Quote from: jhkim;1101088I think it's always sketchy to use examples from fiction for role-playing. That said, I have a hard time picturing this sort of scene being satisfying under standard mechanics. If we picture that Frodo is a PC, and Gollum is presumably an NPC. The player fails a roll to resist the Ring. If the GM is then controlling NPC Gollum, so he attacks, succeeds, and then accidentally kills himself. Even if the GM makes some sort of roll out in the open, the whole thing would come across as very much a deus-ex-machina move from the GM.

Yeah, and if the players(! not the PCs) don't care for Gollum, that is not Success-at-a-Cost either. They just failed the pivotal test and it cost them nothing, really. That's not good.
One way I could see it work in KotBL is this: the Frodo-PC fails his test to resist temptation and Gollum (for simplicity's sake here) automatically gains possession of the ring. However, the Frodo player has one Fortune Point left which causes Gollum to struggle for balance, forcing the NPC to take an Agility test. He fails and the day is saved through pure (heroic) luck. Not through the skill of the PC, mind you.

Quote from: jhkim;1101088I have been in traditional RPG sessions where the PCs decisively failed in the climactic scene, and the GM was feeling pity and had some NPC or coincidence save the day for them.

This is the prime scenario to support Success-at-a-Cost. Think about it: the GM did set a stake in advance but then, in actual play, he wasn't able to follow through with it - because the stake was set too high for him after all. He should have instead, from the outset, settled for lesser stakes -stakes he'd actually be able to commit to- and implemented them with Success-at-a-Cost; the PCs fail the pivotal test but the apocalpyse doesn't strike, instead some other, lesser tragedy hits.

What I have been advocating with my challenge-driven scenario approach, at least in part, is to always be conscious of the stakes before you frame a scene that you want to have tension. You should never pick states you're not willing to follow through with.

And there's another reason why choosing lower stakes (via Success-at-a-Sost or otherwise) is a good idea: constantly saving the world makes players become jaded. Varied stakes is less one-note.
And I'm not sure what stings more: failing to destroy the one ring and having another chance to stop Sauron with other characters in the next age OR stopping Sauron at the cost of losing Sam (a fellow PC) who has to make the choice to sacrifice himself just because you failed your willpower test. I think the latter alternative might have the stronger dramaturgy than resolving the scene under "standard mechanics".

Quote from: jhkim;1101088That doesn't make them better in general, but they can be better specifically for having this sort of outcome be satisfying for the players.

Yes, under the condition that the player has metacurrency left because he struggled earlier on hard to gain it or retain it. Because then it's earned - not in the scene in which he failed but prior to that. Earlier competence giving you a secodn chance. Also, metacurrency shouldn't be an automatic bailout under such dramatic conditions - in my above example I suggested that it might prompt Gollum to take an Agility test (or make a Reflex save or whatever); that's the way to maintain tension.

Quote from: jhkim;1101088That said, I agree that don't think success-at-a-cost mechanics are very important. I've had them used to good effect in some cases, but I haven't been convinced to use them myself. I tend to agree that success-at-a-cost works better if it is offered at GM discretion, rather than always being an option for the player.

The latter can work if it means delaying the pain aka a (possibly more severe) complication later in the scenario because it makes that option a rare consideration.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1101061In the Frodo case the point is: let's say you have the final deciding roll of the campaign and the player botches it. Do you just let it stand as a failure then?

Isn't that the backstory to Lord of the Rings. Prince Isildur cuts the ring from Sauron's hand. But he fails his saving throw. Swarmed by orcs. TPK. The ring is lost. This is then the backstory to the new campaign once the ring is found again many years later. You miss out on that ready made background if you just fudge the result in the moment.

The problem with the "Frodo fails his save so Gollem gets the ring, Frodo's PC spends metacurrency to make Gollem stumble and fall" is that, as discussed about the Peter Jackson films... may have the surface details of the scene, but NONE of the actual nuance of the actual story.

That was a story about the limits of the human will and the divine grace that came through an earlier act of mercy (as in, the actual choice that saved the world occurred in The Two Towers, not in The Return of the King).

