Quote from: deadDMwalking;1102165I think you're being intentionally obtuse.  

Even Bullwinkle (of Rocky and Bullwinkle fame) knows that the hero is supposed to arrive in the 'Ta-Dah' Nick of Time.  

In a standard adventure, there's really no reason why the PCs shouldn't arrive 3 days before or 3 days after the cultists have begun their dark ritual.  But narrative concerns indicate that the PCs arriving in the 'ta-dah' nick of time is more interesting for the players and the game.  Everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE takes some narrative considerations with their game.  It may become a point of pride to pretend that they don't, but ultimately every example I have seen ultimately boils down to simple obfuscation.

This reminds me of a Star Wars adventure that was built with a really tight timeline. So tight, in fact, that it was impossible for the PCs to pull it off in their ship with a Class 2 hyperdrive. The adventure never said you needed a Class 1 (or better) hyperdrive to have any chance of success, so after the second scene, the PCs were just like "man, that sucks, but we'll never be able to get there in time and if we get there late we'll be no help at all, so let's just not bother."

Quote from: mightybrain;1101955No, the reason it would feel like a cop-out is because it would be the like the DM reaching into the game to make sure that you can't fail. The thrill is in risking everything.

You can risk everything only so often before losing everything. With Success-at-a-Cost you can set the stakes anywhere between marginal and losing near everything.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1102165Everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE takes some narrative considerations with their game.  It may become a point of pride to pretend that they don't, but ultimately every example I have seen ultimately boils down to simple obfuscation.

Every group has their own balance between considerations of game aspects, dramaturgy and plausibility, just like most writers have to struggle with what might be dramatically pleasing but implausible versus what might be plausible but rather boring. As long as they don't try to sell me their own balance as objectively better, I'm fine with it.

Quote from: Itachi;1101682Unironically, the thread that started with One-true-wayism now is brought down by One-true-wayism.

Indeed.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1102504You can risk everything only so often before losing everything.

Which is entirely the point.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1101350Who is making this decision in Blades in the Dark? Is the player playing their character or sitting at the chess board moving pieces?

Alot of board gamers trying to play RPGs want the second part and try to "fix" RPGs to be more like board games. Or just ARE board games.

Quote from: mightybrain;1102628Which is entirely the point.

Which might be fine if you're not engaged in heroic roleplaying. For, if you are, characters are presumed to not be short-lived, on average. Restricting high risk situations for campaign enders does work in that context but lower stakes might work for different groups as well.

Quote from: Omega;1102637Alot of board gamers trying to play RPGs want the second part and try to "fix" RPGs to be more like board games. Or just ARE board games.

I think part of it stems from thinking we are playing against the GM and that having more tools to win is a good thing. I enjoy board games and war games (and card games) but I don't need RPGs to scratch that itch.

I've been chewing on the whole LotR moment discussed here, Frodo's "failure" to immediately toss the ring in the pools, below. The key, of course, is consequence, which, in the case of the movie, anyway, is that Frodo finally succumbs to weakness, and keeps the ring. If we're dealing with simple P/F, he likely just becomes Sauron's tool, and the ring goes to the Dark Lord. Campaign maybe ends there, but, then again, maybe it continues with the resistance, as stalwarts continue the fight in a now darkened world. Instead, though, Gollum shows up, and a struggle ensues. The ring ends up destroyed, but so does Frodo. He can never enjoy the fruits of the pyrrhic victory. However, because the ring IS destroyed, it would seem to me that the result was "Success, at a cost," since, ultimately, the quest is fulfilled. To me, a "Fail Forward" indicates that the current objective failed, but the campaign can continue, with the parameters changed. Maybe the next iteration is figuring out how to recover the ring once more, with a darkened Frodo as the key.

I had a similar situation long, long ago, in which the PCs were completely outclassed by the bid bad, who took the macguffin (can't recall what it was), and placed them in suspended animation. They were freed sometime later, by members of the current resistance. Resistance thought the PCs had the ability to defeat the bad guy. But then there was the whole, "why aren't we dead?" question. Turned out that the Big Bad had created some sort of pact that ensured his invincibility as long as any of the PCs were still alive. Now, they could simply say, fine, we'll all just commit suicide and rid the world of this thing. But, of course, there's a way, a very risky way, to break the bond, thus rendering the BB beatable, while giving the PCs the ability to take him out, if they succeeded. The Fail Forward led to a less desirable situation, in which the PCs were pursuing said means to win without sacrificing themselves, while certain members of the resistance were hunting them down (along with the Big Bad's lackeys). Alas, we never finished the thing, but the whole affair was brought about by serious fails on the part of the PCs in their initial attempt -- no one made a saving throw. And I mean more than one. But rather than just stop there, we just complicated the situation. Further, Big Bad had a backup in place, in that, an NPC who appeared vaporized was TP'ed and put in stasis. We never quite got to that nasty surprise, however.

