Quote from: BedrockBrendan;679045I see it mainly from folks who don't want the story interrupted by failure or like the pacing it generates. I've seen it on enworld but no idea where it originated. I think it has two types it tends to appeal to: people who want to soften the consequences of bad rolls (not necessarily for narrative or story purposes) and those who feel it bakes in drama or conflict by using failure to increase the tension and excitement.

OK, thanks.  (I don't read RPGnet or ENWorld.)  It sounds like it was used in 13th Age (recent Pelgrane Press game), but it was already in discussions before that.  

Quote from: Emperor Norton;679063I 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!

This is not something that I have had problems with in a while as a GM - but I think it is an issue for many GMs.  

Even well before the Dragonlance modules came out in the 1980s with their storyline style, there were a lot of published modules that had bottlenecks - where if the PCs failed to find a particular clue or get through a given door, then they just had to give up on the rest of the adventure and go to a different one.  

Bottlenecks and linearity appear in many different styles of play, and have been around essentially since the beginning.  I would note that in published modules, there are two strands of the most railroaded.  One is tournament modules - which are very anti-story; while the other is certain dramatic modules - starting with Dragonlance, and also showing up in World of Darkness, Torg, Deadlands, and others.  

tl;dr - Railroading and bottlenecks are bigger than narrative play, and many narrative games advocate strongly against it (including nearly all recent story games).

Quote from: silva;679094Krueger, 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.

Game decisions have reasons.

Why classes and levels?  Because it's one way to simulate the increase of ability in the characters.
Why percentile skills that raise as you use them?  Because it's another way to simulate the increase of ability of the characters.

Why Fail Forward?  Because it's trying to...what?  Keep the players of the characters entertained is what.

You are correct in that it is a "gamey" decision, specifically a metagame conceit that the collaborative story we are creatively building keeps moving.  IE. Narrative.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679148Game decisions have reasons.

Why classes and levels?  Because it's one way to simulate the increase of ability in the characters.
Why percentile skills that raise as you use them?  Because it's another way to simulate the increase of ability of the characters.

Why Fail Forward?  Because it's trying to...what?  Keep the players of the characters entertained is what.

You are correct in that it is a "gamey" decision, specifically a metagame conceit that the collaborative story we are creatively building keeps moving.  IE. Narrative.

So your fighter learning a new language by killing fifty orcs is just honest simulation while my thief setting off an alarm by failing to pick a lock is entitled dissociative metagame storytime? Come on dude.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679148Game decisions have reasons.

Why classes and levels?  Because it's one way to simulate the increase of ability in the characters.
Why percentile skills that raise as you use them?  Because it's another way to simulate the increase of ability of the characters.

Why Fail Forward?  Because it's trying to...what?  Keep the players of the characters entertained is what.

You are correct in that it is a "gamey" decision, specifically a metagame conceit that the collaborative story we are creatively building keeps moving.  IE. Narrative.

Notice that I could explain the classes and levels "narratively" if I want. Eg: "Classes and levels are useful for emulating the kind of epic, zero to hero, stories that we see in some fiction." See? I just gave you a story-related justification for the same concept.

I think that, in the end, narrative and gameplay are so intertwined in tabletop roleplaying that its difficult to separate em. Thats why the term "story", "fiction" and "narrative" are used since the first days of the hobby.

Let's not derail this into another story game debate.

BTW saying Storygames or narrative games are railroads is really getting two things mixed up.

The classic 90s railroad GM is storytelling his own story and the characters are gonna play their roles and see how cool the GM's story is whether they like it or not.

That's hell and gone from Storygame thought, in fact Storygamers or narrative players hate railroads as much or more then us world-immersion types.

The point of narrativism in RPGs is Player-driven story collaboration through the mechanics of the game and the avatar of the character.  Pretty much the antithesis of the GM railroad.

Now, for a player who sees things from a world immersion perspective, the "but" the "consequences" can seem like the GM stepping on their toes.

For example, I attempt to pick a lock, I want to see if it opens or not.  Now if I succeed or fail the GM might ask me to make some form of stealth check to see how quiet I was, and/or perception checks to see if any monsters heard, might make a wandering monster check, modified by the results of the other checks.  

