Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6358384" data-attributes="member: 4937">Oh dear, now we are going to play the game of forge jargon.&nbsp; If you are going to play this game, at least do me the favor of playing it well.&nbsp;&nbsp; You are throwing out terms but I'm not sure they line up.First, I've got thousands of hours play GURPS: the Fudge D20 (well, not so much the fudge part), and I think you are totally blowing the analysis.&nbsp;&nbsp; Indeed, I'm not sure that you don't have it backwards.&nbsp;&nbsp; 'Take 20' is not the anti-fail forward mechanic.&nbsp; 'Take 20' is basically, &quot;Say yes or throw the dice.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; I can't recall anyone ever rolling the dice 20-30 times to find out if they pick the lock.&nbsp; If there is no consequence to failure, then the guy with the lockpicking skill just goes, &quot;Take 20&quot;, and the DM just goes, &quot;Yes.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; No need to roll the dice unless there is a consequence, in which case... get this... you can't take 20.&nbsp;&nbsp; Take 20 is 'fail forward' guidance.Err.... no, that's not what fail forward means.&nbsp; Fail forward means that the stakes of a negative roll can never be nothing.&nbsp;&nbsp; This means that you don't roll a dice when there is no consequence of failure, but it doesn't mean that you can't keep trying or that the consequence is somehow more negative than consequences in systems without explicit fail forward.&nbsp;&nbsp; Allowing someone to try again is perfectly valid fail forward.&nbsp;&nbsp; In fact, it's the state of not allowing someone to try again that fail forward is trying to avoid.&nbsp; Fail forward means that the stakes on a loss are always something, and it doesn't have to be 'bad', but also always never 'on failure stop'.&nbsp; For example, it means that you as the GM should never say, &quot;Step on up.&nbsp; Find the clue.&nbsp; Success means continuing and failure means you've nothing to do.&quot;&nbsp; It means that regardless of the outcome, the story goes forward (although possibly in different directions).&nbsp; There is a certain amount of sense to that.&nbsp;&nbsp; Too often you see a story structure where A-&gt;B-&gt;C-&gt;D.&nbsp; But if the chance of failure in each transition is 20%, then failure quite soon becomes the expected result.&nbsp;&nbsp; And even if the chance of failure is small, what then?&nbsp;&nbsp; Just stop the story at C or A and shrug?The problem becomes when it is endorsed as a solution to more generic problems.&nbsp;&nbsp; As guidance against avoiding pitfalls, it's decent enough advice.&nbsp; As an actual mechanic of play meant to happen at all times, it's just ridiculous.&nbsp; Transforming each failure into success with consequences means transforming your game into slapstick comedy.&nbsp; It's an attempt to impose something that is really best as GM discretion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6358384, member: 4937"] Oh dear, now we are going to play the game of forge jargon. If you are going to play this game, at least do me the favor of playing it well. You are throwing out terms but I'm not sure they line up. First, I've got thousands of hours play GURPS: the Fudge D20 (well, not so much the fudge part), and I think you are totally blowing the analysis. Indeed, I'm not sure that you don't have it backwards. 'Take 20' is not the anti-fail forward mechanic. 'Take 20' is basically, "Say yes or throw the dice." I can't recall anyone ever rolling the dice 20-30 times to find out if they pick the lock. If there is no consequence to failure, then the guy with the lockpicking skill just goes, "Take 20", and the DM just goes, "Yes." No need to roll the dice unless there is a consequence, in which case... get this... you can't take 20. Take 20 is 'fail forward' guidance. Err.... no, that's not what fail forward means. Fail forward means that the stakes of a negative roll can never be nothing. This means that you don't roll a dice when there is no consequence of failure, but it doesn't mean that you can't keep trying or that the consequence is somehow more negative than consequences in systems without explicit fail forward. Allowing someone to try again is perfectly valid fail forward. In fact, it's the state of not allowing someone to try again that fail forward is trying to avoid. Fail forward means that the stakes on a loss are always something, and it doesn't have to be 'bad', but also always never 'on failure stop'. For example, it means that you as the GM should never say, "Step on up. Find the clue. Success means continuing and failure means you've nothing to do." It means that regardless of the outcome, the story goes forward (although possibly in different directions). There is a certain amount of sense to that. Too often you see a story structure where A->B->C->D. But if the chance of failure in each transition is 20%, then failure quite soon becomes the expected result. And even if the chance of failure is small, what then? Just stop the story at C or A and shrug? The problem becomes when it is endorsed as a solution to more generic problems. As guidance against avoiding pitfalls, it's decent enough advice. As an actual mechanic of play meant to happen at all times, it's just ridiculous. Transforming each failure into success with consequences means transforming your game into slapstick comedy. It's an attempt to impose something that is really best as GM discretion. [/QUOTE]

Verification