Quote from: The Traveller;687119Surely everything moves the game forward - if it takes time, things move forward. What you maybe mean is 'move the plot towards some desireable end' which is its own can of worms given the arguments about sandboxing, narratives and whatnot.

No, that is absolutely *not* what I mean.  I am vehemently opposed to railroading.  I do *not* pre-plan what my players will do, or drive them to any particular conclusion.  I take active steps to ensure that I *don't* do this.

Again, I'm talking about the terminal condition here - at what point do you either stop, or something bad happens, or the situation has changed sufficiently that you need to reconsider.

"Time moving forward" is only an issue if there's some cost associated with it.

Quote from: Strange Visitor;17136198I don't really understand - skills rolls may be reattempted at a cumulative -5 in my game, which means after the third try or so you may as well just give up for a while.

That's one way to handle it.  Another way would be to figure out what the costs of failure are, and just drive to that.  A third way is to ensure that time inherently has a cost.

If I want to unlock a door in a dungeon, there'd be a few choices there:

1) In some way limiting the number of attempts mechanically - your solution is basically this, it's just a variation on 'one and done' from Basic D&D.

2) Figure out "if I did this infinitely long, what would be the bad thing that would happen?" and just roll to see if you succeed before bad thing happens - whether that's wandering monsters, or the guys inside figure out what's going on and attack you, etc.

3) Build a cost into each attempt - again, wandering monsters in older D&D versions fill this function.

I'd consider all of these some form of "failing forward".

My only issue with #3 is that, at some level, I kind of wonder why we can't just handle all of those rolls with a single one - instead of 'try, fail, roll monster, try, fail, roll monster' etc.

#1 works too.  It definitely puts a cost into things.  I just don't know that it's always the most interesting or even realistic cost.  It can also lead to the situation where the rolls are designed for the players to inherently succeed if that door 'needs' to be unlocked.

Speaking in general, not necessarily what you do.

And that kind of 'sure, you can fail, but you won't' thing is something I really don't like.  In my mind, rolls *should* have a reasonable chance of failure, or why bother rolling?  At some level, I guess I just prefer the question 'do I unlock the door before the guards show up?' to the question 'do I unlock the door?'

Quote from: Strange Visitor;17136198That's why I said 'a single rule', not a table. However this:

...neatly illustrates what I was saying about partial failure tables being more or less useless in games with more than a couple dozen skills, at most.

Actually you said 'if you had tables, you'd be looking up things all the time, or you could have a single rule'.

You didn't seem to reject the tables thing outright, so I just wanted to point out why I thought that tables wouldn't work, regardless of the lookup time.  So it seems that we agree on that.

I don't think the additional load on the GM to figure out what happens when things go wrong is really significant, personally.  It takes a *bit* of adjustment to think that way, but it's not terrible.  The difference is you have to think about the situation and figure out what's going on, rather than just let the system do the work for you.

If you have players that are anti-GM-fiat, and think that everything has to come from a table or rule, yeah, it doesn't work well.

Quote from: CRKrueger;687124You can't just say, "Oh when I use the term I mean something different then any game that's ever used the term." and then declare the term is not what people say it is based on your definition.

Is there a game that you can give that defines it, so we can at least quote a definition?

I'm sure a number of people use Fail Forward differently.  This is how *I* use it.  If it differs greatly from the accepted usage (by people that actually use it, not by people that hate it), I'll accept that I'm using the term incorrectly and a different term would be useful for the concept I'm discussing.

The reason I specify "how people that use the term" is because in general, people that actually like the term probably use the concept on a more regular basis, and have a better idea of what it means and how it works through simple repeated usage.

Quote from: robiswrong;687127At some level, I guess I just prefer the question 'do I unlock the door before the guards show up?' to the question 'do I unlock the door?'

The problem with that is, it assumes that if there are no guards, then of course you unlock the door.  Some actions have such a small chance of succeeding that sheer time itself becomes a consequence even if no other logical consequence exists.

