Quote from: ExploderWizardAll this keeping the game moving forward nonsense only applies to hoop jumping railroad fests not games where the players control their own fates.

Why does the game need to move forward along a particular path? Why can't the game continue on a divergent path, perhaps taken because of certain failures?

Its the opposite, actually - the games I know that use Failing Forward promote sandboxing much more than the classical binary pass/fail games. Thats because the result of a given fail generally is something the GM do not expected in the first place, steeting the situation in new directions that he couldnt foresee before (and now must adapt/react accordingly).

Take a look at Apocalypse World, for example. If there is a game with the bigger potential to change the status quo of any given situation - and force the GM to adapt in unexpected ways - it is it.

I honestly don't care about "moving the game forward".

I like the EotE dice mechanic because its almost always produces a result beyond basic success or failure, not so I can push it along a certain path, but I feel it causes interesting things to happen.

You miss the enemy but it causes him to keep his head down allowing you the perfect opportunity to duck behind better cover.

You hit the enemy, but find that in your concentration to do so, you've left yourself open.

You miss the enemy, and its so wide the enemy doesn't even have to duck, allowing him to aim at you.

You hit the enemy, and your blast of fire keeps the enemies off your buddy trying to unlock the door behind you, giving him a boost to his next roll.

Idk, it may not be for everyone, but I don't feel that the idea of succeeding and, succeeding but, failing and, and failing but is really "pushing people on a railroad".

Its all in how you use it.

But you just described "moving the game forward"!

Quote from: silva;679062But you just described "moving the game forward"!

Sure, in the vague sense that "the game continues on no matter what", but not in the "railroady city" way that Exploderwizard is talking about.

I mean, one would think everyone can keep a game moving forward (as in the game continues going) as long as they have a modicum of intelligence, no matter what the rule system is. As he said, go try another path!

(Also why I don't see EotE as doing what he was saying. If you fail with threat and despair, you sure as hell aren't going to be trying that path again.)

Nah, "moving the game forward" has nothing to do with railroad, and ExploderWizard defense of it only shows he knows nothing about the concept.

Now Emperor, if you dont mind, could you direct me to a review or description of how the Star Wars Edge of the Empire "moving game forward" resolution works ? Im genuinely interested in it.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;679063Sure, in the vague sense that "the game continues on no matter what", but not in the "railroady city" way that Exploderwizard is talking about.

I mean, one would think everyone can keep a game moving forward (as in the game continues going) as long as they have a modicum of intelligence, no matter what the rule system is. As he said, go try another path!

(Also why I don't see EotE as doing what he was saying. If you fail with threat and despair, you sure as hell aren't going to be trying that path again.)

And anyone using "failing forward" as "railroad city" has utterly missed the point of it.  It does not mean "you always succeed".  It means "the game doesn't stop because of a locked door."

If the scenario has other obvious ways to proceed, then great!  You're golden!  The game keeps going!

Another way to look at it:  You encounter a locked door.  You try to unlock it.  What happens?

1) You unlock it without issue and proceed.
2) You unlock it, but break your lockpicks in the process
3) You unlock it, but make so much noise that guards are alerted to your presence.
4) A combination of 2 and 3
5) 2, 3, and 4 but you fail to unlock the door
6) You don't unlock the door

These are all possibilities, and there's countless more that I haven't thought of.  Of these, "normal" pass/fail mechanics only cover 1 and 6 - which are arguably the *least* interesting choices.  Choices 2-5 are just as realistic, and a hell of a lot more interesting.  So while choices 1 and 6 are certainly viable, and certainly *should* be available as possible outcomes, shouldn't 2-5 be in there, as well?

A user named torquemadaza over on the Edge of the Empire FFG boards made this PDF that explains the base mechanics of the system:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kssq5ukijgyo160/EotE_basics_v2.pdf

Quote from: robiswrong;679074And anyone using "failing forward" as "railroad city" has utterly missed the point of it.  It does not mean "you always succeed".  It means "the game doesn't stop because of a locked door."

Honestly, I was just using the terminology he was using and the definitions he was using because its a hell of a lot easier than arguing over terminology.

I actually agree that what is intended by "Failing Forward" by fans of it doesn't mean what he thinks it means, but I also think that "Failing Forward" is a terrible term anyway because it makes it sound like you are always going FORWARD, but you really aren't.

Sometimes you move sideways, sometimes you move back. Its not that it pushes it forward, its that it keeps interesting stuff happening.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;679081I actually agree that what is intended by "Failing Forward" by fans of it doesn't mean what he thinks it means, but I also think that "Failing Forward" is a terrible term anyway because it makes it sound like you are always going FORWARD, but you really aren't.

Yeah, it really is a terrible term.  I can actually understand a lot of the misconceptions about this stuff, as a few years ago I shared most of them.

The term railroad is not accurate, however it is narrative and here's why.

The reason it's narrative is, my intent is to open the door. 1-5 are ways that my intent either succeeds, or fails with additional elements being added on to my intent.

You're not moving "the game" forward, you're moving the story forward, the game is the way you do it.

