Quote from: robiswrong;688364Sure.  The problem is that when vague terms are used, they don't mean anything, and so the communication doesn't have any real information in it.

"I prefer games that don't require you to enter Author Stance" is something I understand.  "I don't like Fate Points/Bennies/Action Points" I can also understand (and I don't feel a need to generalize into something beyond that).

"It's storygamey" pretty much tells me nothing.

Well for the most part, "It's storygamey" means "Requiring OOC/(Meta)gamey/Author stance (that's a nice term)".

QuoteLots of things can be abused, that's not really an interesting criteria.  I'm all for GM empowerment, but with the wrong person it can be abused and turned into "Viking Hat".  But that's not a reason to insist that GMs have no power.

A bit funny thing, because just as much as you don't understand "storygamey", most of folk here (including me) sees the term Viking Hat a bit differently, in positive light.

QuoteI mean, I'll be the first to admit that "interesting failures" can be utterly abused, as well as a bunch of other things.  That doesn't mean they're *bad*.  It just means that part of the advice/concept needs to be when to apply it, and how far.

Agreed.

Quote from: robiswrong;688224Again, to me, "You didn't make it through the Misty Mountains.  But there's another path available - one far more dangerous...." would be an example of "failing forward" (though not by the 13th Age definition).

I'm forced to disagree. What you seem to be describing here is "failure, but there's still some other way to succeed". The core concept of "failing forward", on the other hand, would seem to be that you fail and yet that failure still contributes to moving forward toward the character's goal.

In the Caradhras example they make a Climb check, fail it, and then try a completely different approach to solving their problem which has absolutely nothing to do with their attempt to climb Caradhras.

That's not failing forward. Failing forward would be they make a Climb check, fail it, and the GM says: "Although you discover that the pass is impassable due to the accumulated snow, you do manage to climb high enough that Gandalf can espy the fabled gates of Moria far below you!"

Or, to simplify the example: Failing to pick the lock on a door and then deciding to jump through the window isn't "failing forward". That's just failing at one thing and then succeeding at a different thing. (Similarly, failing to pick the lock and then making another Open Locks check that you succeed at isn't failing forward, either.) Failing forward in this example would be making an Open Locks check and failing the check, but the failure on the check means "you opened the lock, but made a lot of noise doing it so that the orcs on the other side are ready for you when you come through" or "you opened the lock, but it took so long that the bandits chasing you had time to catch up".

Quote from: robiswrong;688299Yes.  You prefer all aspects of the scenario to be determined before play, presumably so that players have a fair chance of overcoming the challenges set before them.

Tangentially, the issue of whether an option was prepared or improvised is, AFAICT, irrelevent here. For example, consider this exchange:

GM: You failed your check. The door to the cabin is still locked.
Player: Is there a window?
GM: Yes.
Player: I jump through it.

It doesn't really matter if the GM had a map prepared that showed the window or if the GM simply decided in that moment that the idea of the cabin having a window sounded reasonable and so it was true. In neither case is this failing forward.

Conversely:

GM: You failed your check. After a great deal of effort and the sounds of scraping metal, you finally manage to get the damn thing open.
Player: Phew! I open the door.
GM: On the other side, you find six goblins with swords bared. They obviously heard you coming.

Once again, it doesn't matter if the GM had a prepared key showing the goblins were there; rolled a random encounter triggered by all the noise the PC was making; or simply decided to improvise their existence because it seemed like an interesting consequence. In any of these cases, this is an example of failing forward.

Quote from: Rincewind1;688366Well for the most part, "It's storygamey" means "Requiring OOC/(Meta)gamey/Author stance (that's a nice term)".

I understand that definition of it, but I don't see how that's spread to "failing forward is storygamey".  That's getting into entirely different territory.

Quote from: Rincewind1;688366A bit funny thing, because just as much as you don't understand "storygamey", most of folk here (including me) sees the term Viking Hat a bit differently, in positive light.

I've generally heard it as a pejorative.  I don't have any particular negative attachments to it at all - I think GM judgement is an important part of roleplaying.  I don't want a rule or table for everything.  I think bitching about "Viking Hat" is kind of silly, if that wasn't made clear - the answer is "don't play with idiots".

But whether we agree about the practice being positive/negative (I think we agree it's generally a positive thing), or whether our connotations of the term are positive negative (seems there's some disconnect there), I do think that we probably understand what we mean by the term.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;688367I'm forced to disagree. What you seem to be describing here is "failure, but there's still some other way to succeed". The core concept of "failing forward", on the other hand, would seem to be that you fail and yet that failure still contributes to moving forward toward the character's goal.

Yeah, again, I should probably disambiguate some between the concept and how *I* use it.  I don't even know that "failing forward", as I use it, has to get the player nearer their goal.  It just has to be interesting and move the *game* "forward" (in quotes to point out that I mean in an interesting direction, not necessarily the direction anybody has in mind).