It's not Slavery to the dice, but if Orcs show up, I know it's because the dungeon was previously inhabited by Orcs, they actually patrol close enough to hear me, and the chance that allowed the Orcs to hear me was reached somehow through a combination of GM judgement based on real facts in the setting and results of dice.

It's not that there could have or could have not been orcs because the dungeon wasn't actually populated ahead of time, the GM just decided that it would be more interesting if Orcs showed up then, so since I failed, lets Fail Forward to Drama and keep the pulse pumping like a Michael Bay movie.

To some that's quite similar to the GM running you through the railroad, which is a natural response if you are coming from the expectation of Task Resolution.

Quote from: soviet;679152So your fighter learning a new language by killing fifty orcs is just honest simulation while my thief setting off an alarm by failing to pick a lock is entitled dissociative metagame storytime? Come on dude.

I didn't say it was an especially good simulation or a non-abstracted one, but that is the logic behind it, yes.  Leading a life of adventure in which you kill things and take their stuff has the result of making you better at killing things and taking their stuff - as well we other stuff you were doing along the way.  BTW, since we are talking about RAW, I don't get better at things in some versions of D&D (which is what I assume you're referring to) without spending money, finding a trainer and taking time.

If there was no alarm actually there to set off until the GM thought that would be a exciting dramatic twist, or the alarm only gets set off if the GM thinks that would be a cool complication, then yeah that's not a simulation at all, that is storytime.

In a non-narrative rpg, you trigger the trap because there was a trap to trigger and you failed opening the lock while not triggering the trap.

In a Fail Forward rpg, you trigger the trap because you failed to open the lock and the GM came up with a trap as a cool complication or you as a player chose it from a list of possilbe complications or a variety of ways that have nothing to do with whether or not there was actually a trap there to even set off to begin with.  It simply doesn't matter, it may not have even been detailed.  Who cares, cool shit happened and we're moving the story forward.

Quote from: silva;679156Notice that I could explain the classes and levels "narratively" if I want. Eg: "Classes and levels are useful for emulating the kind of epic, zero to hero, stories that we see in some fiction." See? I just gave you a story-related justification for the same concept.

Except that's not a story-related justification at all.  It has nothing to do with the actual logic of the experience system and how it is implemented in AD&D play (which of course you wouldn't know as you've never played or read it.)

Quote from: silva;679156I think that, in the end, narrative and gameplay are so intertwined in tabletop roleplaying that its difficult to separate em. Thats why the term "story", "fiction" and "narrative" are used since the first days of the hobby.

To be honest, Silva, someone who has by his own admission never immersed in a tabletop RPG to the depth that they have in a FPS, probably shouldn't be making statements about tabletop roleplaying going back to the beginning of the hobby with the belief that what he's saying applies to anything other then him.

And that is 100% nothing like how I play.

When a threat/despair/advantage/triumph comes up, it does not spawn things out of thin air for me. It means that something happens that makes sense in context based on the in game reality of the situation they are in.

If Gamorreans (Orcs) show up, its because I already decided there were Gamorreans in the building, you just managed to take too long/make too much noise/etc. jiggering open that lock and they found you, and had you not gotten that threat on those dice, you would have gotten through without them noticing you.

Quote from: CRKruegerTo be honest, Silva, someone who has by his own admission never immersed in a tabletop RPG to the depth that they have in a FPS, probably shouldn't be making statements about tabletop roleplaying going back to the beginning of the hobby with the belief that what he's saying applies to anything other then him.

Yup, I think Im more of a videogame player than a roleplayer indeed. (except when I play a computer roleplaying game, then Im a video-role-game-player )

Quote from: CRKrueger;679164To be honest, Silva, someone who has by his own admission never immersed in a tabletop RPG to the depth that they have in a FPS, probably shouldn't be making statements about tabletop roleplaying going back to the beginning of the hobby with the belief that what he's saying applies to anything other then him.

Quite, and his constant attempts to re-label things to suite his preferences in some kinda gotcha game is getting tiring.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679158The classic 90s railroad GM is storytelling his own story and the characters are gonna play their roles and see how cool the GM's story is whether they like it or not.

That's hell and gone from Storygame thought, in fact Storygamers or narrative players hate railroads as much or more then us world-immersion types.

