Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7768516" data-attributes="member: 5142">I'm not sure if that generalization holds true. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /> Let's take the game Fate for starters. In the rulebook itself, Fate believes that players should be invested in failure. To that end, Fate encourages calling for rolls only when there are interesting results for success and failure. If the fail state of looking for unlocking a door in a dungeon crawl is "you don't find it, so the action stops," then the consequence of failure is not particularly interesting. But what if you fail but then trigger a trap in the process (e.g., Death Star trash compactor)? What if you succeed, but then break your locks in the process? What if you fail and then a patrol comes by? Or what if you succeed, but due to the time required, opening the door at an inopportune time causes a monster further down to catch your scent as a breeze flows past you into the freshly-opened corridor ahead? Or to change the scenario slightly, Han Solo is under fire on the moon of Endor while trying to open the lock of the shield generator bunker. He fails. Failure is not simply failure but, instead, results in an additional door closing. Its dice resolution entails Failure, Tie, Success, and Success With Style, but players can opt for Succeed-with-a-Serious-Cost on Failure. Now you view Succeed-with-a-Serious-Cost as a mitigation of failure. I can see that. But in selecting this, you are inherently mitigating any success you would have otherwise achieved had you properly succeeded. The mitigation of failure inherently entails the mitigation of success. These are the sort of highly memorable scenarios that Fate seeks to emulate. Then let's move on to Dungeon World. Failure represents half of the possibilities for the dice resolution roll. Roll 2d6. Failure on a 1-6; Complicated Success on a 7-9; and Full Success on a 10-12. Failure will trigger a hard move (or counter-reaction) from the GM. This resolution would seem to run contrary to your assertion given how failure is not mitigated in this resolution, but success is mitigated on a 7-9. Blades in the Dark also applies here. Roll a dice pool. Failure on a 1-3; Complicated Success on a 4-5; and Full Success on a 6. Again, the complication of success often entails the mitigation of success rather than the mitigation of failure. Another aspect that has not been discussed thus far regarding BitD in the mitigation of success entails several other facets of its dice resolution mechanics: position and effect. Position refers to your position of control in a situation: is it Controlled, Risky, or Desperate? Effect refers to the possible effect of your success: Great, Standard, Limited. The GM sets both the player's Position and Effect. If you have a favorable position, but a low effect, the player character can even downgrade their position for increased effect. E.g., you are in a controlled position for crossing the courtyard, but you would have a limited effect, so you could not cross the courtyard in time; however, you could opt for a Risky or even Desperate position for your action to achieve a Standard or Great effect! That seems like mitigating success to me. The process entails the PC deciding which is more important: crossing the courtyard in time or crossing the courtyard safely. And the PC still has to roll, where failure and complicated success is still possible. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devil.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":devil:" title="Devil    :devil:" data-shortname=":devil:" /> Overall, I think that a lot of Fail Forward and Success at a Cost/Complication emulate the flow of action in serialized action-adventure fiction incredibly well. To borrow from the Hobbit, it entails classic "Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire" scenarios. (And George Lucas clearly loved them for writing the adventure stories of Indiana Jones and Star Wars.) And given the serialized nature of D&D and many RPGs, often played in episodic segments, there is an almost natural fit here. As such, I am increasingly inclined to think that the purpose of these mechanics and GMing techniques is not about mitigating player success/failure, but, rather, about keeping the game interesting through meaningful consequences and maintaining a flow of action, opportunities, and choices.</blockquote>

Verification