Quote from: apparition13;689035The thing about fail forward is it isn't failure, it's "yes, but".

All failures are "yes, but" unless the game ends immediately after the failure. How did this concept ever get reheated and served up as something new?

*rant on*

Arrrgh!!!

I hate take 10 and take 20!


Not sure exactly why either.


*rant off*

Quote from: Phillip;688946"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.

That depends on how "forward" is defined.  If it's defined as along some particular plot line that must occur, then absolutely.

Quote from: apparition13;689035The thing about fail forward is it isn't failure, it's "yes, but".

So, I associate this most strongly with Burning Wheel.  So I'm going to quote Luke Crane a few times here, because it's pretty close to how I view it:

Quote from: Luke Crane discussing MouseguardWhile I appreciate the answers thus far, I think a basic part of this rule is being overlooked. It is possible that the original goal is never completed. The twists can keep spinning the story further and further away until such a point is reached in which resumption is nonsensical.

You can and should go from twist to twist to twist to twist, etc. Twists are new situations, once presented the players might not even want to go back to their original goal.

Quote from: Luke Crane discussing Burning WheelA "whiff" in roleplaying game parlance is an action that has no effect whatsoever. It is typically associated with combat rolls in trad rpgs, but it has been expanded to any skill check. In this cases it is defined as a roll that is failed and the result is a null "nothing happens" rather than a complication, new direction or unintended result.

 Burning Wheel, as written, strives to minimize whiffs in skill checks.

So, at least in that context, I think it's pretty clear that it's not inherently "yes, but", or a way to say "you really didn't fail."  Success with a complication in BW is given as an option, but it's not really the focus.

Quote from: apparition13;689035It'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".

I generally agree with "don't whiff" - *something* should happen, and that's usually something bad.  Success at a cost is an interesting tool to use on occasion, but it's not the main course to me.

Quote from: The Traveller;689073All failures are "yes, but" unless the game ends immediately after the failure. How did this concept ever get reheated and served up as something new?

Because it's not obvious to everybody?  And I'd also argue that a failure can be "no, and...".

Quote from: Bill;689092*rant on*

Arrrgh!!!

I hate take 10 and take 20!

Because guaranteed success isn't fun?  And trying to manipulate numbers so that you can never fail sucks the fun out of gaming, and so the idea of codifying that into a rule bugs you?

Quote from: robiswrong;689205Because guaranteed success isn't fun?  And trying to manipulate numbers so that you can never fail sucks the fun out of gaming, and so the idea of codifying that into a rule bugs you?

I think you explained that very well!

See this is what I'm talking about:

QuoteA "whiff" in roleplaying game parlance is an action that has no effect whatsoever. It is typically associated with combat rolls in trad rpgs, but it has been expanded to any skill check. In this cases it is defined as a roll that is failed and the result is a null "nothing happens" rather than a complication, new direction or unintended result.

Burning Wheel, as written, strives to minimize whiffs in skill checks.

Besides the pulled from betwixt his buttocks terminology - the main source of whiff I get from the comment, if you can't blind them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit and all that - in combat when you miss the other guy gets to hit you or whatever. There's your complication and adverse effect, aside from standard issue fumbles.

This results in in sluggish combats rather than fast, fluid and exciting combats, introducing complexity where it doesn't need to be. Helpful complexity is having a range of tactical options available as long as they are likewise simple.

There's nothing new here and precious little of use outside very lightweight games. The fact of failure itself inspires players to try new and different angles of approach to non-combat problems, and even sometimes to combat problems,  as per the Gandalf examples. These aren't 'fail forward', they are 'failed so lets figure out something else to try', aka 'just failed'.

Again I'm not saying partial failure tables are useless, they could well add a lot to a game, but that only works for rules lite games which comes with its own cost.

So far this "whiff" complaint sounds split between the bizarre expectation that "actions don't have consequences" (of which I'd say your GM is feeding setting info to players poorly, or is outright managed dysfunctionally) OR the lament that "there's not enough 'pizazz!'"

Sounds like thoroughly ignorable tripe.

Again, in one BRIEF paragraph, define "fail forward." (If for at least just yourself.) We have a swirl of, what is it up to now?, four different definitions of this buzzword term. At least compile them so that we can stop wasting our time going around in circles.