Let's say I try to pick a lock and I fail.  No alarms are sounded, no picks break, no security guards are alerted, no cameras happen to pan my way and see me.  I just can't open it.

What's interesting about that?  The same thing in life...What I do next.  

Do I try again, and possibly risk my luck that I would get away with it like I did the first time?
Do I find some other way into what's beyond the door?
Do I break down the door?
Do I simply walk away and come back later or decide to do something else?

I provide the context of my own enjoyment as a player through the experience of my character, not by having the GM keep my momentum going by coming up with an active response to my active intent.  It's the difference between GM as Judge/Referee and GM as Master of Ceremonies.

Krueger, do you perceive everything you just say could be justifiable from a "game play" point of view, instead of narrative one ?

Its the same thing as classes and levels - why not abolish them make it like real life ? Well, because classes and levels have interesting conotations/impact from a pure gamey/gameplay point of view.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679090The term railroad is not accurate, however it is narrative and here's why.

The reason it's narrative is, my intent is to open the door. 1-5 are ways that my intent either succeeds, or fails with additional elements being added on to my intent.

You're not moving "the game" forward, you're moving the story forward, the game is the way you do it.

Let's say I try to pick a lock and I fail.  No alarms are sounded, no picks break, no security guards are alerted, no cameras happen to pan my way and see me.  I just can't open it.

What's interesting about that?  The same thing in life...What I do next.  

Do I try again, and possibly risk my luck that I would get away with it like I did the first time?
Do I find some other way into what's beyond the door?
Do I break down the door?
Do I simply walk away and come back later or decide to do something else?

I provide the context of my own enjoyment as a player through the experience of my character, not by having the GM keep my momentum going by coming up with an active response to my active intent.  It's the difference between GM as Judge/Referee and GM as Master of Ceremonies.

And 'just nothing happens' can be an interesting result.  That's why I've included that as a possible result.

Are you trying to say that it's the only possible result apart from pure success?

What about a rule that says a lockpicking attempt takes ten minutes, and wandering monster rolls are made every ten minutes?

What about a rule that says that on a lockpicking failure, some percentage of the time (maybe even 100%) enough noise is made that any nearby creatures will be alerted to the presence of the character?

What about a rule that says that there is an x% chance of your lockpicks breaking on success, and y% on failure?

These all seem like reasonable rules, and I'm pretty sure that at least some of them exist in some games.  They would also give exactly the results that I suggested.  Would that then be "narrative"?

I'm not trying to be hostile here, so I apologize if I come off that way.  I'm really trying to drive to the heart of your point (and you'll forgive me if I try to drive towards more specifics than "narrative intent" and "GM as MC vs. GM as judge", as those are very non-specific statements that are highly subject to interpretation).

If you think those rules would be acceptable, then what is the functional difference between those and "fail forward", except for rule bloat, and the GM being limited to only things that the designer thought up as generic possibilities, rather than based on the current situation?  The only difference I can see is that in the "as rules" version, you're basically reducing the GM to being nothing but an interpreter of dice.  Is that your vision of an ideal GM?  (And it's totally okay if it is).

13th Age talks about Failing Forward as an option, with some good advice on how to use it.

I agree with those above who don't want this to turn into "who's line is it anyways absurd circus shenanigans" time. I really hate that part of story games (the leading factor that turned me off them). However, as a tool in the hands of a solid GM, I think it's golden.

Failing Forward should include elements like delays, triggering events, and logical depletion of resources that moves the action along or makes things more interesting. Instead of "getting stuck", it should open up new, interesting yet tougher avenues forward. As a GM you should be weaving those into the reality of the world in a way that makes sense (not ruining everyone's perception of the world of make-believe).

Also, this is not going to work for every scenario. It should not be an "always on" thing. Sometimes a failure should just be a failure.

5 Second Rule for Failing Forward - If you can't come up with a Fail Forward option that makes sense for the situation, the genre and/or the setting (in 5 seconds or less) you simply let the failure be a simple one and the players will deal with the consequences.

In many ways, Fail Forward is a way to take some of the burden of momentum OFF the players. Most of the time, the way forward is squarely in their laps. If I can invent an interesting way forward after a failure it takes some of that burden off my players. However, a game shouldn't be a burden to the GM either. So, I think when you can, Fail Forward and when you can't the players can step up and find a way forward. You share the responsibility of momentum.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679024The reason Fail Forward is inherently narrative is "Why?"

Why are you Failing Forward?  Why are you not just failing and then trying again or doing something else?  Tell me why you're Failing Forward and I'll tell you why it's Narrative if you can't see it.

In general, because failing and then rerolling grinds the game to a halt.  If, for instance, you try to hack a computer and fail, it's less interesting in the game world than if you try to hack a computer, succeed, and then set off an alarm while doing it.

That answer won't satisfy some people.  I'm still not entirely on board with the Burning Wheel stuff.  I am open to convincing, however.

Quote from: silva;679094Its the same thing as classes and levels - why not abolish them make it like real life ?

Unless you're playing a campaign set in Great Britain, of course.