Quote from: CRKrueger;688227Seriously? :rolleyes:

Yeah, srsly. I wrote purposefully that whatever Forgites hijacked that term, it's a decent piece of advice, even if, like all rules (even of thumb), should be used wisely.

QuoteIs that an Escher, Moebius or Gordian impersonation?

I was thinking more the classics, really. Maybe a bit Hegelian.

QuoteU mad bro?

Does thou even hoist, bro?

QuoteThen it obviously doesn't need a mechanic for it, right, or indeed a system based upon that mechanic.

True. And you should know I'm not a particular fan of such systems (though I like them occasionally).

QuoteP.S. When you feel the knee-jerk need to respond to Pundit's attacks on narrativism, step away from the keyboard.  Linking to the hivemind even temporarily does your posting style no favors, man.

I'm tired of hivemind on both sides (well, not really - when one is tired of hivemind, one is tired of watching out for glass in his meal- the Internet) - if I wanted to read how nothing good came out past 1982, I'd go and read Settembrini's forum.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;688235Based on the circumstances of how things came about, that example has nothing to do with failing forward.

Gandalf knew about the Moria route and strongly suspected the presence of  evil there, a fact that he didn't want to burden Gimli with unless there was no other choice.

In gamespeak, the Moria route was information known to the players of Gandalf and Gimli, though Gandalf had a bit more knowledge regarding current events.

Well, there's really no way to know that, is there?  It wasn't discussed, IIRC, until that point, so whether or not the *players* knew it is simple conjecture.  I mean, we knew that Gandalf knew about it, but did Gandalf's *player*??  I could just as easily have seen the situation going something like this:

GM:  Okay, you botched that survival roll.  You're not going to make it through the pass.
Players:  Crap, now what?
GM:  Hey, Gandalf, now that you think of it, you do know of another route - a more dangerous route...
Gandalf's player:  More dangerous than this?  Oh, shit, I don't like the sound of that...

Even if they did know of it beforehand, I could argue that it's a case of "fail forward" that just didn't require any GM intervention, since the scenario had it built into it.  The "interesting failure" is that they then had to take the more dangerous route.

If you'd like to call my thing "interesting failures", that may be more clear and consistent, and help disambiguate it from how "failing forward" is used/perceived.

Quote from: Rincewind1;688237Yeah, srsly. I wrote purposefully that whatever Forgites hijacked that term, it's a decent piece of advice, even if, like all rules (even of thumb), should be used wisely.

Why shouldn't the GM say no if the answer is no?  Basically the advice you and (I guess Rob and others) are claiming is meant by that statement is "If the task is something the character can attempt, the character should be able to attempt it."  That's plain common sense and there is no mention of "GM" or "should" or "no" in that meaning.  Why then rephrase it to "GM's shouldn't say no."

Quote from: Rincewind1;688237I'm tired of hivemind on both sides (well, not really - when one is tired of hivemind, one is tired of watching out for glass in his meal- the Internet) - if I wanted to read how nothing good came out past 1982, I'd go and read Settembrini's forum.

It's not whether something is good or not, it's what is it good for?  In the case of Fail Forward, as a concept, it's good for keeping GM's focused on their job of coming up with "interesting" plot developments.  If you don't think that's the GM's job, not so much.

Quote from: robiswrong;688238Even if they did know of it beforehand, I could argue that it's a case of "fail forward" that just didn't require any GM intervention, since the scenario had it built into it.  The "interesting failure" is that they then had to take the more dangerous route.

I'm really not seeing how this is any different to just playing the game, in the same way that partial failure tables can be substituted for by a reasonably imaginative GM. Are we talking about codifying Chandler's advice, "when in doubt, have a man come through the door with a gun in his hand"? Some GMs do something similar anyway if a game stalls.

However my Gandalf at the gates of Moria example was more to the point, as it highlights a situation where a character just flat out fails. No fail forward, no more interesting scenario that wasn't going to happen anyway. And that's a good thing, because it gets the other players thinking on their feet, a lightbulb goes on over the head of Frodo's player and he whips out his 'riddling' skill, or just plain old fashioned figures it out.

A focus on the plot, moving the plot forward is different to moving the game forward - the game, the setting, operates at an level more or less independent of what the group is doing (the essence of a sandbox), whereas the plot is reliant on what the group is doing.