You operate under the default of "do what is logical", you end up with what is logical.

You operate under the default of "do what is dramatically interesting and moves things forward", then you end up getting a whole different vibe.

Here's a reference from someone who uses the term.

http://adam.legendary.org/thoughts/13th-age-fail-forward/

References to the mentioned games I don't have access to now.

Note:

Quote from: Adam DrayIf failing in itself leads to interesting game play, failure is okay. It’s when it blocks the story from moving forward that you fail forward.

Quote from: robiswrong;687127No, that is absolutely *not* what I mean.  I am vehemently opposed to railroading.  I do *not* pre-plan what my players will do, or drive them to any particular conclusion.  I take active steps to ensure that I *don't* do this.

'Some desireable end' doesn't have to mean 'some pre planned end'. Going at the speed of plot is meaningless in RPGs.

Quote from: robiswrong;687127Again, I'm talking about the terminal condition here - at what point do you either stop, or something bad happens, or the situation has changed sufficiently that you need to reconsider.

Generally as mentioned, in my games you stop when the task at hand is clearly beyond your abilities. You can try again after a suitable period of time however.

Quote from: robiswrong;687127"Time moving forward" is only an issue if there's some cost associated with it.

I don't see how there couldn't be, but I play in games where the world moves on with or without the PCs.

Quote from: robiswrong;687127A third way is to ensure that time inherently has a cost.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Not everything has to be a five second countdown.

Quote from: robiswrong;6871272) Figure out "if I did this infinitely long, what would be the bad thing that would happen?" and just roll to see if you succeed before bad thing happens - whether that's wandering monsters, or the guys inside figure out what's going on and attack you, etc.

3) Build a cost into each attempt - again, wandering monsters in older D&D versions fill this function.

I do both of these as well.

Quote from: robiswrong;687127It can also lead to the situation where the rolls are designed for the players to inherently succeed if that door 'needs' to be unlocked.

That doesn't follow at all. If they fail they fail. I work on a skill plus stat plus d10 basis - a -5 is a significant penalty. A -10 is savage and a -15 is a failure guaranteed situation.

Quote from: robiswrong;687127Actually you said 'if you had tables, you'd be looking up things all the time, or you could have a single rule'.

Yeah I clarified that in a subsequent post. Your climbing failure table is applicable to almost any climbing situation as-is, it wouldn't take any real effort to adapt a result to something different, although I can't imagine what adaptation would be needed since the risk of failure is dictated by the difficulty of the task.

Quote from: robiswrong;687127You didn't seem to reject the tables thing outright, so I just wanted to point out why I thought that tables wouldn't work, regardless of the lookup time.  So it seems that we agree on that.

Tables work fine if the game only has a few skills. DW is a good example of this.

Quote from: robiswrong;687127I don't think the additional load on the GM to figure out what happens when things go wrong is really significant, personally.  It takes a *bit* of adjustment to think that way, but it's not terrible.  The difference is you have to think about the situation and figure out what's going on, rather than just let the system do the work for you.

I cut death spirals and hit locations from my combats because they were too much effort. Slick, fast, and fun, that's how combat should go. Partial failures are nothing but hassle in that sort of environment. In other situations sure partial failure could work.

Just in case anyone was wondering, I'm finding this an enjoyable conversation, not being conducted in any kind of a bickering manner.

Quote from: CRKrueger;687131The problem with that is, it assumes that if there are no guards, then of course you unlock the door.

If there are no guards, then you're not asking the question 'do I unlock the door before the guards find me.'  You're asking 'do I unlock the door before...', or 'do I unlock the door without breaking my picks' or another question.

The actual consequences will vary based on the situation.

Quote from: CRKrueger;687131Some actions have such a small chance of succeeding that sheer time itself becomes a consequence even if no other logical consequence exists.

You operate under the default of "do what is logical", you end up with what is logical.

