we can have interesting and fun games that are about things external to the characters - but like that' s not the sort of fun or interesting game this agenda is trying to realize. It means first and foremost we care about these characters and their personal journeys over exploration of the setting.

Here's how Monsterhearts lays it out for players:


And how they lay it out for the GM:


There are multiple ways to realize this specific agenda as a GM, but will manifest in very different playstyles. Our L5R (5E), Infinity and Apocalypse Keys all did it very differently. I'd say Vampire 5E does a good job out of the box reinforcing this sort of front lining of character and situation in its Chronicle Tenants and Lore Sheets. Also, in the why setting design changed.

It's about the character's live not being boring. Not about the game not being boring. It's staking a claim that we care about the creative experience of placing the characters under pressure and finding out who they are (and we will make decisions as players and GMs to get there).

This is how I would be laying it out if mentoring a player in trad D&D
Make each main character’s life not boring.
Set an unobtainable ambitious goal for your party. It could be general like become the wealthiest or most fameous party in the world, or something more tied to the campaign the DM has in mind. Give your character a personal reason for having that ambition, and hence seek out the party. Proactively seek out rumors and opportunities that you think could further your party's progress toward that goal. While on an adventure, never let another party member take a risk your character might be better able to handle. Always be on the lookout for opportunities where *your* character can really shine, and grab that moment! But also make sure to play up the other party member's strengths when such opportunities arrives. Remember all player characters are main characters.
This is how I would be laying it out if mentoring a trad DM
Be a fan of the characters.
(You share the same agenda as everyone else: make each main character’s life not boring.) As a DM this involves listening intently to the ideas and interest of the players and make sure there is something interesting in the directions they are contemplating. If you have good ideas of interesting things that could happen to the characters, throw out a hook that you think would be tempting for them. If they do not pursue some hooks you lay out like this, don't press the matter.
Remember to be a fan of the characters. This involve respecting their autonomy of making their own decissions even if that might not match what you had originally envisioned or preferred. Don't overwhelm them - You want to see them succeed, but in a way that really show off how awesome they are. And when one of them do meet their demise pay the same kind of respect as a propper fanboy would do losing their idol.
Even if you are a fan, that should never stop you from being a fair referee and devious adversary once you have settled on the scenario at hand.
This stuff is hardly anything new. New games just have their own spin on age old wisdom.

 

[FrogReaver]

Talking about that post I also want to point out that this particular blog post seemingly uses the term fail forward differently than everyone I have seen arguing for the concept in this thread. This is the example provided as the alternative to fail forward:
There are two ways that you can do this. The first is immediate consequence. To stay with my previous example, you roll the die, you fail, the guards patrolling the estate or the town come across you and now you’re either running from the guards or you’re fighting them. It gives a threat of real punishment for what has happened and for failing the roll. It’s very straight forward.
I think I have seen this numerous times been used in this thread as an example of a different fail forward consequence than the screaming cook.

The thing this blog post is doing is currently to me seemingly mislabling "succeed with consequences" as "fail forward", rather than more appropriately point out that this is a common aspect of certain implementations of a fail forward idea. But then I again are not sure how the authority of this poster is compared with for instance Luke Crane of BW fame. After all, this blog post is much more recent than BW, so maybe it actually uses a more up to date terminology? Maybe you can shed some lights on this @pemerton ?

My understanding of fail forward as applied to d&d is as a technique where at least some failures (maybe sometimes all) become successes with a complication.

So in d&d if you rolled a failure on your check to pick the lock, then you actually pick the lock and some complication occurs, be it guards approaching, a screaming cook or a trap is triggered, etc. really at this point it’s DMs choice with the better choices being those most closely related to the fiction. So purple people eater and demon from hell are probably out (though possible in some circumstances).

 

[AlViking]

This is how I would be laying it out if mentoring a player in trad D&D
Make each main character’s life not boring.
Set an unobtainable ambitious goal for your party. It could be general like become the wealthiest or most fameous party in the world, or something more tied to the campaign the DM has in mind. Give your character a personal reason for having that ambition, and hence seek out the party. Proactively seek out rumors and opportunities that you think could further your party's progress toward that goal. While on an adventure, never let another party member take a risk your character might be better able to handle. Always be on the lookout for opportunities where *your* character can really shine, and grab that moment! But also make sure to play up the other party member's strengths when such opportunities arrives. Remember all player characters are main characters.
This is how I would be laying it out if mentoring a trad DM
Be a fan of the characters.
(You share the same agenda as everyone else: make each main character’s life not boring.) As a DM this involves listening intently to the ideas and interest of the players and make sure there is something interesting in the directions they are contemplating. If you have good ideas of interesting things that could happen to the characters, throw out a hook that you think would be tempting for them. If they do not pursue some hooks you lay out like this, don't press the matter.
Remember to be a fan of the characters. This involve respecting their autonomy of making their own decissions even if that might not match what you had originally envisioned or preferred. Don't overwhelm them - You want to see them succeed, but in a way that really show off how awesome they are. And when one of them do meet their demise pay the same kind of respect as a propper fanboy would do losing their idol.
Even if you are a fan, that should never stop you from being a fair referee and devious adversary once you have settled on the scenario at hand.
This stuff is hardly anything new. New games just have their own spin on age old wisdom.