The former aids immersion and the overall experience because the group knows that they won't get some sort of result regardless and can do any old thing just to see what happens. It's one of those things that makes RPGs different from just about anything else.

I can see how it might have some merit in games predicated on non stop action, but not every game is pulp.

Quote from: CRKrueger;688248Why shouldn't the GM say no if the answer is no?  Basically the advice you and (I guess Rob and others) are claiming is meant by that statement is "If the task is something the character can attempt, the character should be able to attempt it."  That's plain common sense and there is no mention of "GM" or "should" or "no" in that meaning.  Why then rephrase it to "GM's shouldn't say no."

That common sense sometimes needs a reminder. Like all sayings throughout the history, this also has some flaws when you start to scrutinise it (especially when using a scrutiny that's forged by wounds of Forge Wars). The rule to abolish rules also has it's flaws - countless games fell because GMs didn't entirely understand that. Between that period when you become a good GM (for your group YMMV yadda yadda all the usual disclaimers for eggshells), and the moment you pick up the book for the first time, it's good to have some guidance, but you shouldn't treat anything like Holy Writ (even the Holy Writ itself).

"A GM shouldn't shoot down players' plans because they don't fit his structure (and why do you have a structure in the first place?), except when those players' plans are pulled out of their arses" isn't really as quotable.

QuoteIt's not whether something is good or not, it's what is it good for?  In the case of Fail Forward, as a concept, it's good for keeping GM's focused on their job of coming up with "interesting" plot developments.  If you don't think that's the GM's job, not so much.

I don't entirely agree. It can also be used for making consequences ("when you fail to succeed on the Open Lock check in a hurry, not only you failed but you also made a noise that's heard by creatures inside the room"), and strengthening the idea that if there aren't really consequences for failure, why roll in the first place? A lot of people who complain for example, about BRP/ Warhammer's percentage skills and treatment of it forget about this (alongside an idea that tests should be made in stressful surroundings).

Edit: Of course, all that said, I also do partially agree with the narrational concerns this advice has, and I am well aware that trying to sit in the middle only makes me two "enemies".

Quote from: robiswrong;688238Well, there's really no way to know that, is there?  It wasn't discussed, IIRC, until that point, so whether or not the *players* knew it is simple conjecture.  I mean, we knew that Gandalf knew about it, but did Gandalf's *player*??  I could just as easily have seen the situation going something like this:

GM:  Okay, you botched that survival roll.  You're not going to make it through the pass.
Players:  Crap, now what?
GM:  Hey, Gandalf, now that you think of it, you do know of another route - a more dangerous route...
Gandalf's player:  More dangerous than this?  Oh, shit, I don't like the sound of that...

Even if they did know of it beforehand, I could argue that it's a case of "fail forward" that just didn't require any GM intervention, since the scenario had it built into it.  The "interesting failure" is that they then had to take the more dangerous route.

If you'd like to call my thing "interesting failures", that may be more clear and consistent, and help disambiguate it from how "failing forward" is used/perceived.

In my example, the routes to Mordor are known, the players choose one, they fail, so choose another one.  The players are making all choices, no plodding or new input needed from the GM other then descriptions and adjudicating task resolution (the characters failed to hide from Crebain, thus Saruman became aware of their attempt to pass the Redhorn, and subsequently blocking them).

In your example, the characters fail, and you present the next choice.  You come up with some new information and tell the Gandalf character there's another way to Mordor.  Basically, you're retroactively filling in the Gandalf character's knowledge based on the choice you decided to present to the players.  You are doing interactive storytelling here, setting the scene and while you're not forcing them to choose A or B, you're deciding on A or B solely for narrative purposes, (otherwise the Gandalf PC would already know about the route to Moria).

You see the difference?

Quote from: CRKrueger;688253You see the difference?

Yes.  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.

I'm far more okay with improvisation, perhaps, in part at least, because I don't really have the time to plan out every single detail of the world in advance, especially if I know/suspect that 90% of it won't be used.

If you view a game as a series of challenges, then the GM just introducing new shit in the middle of a challenge is 'cheating.'  Note that most "just explore the world" games really are a bunch of challenges, but with the players choosing which ones they engage in (and that's a fun type of game to play, don't get me wrong or thing I'm engaging in some kind of advocacy against that).

If you view it more as "play to find out what happens," then the introduction of new elements is just the introduction of new elements.

