There are many Cthulhu games, I suspect, with far too many world-class surgeons who unaccountably lose far too many patients in the operating theatre.

Nothing wrong with failure but agree Gm's that milk it are a pain int eh arse (tip in a d20 game if you roll a 1 rather than go straight to a fumble add a save check - I just get them to roll under their level but you could make it a reflex save to be consistent - and its just a miss)
However this is not a dice thing. I am running an Amber game people fail. They fail because they make bad choices, ignore clues and walk into situations they can't handle. Failure is much sweeter when the player knows its their fault and could be avoided.

I have a noce example from an old D&D game. The party had broken into the house of a local 'gangster' they had gotten what they came for and were leaving via the kitchens. One PC was covering the back of the party he hesitated. He wanted to do something changed his mind lost a round or two then the baddies broke through the door. the other guys were out of the window he was on his own. the player knew he had fucked up and we shared one of those looks. The three guys took him. All open rolls. In theory he could have taken them but my bad guys always fight to the best of their abilities and the dice deserted him, but it wasn't the dice it was the 2 rounds he lost the hesitation. The player said afterwards that he knew it was was coming and he knew he fucked up .

Back in t'day: dice ruled all. No question, no complaint. Just as in ye wargames of old.

Then people thought maybe the gm should use 'failure' to determine a different avenue for the adventure.

Then, now, people think that there should be a myriad of rules and conventions to allow people to get out of bad rolls, be they drama points/fate point or stunt dice or whatever.

Given that the gm isn't meant to be your enemy (and The Computer is your friend), surely the second point is the best course, and if a particularly unwelcome and unsavoury result manifests then ignore it. After all that's what every single rpg i've ever read says.

I agree failure is a critically important part of roleplaying games. It is necessary in order to make any achievement meaningful and often failure can be as interesting as success. Without the chance of failure, it's just another railroad.

I think the blog quote however is over simplistic. Specifically Monte Cook seems to be looked at only one style of gaming, albeit a very popular one.

A lot depends on the context. The impact of failure can be felt different depending on whether it's a long, regular campaign (in which the good and the bad can balance out over the long run) or a shorter game in which a single failure can cast a shadow over the whole experience. Frankly if you only get to game one every other month and you have to drive an hour to get there, the "it will feel sweeter next time" doesn't really cut it.

And while I agree not every game has to feel like a movie (or book, TV series, whatever) a lot of players like they when it do; that is part of the attraction. It one of the reasons games like Pendragon, Amber, Ghostbusters and Buffy have very different kind of rules.

It is legitimate for the genre conventions to set expectations. If you are playing Paranoia you except a no-win scenario in which you will die multiple times. It is also fair to expect the world in a cyberpunk game (anyone still play that?) less forgiving than Star Wars.

So. as with most things roleplaying related, the answer is "depends". Personally though, I don't like fudging dice and if, when running a game, I allow the players to cheat fate I rather it were done in structured manner though Fate points style mechanics.

Quote from: Cranewings;363525This problem is magnified by GMs that make you roll for everything. Foraging for food and roll a 1? Poison. Riding a horse and roll a 1? Trampled.

If life was this dangerous for bad ass trained killers, no one would ever be able to learn to do anything for fear of death.

Well, those are real dangers.  If the forager is experienced, it wouldn't be fair to have death as an option, but plenty of people have carked it figuring out what can and can't be eaten.

It depends on how the player views the game.  I really enjoy those risks and the random element attached because they're something I can plan to beat.  When the party isn't dying of stomach cramps in the Forest of Fnig, I feel clever because I insisted on bringing that annoying, noncombatant woodsman NPC along on the mission.

The cramps would frustrate me, though, if I were a player who doesn't want mundane considerations like that to hold up the game.

There's no out on the horses, however.  Those fuckers are random and riding them is insanely dangerous.  Even lifelong equestrians aren't safe, especially in the situations RPG adventurers wind up in.

I think that the problem here stems from the fact that failure does not necessarily equal fumble. Failure happens as part of the natural occurances in the game, while a fumble should only be used as a dramatic effect in game if appropriate. YMMV.

Quote from: Hairfoot;363552Well, those are real dangers.  If the forager is experienced, it wouldn't be fair to have death as an option, but plenty of people have carked it figuring out what can and can't be eaten.

It depends on how the player views the game.  I really enjoy those risks and the random element attached because they're something I can plan to beat.  When the party isn't dying of stomach cramps in the Forest of Fnig, I feel clever because I insisted on bringing that annoying, noncombatant woodsman NPC along on the mission.

The cramps would frustrate me, though, if I were a player who doesn't want mundane considerations like that to hold up the game.

There's no out on the horses, however.  Those fuckers are random and riding them is insanely dangerous.  Even lifelong equestrians aren't safe, especially in the situations RPG adventurers wind up in.