The ONLY way I could see something resembling a player driven version of the drama on Mount Doom working without utterly subverting the message would be if, in 3e terms, Frodo hit level 6 during The Two Towers and took the Leadership feat and showed Gollem mercy so he could make Gollem his cohort. Then when he fails his Will save he remembers his cohort is still around and, because his PC is currently under GM control, is allowed to run him. Remembering how one of Gollem's primary motivations was gaining the Ring, he has him grapple his PC to try and get the ring off of him (so he can get control of his PC back). Things get desperate so he uses Gollem's bite attack to take his PC's finger, but then flubs his own grapple check and instead of his planned dramatic moment where his now freed PC would push Gollem into the pit, Gollem goes plummeting all on his own so the glory goes entirely a critical fumble.

That would preserve the narrative element of the PCs act of mercy tying into the successful resolution after his failed Will save... but again, is not something ever likely to come up narratively through anything other than shear happenstance.

This reminds me that one of my favorite things about the Mutants & Masterminds books is that they do explicitly discuss the limits of genre emulation (a section called "Lost in Translation"). They go over a number of very common comic book tropes that while they're enjoyable to read about, aren't all that fun in the sense of a cooperative game (Defeat & Capture, Escaping Villains, Guest Heroes, Differing Lethality Levels, and Loner Heroes all get sections).

Different mediums do different things well and other things poorly. Books excel at being able to shift between external events and internal narratives (i.e. what a character thinks and feels about what's going on, even bringing up associated memories) without bogging down the story in the slightest, but generally has a harder time with the sort of spectacle a mass battle in a film or television medium could convey (and visa versa... film does action spectacles easily, but would drag or feel incoherent if their adaptation of a book tried to include the internal narratives of the characters involved.

RPGs are no different. They excel in certain areas and absolutely fall flat in others.

The events from the climax of The Return of The King are something that can work in a 100% narrative (i.e. book or film) -or- the result of happenstance in an RPG session that is recounted as a story later (in large part because it requires that much earlier event of mercy that no amount of spending meta-currency could plausibly retcon into place)... but it would utterly fall flat as a meta-currency directed series of events precisely because it would only produce cosmetic similarities to the themes of the story.

I mean, for a LOT of actual story climaxes your meta-currency wouldn't have to just give a second chance for an action; it would have to include the ability to mass retcon the entire campaign.

"Hey! Remember that prophecy we got at the start of this whole quest about X?"
"No."
"I spend a fate point to have there have been a prophecy about X we heard at the start of the campaign. Look, there's X. It's the one thing we needed all along to defeat the Big Bad, but didn't see it until just now."

Novels can do that because if the writer really decides that a Chekov's Gun is needed for their resolution, they can go back and write one into the story and then deal with any other changes that causes elsewhere in the story. You can't do that when you're "writing" the story in real time.

Well, I suppose you "could", but after the second or third take back from level 20 to level 2 because you now need to replay the campaign with the changes included I suspect the whole campaign would collapse out of frustration.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101036Edge of the Empire. When your party fails to crack a computer system, you may spend Destiny to find a scribbled down password, for example, as per page 316.

I just read the book and you misrepresented the rules. Using a Destiny point to "undo" a failed roll (save through perhaps, a Talent) is not a thing that's mentioned.

As far as your example, you could spend a Destiny point to find a password to a computer prior to rolling, but doing so after a failed roll is very much against their intended use, as per the page you referenced.

Quote from: Chris24601;1101129Different mediums do different things well and other things poorly..

...

RPGs are no different. They excel in certain areas and absolutely fall flat in others.

This, yeah.

I'd say some games do explore internal motivations and epiphanies (even with flashbacks) better or with more nuance than others, but eventually it will reach a limit imposed by the medium.

For many years I've seen posts from people about how getting into RPGs taught them lessons they applied outside of the game in their normal lives: working as a team, planning, and even socialization.

I agree there's a place for the type of game that Alexander describes, and that he's built.  He's looking to step into a cinema-esque environment where the same feeling you get watching a great movie plays out with you as a participant instead of a spectator.  Everyone is buying into the premise that something cool is in store that you don't know about, and we're going to find that together and the way you approach it determines how the middle affects the end.

But as a D&D guy; a sand-boxy DM; I think allowing player failure to happen is good, especially for younger players.  There is no sting less ephemeral than the sting of make-believe not turning out as you'd hoped it would.  But for people who may not be inclined to risk failure in meat space where it counts, learning how to overcome failure in an RPG setting - how to accept not all goals happen even if desired, how to redirect to different opportunities, or possibly how to try a different way than the first approach which crumbled around you - is an object lesson that can carry out into the wider world.  Failure and how it's processed is a mindset that doesn't differ all that much in fantasy space or meat space.  Better to learn where there are no real penalties.