I can understand both viewpoints, and would use either as appropriate based on the game I was playing.  I'd be far less likely to pull "oh, there's this *other* path" in an old-school D&D game.

But even without that, from a player perspective, there's not a ton of difference from a player perspective if the other path isn't discussed before it becomes relevant.  So, there's kind of two axes here, based on whether the player was aware of the alternate path beforehand, as well as whether the alternate path was prepped in advance.

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.

Has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with verisimilitude, of exploring and experiencing a world.

Quote from: robiswrong;688299I'm far more okay with improvisation, perhaps, in part at least, because I don't really have the time to plan out every single detail of the world in advance, especially if I know/suspect that 90% of it won't be used.

"All", "every single"?  There's a vast gulf between pulling everything out of your ass and having it all set down beforehand.  Somewhere in that middle is the difference between roleplaying in a world and roleplaying in a story.

Quote from: robiswrong;688299If you view a game as a series of challenges, then the GM just introducing new shit in the middle of a challenge is 'cheating.'  Note that most "just explore the world" games really are a bunch of challenges, but with the players choosing which ones they engage in (and that's a fun type of game to play, don't get me wrong or thing I'm engaging in some kind of advocacy against that).

Actually, no, players don't always choose the challenges they engage in, remember wandering monster tables?  The difference is, do those challenges, fair or not, chosen or not, erupt organically from their interaction with the world or are they placed there because we all know we're playing a game and the GM's job is to make up shit to happen and throw it at us.

Quote from: robiswrong;688299If you view it more as "play to find out what happens," then the introduction of new elements is just the introduction of new elements.

...to serve what purpose or agenda? A narrative one, dramatism.  

Players at my table play to find out what happens too.  The only difference is, we're not roleplaying like our characters, we're roleplaying as our characters.

Quote from: robiswrong;688299I can understand both viewpoints, and would use either as appropriate based on the game I was playing.  I'd be far less likely to pull "oh, there's this *other* path" in an old-school D&D game.

As long as the idea isn't mechanically enforced (like *world), I don't see a reason why you necessarily would change.  It's true the weight of rules seems to be a factor.  The lighter the rules, generally, the more freeform the game plays so it might be a "different games scratch different itches" thing.

Quote from: robiswrong;688299But even without that, from a player perspective, there's not a ton of difference from a player perspective if the other path isn't discussed before it becomes relevant.

Actually if you've played with the GM long enough to know whether there actually was another path or not before you asked for it, it makes a huge difference in verisimilitude if that's what you're looking for.  If you're not, then yeah it's really no different.

Quote from: robiswrong;688299So, there's kind of two axes here, based on whether the player was aware of the alternate path beforehand, as well as whether the alternate path was prepped in advance.

and also whether or not there are mechanics in place to force the issue.

Quote from: CRKrueger;688337Has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with verisimilitude, of exploring and experiencing a world.

Then what difference does it make if I make up "monster in the pool" *before* the players encounter it or not?  So long as it makes sense in context, of course - introducing utterly disconnected elements is going to jar verisimilitude, regardless of whether or not they were introduced as part of the set scenario, or whether they were improvised due to a 'fail forward' type of idea.

Quote from: CRKrueger;688337"All", "every single"?  There's a vast gulf between pulling everything out of your ass and having it all set down beforehand.  Somewhere in that middle is the difference between roleplaying in a world and roleplaying in a story.

I don't see the amount of improvisation as really being the primary difference between those things.  I can see *why* you'd choose things to be there as the difference, but not really the amount of improvisation (aka, *when* I make shit up).

Quote from: CRKrueger;688337Actually, no, players don't always choose the challenges they engage in, remember wandering monster tables?  The difference is, do those challenges, fair or not, chosen or not, erupt organically from their interaction with the world or are they placed there because we all know we're playing a game and the GM's job is to make up shit to happen and throw it at us.

Players choose what challenges they engage in at some level.  They choose which dungeon they go into, which makes them subject to the wandering monsters in that dungeon.

Again, what's the real difference between me coming up with a random encounter list beforehand, the lockpick attempts taking some time, and having a chance to encountering a wandering monster, and me, as part of the failure condition for the roll (which would be reduced appropriately) saying there's a wandering monster that comes by, assuming that the wandering monster is one I would have put on the table in the first place?