That's a common confusion, and one that I had for quite a while.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679158The point of narrativism in RPGs is Player-driven story collaboration through the mechanics of the game and the avatar of the character.  Pretty much the antithesis of the GM railroad.

Well, actually it would be exploration of theme.  Though one could argue that in fiction, "story" is really the externalization of internal conflict related to the theme of the story.  You know, character arcs and all that crap.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679158For example, I attempt to pick a lock, I want to see if it opens or not.  Now if I succeed or fail the GM might ask me to make some form of stealth check to see how quiet I was, and/or perception checks to see if any monsters heard, might make a wandering monster check, modified by the results of the other checks.

It's not Slavery to the dice, but if Orcs show up, I know it's because the dungeon was previously inhabited by Orcs, they actually patrol close enough to hear me, and the chance that allowed the Orcs to hear me was reached somehow through a combination of GM judgement based on real facts in the setting and results of dice.

Well, it would be in the "fail forward" instance, too.  If orcs show up and there was no previous idea that orcs were there in the first place, that would be a totally inappropriate result of the roll.

"Fail forward" doesn't really give license to pull stuff out of the air.  It's supposed to be logical consequences based on the situation.

The main thing I can get out of this is a preference for this to be two rolls, and not have the two combined into a single roll.  That seems more like a preference for level of detail of resolution than anything.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679158the GM just decided that it would be more interesting if Orcs showed up then, so since I failed, lets Fail Forward to Drama and keep the pulse pumping like a Michael Bay movie.

Or because it makes for more interesting gaming, which is not a 'narrative' concern, though it is a pacing concern.  I mean, come on, lots of things in games are about making the game interesting.  Is it a coincidence that the bad guy *just happens* to show up, or that there's dangerous places with loot that *just happen* to be of appropriate level near the characters, and that *haven't* been picked clean previously?

Quote from: CRKrueger;679164I didn't say it was an especially good simulation or a non-abstracted one, but that is the logic behind it, yes.

And the logic of hit points never causing a degradation in your capabilities until you fall over?  I'm pretty sure that's a direct gameplay concession.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679158If there was no alarm actually there to set off until the GM thought that would be a exciting dramatic twist, or the alarm only gets set off if the GM thinks that would be a cool complication, then yeah that's not a simulation at all, that is storytime.

So your preference is that all details be determined before play starts.  Gotcha, and that's a totally cool preference.  That's pretty orthogonal to narrative play, and also isn't particularly conducive to GM improvisation, so non-railroaded sessions will be a bit tough with that criteria.

I mean, even with setting up the scenario in advance, wouldn't the GM add an alarm because he thought it would be a cool complication?

Quote from: CRKrueger;679158In a Fail Forward rpg, you trigger the trap because you failed to open the lock and the GM came up with a trap as a cool complication or you as a player chose it from a list of possilbe complications or a variety of ways that have nothing to do with whether or not there was actually a trap there to even set off to begin with.  It simply doesn't matter, it may not have even been detailed.  Who cares, cool shit happened and we're moving the story forward.

You keep using the word "story" just to describe things you didn't like.  You've got a preference that all details of the game scenario be planned out before the game.  Cool.  But I don't see that as being inherently a 'narrative' issue, or a 'story' issue.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679158Except that's not a story-related justification at all.  It has nothing to do with the actual logic of the experience system and how it is implemented in AD&D play (which of course you wouldn't know as you've never played or read it.)

Well, I have.  Sadly, I don't have my original copies from '81 or so any more.  But given "Appendix N", I think it's safe to say that those types of stories were, in fact, part of the rationale for the experience system and the level of power growth.  It sure wasn't realism!  At any rate, given that most of the authors are dead, and that we have a distinct lack of mind-reading devices, it's pretty hard to say exactly *why* the authors made the decisions we did.

One thing we can say is that Gygax pretty explicitly rejected the notion of "RPG as simulation".  I'll find the exact page of the reference when I'm not at work.

Quote from: robiswrong;679176Well, it would be in the "fail forward" instance, too.  If orcs show up and there was no previous idea that orcs were there in the first place, that would be a totally inappropriate result of the roll.