Time itself is *generally* not the consequence.  What else occurs during that time, or what other things you *don't* do - those are the consequences.

Sitting in a dungeon for a year unlocking a door isn't *inherently* a consequence (unless you're using aging rules).  The consequence is:

1) All the random encounters that pop up
2) What has changed in the world that you didn't get a chance to impact in some way
3) Possibly running out of food/water/supplies

Those are the consequences.  In most games, sure, it's enough to just say 'it takes time' and move on, since at least one of those three things is *implicitly* brought to bear by virtue of the situation, but that's indirect and emergent.

If you're saying that you prefer these things to be more emergent and less direct, that's fine.

Quote from: CRKrueger;687133You operate under the default of "do what is dramatically interesting and moves things forward", then you end up getting a whole different vibe.

We often think of skill rolls as 'success' and 'failure'.  Success tells us what happens, but 'failure' only tells us what doesn't happen.  If you don't succeed, there's lots of things that *could* happen.  How do we choose between them, and based on what criteria?  If there's a list of 'failure' scenarios that are all logical and plausible within the situation, what's wrong with using 'what makes the game more interesting' as a secondary criteria, presuming that it first meets 'is logical'?

Quote from: CRKrueger;687133Here's a reference from someone who uses the term.

http://adam.legendary.org/thoughts/13th-age-fail-forward/

Good reference, and I actually just looked at the PDF for 13th Age.

I completely disagree with the concept as presented.  It seems to really push 'failure' as *always* being 'success with a cost'.  Success with a cost is a useful tool, but it's not the only one.

I'm still pretty sure I saw a definition of failing forward as closer to mine in a game recently.  I'll try and dig it up.

Quote from: The Traveller;687135'Some desireable end' doesn't have to mean 'some pre planned end'. Going at the speed of plot is meaningless in RPGs.

Then what do you mean by it?

Quote from: The Traveller;687135I don't see how there couldn't be, but I play in games where the world moves on with or without the PCs.

Right, and I agree with the idea that that's how games *should* work - I'm also not a huge fan of 'moving at the speed of plot'.

But still time isn't the real cost.  It's what happens as a result of that time that's the cost.  Again, if the cost is 'eventually the guards may find me!', then why not just roll for that possibility once, instead of rolling a bunch of times, and after each failure, rolling to see if the guards happened to come by?

I mean, I don't think that the multiple rolls are inherently bad, I'll use them in old D&D games.  But at the same time, what's wrong with rolling just once?

I think you can make arguments for the multiple rolls, especially if you prefer more emergent actions, or are less comfortable with GM fiat.

At the same time, I think that trying to drive down to a single roll makes the GM actually think about what is going on, and what the 'real' costs of this are.

Quote from: The Traveller;687135Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Not everything has to be a five second countdown.

Nope, it doesn't.  In Basic D&D, time inherently has a cost - the random encounter table.  That's not a five second countdown.

Quote from: The Traveller;687135I do both of these as well.

So I think we agree in major, then.

Quote from: The Traveller;687135That doesn't follow at all. If they fail they fail. I work on a skill plus stat plus d10 basis - a -5 is a significant penalty. A -10 is savage and a -15 is a failure guaranteed situation.

Again, I'm not saying it's how *you* do it.  But I've seen it a lot - games where the presumption is that the PCs *will* get through the door, and the game and/or GM will go to great lengths to ensure it.

So if that's the case, why even have the door locked, apart from simulation-esque reasons?  And if it's for simulation-esque reasons, then doesn't 'the rule of three' break that just as much as the idea of failing forward?

If the door's there, and locked, then there shouldn't be a presumption you'll get through it.

Quote from: The Traveller;687135Yeah I clarified that in a subsequent post. Your climbing failure table is applicable to almost any climbing situation as-is, it wouldn't take any real effort to adapt a result to something different, although I can't imagine what adaptation would be needed since the risk of failure is dictated by the difficulty of the task.