Anyhoo, that situation occurred playing 2E, with not FF mechanic. It was just a way to keep the campaign going, and give the players a second chance. Because they liked their PCs, and liked the idea of the new struggle. We just didn't finish because, well, that happens sometimes.

Quote from: cranebump;1102800I've been chewing on the whole LotR moment discussed here, Frodo's "failure" to immediately toss the ring in the pools, below. The key, of course, is consequence, which, in the case of the movie, anyway, is that Frodo finally succumbs to weakness, and keeps the ring. If we're dealing with simple P/F, he likely just becomes Sauron's tool, and the ring goes to the Dark Lord.

Well, it would be my first consideration as well. But it has drawbacks: first, it's predictable. It just gets old when the world is at stake everytime. Gimme something else, at least once in a while. It's as with the Marvel movies: a huge part of Marvel fatigue is that the villain very often seeks to destroy or conquer the world. Kinda stale.

Also, as I have discovered running Deathwatch, the death of one person is a tragedy, the death of billions is a statistic.

Quote from: cranebump;1102800Maybe the next iteration is figuring out how to recover the ring once more, with a darkened Frodo as the key.

I'd very hesitant about that. "Second chances" at winning tend to be tension-undermining, part of why I have avoided any rerolls in my game. Not a suggestion like yours can't be pulled off but it needs be done in an interesting way (not just a repeat) and you need to signal that THIS TIME IT'S FINAL.

Quote from: cranebump;1102800Anyhoo, that situation occurred playing 2E, with not FF mechanic. It was just a way to keep the campaign going, and give the players a second chance. Because they liked their PCs, and liked the idea of the new struggle. We just didn't finish because, well, that happens sometimes.

Sounds fun; the only caveat I have is that I am no big fan of GMs changing the stakes spontaneously because they can't commit to the stakes they have set-out to begin with. What I have called challenge-driven design requires the GM to set up the stakes in advance and stick to them. To that end, you need some system tools for setting stakes to exactly the level you're comfortable with and can stay committed to.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1102878I'd very hesitant about that. "Second chances" at winning tend to be tension-undermining, part of why I have avoided any rerolls in my game. Not a suggestion like yours can't be pulled off but it needs be done in an interesting way (not just a repeat) and you need to signal that THIS TIME IT'S FINAL.

I agree with your basic observation here. However, I don't know that it's a true "second chance," if the parameters/goals change in some way. I liken it to crafting a sequel, based on the outcome of the previous arc (for ex, Luke confronts Vader, discovers a truth, loses a hand, and now his goals change). I think, though, that that example fits your "not a repeat" criterion, as the rebellion has essentially evolved due to a setback (as have the characters). I also feel like there's still some tension involved if failure means things get much, much worse. Survival in a shittier situation isn't really desirable, either. I do agree with you that it's a tenuous balance, and that an end point in sight, with very high stakes, is definitely preferable to generating high tension/drama.

QuoteSounds fun; the only caveat I have is that I am no big fan of GMs changing the stakes spontaneously because they can't commit to the stakes they have set-out to begin with. What I have called challenge-driven design requires the GM to set up the stakes in advance and stick to them. To that end, you need some system tools for setting stakes to exactly the level you're comfortable with and can stay committed to.

Well, I disagree here, as I feel like my commitment is to challenging the players (and their characters). Therefore the challenges should evolve with them, in my book. To that end, I've taken a page from DW's Front design in order to track campaign and individual stakes, with an eye toward sacrifice, if it comes to it, when/if things become unraveled. You fail versus the invasion? Live under a tyrant. You join the rebellion? Good. This fails, you get trucked to a labor camp (if you're lucky). You and some allies break out? Great. Where you gonna go now? And are you gonna travel with these other folks, some of whom really are shady bastards? You decide to find greener pastures? Cool, but what about those family members that still live in Tyranttown? Fuck them? Okay, live with the guilt (if you have any), and maybe face a similar situation in a different location, where a chance to redeem yourself through an adopted family asserts itself. Fuck them, too? Okay, now what? I'll wait...:-)

