My new video!


[video=youtube_share;L-2ZmIefBxs]https://youtu.be/L-2ZmIefBxs[/youtube]

"Fail forward" is crucial for movies, and its important technique for screenwriters.

But for GMs? Not so much.

To me, it always reeks of railroads and deus ex machina being imposed on players before they even have the chance to think of their own solutions. It's interesting that boardgames don't have "fail forward" - you just fail, often losing the game, so you either switch tactics and fight to win, or just learn better for your next game.

Failing forward is fine for the groups where the DM is telling a story that the players are interacting with, but not with a more traditional "the story is what happens at the table" mindset.

Does the argument that failing forward causes you to break character sound super pretentious to anyone else?

Just me?

A GM telling a story is bad GMing!  

But yeah, those GMs need fail forward to keep the railroad chugging toward their pre-ordained conclusion.

A few years ago, my friends and I got "stuck" at one of these GM's tables at a con. We decided to have fun by "doing everything wrong" and watching the GM desperately force the game back onto the railroad. We opened the obvious traps, ignored the obvious clues, killed the helpful NPCs, didn't cast any healing spells or use potions so we walked into the "big fights" with 1/2 or less HP and kept "forgetting" to use the magic goodies we were given. And the GM did everything to make sure we could not fail.

We're such sadists we even told the GM afterward what we were doing and he couldn't comprehend why any players wouldn't want to paint by number. I dared him to try letting the dice fall where they may and allowing bad player plans to come to bad ends, but I might as well have suggested he start gaming naked.

"Heroes don't fail" is a common mentality among RPGers. It's the basis for how 99% of OrgPlay adventures are written. It's been that way for ages, since Living City, and continues unabated into Adventurer's League (aka the 5e Babysitting Club) where the assumption is you will sit down, roll dice for 4 hours, win the game, then collect XP and goodies.

It's why I'm looking forward to the Zombicide Invader boardgame. If one PC dies, everybody loses. And the big bad monsters have the ability to destroy rooms so if you didn't get the McGuffin out in time, everybody loses. The gameplay result is the players knowing that loss is a real possibility and success depends on a combo of good decisions and dealing with fickle dice.

THAT risk is what I love from RPGing, but few GMs are willing to let give up their "stories".

Quote from: Longshadow;1098730Failing forward is fine for the groups where the DM is telling a story that the players are interacting with, but not with a more traditional "the story is what happens at the table" mindset.

Indeed. Not my cup of tea - but I'm not sure that it's badwrongfun if everyone knows what they're getting into as well. Just like I don't have an axe to grind with people playing Minecraft on creative mode or some such. Not my thing - but as they say, 'you do you'.

Though I will say - it does annoy me when those who are fans of 'fail forward' style mechanics try to proselytize as if it's the 'one true way' to play as well. And there seem to be a lot more of them out there opposed by a lone RPGPundit screaming back atop his hill to die on.

The way I understand it, there are two methodologies referred to as "Fail Forward"; one of them is a misnomer, and is not actually 'fail forward' but is rather 'add a complication and let them through anyway' or 'success at a cost' which is almost always fucking dumb. Most games with "fail forward" built into their mechanics use the incorrect definition and methodology, where 'fail forward' is really supposed to be a mentality/philosophy and doesn't need to be codified into game mechanics whatsoever. In fact, even the shitty fake version of 'fail forward' (success at a cost) doesn't need to be codified into game mechanics.

The real "fail forward" is just ensuring that no single roll can bring the game to a dead end (unless, of course, it is literally a dead end). That is, no, you don't get to accidentally have the guards see you but get through the door anyway. You failed. The door is still fucking locked, and guards are not going to magically phase in behind you just because you suck at picking locks. However, if you look around, maybe there's a different way in? If not, maybe you need to adventure for some explosives and blast your way in if it's so important. Or knock on the door, shout and holler until an angry orc finally opens it from the inside to bash your skull in. Or maybe you simply can't get in, so you go to rob the graveyard down the road instead and get eaten by ghouls. In any event, the game continues. You fail, and then literally move forward.

In other words, as long as you are running a living world, you are ALREADY using the ACTUAL, BEST version of "fail forward." That's literally all there is to it. If getting through a single locked door is the only remaining option to the players and there are no other paths, goals, opportunities; you have already failed and fucked up as GM.