But other situations may have other consequences.  If it's known there's a roc nest on the cliff, failure could be aggravating the rocs.  If I'm trying to chase someone up the cliff, my 'real goal' may be beating him up the cliff.

But the cliff situation is really a good example of *where* a table like that can work.  But something like lockpicking is less so.  What are the possible negative outcomes of lockpicking?

- random monsters
- guards
- you break your picks
- you don't escape the cell you're in
- you trigger a trap
- you make too much noise and someone on the other side hears you

It's almost all going to be based on the scenario.

Quote from: The Traveller;687135I cut death spirals and hit locations from my combats because they were too much effort. Slick, fast, and fun, that's how combat should go. Partial failures are nothing but hassle in that sort of environment. In other situations sure partial failure could work.

Again, you keep using 'partial failure', when that's not really what I'm trying to say.  In a given situation, there may be multiple 'failure' possibilities - all 'didn't succeed' tells us is what *didn't* happen - how do we choose which 'failure' happens?  What's reasonably likely, yes, but in many cases there may be multiple reasonably likely things that can happen.

Quote from: The Traveller;687135Just in case anyone was wondering, I'm finding this an enjoyable conversation, not being conducted in any kind of a bickering manner.

Me too!  Thanks!

Quote from: robiswrong;687161Then what do you mean by it?

Some desireable outcome might be getting a good story out of the game, which should be nowhere on the radar. There are also a multitude of ways a GM can nudge a game in a direction they want without going full blown railroad. Time passing moves the game forward was my point. You had commented "There's at least one more - the idea that failure should in some way move the game "forward" (which doesn't mean on a linear path towards a predetermined end)".

Quote from: robiswrong;687161I mean, I don't think that the multiple rolls are inherently bad, I'll use them in old D&D games.  But at the same time, what's wrong with rolling just once?

I think you can make arguments for the multiple rolls, especially if you prefer more emergent actions, or are less comfortable with GM fiat.

At the same time, I think that trying to drive down to a single roll makes the GM actually think about what is going on, and what the 'real' costs of this are.

...

Again, I'm not saying it's how *you* do it.  But I've seen it a lot - games where the presumption is that the PCs *will* get through the door, and the game and/or GM will go to great lengths to ensure it.

These are not arguments I am making.

Quote from: robiswrong;687161But other situations may have other consequences.  If it's known there's a roc nest on the cliff, failure could be aggravating the rocs.  If I'm trying to chase someone up the cliff, my 'real goal' may be beating him up the cliff.

But the cliff situation is really a good example of *where* a table like that can work.  But something like lockpicking is less so.  What are the possible negative outcomes of lockpicking?

- random monsters
- guards
- you break your picks
- you don't escape the cell you're in
- you trigger a trap
- you make too much noise and someone on the other side hears you

It's almost all going to be based on the scenario.

No, you should keep situational stuff seperate, which is easy to do, the very same as if you weren't using a failure table. If there's a roc's nest either combine the climbing with a sneak roll or have the roc make an observation check. A general purpose lockpicking failure table would look like
- failure
- failure and you make a lot of noise
- failure and you broke your lockpick
- failure and your broken lockpick is now stuck in the lock
- all of the above

If the door is trapped, roll for that seperately. If there are patrolling guards, roll for them seperately at appropriate intervals. Go far enough down the road of making it all hinge on the skill roll and the specifics of your wandering monster table will be incorporated into the failure table. A bit of an argumentum ad absurdum but it should underline that there's really no good reason you can't have well generalised failure tables.

They even add a lot of flavour to a game. The only problem with them is you will get bogged down trying to cross reference stuff in all but the simplest and most lightweight games, such as the solo gamebooks where the concept first hit pen and paper. On reflection, I'd actually prefer to use them as a mechanic, if it were physically possible. It's not though.