Quote from: Itachi;1101137This, yeah.

I'd say some games do explore internal motivations and epiphanies (even with flashbacks) better or with more nuance than others, but eventually it will reach a limit imposed by the medium.

I'd actually say that RPGs handle internal motivations, at least on the PC level about as well as any medium could. After all, you're playing in the shoes of your PC so you're kind of deciding their internal motivations as you go. You may not be sharing them with others, but ideally you should become aware of them as events come up where you have to ask "what would my PC do here?"

Where I think they absolutely fall flat is foreshadowing and similar narrative devices that preordain events yet to occur. Because PCs aren't typically directed by the person laying down the foreshadowing and because actions aren't guaranteed to succeed or fail exactly when needed such literary devices are trivially easy to derail unless the GM is practically running the PCs for you (i.e. the box text railroad).

Frodo did botch his last roll against the One Ring. And Gollum made the meaningful choice of taking that opportunity to get his Precious back. And thus a full corruption and redemption arc, each in complementary parallelism, occur for the final conflict... And luck, in these moral reflections mortally wrestling, at the edge of a precipice, decides Middle Earth's fate.

How do you suspend disbelief in stories if most are assumed to end in success? You need to suspend disbelief in the possibility of failure.

It's far more beautiful seeing real failure shape the opportunities for meaningful choice, and the breathtaking tension of luck while on the edge, than having the narrative sequence Fail Forward merrily on.

Quote from: Shasarak;1101099Pathfinder 2 has even better Fail Forward mechanics because players can use Hero Points to allow their characters a dramatic recovery or to get a second chance at success in a clutch situation.

Sounds good - should lead to better AP play.

Quote from: Chris24601;1101129The problem with the "Frodo fails his save so Gollem gets the ring, Frodo's PC spends metacurrency to make Gollem stumble and fall" is that, as discussed about the Peter Jackson films... may have the surface details of the scene, but NONE of the actual nuance of the actual story.

That was a story about the limits of the human will and the divine grace that came through an earlier act of mercy (as in, the actual choice that saved the world occurred in The Two Towers, not in The Return of the King).

...The events from the climax of The Return of The King are something that can work in a 100% narrative (i.e. book or film) -or- the result of happenstance in an RPG session that is recounted as a story later (in large part because it requires that much earlier event of mercy that no amount of spending meta-currency could plausibly retcon into place)... but it would utterly fall flat as a meta-currency directed series of events precisely because it would only produce cosmetic similarities to the themes of the story.

Yeah, I agree strongly with this.

Tolkien's theme of Divine Grace as written isn't going to work in an RPG when it will just come over as "player spends plot coupons" or "GM takes pity on loser PCs".
I might be able to do something with "mercy is good" but it would have to be a lot more obvious, like a spared NPC helps the PC survive the final challenge. What Tolkien did would come over terribly cheesy if it were a GM-fiated moment, and likely hilariously bathetic if it were the organic outcome of play through dice rolls and critical fumbles.

Yeah, Role-playing games have their own limitations as a medium. However, the context of my last post was the question of how to represent the protagonist obviously failing the pivotal test but still the world not ending. My reply was that Frodo was saved by heroic luck (or just dumb luck), so if you want to emulate that you might need to represent fortune (and , btw, metacurrency isn't the only way to do that). One problem here is that being saved by luck should feel earned too.

Is this superficial? Well, yeah. I'm playing role-playing games primarily for the adventure, not for heavy themes, so that's my focus in this thread. Plus, once you have succeeded in emulating the adventure aspects of the story, then you can look at narrative thrust as a separate issue (which is what I will be doing with my game).

Also, I'd like to emphasize that even if you're playing an adventure story in which the PCs are destined for greatness you still can have tension: no player can be certain that his PC won't be the Boromir or Valeria or Rob Stark of his party. And, depending on GM and campaign, the final outcome might be in doubt. If you fail the pivotal test of the campaign, it may or may not end in tragedy. Doesn't have to always be the world falling to darkness (it already has in my setting anyway), it might as well mean personal tragedy or whatever.

Also I'd like to reiterate it: it's enough if the players can't be sure if failing the willpower test will cause Middle-Earth to be lost or if failure means Success-but-at-a-horrible-Cost to create high tension. They don't have to be certain that failing that one pivotal roll will mean game over for the setting. Leveraging uncertainty about what's at stake, not just in the final scene of the campaign, means you can on average reduce what's at stake in encounters in your campaign and thereby contribute to the longevity of characters - if that's what you and your players desire.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1101132I just read the book and you misrepresented the rules. Using a Destiny point to "undo" a failed roll (save through perhaps, a Talent) is not a thing that's mentioned.