Any time I see "fail forward" referred to as a game mechanic, ala Fate and the like, I know I'm not going to like the game. It's dumb and it rarely adds anything to a game, and in fact takes away from it if it's a codified option. *IF* you are going to use 'success at a cost' it should be both sparing and situationally appropriate. It should NOT be codified as a core option of action resolution. Ever. Full stop. Unless you enjoy your campaign feeling like looney toons.

I can't believe how many people there are who treat 'success at a cost' like a holy commandment. Then again, their table is their table, so whatever. I'll just keep doing my thing over here.

I think we're all on the same page, that a challenge in an RPG necessitates the possibility of failing that challenge. Having the GM fudge the players past an obstacle begs the question, why have the obstacle in the first place if there was no risk of failing.

From Antiquation!'s post, the one thing I do take from Fail Forward, is providing an opportunity for the PCs to learn from their failure and Fail Forward in the sense that they gain more knowledge about the challenge.

The truth is that many GMs aren't cognizant of how a challenge can easily become a bottleneck, and frustrate instead of challenge the players. Fail Forward is a band-aid on poor scenario design.
If I, as a GM, feel that I've made a mistake in designing my scenario, I'll use some of the bugaboo GM tricks like illusionism, fail forward, or fudging die rolls. But only if I think it was my fault as a GM. I use them sparingly, and only as a last resort.

Never had a problem with the concept as implemented in Apocalypse World, Fate, Edge of the Empire, etc. On the contrary, I find it usually more interesting than reaching dead-ends in some other games. Of course, that assumes the players make it flow naturally from the fiction, as those books advise.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1098790The truth is that many GMs aren't cognizant of how a challenge can easily become a bottleneck, and frustrate instead of challenge the players. Fail Forward is a band-aid on poor scenario design.
If I, as a GM, feel that I've made a mistake in designing my scenario, I'll use some of the bugaboo GM tricks like illusionism, fail forward, or fudging die rolls. But only if I think it was my fault as a GM. I use them sparingly, and only as a last resort.

This is my perspective as well. Such varieties of 'fudging' should be reserved as a backup tool almost exclusively.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1098788The way I understand it, there are two methodologies referred to as "Fail Forward"; one of them is a misnomer, and is not actually 'fail forward' but is rather 'add a complication and let them through anyway' or 'success at a cost' which is almost always fucking dumb. Most games with "fail forward" built into their mechanics use the incorrect definition and methodology, where 'fail forward' is really supposed to be a mentality/philosophy and doesn't need to be codified into game mechanics whatsoever. In fact, even the shitty fake version of 'fail forward' (success at a cost) doesn't need to be codified into game mechanics.

The real "fail forward" is just ensuring that no single roll can bring the game to a dead end (unless, of course, it is literally a dead end). That is, no, you don't get to accidentally have the guards see you but get through the door anyway. You failed. The door is still fucking locked, and guards are not going to magically phase in behind you just because you suck at picking locks. However, if you look around, maybe there's a different way in? If not, maybe you need to adventure for some explosives and blast your way in if it's so important. Or knock on the door, shout and holler until an angry orc finally opens it from the inside to bash your skull in. Or maybe you simply can't get in, so you go to rob the graveyard down the road instead and get eaten by ghouls. In any event, the game continues. You fail, and then literally move forward.

In other words, as long as you are running a living world, you are ALREADY using the ACTUAL, BEST version of "fail forward." That's literally all there is to it. If getting through a single locked door is the only remaining option to the players and there are no other paths, goals, opportunities; you have already failed and fucked up as GM.

Well said! I think Pundit is right that success-at-cost generally sucks, certainly as a mechanic - it can be great as the rare, occasional, organic outcome of play.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1098790If I, as a GM, feel that I've made a mistake in designing my scenario, I'll use some of the bugaboo GM tricks like illusionism, fail forward, or fudging die rolls. But only if I think it was my fault as a GM. I use them sparingly, and only as a last resort.

Yeah, I do this too - very rarely - when I think I've screwed up, or more commonly the module author screwed up. Like 6 months ago letting the Cleric roll Medicine to bring back the Druid insta-killed by stirges.