...and if nothing is planned out at all other then an ancient dungeon and the theme or tropes we're exploring are D&D, then orcs are a part of D&D, so are Dragons, Beholders, etc... any of which could be pulled out a hat and be within the plausible explanation of a D&D Dungeon.

Quote from: robiswrong;679176"Fail forward" doesn't really give license to pull stuff out of the air.  It's supposed to be logical consequences based on the situation.

Actually, it's supposed to be like any dramatic consequence, one that passes suspension of disbelief.

Quote from: robiswrong;679176The main thing I can get out of this is a preference for this to be two rolls, and not have the two combined into a single roll.  That seems more like a preference for level of detail of resolution than anything.

Seeing as you're coming from the point of view of denying a distinction that there is a fundamental difference in the viewpoint of an RPG as a creative artform and one as attempting to experience an imaginary world as if it were real, the inaccurate reframing of my position is not only unexpected, it's terribly boring, as here it's pretty trite.

Quote from: robiswrong;679176Or because it makes for more interesting gaming, which is not a 'narrative' concern, though it is a pacing concern.  I mean, come on, lots of things in games are about making the game interesting.  Is it a coincidence that the bad guy *just happens* to show up, or that there's dangerous places with loot that *just happen* to be of appropriate level near the characters, and that *haven't* been picked clean previously?

I guess the only D&D you played was 3.5 and 4.  In the games I've run and played, players frequently find rewards far more or far less then "average" for various reasons and how they react to that is way more interesting.  
The loot always just happens to be of appropriate level and useful?  
The loot is always there and never missing?  
The bad guy is always there to fight when the players need him to be?
3 clear signs of a horrible GM.

Quote from: robiswrong;679176And the logic of hit points never causing a degradation in your capabilities until you fall over?  I'm pretty sure that's a direct gameplay concession.

Pick up a copy of Playing at the World, it will fill in some of the historical gaming gaps you have there.

Quote from: robiswrong;679176So your preference is that all details be determined before play starts.  Gotcha, and that's a totally cool preference.

It is a totally cool preference, of course that's not at all what I was saying or referring to, of course, but otherwise how could you answer the obvious difference between a trap being there in an existing world that I am exploring as a character only and there being a trap there because it makes for an interesting turn of events in a story we're jointly creating.

Quote from: robiswrong;679176I mean, even with setting up the scenario in advance, wouldn't the GM add an alarm because he thought it would be a cool complication?

He might, but if the trap is there it's there and the players trigger it or not.  In a game worried about dramatic pacing, it may be too much if there is a trap.  The trap exists or doesn't exist for reasons that have nothing at all to do with whether or not it actually was there.  It exists based upon whether having a trap pop up at this point in time due to player failure is interesting or not.

Quote from: robiswrong;679176You keep using the word "story" just to describe things you didn't like.

Nope, you gotta do better than that.

Quote from: robiswrong;679176But I don't see that as being inherently a 'narrative' issue, or a 'story' issue.

If "all the details" like "is there a trap on this door or not" or "are there orcs here" aren't placed beforehand, then they are placed during, so if placed during, why are they placed there?
1. Randomness.
2. GM decision.
3. Combination of both.
If the GM is deciding what goes there, why?  What is the purpose?  If he's simply making shit up as he goes based on ideas about what he thinks is most likely there, he's still not doing things for storytelling reasons.  If he makes shit up as the players are doing it, in response to die rolls and mechanics that say "now you come up with an interesting complication" then he is doing it for storytelling reasons, and hopefully the stuff he comes up with still suspends disbelief for the players, otherwise it turns out lame as hell as has been pointed out a few times in this thread.

Quote from: robiswrong;679176Well, I have.  Sadly, I don't have my original copies from '81 or so any more.  But given "Appendix N", I think it's safe to say that those types of stories were, in fact, part of the rationale for the experience system and the level of power growth.  It sure wasn't realism!  At any rate, given that most of the authors are dead, and that we have a distinct lack of mind-reading devices, it's pretty hard to say exactly *why* the authors made the decisions we did.

We have a lot more then you think, see Playing at the World above, and the Troll Lords forums.