As far as your example, you could spend a Destiny point to find a password to a computer prior to rolling, but doing so after a failed roll is very much against their intended use, as per the page you referenced.

I'm saying that the game allows the players invoking dumb luck. If there's any passage that precludes invoking it after a failed attempt to crack a system, highlight it to me please. Otherwise, as RPGs are permissive, my representation seems spot-on.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101200Yeah, Role-playing games have their own limitations as a medium. However, the context of my last post was the question of how to represent the protagonist obviously failing the pivotal test but still the world not ending. My reply was that Frodo was saved by heroic luck (or just dumb luck), so if you want to emulate that you might need to represent fortune (and , btw, metacurrency isn't the only way to do that). One problem here is that being saved by luck should feel earned too.

Is this superficial? Well, yeah. I'm playing role-playing games primarily for the adventure, not for heavy themes, so that's my focus in this thread. Plus, once you have succeeded in emulating the adventure aspects of the story, then you can look at narrative thrust as a separate issue (which is what I will be doing with my game).

Also, I'd like to emphasize that even if you're playing an adventure story in which the PCs are destined for greatness you still can have tension: no player can be certain that his PC won't be the Boromir or Valeria or Rob Stark of his party. And, depending on GM and campaign, the final outcome might be in doubt. If you fail the pivotal test of the campaign, it may or may not end in tragedy. Doesn't have to always be the world falling to darkness (it already has in my setting anyway), it might as well mean personal tragedy or whatever.

Also I'd like to reiterate it: it's enough if the players can't be sure if failing the willpower test will cause Middle-Earth to be lost or if failure means Success-but-at-a-horrible-Cost to create high tension. They don't have to be certain that failing that one pivotal roll will mean game over for the setting. Leveraging uncertainty about what's at stake, not just in the final scene of the campaign, means you can on average reduce what's at stake in encounters in your campaign and thereby contribute to the longevity of characters - if that's what you and your players desire.



I'm saying that the game allows the players invoking dumb luck. If there's any passage that precludes invoking it after a failed attempt to crack a system, highlight it to me please. Otherwise, as RPGs are permissive, my representation seems spot-on.

There are examples I cannot quote due to a lack of having the book at work. The burden of proof is on you to showcase that dumb luck is attached to a failed roll. It's mentioned that the GM is the final arbiter of what's viable and cautions against abusing Destiny point narrative use. It does not outright say you cannot use "Dumb Luck" to find a password after a failed rolled, however is assuredly does not say you can, which is how you framed it. You're applying your interpretation as a hard rule, which it is not.

Ultimately any group can do what it wishes in whatever way is wants, however the intention of what's a "bridge too far" is quite clearly in the hands of a GM. It's obvious the intention of "Dumb Luck" was not to move past a failed roll and nowhere in the section of
"Dumb Luck" does it ever allude to being able to do so.

I agree with damn near everything I read that you post however you very clearly misrepresented how Destiny Points are to be used.

It seems to me Alderaan Crumbs is right on EOTE. The book is explicit on the usage of Destiny pts, and turning failures into successes is not an option.

Quote from: Chris24601;1101143I'd actually say that RPGs handle internal motivations, at least on the PC level about as well as any medium could.

I'd say it's different. Internal monologues for e.g., don't work so well in tabletop.

QuoteWhere I think they absolutely fall flat is foreshadowing and similar narrative devices that preordain events yet to occur.

There are even games that explore similar narrative devices, in special ones that build characters around themes or dilemmas and make play about exploring those (see Mask's Moments of Truth, Marvel Heroic's Milestones or Chuubo character arcs, for e.g.), but again, it ends up being different from other media, no matter how satisfactory the experience. At least IMO.

By the way, can someone transcript the 3 reasons in the vid? I've stopped hearing when the author brought "in fail forward, PCs never fail" which showed to me he doesn't really know what the concept is about But maybe he got some actual relevant points against the concept later in the vid?

Don't wanna sidetrack this, so I'll try to be brief:
We agree that players may use Destiny to compel the GM to make them find a computer system access code scribbled down somewhere.
Do the rules need to state explicitly that they still can after a failed cracking attempt to make the player action legal? Or do they need to explicitly restrict such usage if it's not allowed?