Quote from: S'mon;1098798Well said! I think Pundit is right that success-at-cost generally sucks, certainly as a mechanic - it can be great as the rare, occasional, organic outcome of play.

I agree, I think it certainly can be used correctly and to good effect. I think the main obstacle to proper implementation is that as a GM, you have to have enough experience to recognize when those opportunities arise.

I suppose this is my main gripe with including 'success at a cost' as a mechanical option for action resolution; it implies that it should be a relatively common occurrence/offering, even when it makes no sense circumstantially and pushes the boundaries of believability (and after extended use, it becomes a stretch to think up of the 'cost' part of the equation; how many times can you possibly come up with new, creative, interesting and plausible ways for the thief to 'fail forward' through doors?!).

Even worse to me is when it's the PLAYER who gets to decide, such as in Fate which suggests the GM offer someone the choice to either fail, or succeed at a cost (and then tell them what that cost is prior to making the choice, or ask them to offer one up). Granted, there's no gun to your head saying you have to play that way as a GM, but those sorts of design decisions echo throughout the rest of the framework.

Just rubs me the wrong way!

The more reasonable definition I always heard of the term "fail-forward" was not that "No, But" meant the players had to be able to have control over the game world or that they had to be immune from consequences of their actions, but that a failure which did nothing except stop the players in their tracks, or require them to expend disproportionate amounts of in-game resources and play time on defeating it before they could move on, was boring and poor GMing.

The requirement is that any outcome to resolving a challenge has to offer options to advance the plot in a way the players will find interesting, even if it's to their characters' disadvantage.  Not so much "fail forward" but "fail sideways"; you're not railroading the players, so much as making sure one failed roll or bad choice doesn't cut off every possible pathway to the goal.

• The RPGPundit is conflating two things here: the basic concept of "Failing Forward" itself and games in which there is no failure other than "Failing Forward". The former I have no issue with. In Apocalypse World, for example, most Failing Forward is on results of 7-9. But on 6 or less, you may fail hard. I also have zero problems with succeeding at a cost, for as long as complete failure is possible. As to why, I again have to refer to this scene:
  
  [video=youtube;mC1ikwQ5Zgc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC1ikwQ5Zgc[/youtube]
  
• Pundit is also promoting his preferred game style here; it's not my own personal preference though. Certainly not the holy grail of gaming. It just falls short of what I want from RPGs. If you play according to the RPGPundits advice, then, yeah, you can go and travel around Westeros and experience adventures there. But you will not be Jon Snow-tier, at least not Jon Snow season 1 to 6. You will be some guy on this continent. Maybe even some extremely competent guy but just one guy. Your dice will eventually fail you and the dungeon doors won't open and you'll have to move on. That's because the RPGPundit's advice leaves out any concern for dramaturgy. Dramaturgy in his style of gaming is "alea iacta est". It's a valid style but not to everyone's taste. That's why some GMs sometimes fudge the dice behind the screen. That's why some games have metacurrency. RPGs are not just world simulation, especially if you want to experience stories like Jon Snow's in a setting like Westeros. Sometimes a running game might need a lil' nudge to reach dramaturgical points you want to reach. There's a middle road between railroading nothing and railroading everything, you know?
  
• As such Failing Forward is largely a pacing mechanism. Instead of the players having to spend time and effort to devise a work-around, you can keep the pace up by having them succeed at a complication.
  

• Quote from: Antiquation!;1098788If getting through a single locked door is the only remaining option to the players and there are no other paths, goals, opportunities; you have already failed and fucked up as GM.

  I have to be the contrarian again here and state that this is another internet meme that does not withstand entirely scrutiny. Yes, standing before the only locked-door-to-the-adventure(tm) can suck. It can be dull, dumb, boring, whatever. BUT, sometimes, when the players are in the right mood for it, the greatest, most hilarious sessions can ensue as they're trying to devise a harebrained workaround scheme. That's what so great about role-playing to begin with! So my assessment is not that it's necessarily bad design. Instead, it's risky - the players might not like it/be in the mood for it or just be unimaginative and start calling you foul names because they've read on the internet that it's a sure tell-tale sign of bad GMing.