Quote from: robiswrong;679176One thing we can say is that Gygax pretty explicitly rejected the notion of "RPG as simulation".  I'll find the exact page of the reference when I'm not at work.

and considering the historical context of the quote, at the time, Gygax was defending D&D from the SCA and others who claimed D&D wasn't a realistic enough depiction of (Middle Ages, Jousting, Historical Armor Types, Insert Pet Academic Hobby Specialty Here).  You don't have to look up another quote Gygax made probably 2 decades later about how RPGs don't create story, it's in Benoist's signature.

I am interested in hearing though how the guy who included rules for how many man-hours a Hill Giant would be worth versus a Troll or Ogre in building a castle or the infamous random prostitute table wasn't into emulating a living breathing world.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679182...and if nothing is planned out at all other then an ancient dungeon and the theme or tropes we're exploring are D&D, then orcs are a part of D&D, so are Dragons, Beholders, etc... any of which could be pulled out a hat and be within the plausible explanation of a D&D Dungeon.

Who said nothing was planned out in advance?  Who said that pulling out anything that would be appropriate in all of D&D worked?

Serious strawman argument here.  I'm discussing *specifically*, as I have said many times, the use of "fail forward" within a primarily traditional gameplay structure.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679182Actually, it's supposed to be like any dramatic consequence, one that passes suspension of disbelief.

Not sure I understand the distinction you're making - after all, wouldn't a consequence that logically arose from the situation pass suspension of disbelief?

Quote from: CRKrueger;679182Seeing as you're coming from the point of view of denying a distinction that there is a fundamental difference in the viewpoint of an RPG as a creative artform and one as attempting to experience an imaginary world as if it were real, the inaccurate reframing of my position is not only unexpected, it's terribly boring, as here it's pretty trite.

No, I'm not denying that at all.  I've specifically called out, many times, that I am discussing the idea within the specific context of a more traditional game.

So, strawman at best, and deliberate misinterpretation at worst.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679182I guess the only D&D you played was 3.5 and 4.

Not sure if I'd call this an ad hominem, or something else.  But either way, it's utterly incorrect.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679182In the games I've run and played, players frequently find rewards far more or far less then "average" for various reasons and how they react to that is way more interesting.  
The loot always just happens to be of appropriate level and useful?  
The loot is always there and never missing?  
The bad guy is always there to fight when the players need him to be?
3 clear signs of a horrible GM.

.... and where did I indicate that you should do any of those things?

Strawman argument.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679182Pick up a copy of Playing at the World, it will fill in some of the historical gaming gaps you have there.

Sounds like an interesting book.  I'll check it out.

Next time, try it without the personal insults, since I haven't been insulting you?

Quote from: CRKrueger;679182It is a totally cool preference, of course that's not at all what I was saying or referring to, of course, but otherwise how could you answer the obvious difference between a trap being there in an existing world that I am exploring as a character only and there being a trap there because it makes for an interesting turn of events in a story we're jointly creating.

I'm acknowledging the difference, and acknowledging your preference for it.  I find it primarily orthogonal to the idea of "fail forward".  If you recall, my initial scenarios were ones that did not require anything to be "invented" or added to the world/dungeon/whatever that wasn't there to begin with.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679182He might, but if the trap is there it's there and the players trigger it or not.  In a game worried about dramatic pacing, it may be too much if there is a trap.  The trap exists or doesn't exist for reasons that have nothing at all to do with whether or not it actually was there.  It exists based upon whether having a trap pop up at this point in time due to player failure is interesting or not.

Yes... which is why I'm not discussing that within the context of a narrative game.  You don't like them.  Great.  "Fail forward" is still useful outside of that context.  That's the argument.  Falling back to "narrative games suck" is a strawman.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679182Nope, you gotta do better than that.

You're being incredibly imprecise with your usage, frankly.  Just saying "it's now story-time" is a pretty useless statement, as it doesn't say anything real beyond "I don't like that".

Quote from: CRKrueger;679182If "all the details" like "is there a trap on this door or not" or "are there orcs here" aren't placed beforehand, then they are placed during, so if placed during, why are they placed there?
1. Randomness.
2. GM decision.
3. Combination of both.
If the GM is deciding what goes there, why?  What is the purpose?  If he's simply making shit up as he goes based on ideas about what he thinks is most likely there, he's still not doing things for storytelling reasons.  If he makes shit up as the players are doing it, in response to die rolls and mechanics that say "now you come up with an interesting complication" then he is doing it for storytelling reasons, and hopefully the stuff he comes up with still suspends disbelief for the players, otherwise it turns out lame as hell as has been pointed out a few times in this thread.