Quote from: The Traveller;689305This results in in sluggish combats rather than fast, fluid and exciting combats,

You obviously haven't played Dungeon World, and you don't understand how "failing forward" works in Burning Wheel.

Quote from: Opaopajr;689392So far this "whiff" complaint sounds split between the bizarre expectation that "actions don't have consequences" (of which I'd say your GM is feeding setting info to players poorly, or is outright managed dysfunctionally) OR the lament that "there's not enough 'pizazz!'"

Sounds like thoroughly ignorable tripe.

Again, in one BRIEF paragraph, define "fail forward." (If for at least just yourself.) We have a swirl of, what is it up to now?, four different definitions of this buzzword term. At least compile them so that we can stop wasting our time going around in circles.

I'll add a fifth:

This thread is failing forward.

Quote from: robiswrong;689205Because guaranteed success isn't fun?

Correct.  Guaranteed success isn't fun.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;689459You obviously haven't played Dungeon World, and you don't understand how "failing forward" works in Burning Wheel.

You've obviously never engaged in combat in one of my games for comparison. It goes without saying that you can't have since I run my own system and haven't published it (yet) but its as much of a white knuckle ride as RPGs are capable of producing, in my opinion, which is what combat should be, while not sacrificing options. And options are important.

Partial failure can work in very rules lite games such as DW. Read that carefully because I've repeated it fifty times and I don't much feel like doing so again.

Rules lite games are limited by their very nature however, and require the GM to make up a lot of stuff on the fly. You don't have a lot of options. Yes, you can say, okay I'm going to sweep the legs out from under him and then rip the curtain from the wall to wrap around his head as he struggles to his feet, at which point the GM has two potential routes to choose from.

The GM can
a) sit and ponder how this unique action might interface with the rules lite system before coming up with an interpretation which fits best or...
b) just use the 'punch him in the face' table.

a) means you end up with a pause in the game as well as a lot of house rules and ultimately not a rules lite system, at which point things break down because partial failure tables clog up the works like nobody's business when you've too many options, and b) means every action becomes the same so eventually nobody bothers with exceptional actions. They just punch the guy in the face.

And let's not forget that if the GM really likes the move and thinks 'wow that's cool, I'll give that big bonuses for coolness', everyone will start packing curtains and just doing the same move for the bonuses. Flying seat of your pants can lead to imbalance which a less rules lite setting has already considered and evened out, or should have.

The trick is to find the balance between the speed and utility with playability being the first consideration. In, I hesitate to say 'heavier' games, games with more breadth of resources, the GM either has that option in the rules right there or has something approximating it which can be quickly shanghaied to purpose. Players will also try more exotic maneuvers because they understand how they work within the system and the system itself provides inspiration.

Crane explained in as many words what 'failing forward' means to him, at least as far as Rob thinks he was on the topic. It's right there in plain English, aside from the twisty whiff. By layering on partial failure table upon partial failure table the players and GM can both lose control of what's going on, yes, random tables be random and if you let them supplant decision making the outcome will probably be... random.

Except why are they failing so much in the first place, are they adventurers or the three stooges? Unless he was just talking about chargen, and hey WHFRPG was doing that many years ago because nobody would willingly play a ratcatcher, although I'm sure the concept is mindblowing to those who haven't much of an understanding of RPGs.

Quote from: The Traveller;689486Rules lite games are limited by their very nature however, and require the GM to make up a lot of stuff on the fly. You don't have a lot of options. Yes, you can say, okay I'm going to sweep the legs out from under him and then rip the curtain from the wall to wrap around his head as he struggles to his feet, at which point the GM has two potential routes to choose from.

The GM can
a) sit and ponder how this unique action might interface with the rules lite system before coming up with an interpretation which fits best or...
b) just use the 'punch him in the face' table.

a) means you end up with a pause in the game as well as a lot of house rules and ultimately not a rules lite system, at which point things break down because partial failure tables clog up the works like nobody's business when you've too many options, and b) means every action becomes the same so eventually nobody bothers with exceptional actions. They just punch the guy in the face.

Except,

a) is making a ruling not a rule, a one off decision that takes something like 6 seconds max, which means you don't have a proliferation of rules since "wing it" isn't a rule. Sure it means sometimes the same action can resolve differently, but so what? If the outcome seems reasonable, who cares how you got there?

b) sometimes the appropriate ruling is to mod an existing subsystem. Sometimes it isn't.