This probably fits the "changing goals" definition, but that's how'd I'd approach campaign evolution, assuming I was running something long term. If I'm sticking to one front or end goal, then, yeah, when it's over it's over. I much prefer having the game world evolve, however, and the PCs along with it. Provided, of course, that the players wanted their PCs to continue. I should note here that I don't have a problem with lethality. We always have PCs bite the dust, because, like you, I do not reroll (and I roll in the open, save for such things as perception, stealth, etc.). I don't fudge the rolls, but I do consider the consequences as springboards to something else, particularly if the players fail (by that I mean to achieve goals, not specific task rolls). "Forward" doesn't mean they don't have setbacks. It just means the game goes on. That's a play style, I'll grant, and not for everyone.

Quote from: cranebump;1102912I agree with your basic observation here. However, I don't know that it's a true "second chance," if the parameters/goals change in some way.

It solely depends on the expectations with which your players (! compare below) approached that first pivotal test.

Quote from: cranebump;1102912I liken it to crafting a sequel, based on the outcome of the previous arc (for ex, Luke confronts Vader, discovers a truth, loses a hand, and now his goals change). I think, though, that that example fits your "not a repeat" criterion,

I agree. Same for fighting evil Frodo. Still, it's not for every group of players, as you can see from some of the reactions in this thread. For me, personally, it also comes down to what I was refering to in my last post: was that sequel always the planned outcome for a failed test OR did the GM soften the stakes mid-stream?

Quote from: cranebump;1102912Well, I disagree here, as I feel like my commitment is to challenging the players (and their characters). Therefore the challenges should evolve with them, in my book. To that end, I've taken a page from DW's Front design in order to track campaign and individual stakes, with an eye toward sacrifice, if it comes to it, when/if things become unraveled.

The thing is that challenge is all about beating expectations (GM or scenario author expectations in this case) and the less spontaneous and the more rigidly set-up (and tested) those expectations are, the greater the potential satisfaction. It's less whimsical and makes your performance more comparable to others, even if just in theory. It gives you more bragging rights.

Quote from: cranebump;1102912You fail versus the invasion? Live under a tyrant. You join the rebellion? Good. This fails, you get trucked to a labor camp (if you're lucky). You and some allies break out? Great. Where you gonna go now? And are you gonna travel with these other folks, some of whom really are shady bastards? You decide to find greener pastures? Cool, but what about those family members that still live in Tyranttown? Fuck them? Okay, live with the guilt (if you have any), and maybe face a similar situation in a different location, where a chance to redeem yourself through an adopted family asserts itself. Fuck them, too? Okay, now what? I'll wait...:-)

This sounds more like story-driven role-playing to my ear (which, ofc, is not a judgemental statement coming from me).

Quote from: cranebump;1102912I don't fudge the rolls, but I do consider the consequences as springboards to something else, particularly if the players fail (by that I mean to achieve goals, not specific task rolls). "Forward" doesn't mean they don't have setbacks. It just means the game goes on. That's a play style, I'll grant, and not for everyone.

In Knights of the Black Lily, the GM isn't supposed to fudge the dice either - he just spends Fortune to create a new event that manipulates the situation (which means that doing so always creates a forwards motion in the story, whether good or bad for the players, instead of directly undoing some situation), which goes into the player's pool. At least, if it's an event detrimental to them. And, of course, the players can spend themselves Fortune in place of a "GM dice-fudge".
The point is that it all has positive or negative consequences at the end of the scenario, when you take the final tally of Fortune Pools. It's not like in FATE or FFG Star Wars, where it doesn't matter how much you or the GM has left.
And by doing all of this, you're creating a metric for player (! not PC) performance. Which in turn is all about beating expectations.

Breaking my promise of non-participation to comment on this:

Quote from: cranebump;1102912Well, I disagree here, as I feel like my commitment is to challenging the players (and their characters). Therefore the challenges should evolve with them, in my book. To that end, I've taken a page from DW's Front design in order to track campaign and individual stakes, with an eye toward sacrifice, if it comes to it, when/if things become unraveled. You fail versus the invasion? Live under a tyrant. You join the rebellion? Good. This fails, you get trucked to a labor camp (if you're lucky). You and some allies break out? Great. Where you gonna go now? And are you gonna travel with these other folks, some of whom really are shady bastards? You decide to find greener pastures? Cool, but what about those family members that still live in Tyranttown? Fuck them? Okay, live with the guilt (if you have any), and maybe face a similar situation in a different location, where a chance to redeem yourself through an adopted family asserts itself. Fuck them, too? Okay, now what? I'll wait...:-)