So, for me, the point is really about "interesting failure" in some fashion.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;688367That's not failing forward. Failing forward would be they make a Climb check, fail it, and the GM says: "Although you discover that the pass is impassable due to the accumulated snow, you do manage to climb high enough that Gandalf can espy the fabled gates of Moria far below you!"

Eh, I could make a case either way.  There's an interesting consequence, though, which is that not making it through the pass means they had to take the suckier route.  How and when that information is conveyed to the players would really determine whether I'd classify it as "fail forward" or not.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;688367Once again, it doesn't matter if the GM had a prepared key showing the goblins were there; rolled a random encounter triggered by all the noise the PC was making; or simply decided to improvise their existence because it seemed like an interesting consequence. In any of these cases, this is an example of failing forward.

Oh, I agree.  It just seemed that CRKrueger was doing some serious differentiation based upon whether the encounter was improvised or not, and I was trying to figure out where the specific lines he had issues with were - it seems like his issues are mostly around making sure that what happens makes sense within the context of the game, which I agree with.

Hmm. So the only sorta kinda maybe new thing about the failing forward concept is the use of partial success in rolls rather than 1-0 binary success or fail, and even then only as a guideline. Seems a bit meh for such an extensive thread.

Just replace 'Falling Forward' with 'Failure can often create an interesting event'

Fail a move silently roll in the queens bedchamber while seeking to steal her necklace.....

might lead to being chased across the palace by an angry half naked king.



I don't see a need for a 'reward' for failing if failing is often able to organically create an interesting event.

Quote from: The Traveller;688409Hmm. So the only sorta kinda maybe new thing about the failing forward concept is the use of partial success in rolls rather than 1-0 binary success or fail, and even then only as a guideline. Seems a bit meh for such an extensive thread.

What I want to know is when people are going to get wise to the fact that nothing slows down things at the table more than cluttering up your action resolution system. Seriously I simplifying games is an actually a goal than, crit tables, fumble charts, glitches, and all that nonsense should be the first things against the wall -_-

I dislike the trade off, trading one dramatic element for another, UNLESS THE PLAYER HAS TOTAL BUY IN.  

"oh man, can I have something else happen besides me taking damage for falling?"

" You make it to the top, but you slide.  You manage to catch the last outcropping.  You tweak out your arm, but you manage to hang on.  Still manage to pull yourself up.  You are dirty, bruised, and sore, but you make it to the top after a bit of time.  (equal to that same partial fall damage). "

"still with the damage?"  Okay how about...

So buy in or trade off should be allowed.  If there isn't a specific exchange for this...

So you manage to get to the top, but the griffon's attack!  (where did they come from?)  Lame.  

You are climbing, but you keep sliding down.  You manage to hold it together long enough to actually make it to the top.  However, because you took so long getting up the cliff, the Griffons have caught up.  

The characters should of known the Griffons were comming...  but the monster randomly appearing is lame.  You could insert some other threat.  

Or you could basically give yourself a drama point, so you could use it against the players later. This could be used for a vairety of things. (Doom Die, or insert mechanic)

Or arrange to "even out the karma" by beefing up some conflict that is upcoming.  

However this should be advised carefully

Quote from: MoonHunter;688550I dislike the trade off, trading one dramatic element for another, UNLESS THE PLAYER HAS TOTAL BUY IN.  

"oh man, can I have something else happen besides me taking damage for falling?"

" You make it to the top, but you slide.  You manage to catch the last outcropping.  You tweak out your arm, but you manage to hang on.  Still manage to pull yourself up.  You are dirty, bruised, and sore, but you make it to the top after a bit of time.  (equal to that same partial fall damage). "

"still with the damage?"  Okay how about...

So buy in or trade off should be allowed.  If there isn't a specific exchange for this...

So you manage to get to the top, but the griffon's attack!  (where did they come from?)  Lame.  

You are climbing, but you keep sliding down.  You manage to hold it together long enough to actually make it to the top.  However, because you took so long getting up the cliff, the Griffons have caught up.  

The characters should of known the Griffons were comming...  but the monster randomly appearing is lame.  You could insert some other threat.  

Or you could basically give yourself a drama point, so you could use it against the players later. This could be used for a vairety of things. (Doom Die, or insert mechanic)

Or arrange to "even out the karma" by beefing up some conflict that is upcoming.  

However this should be advised carefully

Negotiating narrative outcomes is not action resolution, its a shared storytelling technique that has no place in traditional rpgs.

Quote from: MoonHunter;688550I dislike the trade off, trading one dramatic element for another, UNLESS THE PLAYER HAS TOTAL BUY IN.  

"oh man, can I have something else happen besides me taking damage for falling?"

The presumption here is that "taking damage" is the "official" consequence of falling.  And it may be for climbing, but many things don't have "official" consequences.  So the GM has to pick what "failure" means in some way.  "Nothing happens" is often the default, but it's kind of dull, and I don't see any particular reason why it should be the presumed result.

I'll admit climbing is perhaps a bad example because 'falling and taking damage' is always viable, and is usually a rule at some level, but I'll use it anyway.