QuoteAnd let's not forget that if the GM really likes the move and thinks 'wow that's cool, I'll give that big bonuses for coolness', everyone will start packing curtains and just doing the same move for the bonuses. Flying seat of your pants can lead to imbalance which a less rules lite setting has already considered and evened out, or should have.

Firstly, if it's that cool, I'll probably just let it succeed if it seems plausible. Secondly, I'm not worried about imbalance. Flying seat of my pants means I can tailor resolution to the specific situation at hand and not have to worry about remembering it or writing it down for next time. Next time, I'll improvise again.

Actually the real reason for flying seat of the pants is that the thing I enjoy about DMing is improvising when the players surprise me. A system that has everything covered so I don't need to improvise, just mechanically apply a rule, is one the bores me to tears. I'm not going to GM something I don't enjoy GMing.

Quote from: apparition13;689516Flying seat of my pants means I can tailor resolution to the specific situation at hand and not have to worry about remembering it or writing it down for next time.

Some people like a bit of consistency when they play games.

Particularly fascinating is this notion that players reading the monster manual are cheating somehow, because players never act as GMs and GMs never act as players. I mean what in the name of Gygax's sweatsocks were you people doing? Was there a secret club with special handshakes only GMs could enter, and once through the portal you could never again play, your innocence lost?

Quote from: apparition13;689516A system that has everything covered so I don't need to improvise, just mechanically apply a rule, is one the bores me to tears. I'm not going to GM something I don't enjoy GMing.

Wait, I thought it was the GM's solemn duty to ignore rules if they didn't like them? So why would GMing a comprehensive game be any different to you than GMing a simple game, you can just ignore all the rules? In fact why bother with any rules at all, just say whatever pops into your head and legitimise it with a flick of the dice, that's just as good surely.

Rules in almost every RPG are usually explicitly called guidelines for the GM to use or not as they see fit, because that's what they'll do anyway, and rightly so. You appear to view rules as impediments to your masterful gaming rather than useful tools which can make your job easier, which as mentioned is explicitly what they are.

Quote from: apparition13;689516a) is making a ruling not a rule, a one off decision that takes something like 6 seconds max, which means you don't have a proliferation of rules since "wing it" isn't a rule. Sure it means sometimes the same action can resolve differently, but so what? If the outcome seems reasonable, who cares how you got there?

You're begging the question with the emphasized bit.

Ben Robbins has a good essay on this subject: Same Description, Same Rule. A quick excerpt:

Quote from: Ben RobbinsRules should not surprise players. More specifically, if you describe a situation to the players and then describe the rules or modifiers that will apply because of the situation, the players should not go "whaaaa?"

If they are surprised it's either because you specified an odd mechanic (a will save to resist poison) or a really implausible modifier (-6 to hit for using a table leg as an impromptu weapon).

[...]

On the other hand if the same thing uses different rules on two different occasions, it's hard to see how it makes sense no matter who you are. This might just be the result of inconsistency (oops) or you might intentionally be using another rule to get an advantage.

The entire rules vs. rulings thing is mostly nonsense in any case. There is no dichotomy. Properly constructed rules enable effective, consistent, and flexible rulings.

In a "whiff" moment, certainly something -- indeed, a lot of things -- happens. It may be that the non-occurence of event X is the only thing "worth mentioning" from a given personal perspective, but that's a self-selected criterion rather than some kind of objective fact.

That view, for instance, does not reflect my experience of the treatment of "miss" rolls in the narration of old D&D combat. YMMV, but that's your choice.

Quote from: The Traveller;689527Some people like a bit of consistency when they play games.

Well to start with, I'm speaking only for myself here, so it likely doesn't apply to everyone. I have no problem with uncertainty, but given the trade-off, I am more concerned with consistency in terms of setting and tone than with consistency in process.

QuoteParticularly fascinating is this notion that players reading the monster manual are cheating somehow, because players never act as GMs and GMs never act as players. I mean what in the name of Gygax's sweatsocks were you people doing? Was there a secret club with special handshakes only GMs could enter, and once through the portal you could never again play, your innocence lost?