I hit people redefining old terminology in software development all the time as well. The theories sound new and shiny but when you really dig into it, it's really just the same old thing we've always considered. People want to make a splash, get eyeballs and get noticed so they make new labels and use different terminology to say much the same thing. What's old is new again.

 

[Faolyn]

Can you accept that other people have a different experiences, preferences and point of view than you do? Maybe you feel more connected to things they create or help create, I don't. Not sure what else to say other than people are different.

I asked why it feels different to you. That was a genuine question.

Why does helping to make the world make it feel less real or immersive to you?

 

[Campbell]

This is how I would be laying it out if mentoring a player in trad D&D
Make each main character’s life not boring.
Set an unobtainable ambitious goal for your party. It could be general like become the wealthiest or most fameous party in the world, or something more tied to the campaign the DM has in mind. Give your character a personal reason for having that ambition, and hence seek out the party. Proactively seek out rumors and opportunities that you think could further your party's progress toward that goal. While on an adventure, never let another party member take a risk your character might be better able to handle. Always be on the lookout for opportunities where *your* character can really shine, and grab that moment! But also make sure to play up the other party member's strengths when such opportunities arrives. Remember all player characters are main characters.
This is how I would be laying it out if mentoring a trad DM
Be a fan of the characters.
(You share the same agenda as everyone else: make each main character’s life not boring.) As a DM this involves listening intently to the ideas and interest of the players and make sure there is something interesting in the directions they are contemplating. If you have good ideas of interesting things that could happen to the characters, throw out a hook that you think would be tempting for them. If they do not pursue some hooks you lay out like this, don't press the matter.
Remember to be a fan of the characters. This involve respecting their autonomy of making their own decissions even if that might not match what you had originally envisioned or preferred. Don't overwhelm them - You want to see them succeed, but in a way that really show off how awesome they are. And when one of them do meet their demise pay the same kind of respect as a propper fanboy would do losing their idol.
Even if you are a fan, that should never stop you from being a fair referee and devious adversary once you have settled on the scenario at hand.
This stuff is hardly anything new. New games just have their own spin on age old wisdom.

Just calling them the same thing does not make them the same thing. The actual impact of the agenda and principle outlined is night and day in terms of its resulting impact on play. Your distillation isn't about the character's live or who they are as people. It's about their adventures.

 

[Lanefan]

When one takes these two passages and combines them:

Here's how Monsterhearts lays it out for players:

As a player, part of your job is to advocate for your character. But being their advocate doesn’t mean it’s
your job to keep them safe. It’s not. It’s your job to make their life not boring. It’s about figuring out who
they are, what they want, and what they’ll do to get it – even if that exposes them to danger. Your character
can’t emerge triumphant if you aren’t willing to see them through some naughty word.

And how they lay it out for the GM:

You share the same agenda as everyone else: make each main character’s life not boring. As the MC, that often means introducing struggle and adversity into their lives. Just remember that your goal is not to thwart them, or to gain some sort of unspoken power over them. The whole reason you’re introducing struggle and adversity is to see how they change under pressure, to watch their brilliance and flaws bubbling up, and to enjoy their story. You’re not here to coddle these characters or to bully them. You’re here to be their fan.


It reads like the GM's job is to provide struggle and adversity without being unfair, which makes sense; but then also reads as though the players are expected to have their PCs embrace this adversity with open arms rather than try to avoid or minimize it, which tells me I-as-player am expected to play my character as an idiot with limited or no sense of (emotional or physical) self-preservation. I mean sure, it's a game about high school and high-schoolers aren't always known for their stupendous wisdom; but even they learn fast enough that "once bitten, twice shy" is a useful way to proceed.

Doesn't it make far more sense that the that the character is going to do what it can to achieve its goals and "emerge triumphant" while taking the path of least resistance to do so?

 

[TwoSix]

"Faithful" doesn’t inherently require an external metric, it just requires a standard, and that standard can be internal. If I create a character and define their personality, motivations, and values, then I can measure my portrayal against my own intent. That is something to be faithful to.

And I disagree with this. To me, this seems like a pretty obvious poor use of the word.

If you create a definable metric of behavior that you could at least describe to someone else (even if you haven't yet), that's OK. But you can't be "faithful" to whatever decisions you might make in the future if there isn't some sort of standard to be faithful to.