Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Worlds of Design: “Old School” in RPGs and other Games – Part 2 and 3 Rules, Pacing, Non-RPGs, and G
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7769227" data-attributes="member: 5142"><p>It may appear that way to you from the outside, but from the inside, it appears that you are conflating "fail forward" with "success-with-a-cost." Fail Forward is best encapsulated as "You fail and then something happens." </p><p></p><p>In the case of Fate, a player opting for a "success with a cost" is more appropriately opting into a "success with a <em>major</em> cost." You may have jumped to the next roof successfully, but... You injure your leg in the process. You may have climbed the wall successfully, but... The guards on the wall will drag you up and put you in chains. (One guard waiting would likely be a minor cost.) Or your bungled climbing alerts the entire garrison. Sure you have succeeded. You have outrun the boulder chasing you, but you lose the golden idol you came for to a rival. Sure success is success and failure is failure, but <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> happens. Even if you succeed at an action, failure can be a consequence of the action. </p><p></p><p>Most assuredly, there is overlap between "success with a cost" and "fail forward," but that overlap primarily rests in how both entail the continued momentum of the action/drama/narrative through the introduction of new complications. But this is a difference between "Yes, but..." and "No, but instead..." </p><p></p><p>Sure, if this was the only way that 'fail forward' was expressed it would indeed get old quick, but that is often not the case. It's usually one example among many that gets floated often because the "impasse at the wall" is probably the most commonly discussed case study. The preferred approach with fail forward is typically that the consequences proceed from the contexts of the narrative. Guards will not always come out of the dungeon wall. Why would they? There are no theys here, as this crypt has been abandoned by any sentient creatures. </p><p></p><p>Let us be clear here. Fail Forward is not about precluding character failure; it's about precluding narrative inertia by maintaining a continued momentum, and this continued momentum is not necessarily towards a singular or forward direction (i.e., railroading). </p><p>This seems simplistic given that it lacks a a certain depth of ranges between full success and full failure, particularly when one holds up such definitions to the light of reality. I have faced success in my failure and failure in my successes. IME the false dichotomy of success and failure does not hold up to scrutiny. And perhaps NSRPGs stem from some dissatisfaction with the more binary approach to character actions and consequences. </p><p></p><p>You are adding something extraneous here in your description of 'fail forward,' which ties into your earlier misunderstanding. 'Fail Forward' is not the DM finding a way to grant success to the players. It's a way to keep the action going. That action does not even necessarily require the GM providing the players with any form of success. Nothing requires that the aforementioned secret door will or should open in a 'fail forward' scenario, only that action continues in some manner despite failure. This may mean that a monster drops from the ceiling and chases them down the corridor that leads them elsewhere. Some other trap may be triggered in the process of navigating the room. Have you succeeded in opening the secret door? Nope. The door remains hidden/locked, but the action continues.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7769227, member: 5142"] It may appear that way to you from the outside, but from the inside, it appears that you are conflating "fail forward" with "success-with-a-cost." Fail Forward is best encapsulated as "You fail and then something happens." In the case of Fate, a player opting for a "success with a cost" is more appropriately opting into a "success with a [I]major[/I] cost." You may have jumped to the next roof successfully, but... You injure your leg in the process. You may have climbed the wall successfully, but... The guards on the wall will drag you up and put you in chains. (One guard waiting would likely be a minor cost.) Or your bungled climbing alerts the entire garrison. Sure you have succeeded. You have outrun the boulder chasing you, but you lose the golden idol you came for to a rival. Sure success is success and failure is failure, but :):):):) happens. Even if you succeed at an action, failure can be a consequence of the action. Most assuredly, there is overlap between "success with a cost" and "fail forward," but that overlap primarily rests in how both entail the continued momentum of the action/drama/narrative through the introduction of new complications. But this is a difference between "Yes, but..." and "No, but instead..." Sure, if this was the only way that 'fail forward' was expressed it would indeed get old quick, but that is often not the case. It's usually one example among many that gets floated often because the "impasse at the wall" is probably the most commonly discussed case study. The preferred approach with fail forward is typically that the consequences proceed from the contexts of the narrative. Guards will not always come out of the dungeon wall. Why would they? There are no theys here, as this crypt has been abandoned by any sentient creatures. Let us be clear here. Fail Forward is not about precluding character failure; it's about precluding narrative inertia by maintaining a continued momentum, and this continued momentum is not necessarily towards a singular or forward direction (i.e., railroading). This seems simplistic given that it lacks a a certain depth of ranges between full success and full failure, particularly when one holds up such definitions to the light of reality. I have faced success in my failure and failure in my successes. IME the false dichotomy of success and failure does not hold up to scrutiny. And perhaps NSRPGs stem from some dissatisfaction with the more binary approach to character actions and consequences. You are adding something extraneous here in your description of 'fail forward,' which ties into your earlier misunderstanding. 'Fail Forward' is not the DM finding a way to grant success to the players. It's a way to keep the action going. That action does not even necessarily require the GM providing the players with any form of success. Nothing requires that the aforementioned secret door will or should open in a 'fail forward' scenario, only that action continues in some manner despite failure. This may mean that a monster drops from the ceiling and chases them down the corridor that leads them elsewhere. Some other trap may be triggered in the process of navigating the room. Have you succeeded in opening the secret door? Nope. The door remains hidden/locked, but the action continues. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Worlds of Design: “Old School” in RPGs and other Games – Part 2 and 3 Rules, Pacing, Non-RPGs, and G
Top