Other GMs, other rules. I don't care what players read. If I feel like bog-standard kobolds, that's what I'll use. If I feel like weird ones, that's what I'll use. I may even be consistent within a setting. Sometimes. Maybe.

QuoteWait, I thought it was the GM's solemn duty to ignore rules if they didn't like them? So why would GMing a comprehensive game be any different to you than GMing a simple game, you can just ignore all the rules? In fact why bother with any rules at all, just say whatever pops into your head and legitimise it with a flick of the dice, that's just as good surely.

It's easier to ignore a rule that isn't there, because it isn't there in the first place. Existing rules can have weird effects on the rest of the system when removed or hacked. They are also taking up cognitive space, which makes defaulting to them easy, even when they don't really apply, and working around them harder. DCC has some interesting ideas, but a separate effect table for every damn spell means I will never use it because that's just too much crap, and crap that's too specific. I'd much rather use Over the Edge, which is barely a rules system, and add bits as I go, than have to hack out pieces of rules that are getting in my the way of my improvisation.

QuoteRules in almost every RPG are usually explicitly called guidelines for the GM to use or not as they see fit, because that's what they'll do anyway, and rightly so. You appear to view rules as impediments to your masterful gaming rather than useful tools which can make your job easier, which as mentioned is explicitly what they are.

Strokes, folks; horses, courses, YMMV, etc. People are different; what works for one rarely works for all.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;689571You're begging the question with the emphasized bit.

Nope, the first part is a definition (a ruling is a one off {situationally relevant, that should have been explicit not implied} ruling), the latter is an implied argument comparing making a one off ruling vs. having a rule in terms of the consequences of using them. If the outcomes in a situation are good enough, why does it matter whether you get there by rule or by ruling? I don't think it does. You do, and provide two quotes to back your position up, both of which hammer away at consistency.

QuoteBen Robbins has a good essay on this subject: Same Description, Same Rule. A quick excerpt:

How often is the situation really the same? For example, another excerpt from the essay:

QuoteTo use an example from M&M, the players encounter one machine gun that uses a normal attack roll, and then later they encounter another machine gun that uses an Area attack instead (automatic hit, Reflex save to reduce damage). Conceptually the two machine guns are identical — one is bigger but otherwise the same.

If you're shooting at a target at long range, normal attack role. If you're using the same weapon to fire into an enclosed space at near point blank range, area attack. I don't need a rule to tell me when to use which, since I can eyeball it and make a ruling then and there.

QuoteThe entire rules vs. rulings thing is mostly nonsense in any case. There is no dichotomy. Properly constructed rules enable effective, consistent, and flexible rulings.

You're assuming properly constructed rules; I'm not. I'll also aver that judgement is inherently more flexible than rules, can be more (and also less) effective, but is of course less consistent. I'm happy to trade consistency for flexibility, and I like the extra variability as well.


As for the Alexandrian:

QuoteThe problem with pervasive GM fiat is that you are either (a) creating inconsistency or (b) creating house rules on the fly. And if you're creating house rules on the fly then:

(1) You have to keep track of them.

(2) Hasty decisions will frequently have unintended consequences.

(3) Even if the house rule you came up with on the fly is good the end result is no different than if you'd had a good rule to start with.

Regarding (a), as I stated before, I'm fine with mechanical inconsistency. If faced with a choice between inconsistency in mechanics over inconsistency in setting or situation I'll choose setting every single time.

As for (b),

(1) I really don't, and I'm not going to, because that's just more cruft I don't need cluttering things up. Especially since most rulings are one offs anyway, so there is no need to track them. If a particular situation keeps arising, that's when an actual house rule might be in order, but even then I'm fine with continuing to wing it.

(2) Yes they do. They also can have spectacular consequences. I'm fine with trading off some "well that didn't really work" for "holy cow, that was awesome!" In another domain, I play striker in soccer, and I'm fine with "how the hell did you miss that (because all striker miss sitters)" because sometimes you also get "how the hell did you make that?". If you screw up, shake it off and move on, there's another opportunity to do something great coming up. If I were concerned with the potential downsides of risk I'd play defense.

(3) That's assuming you have a good rule to start with (this is actually begging the question, good rules mean you should use the rules, because they're good), which isn't always the case. And even when it is, even the best of rules have fuzzy areas where I think you're better off going with a ruling than trying to make a rule work in a situation it isn't really right for.