And I would agree with you if I were rolling 1d1000 and a 0,0,1 came up, however most games give a 5% chance for fumbling, which is far to high, especially for people that are highly trained in what they are doing.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;363541As for chance of failure, sure. But again, you don't want a moron GM making you roll to drink a glass of water, nor getting you roll so many times for one action that you're certain to fail. "Make a stealth check... perception... stealth... perception..." Fuck's sakes!

That's one thing I really liked about Burning Wheel, was the explicit "Let it Ride" rule -- if you succeed at your skill roll, that means you complete whatever it was you were trying to accomplish. The GM is forbidden by the rules to artificially inflate rolls until you fail. By the same token, if you fail, that's that -- you can't try again unless the situation changes significantly.

Consequence is critical to involvement and any real sense of achievement.  This is not just an anecdotally-backed opinion.  In nearly every operant behavioral study, variable-interval reinforcement produces the strongest and largest behavioral results, as well as behaviors most resistant to extinction.  In the case of RPGs, to a large degree, the dice determine the rate of reinforcement, and the random results of a die roll are best represented by the 'Random-Interval' schedule.

While I am not a big behaviorist, I do recognize the power of a reinforcement schedule.  My biggest psychological alignments to gaming are in communication and relationship-building, as well as the excelsior dynamic.  But I recognized the dice as a variable-interval ratio schedule back in the early 80's, in college, and I stand by that opinion as much now as I did then.

Quote from: Originally Posted by CranewingsThis problem is magnified by GMs that make you roll for everything. Foraging for food and roll a 1? Poison. Riding a horse and roll a 1? Trampled.

If life was this dangerous for bad ass trained killers, no one would ever be able to learn to do anything for fear of death.

That's slightly extreme and bad GMing.  
I'm one of those GMs who uses a skill based system, and this allows you to interject the dice into a lot of situations, but the dice are not merely a yes/no.  You also illustrate why 5% increments are not suited for skill based games, BTW, but that's another issue.
Someone critically failing foraging for food with some sort of wilderness survival skill is not going to get poisoned, though they might find tainted food, which would lead to other chances to figure out if it was bad, basic healing, and in all cases, the dice just move the storyline.  IN almost every case, failure brings up obstacles, success or die is almost always saved for combat.

Quote from: ticopelp;363508That said, I wouldn't want a Rogue- or Angband-like experience out of an RPG at this point in my life. There was a time when I enjoyed playing a game for hours and hours only to have all my progress disappear, and that was when I was fifteen and valued my time a lot less than I do now.

My daily life has plenty of big challenges and rewards; I'm fine with my game time having a much shallower curve in that respect.

That's a very interesting point you're making here. I never made the association between the value of the time invested in playing the game (as compared to real life responsibilities, sacrifices etc) and the consequences of loss within the game itself.

I thought it just came with the territory: playing the game means that at some point you may lose, i.e. your character dies, with possible further outcomes in the game-world down the road (being resurrected, or your next character hearing about your previous ones, finishing unsolved business across characters, etc). The possibility of loss makes the whole game worth playing, but also, failure does have good consequences (i.e. richer environment, further adventure opportunities, character development etc) on the game world later on.

What I liked about your post is the way you put it. It actually made sense, as opposed to a whiny diatribe about not wanting to lose "because my ego can't take it! WHAAA!"

Quote from: Cranewings;363525A part of it is a sense of entitlement, but another part is how GMs have abused failure instead of using it as a tool.

I've said it before. I'm fucking sick of rolling a 1 and tripping over my own feet, breaking my sword, shooting a friend, or making people think I'm a buffoon.

It isn't so important that a character succeed all the time. What is important is that the dice not undermine my idea of what my character is about.

I think you're putting the finger on a major issue here. It would have to do with shallow explanation for bad rolls, cheesy outcomes, ridiculous fumbles that just go so against what the character is in your mind's eye that it breaks the game's immersion dramatically.

An issue of bad DMing rather than game mechanics, in other words.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;363499Failure isn't bad, consistently high price of failure stemming solely from fortune is.

Yep. Failing, even in a crucial roll, is not necessarily so bad. Failing every roll stinks, but most times it comes from really suboptimal choices when creating the PC or from the GM failing to present some situation where the PC can use his best skills.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;363506It's the culture of entitlement being built. People growing up who think the world owes them things they haven't earned.

I partially agree with this, but the bit about "earning it" puts me off a bit. This is a game, a ludic exercise, which usually has little to o with earning things. Youdon't have to earn your right to have fun in a game. But, OTOH, I see how the idea of "I never should fail at anything because my PC is the main star of the movie" is really wrong. The real chance of failing make the success stand out.

Quote from: Cranewings;363525A part of it is a sense of entitlement, but another part is how GMs have abused failure instead of using it as a tool.

I've said it before. I'm fucking sick of rolling a 1 and tripping over my own feet, breaking my sword, shooting a friend, or making people think I'm a buffoon.

It isn't so important that a character succeed all the time. What is important is that the dice not undermine my idea of what my character is about. If I have a maximum charisma and diplomacy in pathfinder, I don't want to roll a 1 and become a laughing stock for saying something stupid.