This probably fits the "changing goals" definition, but that's how'd I'd approach campaign evolution, assuming I was running something long term. If I'm sticking to one front or end goal, then, yeah, when it's over it's over. I much prefer having the game world evolve, however, and the PCs along with it. Provided, of course, that the players wanted their PCs to continue. I should note here that I don't have a problem with lethality. We always have PCs bite the dust, because, like you, I do not reroll (and I roll in the open, save for such things as perception, stealth, etc.). I don't fudge the rolls, but I do consider the consequences as springboards to something else, particularly if the players fail (by that I mean to achieve goals, not specific task rolls). "Forward" doesn't mean they don't have setbacks. It just means the game goes on. That's a play style, I'll grant, and not for everyone.

THIS is a great encapsulation of Fail Forward as actually used in games, by someone with actual play experience in them. Notice how it has nothing to do with "players never fail", instant gratification or other strawman cited by Pundit in that vid.

Here, bro..

Quote from: Itachi;1102921Breaking my promise of non-participation to comment on this:


THIS is a great encapsulation of Fail Forward as actually used in games, by someone with actual play experience in them. Notice how it has nothing to do with "players never fail", instant gratification or other strawman cited by Pundit in that vid.

Here, bro..

Well, you know...blind squirrel and all that...:-) (thanks, man)

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1102919It solely depends on the expectations with which your players (! compare below) approached that first pivotal test.



I agree. Same for fighting evil Frodo. Still, it's not for every group of players, as you can see from some of the reactions in this thread. For me, personally, it also comes down to what I was refering to in my last post: was that sequel always the planned outcome for a failed test OR did the GM soften the stakes mid-stream?



The thing is that challenge is all about beating expectations (GM or scenario author expectations in this case) and the less spontaneous and the more rigidly set-up (and tested) those expectations are, the greater the potential satisfaction. It's less whimsical and makes your performance more comparable to others, even if just in theory. It gives you more bragging rights.



This sounds more like story-driven role-playing to my ear (which, ofc, is not a judgemental statement coming from me).



In Knights of the Black Lily, the GM isn't supposed to fudge the dice either - he just spends Fortune to create a new event that manipulates the situation (which means that doing so always creates a forwards motion in the story, whether good or bad for the players, instead of directly undoing some situation), which goes into the player's pool. At least, if it's an event detrimental to them. And, of course, the players can spend themselves Fortune in place of a "GM dice-fudge".
The point is that it all has positive or negative consequences at the end of the scenario, when you take the final tally of Fortune Pools. It's not like in FATE or FFG Star Wars, where it doesn't matter how much you or the GM has left.
And by doing all of this, you're creating a metric for player (! not PC) performance. Which in turn is all about beating expectations.

No overt disagreement. I would only clarify that said "story" I use as an example is nothing more than consequence-driven outcomes, based on the results of the tasks/goals at hand. I'm not worried about a comparable performance (probably because my GM brain doesn't work that way), and I don't think my players are either. At least, none of them seem to be (they keep showing up, so that's probably my metric).

That said, I do dispute the value of a planned sequel versus an evolving one (assuming I'm reading that right), as you can't plan a true sequel without knowledge of previous events. I mean, you can tack a sequel on to a successful end campaign result, too (a new threat arises, the success produces an unexpected consequence, the characters find their fame complicates their life in undesirable ways [ex: everyone wants their treasure/time now]). So, I'm not sure what you mean there, and why I should value it over what I'm already doing that seems successful. Maybe I need a different example?

Beyond that, I think players have their own metrics, some of which may be quite simple (as in, "Wow...that was some good beer we had during the last session...").:-)

Quote from: Itachi;1102921THIS is a great encapsulation of Fail Forward as actually used in games, by someone with actual play experience in them. Notice how it has nothing to do with "players never fail", instant gratification or other strawman

It's a great encapsulation of failing forward as a description of the results of normal play. But it's not an example of using a Fail Forward game mechanic.

What cranebump is describing, is playing on with the consequences of the failure leading to new adventure opportunities. I think we all do that anyway. But with a Fail Forward game mechanic you would typically negotiate the consequences of success and failure before making the roll. The result would then be automatic and fast wind you to the next decision point. In that sense it's a shortcut. But it also allows the players a say in the consequences of their actions.