The Dumbing Down of RPGs

[GMMichael]

I just love seeing jaz0n's Golgo 13 juxtaposed with Gamgee's Doom-III-looking avatar.

I don't feel the industry is dumbing down anything, but players themselves are getting softer. You could run a deadly game in a lot of games barring the few systems designed not to have it. Probably why we like the 40k RPG line so much here.

For some reason, this quote got me thinking about hit points. Now I know; more hit points does not equal dumbing down. But over D&D editions (industry standard?), specifically AD&D 2e, 3e, and then Pathfinder, hit points per character have gone up. And one of two things has been going on here:

1) Opponents have been dealing more damage, so the net result is that the game is actually smarter - for making players do more math.
2) Opponents have been dealing equal or less damage, so players can rely on hit points to save them from their bad decisions.

 

[Gamgee]

I just love seeing jaz0n's Golgo 13 juxtaposed with Gamgee's Doom-III-looking avatar.



For some reason, this quote got me thinking about hit points. Now I know; more hit points does not equal dumbing down. But over D&D editions (industry standard?), specifically AD&D 2e, 3e, and then Pathfinder, hit points per character have gone up. And one of two things has been going on here:

1) Opponents have been dealing more damage, so the net result is that the game is actually smarter - for making players do more math.
2) Opponents have been dealing equal or less damage, so players can rely on hit points to save them from their bad decisions.

A lot of the time it seems to be both. I simply blame bloat. I had one player say he liked large numbers more because it made him feel more different even though the same actions could all be accomplished with only 1/4 of the games numbers. I tried the explain to him that all it was is a superficial number... and that the pacing was consistent between the examples I showed him. He didn't care. He just wanted bigger numbers! BIG! Oooo! Shiny! The only thing that even slightly swayed his opinion was the math would be easier if it wasn't so high. Granted there are some niche uses for high numbers it rarely comes into play.

Stupid if you ask me. So what does that say about humans in general? I put the blame where it should go. The people, not some edition. I wish I could have more faith in the consumer and mankind, but no. Every time I do they just let me down. Time and again. No wonder why companies treat them like idiots.

 

[Derren]

This is simply wrong. What fail forward means is that failure always has a consequence.

The only consequence fail forward has is additional trouble later on or a little bit less of an reward for succeeding. And in the case that there will be some trouble later on, the group can simply fail forward through this, too and so on, until they succeed in something flawlessly instead of succeeding with a little black mark.

What is impossible with fail forward is to fail.

 

[Siberys]

The only consequence fail forward has is additional trouble later on or a little bit less of an reward for succeeding. And in the case that there will be some trouble later on, the group can simply fail forward through this, too and so on, until they succeed in something flawlessly instead of succeeding with a little black mark.

What is impossible with fail forward is to fail.

Failing forward isn't about preventing the players/characters from failing. It's about preventing the narrative from stagnating as play locks up around something intractable.

I read something recently - I /think/ it was an excerpt from a 5e example of play - where a failed climb roll resulted in alerting the guards. That's failing forward! Even though it's definitely not a good thing for the player, it advanced the situation. If that had just been "Oh, you don't get anywhere while climbing," we spent a player's turn with no change in the story. *yawn*

EDIT: To be clear, the character didn't successfully climb, either. They both failed to move AND alerted the guards - but that's still failing forward. I think you may be thinking of "Succeed at a cost," Derren, which while related is a different beast altogether. Succeed at a cost is about giving players options, while fail forward is a behind-the-screen trick to keep the game moving.

 

[Umbran]

What is impossible with fail forward is to fail.

Failing forward isn't about preventing the players/characters from failing. It's about preventing the narrative from stagnating as play locks up around something intractable.

I agree with Siberys here. Derren, you've seem to have taken a literal interpretation of the jargon, and missed the nuances.

"Fail forward" doesn't mean there is no failure. It is about having a path out of the state of failure.

"Yes, I failed my find traps check, and I fell down into this pit and took damage. And now.... Well, I'm kinda stuck. I have no way out of this pit. Um...."

 

[jaz0nj4ckal]

I just love seeing jaz0n's Golgo 13 juxtaposed with Gamgee's Doom-III-looking avatar

Thanks for the shout out!!! Yeah you can tell... that I still live in the late 80s or early 90s...

 

[billd91]

EDIT: To be clear, the character didn't successfully climb, either. They both failed to move AND alerted the guards - but that's still failing forward. I think you may be thinking of "Succeed at a cost," Derren, which while related is a different beast altogether. Succeed at a cost is about giving players options, while fail forward is a behind-the-screen trick to keep the game moving.

i don't think succeed at a cost is really a different beast altogether. Rather, I've seen it more described as an example of fail forward (13th Age certain includes a couple of things that sound like succeeding with a cost as examples of failing forward). A subset of fail forward options, I think I would call it.

 

[Janx]

I agree with Siberys here. Derren, you've seem to have taken a literal interpretation of the jargon, and missed the nuances.

"Fail forward" doesn't mean there is no failure. It is about having a path out of the state of failure.

"Yes, I failed my find traps check, and I fell down into this pit and took damage. And now.... Well, I'm kinda stuck. I have no way out of this pit. Um...."

the general concept of Fail Forward can be taken as a dumbing down or as an alignment with certain RPG practicalities. In a "hard" game, nobody gets past level 3, when everybody keeps dying and has to start a new PC at Level 1.

As Umbran described it as having a path out of failure, the initial component is having failure not be deadly all the time. if the GM can come up with a plausible alternative for death (i.e. stuck in a pit), then the PC inherently has a path out of the failure state.

Given that enabling multiple paths (compared to fewer paths) is generally a desirable GM trait, Fail Forward is a useful tool. Though like any tool, it has to be used correctly.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I avoided 4e for several reasons, but topping that list was "simplifying things that weren't complicated in the first place".

5e is doing some things I like, and quite a bit more I don't. Overall, it won't be enough to bring me back to D&D.

So, my philosophy is "simpler is not always better, complex is not always complicated". I actually get annoyed if a game still wants to be simple in an area where I feel complexity is appropriate.

 

[Siberys]

i don't think succeed at a cost is really a different beast altogether. Rather, I've seen it more described as an example of fail forward (13th Age certain includes a couple of things that sound like succeeding with a cost as examples of failing forward). A subset of fail forward options, I think I would call it.

I guess I can get behind that. Still, in the games I'm most familiar with that have Succeed At Cost - Fate Core and Dungeon World - it's presented as a means to foster player agency as opposed to a way to prevent traffic jams. I suppose it boils down to the context in which you use it, though.

[MENTION=20544]Zhaleskra[/MENTION] - simpler isn't always better, nor is complex always complicated, but it's a fine line to tread, and you'll always have people who disagree on what exactly is acceptable. For my part, I often find things to be needlessly complex. Just let me make a decision and move on! Because of that, I've drifted over time to prefer simpler systems. They're not objectively better, but I find it's much easier to complicate a simple system than it is to simplify a complex system. A complex system needs to have a clear, thought-out reason to be complex for me to want to use it. For example, 4e's combat is a case of good complexity - the game is built around engaging tactical combats, so it needs robust tactical combat rules. If the game were about socialites and political maneuvering, that would be way more complex than I'd need or want.