Quote from: The Traveller;687166Some desireable outcome might be getting a good story out of the game, which should be nowhere on the radar. There are also a multitude of ways a GM can nudge a game in a direction they want without going full blown railroad. Time passing moves the game forward was my point. You had commented "There's at least one more - the idea that failure should in some way move the game "forward" (which doesn't mean on a linear path towards a predetermined end)".

Isn't "simulating the game world" in and of itself a desirable outcome, by that definition?

Quote from: The Traveller;687166No, you should keep situational stuff seperate, which is easy to do, the very same as if you weren't using a failure table. If there's a roc's nest either combine the climbing with a sneak roll or have the roc make an observation check.

That's what I meant by having the larger results be more emergent, actually.

The only issue with this is that it plays some havoc with probabilities.  Roll enough times, and you'll have a failure.

It also means you're potentially doing a lot of rolling.  I think it's also a viable option to have a single roll, where you drive immediately to the negative consequences.  That doesn't mean that you *can't* drill into something with more detail, just that I don't think it's *required*.

Quote from: The Traveller;687166If the door is trapped, roll for that seperately. If there are patrolling guards, roll for them seperately at appropriate intervals. Go far enough down the road of making it all hinge on the skill roll and the specifics of your wandering monster table will be incorporated into the failure table. A bit of an argumentum ad absurdum but it should underline that there's really no good reason you can't have well generalised failure tables.

Two counterpoints:

1) Enough rolls, and you'll fail *something*.  That's just math.
2) Generalized failure tables means generalized results.

The other option is to let the GM figure out what's really 'at stake' (I kinda hate using that term, since it has connotations) and roll directly for that.

Obviously the single roll thing doesn't work in a situation where you want to be able to look up results on a table - as I said, that doesn't work if your players have some kind of reflexive anti-GM-Fiat bias.

Quote from: The Traveller;687166They even add a lot of flavour to a game. The only problem with them is you will get bogged down trying to cross reference stuff in all but the simplest and most lightweight games, such as the solo gamebooks where the concept first hit pen and paper. On reflection, I'd actually prefer to use them as a mechanic, if it were physically possible. It's not though.

And that leaves us with two options:

1) Don't have these types of failures
2) Have the result of the failure be determined by the GM (possibly even with input from players, if you wanna get *that* crazy)

Quote from: robiswrong;687171Isn't "simulating the game world" in and of itself a desirable outcome, by that definition?

One that requires no nudging or intervention by the GM. Failing to do something moves the game forward just as much as succeeding, in that the game world is happening anyway. You aren't referring to time passing or simulating the game world, but rather to moving the plot forward.

Quote from: robiswrong;687171It also means you're potentially doing a lot of rolling.  I think it's also a viable option to have a single roll, where you drive immediately to the negative consequences.  That doesn't mean that you *can't* drill into something with more detail, just that I don't think it's *required*.

These are dice games, we do a lot of rolling anyway, Amber etc excluded. I like rolling dice, I can feel Einstein extending me a digitus impudicus every time I do so. Beyond that you'd need a seperate table for every possible action a PC takes - clearly impossible. Whereas generalised failure tables are clearly both possible and useful.

Quote from: robiswrong;6871711) Enough rolls, and you'll fail *something*.  That's just math.

How is that in any way a counterpoint?

Quote from: robiswrong;687171The other option is to let the GM figure out what's really 'at stake' (I kinda hate using that term, since it has connotations).

With good reason, as it refers to an overarching plot. Just factor the probabilities and roll the dice, forget the master plan.

Quote from: robiswrong;6871711) Don't have these types of failures
2) Have the result of the failure be determined by the GM (possibly even with input from players, if you wanna get *that* crazy)

The third option is have a small enough game that these types of failures don't gum everything up, like DW, and that seems to suit some people well enough, although they seem to be more crowded with questions about how to do things these days than anything else, an inevitable result.

For larger games I'd have the GM make a decision but I'd leave player input out of it. When all's said and done for any sizeable game the mechanic is just not a good fit, more because of human limitations than because it's a bad mechanic. Just like death spirals and hit locations in my games.