Whether he's coming up with it on the fly or not is orthogonal to the idea of narrative vs. traditional games.  I've had to come up with things on the fly for many, many traditional games.  If you don't railroad your players, it's pretty inevitable.

And there's also a difference between coming up with stuff for "story" reasons, and for reasons related to gameplay pacing.  In addition to coming up with stuff for reasons of realism/verisimillitude.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679182and considering the historical context of the quote, at the time, Gygax was defending D&D from the SCA and others who claimed D&D wasn't a realistic enough depiction of (Middle Ages, Jousting, Historical Armor Types, Insert Pet Academic Hobby Specialty Here).  You don't have to look up another quote Gygax made probably 2 decades later about how RPGs don't create story, it's in Benoist's signature.

Er, I'm not disagreeing that RPGs don't create story, at least traditional ones.  I think that the insertion of "story" into more traditional RPGs is a pretty grave mistake, and consider DragonLance to be one of the primary blights on the hobby (Drizz't is the other one.).

But seriously, if you're going to argue that HP have their background in anything resembling an attempt to model how the world works, I'm going to have to call bullshit on that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;679182I am interested in hearing though how the guy who included rules for how many man-hours a Hill Giant would be worth versus a Troll or Ogre in building a castle or the infamous random prostitute table wasn't into emulating a living breathing world.

It's also pretty important if part of the game is building castles.

Especially the random prostitution table.

At any rate, you seem to be going out of your way to ignore the things I say that you don't have a clever answer to, and deliberately misinterpreting what I say along with a side dish of ad hominems and personal attacks.  I'm genuinely interested in trading ideas with you, if you're willing to do so.  But I'm not going to continue this discussion in its current form.

Eh, that's what happens when Silva comes in after every post you make, grabs a soundbite or two of your posts and me-too parrots it across multiple threads.

It makes people get more irritated then they should. I apologize.  However, I will refer to one point.

Quote from: You said...Or because it makes for more interesting gaming, which is not a 'narrative' concern, though it is a pacing concern. I mean, come on, lots of things in games are about making the game interesting. Is it a coincidence that the bad guy *just happens* to show up, or that there's dangerous places with loot that *just happen* to be of appropriate level near the characters, and that *haven't* been picked clean previously?

It seems pretty clear you are suggesting these as three things the GM does in a non-narrative way to make the game interesting.  I said those three things are actually signs of a lousy GM as I see it from a world-immersive point of view.  My response here is clearly not a strawman, I'm directly answering your exact words.

As far as kicking up the snark in the rest, well as I said, being teamed with Silva unintentionally doesn't help when you're trying to have a logical conversation about games when the word narrative pops in, other then that, he's ok, especially about Shadowrun.

So let me recap.  Really here with Fail Forward and Say Yes in the other thread we are talking about the same thing.  Namely, advice that started or is more commonly associated with specifically narrative games.

Now in both threads, you are claiming that the advice in question can be good advice in non-narrative games as well and it should not be restricted to its context in the original narrative games, does that about sum it up?

Personally, I find it a little odd to take the words of the sayings themselves and reframe them outside of their obvious original context.  In the case of Say yes, Yes but, etc, I can see other applications (and I talk about what I see as the limitation to that in the other thread), but in the case of Fail Forward, I can't.

To tell you the truth I don't see how you can follow the concept of Fail Forward and not engage that from the point of view of not only pacing, but narrative pacing.  I mean christ, that's where the damn term came from and it's original meaning as applied to game design - literally "Failing Forward" into more story.  

I'm sure I don't read as much Storygames.com as JKim and somehow he missed it and I know exactly what it is?  You're a new poster, and I'm trying very hard not to prejudge and lump you in with some other agenda warriors who I know don't always deal from the top of the deck when they post here.

So I'll shutup and sit here with an open mind, please explain to me some GM decisions where the GM can choose to utilize Fail Forward without having as a reason moving the narrative forward.

Honestly, I think from the way I do things "Non-Binary Resolution" is a better term than "Failing Forward".