The only real difference I see is whether it was written up-front or not, and whether the GM fiat is direct or indirect.  Being improvised, or being defined beforehand has little to do with whether the new element is organically linked to the scenario at hand.  If you're in a kobold cave, and a failed lockpick roll results in a 'fail forward' of a kobold patrol finding you, that seems more organic than a random monster roll turning up mind flayers.

And really, the GM's job *is* to make up shit and throw it at you.  Dungeons full of loot sitting there doesn't make a ton of sense - if anyone had any idea that there was such a thing, it would be plundered in about three seconds.  I can accept that you don't want to see the process of the sausage getting made, but that sausage is still getting made.

Quote from: CRKrueger;688337...to serve what purpose or agenda? A narrative one, dramatism.  

I'm uninterested in your narrative witch-hunt.  I also assure you that I don't weigh the same as a duck.

Quote from: CRKrueger;688337Players at my table play to find out what happens too.  The only difference is, we're not roleplaying like our characters, we're roleplaying as our characters.

And you presume that my table is any different?

Quote from: CRKrueger;688337As long as the idea isn't mechanically enforced (like *world), I don't see a reason why you necessarily would change.  It's true the weight of rules seems to be a factor.  The lighter the rules, generally, the more freeform the game plays so it might be a "different games scratch different itches" thing.

Eh, I see a difference, but that's just me.  I play different games for different reasons.  I also don't see a lot in *World games that forces you to add new, unrelated elements.

Quote from: CRKrueger;688337Actually if you've played with the GM long enough to know whether there actually was another path or not before you asked for it, it makes a huge difference in verisimilitude if that's what you're looking for.  If you're not, then yeah it's really no different.

So whether the DM made it up before the session or during the session is the primary difference?  Either way, the DM made it up.  As long as it's makes sense in the context of the world, why does it matter?  I mean, if you go into some random tavern and the GM comes up with a personality for the bartender and what the tavern has available, you've got to know that the GM made it up on the spot.  Does *that* ruin verisimilitude for you?

BTW, if the dungeon/whatever is presented as a challenge, then honestly I think it *does* matter, as it should be primarily up to the characters to overcome the challenge, or not, and if that challenge is shifting under their feet then I think some of that 'overcome the challenge' gameplay gets harmed, whether the changing goes in the player's favor or not.

Quote from: CRKrueger;688337and also whether or not there are mechanics in place to force the issue.

You'll notice I haven't really advocated mechanics to force the issue.  I think these can be useful tools in the GM Toolbox, but aren't really things that I have advocated being mandatory.

Hmm.

So occasionally, when it makes sense and within context, without breaking IC immersion for the characters or verisimilitude you make up complications for failure to make things interesting for your players.  Ok cool.

My argument was concerning Fail Forward, a narrative mechanic where GM's introduce plot complications as a type of literary device as a result of failure during action resolution.

Quote from: CRKrueger;688351Hmm.

So occasionally, when it makes sense and within context, without breaking IC immersion for the characters or verisimilitude you make up complications for failure to make things interesting for your players.  Ok cool.

My argument was concerning Fail Forward, a narrative mechanic where GM's introduce plot complications as a type of literary device as a result of failure during action resolution.

Well, that's really it's own barrel of fish, isn't it? I mean, that is indeed a rather storygamey mechanic, especially if it's an assumed style of play for all failures.

As I said, I also don't want a man walking through the door with a gun each time a player fails a Climbing check.

Quote from: CRKrueger;688351Hmm.

So occasionally, when it makes sense and within context, without breaking IC immersion for the characters or verisimilitude you make up complications for failure to make things interesting for your players.  Ok cool.

Yeah.  "Interesting failure" is my benchmark, primarily.  In most of the cases, the "interesting" part is pretty obvious as a part of the context.  In most of the cases where it's *not*, thinking for about five seconds will point you at what the "interesting" failure is, anyway.

Success With a Cost (which is what 13th Age describes) is another way of making failure interesting, when otherwise it just stops the game, and doubly so if you make it an offer to the player.  "Yeah, he doesn't want to just give you the info - but if you give him amount of gold, he will..."  That puts the dilemma onto the player, which I wholeheartedly endorse.  Still, Success At A Cost isn't my first choice - logical consequences of player failure *is*.

I view "Fail Forward" as essentially the last resort - finding something to keep shit moving when all other options have been exhausted.  But even then, it won't be anything the players like.  And I find that the number of times I have to resort to this is incredibly small - the inherent consequences in the action cover most of the situations, and success at a cost picks up the slack.