Quote from: The Traveller;687181One that requires no nudging or intervention by the GM. Failing to do something moves the game forward just as much as succeeding, in that the game world is happening anyway. You aren't referring to time passing or simulating the game world, but rather to moving the plot forward.

Intervention by the GM?  It's the GM's *job* to decide what happens.  Unless you're trying to suggest that everything should be governed by rules and tables?

Quote from: The Traveller;687181These are dice games, we do a lot of rolling anyway, Amber etc excluded. I like rolling dice, I can feel Einstein extending me a digitus impudicus every time I do so. Beyond that you'd need a seperate table for every possible action a PC takes - clearly impossible. Whereas generalised failure tables are clearly both possible and useful.

And still limiting, and requiring GMs to use them removes possibilities, as the only things that can happen are then combinations of the generalized tables - which are, by definition, generalized.

Quote from: The Traveller;687181How is that in any way a counterpoint?

Characters should have a chance of success.  If you blow out a 20% chance of failure roll into 10 different rolls, they effectively have no chance of success.

Quote from: The Traveller;687181With good reason, as it refers to an overarching plot. Just factor the probabilities and roll the dice, forget the master plan.

When have I *ever* said that the stakes had *anything* to do with the 'overarching plot'?  Never.  All my examples have been immediate and directed at the situation.  Guards showing up, wandering monsters, getting stuck on a cliff.  None of these have anything to do with the 'overarching plot'.

The closest I've come to even suggesting that is saying that the failure case may be dependent on what the PCs are actually trying to achieve *right then* - "I'm trying to climb up this cliff to catch Bob".  Not, "I'm trying to climb up this cliff so that I can defeat the Evil Warlord Zarkan five nations away, at some point in the next three years".

If you think I have some agenda in this, then okay.  I'll admit it.  I consider 'interesting game' more important than 'pure simulation'.  That's not about 'narrative focus' or 'overarching plot'.  It's about 'how do I keep player interest and tension up, so that people don't get bored?'

Quote from: The Traveller;687181The third option is have a small enough game that these types of failures don't gum everything up, like DW, and that seems to suit some people well enough, although they seem to be more crowded with questions about how to do things these days than anything else, an inevitable result.

And even the DW charts are more 'categories' than actual failures.  "Take something away from the players".  "Turn their moves against them".  Stuff like that.

Quote from: The Traveller;687181For larger games I'd have the GM make a decision but I'd leave player input out of it. When all's said and done for any sizeable game the mechanic is just not a good fit, more because of human limitations than because it's a bad mechanic. Just like death spirals and hit locations in my games.

I'm not sure that I agree that the mechanic *is* a good thing - or, more specifically, that not having it is bad.  It can act as a prod for what happens, but I think the GM should be an active, creative part of the game.  That's what separates RPGs from computer games, right?  I don't want a game where everything has to have a rule or table associated with it for it to happen.

Quote from: robiswrong;687184I'm not sure that I agree that the mechanic *is* a good thing - or, more specifically, that not having it is bad.  It can act as a prod for what happens, but I think the GM should be an active, creative part of the game.

Yeah but quite specific wandering monster tables aren't a problem...

Anyway I think we've wandered off the garden path a bit here. I've already given an opinion on the various definitions of 'failing forward', with the exception of this, courtesy CR:

If failing in itself leads to interesting game play, failure is okay. It’s when it blocks the story from moving forward that you fail forward.

This for reasons which should be clear already, is balls. Gandalf got stumped at the gates of Moria and the story suffered not in the slightest. It didn't lead to interesting stuff (the thing in the pond could have been wheeled out just as well if the door had opened instantly) and it blocked the story from moving forward. There are many other examples in literature and the media I won't go into but I'm fairly sure everyone's seen that movie.

Away from that entirely is that RPGs aren't trying to tell a story.