If you succeed, you get to the top of the cliff with no ill effect.  If you fail, all we *really* know is that the previous statement isn't true.

Quote from: MoonHunter;688550So you manage to get to the top, but the griffon's attack!  (where did they come from?)  Lame.  

Failure needing to flow from the context of the action has been discussed pretty much ad nauseum, and agreed on.  No point in rehashing it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;688559Negotiating narrative outcomes is not action resolution, its a shared storytelling technique that has no place in traditional rpgs.

Negotiating outcomes, sure.  But oftentimes that choice can be presented as a character decision:  

GM: "You make it halfway up the cliff, when your sword catches on an outcropping and the strap mostly breaks.  If you keep climbing up, it'll fall off, but the way up looks pretty clear from here.  You think you can make it down without it breaking to repair the strap if you want."

It's the same question as "do you want to succeed but lose your magic sword, or not make it up the cliff?" but framed as an in-character question.  Of course, this wouldn't work for *all* negotiated outcomes, so if you wanted to avoid that, you'd just have to stick with the ones that *could* be presented in-character.

Quote from: robiswrong;688372Yeah, again, I should probably disambiguate some between the concept and how *I* use it.  I don't even know that "failing forward", as I use it, has to get the player nearer their goal.  It just has to be interesting and move the *game* "forward" (in quotes to point out that I mean in an interesting direction, not necessarily the direction anybody has in mind).

Could you describe some reasonable scenario which wouldn't be your version of "failing forward", then?

I can offer up a hypothetical scenario in which the characters are locked in a featureless room and their only means of escape is to pick the lock on the door. And then the Open Locks check fails so everybody at the table just stares at each other in blank stupor for two hours until it's time to go home.

But it just doesn't seem like the sort of thing which would happen at an actual gaming table.

To my eye it seems that you've robbed the term of any real or practical meaning since you're applying it in such a way that no interaction at the table wouldn't qualify as "failing forward".

Quote from: Justin Alexander;688663To my eye it seems that you've robbed the term of any real or practical meaning since you're applying it in such a way that no interaction at the table wouldn't qualify as "failing forward".

It's basically the same situations as Take 20 would apply to.

Quote from: robiswrong;688689It's basically the same situations as Take 20 would apply to.

I don't understand your answer. Are you claiming the only time you don't "fail forward" is when you actually succeed? If so, then I stand by my previous statement: You've turned "fail forward" into a perfect synonym for the word "fail".

Quote from: Justin Alexander;688722I don't understand your answer. Are you claiming the only time you don't "fail forward" is when you actually succeed? If so, then I stand by my previous statement: You've turned "fail forward" into a perfect synonym for the word "fail".

For good GMs, it pretty much is.

"Interesting consequences" is basically an answer to the same problem that Take 20 solves, but in a different way.  Instead of just saying "fuck it, we'll just assume you roll twenty times and get on with it," it says, "okay, what is the interesting possibility of failure here?" and encourages GMs to figure that out and work with that.

For the "grappling hook on the wall" scenario that I think is the standard for Take 20 explanation, instead of just saying 'to hell with it, you make it', it asks the GM to think about what *could* go wrong in the situation as it is.

"Forward" is problematic, in that someone must define a privileged "direction" of events. That puts us right away between the Scylla of White Wolf and the Charybdis of the Forge.

The thing about fail forward is it isn't failure, it's "yes, but".

I'll give you an actual example. I'm playing soccer, we have a free kick from the right wing. The ball gets curved in around the D, one of our players executes a parallel to the ground scissors kick (basically an overhead, only parallel), which flies toward the center of the goal just under the crossbar. The goalie gets a hand to it and knocks it up into the air. I'm positioned to the left of the penalty spot; the ball is dropping a few yard in front of me. I remember thinking "that's much to pretty a shot for it not to be a goal, so I launch myself at the ball. The defender on the post also jumps in an attempt to head the ball, the goalie runs out and jumps to make a two fisted punch clearance.

His fists and my face sandwich the ball almost simultaneously; I can feel the ball compress against the left side of my face. As I'm falling backwards I see the ball loop over the goalie's head, and fall into the goal. Then things get a little fuzzy.

So, I failed in my attempt to head the ball into the goal (no straight yes). The ball wound up in the net anyway (yes, fail forward), BUT I missed the rest of the match with a mild concussion.

Gandalf fails to open the door, but he still opens the door (fail forward) after being upstaged (and perhaps embarrassed a bit) by a hobbit, while also triggering a random encounter because they took so long.

Fail forward is the GM saying "yes, but" when the dice say no. It's a GMing option for when the entire scenario would grind to halt because of a bad dice roll, in which case the GM is encouraged to overrule the dice roll, but attach a consequence to the resulting success. A way out of the pixel-bitching trap, if you will.

It's simply a tool in the GMing toolbox, albeit one that some recent games have decided to spotlight and integrate more tightly into the rules, sometimes in order to keep the tension high, sometimes for dramatic effect, sometimes both. Some people don't like these spotlighted versions of the tool, but hey, "baby, bathwater".