But at any rate what happens should flow naturally with what *has* happened, and the scenario.  Mind Flayers in the kobold caves suck regardless of whether they're there because of a random encounter table or "fail forward".

(There's something to be said of using random results to add things to your game, though, but that's kind of a separate topic, and though you could use that argument for the random encounter table, I think the main point stands)

What I absolutely have zero use for is "Fail Forward" as in "no matter if you succeed or fail, you'll advance along the set plot!"  Forget that crap.  Failure should suck - it's not just a different way of succeeding.  And using it as a device to move you to the "next" encounter is about as craptastic as you can get, IMHO.  Railroads remove enough agency as is, why do you even need to remove the players' ability to *fail*?

Quote from: CRKrueger;688351My argument was concerning Fail Forward, a narrative mechanic where GM's introduce plot complications as a type of literary device as a result of failure during action resolution.

Ignoring the labels, sometimes failure *does* introduce complications.  Try to butter up the nobles and fail?  Maybe you've insulted one of them, and now you have to deal with that.  I'm all for introducing more complications to the players' lives based on their actions.  Again, the key is that they have to make sense and be logical consequences of the actions.  If you try to steal something in town and blow your stealth roll, maybe you get noticed and wanted by the guards.  That makes sense.  Orcs attacking doesn't.

Quote from: Rincewind1;688354Well, that's really it's own barrel of fish, isn't it? I mean, that is indeed a rather storygamey mechanic, especially if it's an assumed style of play for all failures.

I have to admit I don't always understand what people mean when they say "storygamey" here.  I mean, I understand the idea that slipping into author stance instead of actor stance is often considered storygamey, but apart from that it often seems to just be used as a synonym for "bad".

Quote from: Rincewind1;688354As I said, I also don't want a man walking through the door with a gun each time a player fails a Climbing check.

Which would be a pretty dumb-ass thing for a GM to do, and to me is more symptomatic of a GM with absolutely no creativity than anything else.

Quote from: robiswrong;688357I have to admit I don't always understand what people mean when they say "storygamey" here.  I mean, I understand the idea that slipping into author stance instead of actor stance is often considered storygamey, but apart from that it often seems to just be used as a synonym for "bad".

Sometimes it does (and I'll be first to admit I probably used it a fair share of times and will use again most likely), sometimes it's meant as a legitimate criticism why someone doesn't like a game and to draw a somewhat useful line in the sand between different genres of tabletop, that avoids a certain confusion.

QuoteWhich would be a pretty dumb-ass thing for a GM to do, and to me is more symptomatic of a GM with absolutely no creativity than anything else.

Well, it was a bit of a bizarre example, but as I said - I can understand this is why some people dislike those "yes but/no but" mechanics, because they fear this overblowing of cliches.

Quote from: Rincewind1;688354Well, that's really it's own barrel of fish, isn't it? I mean, that is indeed a rather storygamey mechanic, especially if it's an assumed style of play for all failures.

As I said, I also don't want a man walking through the door with a gun each time a player fails a Climbing check.

When we're talking about "Fail Forward", that pretty much is what we're talking about, "no uninteresting failures", never a "dead result".  It is what it is.  Definitions aren't witch hunts.

Quote from: Rincewind1;688360Sometimes it does (and I'll be first to admit I probably used it a fair share of times and will use again most likely), sometimes it's meant as a legitimate criticism why someone doesn't like a game and to draw a somewhat useful line in the sand between different genres of tabletop, that avoids a certain confusion.

Sure.  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.

Quote from: Rincewind1;688360Well, it was a bit of a bizarre example, but as I said - I can understand this is why some people dislike those "yes but/no but" mechanics, because they fear this overblowing of cliches.

Lots 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.

I 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.

Quote from: CRKrueger;688361When we're talking about "Fail Forward", that pretty much is what we're talking about, "no uninteresting failures", never a "dead result".  It is what it is.  Definitions aren't witch hunts.

Nope, definitions aren't.  My only point with the "witch hunt" is that sometimes it seems like there's a subtextual conversation going on where some people are just looking for something to go "look!  Narrative storygamey dramatist stuff!"  Which I don't find to be a particularly interesting conversation - especially given the generally vague definition of those terms, as used here.

If that offended you, or if I misinterpreted, my apologies.