Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7483836" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is not true. &quot;Fail forward&quot; (sometimes also called &quot;no whiffing&quot;, although the latter can have other meanings too) is an idea to reconcile making checks (ie the traditional mechanical aspect of a RPG) with gameplay that would dynamically produce a recognisable narrative, rather than tend towards puzzle-solving and/or wargaming.The basic idea of &quot;fail forward&quot; - as first articulated by Ron Edwards, Luke Crane and others - is that a failed check (i) results in the player and his/her PC not getting what they wanted out of the check, but nevertheless (ii) results in a change in the ingame situation.It tends to go together with &quot;conflict resolution&quot; or &quot;no retries&quot;, and with &quot;say 'yes' or roll the dice&quot; - the former meaning that if you fail, you have to deal with the new (in some way adverse) situation and can't go back; the latter meaning that if there is nothing at stake, or if there is nothing in the logic of the current ingame situation that would permit dynamic narration of failure, then no check is called for and the ingame situation just changes in the way that the player wants it to.Succeed with a cost is a very weaksauce version of &quot;fail forward&quot;, and is mostly promoted in games that depend upon railroading and hence will be derailed if anyone actually fails a check. The &quot;three clue rule&quot; is an alternative to &quot;succeed with a cost&quot; for railroad games - its purpose it to make sure that nothing about the trajectory of play will change just because a check is failed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7483836, member: 42582"] This is not true. "Fail forward" (sometimes also called "no whiffing", although the latter can have other meanings too) is an idea to reconcile making checks (ie the traditional mechanical aspect of a RPG) with gameplay that would dynamically produce a recognisable narrative, rather than tend towards puzzle-solving and/or wargaming. The basic idea of "fail forward" - as first articulated by Ron Edwards, Luke Crane and others - is that a failed check (i) results in the player and his/her PC not getting what they wanted out of the check, but nevertheless (ii) results in a change in the ingame situation. It tends to go together with "conflict resolution" or "no retries", and with "say 'yes' or roll the dice" - the former meaning that if you fail, you have to deal with the new (in some way adverse) situation and can't go back; the latter meaning that if there is nothing at stake, or if there is nothing in the logic of the current ingame situation that would permit dynamic narration of failure, then no check is called for and the ingame situation just changes in the way that the player wants it to. [I]Succeed with a cost[/I] is a very weaksauce version of "fail forward", and is mostly promoted in games that depend upon railroading and hence will be derailed if anyone actually fails a check. The "three clue rule" is an alternative to "succeed with a cost" for railroad games - its purpose it to make sure that nothing about the trajectory of play will change just because a check is failed. [/QUOTE]

Verification