Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6356495" data-attributes="member: 4937">Keep telling yourself that.&nbsp; Failure has consequences inherently.&nbsp;&nbsp; That's why it is failure.&nbsp; If that was what it meant, we wouldn't need a special term for it.What 'fail forward' means is that failure always has some mitigating consequences.&nbsp;&nbsp; And in particular, it means that for the majority of players with the typical set of aesthetic motivations, what you call 'failure' never really impacts their goals of play in a negative way.&nbsp;&nbsp; And in that sense, for probably 80% of players, it means failure never does have consequences.&nbsp;&nbsp; That isn't necessarily a 'wrong' way to play, but at least understand what it is.Usually illusionism involves doing something to make the players think they are playing a different game than they actually are.&nbsp; Fail forward is illusionism to convince the GM he's playing a different game than he actually is.Fail forward just means ensuring the players never have less than a minor victory, but calling it a defeat.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's the &quot;Every crash is going to be a good one...&quot; rule, &quot;...because you'll walk away.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; It's the, &quot;You can't take this train off the tracks, because beneath every set of tracks is... more tracks&quot;, rule.&nbsp;&nbsp; The observation that not every victory needs to be total, and that not every defeat need mean death is a good one.&nbsp; But turned into a rule, it just becomes silly.And applied generally, it is often self-defeating.&nbsp; It only makes sense in one very particular sort of game with only a single dominate aesthetic of play.&nbsp; And even then, I'm not entirely sure that it should be a rule.&nbsp;&nbsp; So, while I don't necessarily think that 'fail foward' is indicative of the 'dumbing down of rpg's', and while I do think it's a valuable technique to know about, I'm not sure that you aren't the one that is &quot;just simply wrong&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6356495, member: 4937"] Keep telling yourself that. Failure has consequences inherently. That's why it is failure. If that was what it meant, we wouldn't need a special term for it. What 'fail forward' means is that failure always has some mitigating consequences. And in particular, it means that for the majority of players with the typical set of aesthetic motivations, what you call 'failure' never really impacts their goals of play in a negative way. And in that sense, for probably 80% of players, it means failure never does have consequences. That isn't necessarily a 'wrong' way to play, but at least understand what it is. Usually illusionism involves doing something to make the players think they are playing a different game than they actually are. Fail forward is illusionism to convince the GM he's playing a different game than he actually is. Fail forward just means ensuring the players never have less than a minor victory, but calling it a defeat. It's the "Every crash is going to be a good one..." rule, "...because you'll walk away." It's the, "You can't take this train off the tracks, because beneath every set of tracks is... more tracks", rule. The observation that not every victory needs to be total, and that not every defeat need mean death is a good one. But turned into a rule, it just becomes silly. And applied generally, it is often self-defeating. It only makes sense in one very particular sort of game with only a single dominate aesthetic of play. And even then, I'm not entirely sure that it should be a rule. So, while I don't necessarily think that 'fail foward' is indicative of the 'dumbing down of rpg's', and while I do think it's a valuable technique to know about, I'm not sure that you aren't the one that is "just simply wrong". [/QUOTE]

Verification