Quote from: cranebump;1102912To 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...:-)

[...] I much prefer having the game world evolve, however, and the PCs along with it.

But, you see, that raises the question of stakes: what's even at stake for the players in the entire scenario you established above? If they get a sense that all that is at stake is how the story goes on, that is nowhere the same as putting the life of their characters in the line. But then again, you said your PCs can die - it just doesn't express itself in the paragraph above.

So, if you're saying that you have mix between this kind of Failing Forward and other, high-risk scenes along the way, then we're on the same page. Again, I take stand for a certain amount of variety in the gaming experience.

Quote from: cranebump;1102928That 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 didn't mean to imply detail planning here. It's enough to set the stake in advance as: "If the Frodo PC fails his Willpower test, he irrevocably succumbs and becomes an evil NPC. If that happens, Middle-Earth doesn't automatically get consumed, however; the remaining PCs will still have a chance to kill evil Frodo somewhere down the line in a follow-up campaign and save the setting."

Quote from: cranebump;1102912Beyond 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...").:-)

Regarding the topic of challenges specifically, let's just say that if the players feel the GM spontaneously lessened the stakes above from an earlier stake of "If that Willpower test fails, then it's immediately Game Over", then it might undermine any sense of accomplishment in the follow-up campaign.

Which is why my assertion is: the more thoughtfully planned out in advance a challenge is (stakes, difficulty level), the greater the potential satisfaction in beating said challenge. Challenges are about beating expectations.

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, .

Changing Goals is a great term to differentiate dealing with the concequences of failure versus Failing Forward into success.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1103625Changing Goals is a great term to differentiate dealing with the concequences of failure versus Failing Forward into success.

Goals evolve, if the campaign continues though, don't they? And I don't agree with failing into success, which isn't what fail forward is supposed to be, I don't think. I always interpreted it as, "don't fail into a dead end."

Alexander K: I think you're implying that anything other than a strict adherence to a present stake, or rather consequence, is the best way to arbitrate challenge, as it provides a clear, non-shifting benchmark (is that it?). I may be off on that one. I do think we're mostly in agreement as to the way we might run the same scenario. Maybe. Part of that, too, is that I envision possible consequences, but, when adjudicating results, I might think of something better on the fly. Going by a strict recounting of our campaigns, though, we've had plenty of characters fall, so I can't unequivocally say I'm 100% on the FF wagon. I don't discount it, though, if it leads somewhere worth pursuing, in my judgment (which includes how I perceive the players' desires when it comes to what's fun).