Quote from: The Traveller;687187This for reasons which should be clear already, is balls. Gandalf got stumped at the gates of Moria and the story suffered not in the slightest. It didn't lead to interesting stuff (the thing in the pond could have been wheeled out just as well if the door had opened instantly) and it blocked the story from moving forward. There are many other examples in literature and the media I won't go into but I'm fairly sure everyone's seen that movie.

So, they couldn't open the door, and as a result of them hanging out there, a monster attacked them.

Sounds like an interesting failure to me!  And didn't the monster attack *become* part of the story at that point?

I think a lot of the objection comes from the fact that 'story' in RPGs often means 'a linear series of set encounters that inevitably progress towards a final goal'.

Which I think is a pile of ass.

To me, if there's a 'story' in an RPG, it's the shit that happens at the table - what the characters do, the trials and consequences they suffer.  Sometimes that means things go well, sometimes it means things go poorly.  As a GM, I don't even *want* to know ahead of time what happens.

So to me, having 'monster comes out of the lake' as a failure condition for 'opening the door' *is* failing forward.  It *is* an interesting failure.  It *does* progress the game, or the story if you insist on using that term.

What doesn't progress the game is everyone sitting outside of the door scratching their asses because nobody can figure out how to get inside.

Quote from: robiswrong;687188So, they couldn't open the door, and as a result of them hanging out there, a monster attacked them.

Did you miss the part where I said 'the thing in the pond could have been wheeled out just as well if the door had opened instantly'? Maybe opening the door was its alarm clock.

Quote from: robiswrong;687188What doesn't progress the game is everyone sitting outside of the door scratching their asses because nobody can figure out how to get inside.

Depends how competent the GM is. They would then have had to brave the minions of either Saruman or Sauron, or who knows what other dangers. Sounds like an adventure to me. And this is the difference between an RPG and a story - bad, annoying things can happen, they can be locked out of Moria and be forced to trek through possibly worse danger and it's still great because the players aren't trying to entertain a third party - they are there.

Quote from: The Traveller;687192Did you miss the part where I said 'the thing in the pond could have been wheeled out just as well if the door had opened instantly'? Maybe opening the door was its alarm clock.

And maybe it was a consequence of failure.  Since there wasn't actually a GM involved, we clearly can't say definitively if it was or not.

However, I can certainly use it as an example of what I would do for 'failing forward'.

Quote from: The Traveller;687192Depends how competent the GM is. They would then have had to brave the minions of either Saruman or Sauron, or who knows what other dangers. Sounds like an adventure to me. And this is the difference between an RPG and a story - bad, annoying things can happen, they can be locked out of Moria and be forced to trek through possibly worse danger and it's still great because the players aren't trying to entertain a third party - they are there.

Wow, sounds like the game moved forward, in a new and interesting direction!  That's awesome!

Your example of what 'moving the story forward' isn't happens to be exactly what I think 'moving the story forward' *is*.  Story's a crappy term to use for RPGs, as they're not linear, designed, and preplanned.  At least, they shouldn't be.

Again, in the Moria example - as a GM, I don't care if they get through the door or not.  I don't care if they backtrack through the mountain and have to go some other path that's also fraught with danger.  I deliberately avoid having biases about what the characters do, and I don't put something that has a chance of going one of two ways in a game (locked/unlocked, whatever) unless I'm perfectly fine with it going either way.

The only thing I don't want is them sitting around while Gandalf scratches his ass.

Quote from: robiswrong;687196However, I can certainly use it as an example of what I would do for 'failing forward'.

I get it, make failures interesting. All I'm saying is that succeed or fail, a similar outcome could have easily been manufactured. And let's face it, if every failure is a ripping good time, there is no failure. Which ultimately makes for a boring time.

Quote from: robiswrong;687196The only thing I don't want is them sitting around while Gandalf scratches his ass.

Them sitting around while Gandalf scratches his ass would take maybe 15 seconds of table time in my game.