This problem is magnified by GMs that make you roll for everything. Foraging for food and roll a 1? Poison. Riding a horse and roll a 1? Trampled.

If life was this dangerous for bad ass trained killers, no one would ever be able to learn to do anything for fear of death.

I completely agree here. Failure =/= fumble.

Quote from: Gruntfuttock;363536This is where the 'I shouldn't be allowed to fail!" mentality comes from, at least in some older players.

GMs who make you roll for tying up your shoelaces. Sure, that's the action of an idiot GM - but enough players have been made to look like butterfingered morons by harsh definitions of what failure means.

Enough to warrant a change in the game's design itself?

See. That's where I personally feel left out. Because some DM somewhere is a definite asshole and/or moron, a guy I don't know, will never play with, half a continent away, some designer will decide to change the game mechanics and fix an issue I never had in the first place.

Whereas actual advice to help mediocre DMs to improve do not require changes in game mechanics, with each and every gamer picking up on said advice at his own speed information relevant to his/her own needs and group specifics.

Somewhere along the road, it seems that suddenly offering advice in supplements was completely discarded in favor of mechanical adjustments to the game system itself, which in fact gradually alters the personality of the game to fit the lowest common denominator, the gamer who actually sucks at running/playing the game in the first place. The experienced gamer feeling fine in his shoes either has to put up with the change and shut up, or just give up on the game altogether. That doesn't make sense, to me.

Quote from: Cranewings;363525A part of it is a sense of entitlement, but another part is how GMs have abused failure instead of using it as a tool.

I've said it before. I'm fucking sick of rolling a 1 and tripping over my own feet, breaking my sword, shooting a friend, or making people think I'm a buffoon.

It isn't so important that a character succeed all the time. What is important is that the dice not undermine my idea of what my character is about. If I have a maximum charisma and diplomacy in pathfinder, I don't want to roll a 1 and become a laughing stock for saying something stupid.

This problem is magnified by GMs that make you roll for everything. Foraging for food and roll a 1? Poison. Riding a horse and roll a 1? Trampled.

If life was this dangerous for bad ass trained killers, no one would ever be able to learn to do anything for fear of death.

Quote from: Gruntfuttock;363536This is where the 'I shouldn't be allowed to fail!" mentality comes from, at least in some older players.

GMs who make you roll for tying up your shoelaces. Sure, that's the action of an idiot GM - but enough players have been made to look like butterfingered morons by harsh definitions of what failure means. Fumble and drop your sword - fine. Fumble and run yourself through - WFT! Am I double-jointed now? How did I even manage to do that?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;363541As for chance of failure, sure. But again, you don't want a moron GM making you roll to drink a glass of water, nor getting you roll so many times for one action that you're certain to fail. "Make a stealth check... perception... stealth... perception..." Fuck's sakes!

I think that this line of reasoning here comes close to home on the subject.  My feelings are fairly close to those expressed above.

In my new face-to-face group, I had a situation that left a sour taste in my mouth because it screwed with my immersion and game emulation.  It's a fantasy game and my character is a dwarf scout and woodsman, skilled in tracking.  It's based off D&D somewhat so character had a relatively high Survival skill for tracking.  Our group is escorting the King's Messenger to take an uber important message to the Prince at a castle engaged in a war with orc forces.  While camping in the middle of the night, the King's Messenger is kidnapped.  

OK, fine.  My dwarf ranger finds tracks and starts tracking.  However, the GM makes me roll Survival check for tracking every-fracking-hour of game time.  Naturally, since I was rolling so many times there were failures.  Each failure meant that the group had to backtrack to where my character last lost the tracks and pick up tracking again from there- with more Survival rolls.  

Obviously, this meant that we start losing time in relation to the kidnappers.  In the course of trying to track down the lost messenger, we discover that he is now with a large group of orcs.  These orcs are behind the Prince's line and have penetrated where they weren't expected.

By this time, I as a player was getting pissed off at the GM for making me roll tracking for every fracking hour of real game time because of the failure frequency.  My dwarven character was a soldier for 20 years and so decided that it was stupid to keep tracking and backtracking.  He knew that they had to get the information to the Prince immediately- that the messenger was kidnapped, give the Prince the vital information that we knew about, and report that large forces of orcs had penetrated behind the line of his forces.

The other players because very upset with me and my character.  Being a stubborn dwarf, my character refused to continuing tracking for them and just go off by himself to warn the Prince.  Naturally, this became a big issue.  My character was the only character who could track.  The other players knew that if I keep rolling at tracking that eventually, I would find them again and start the whole stupid process over again.  They were mad that I refused to continue the treadmill of tracking.

I stick to my guns, and my dwarf refused to track.  We go to the castle and report to the Prince.  The other character lays out what happened to the Prince and asks him what should have been done.  The Prince says that he would have continued tracking.  The Prince sends us back to where I last lost the tracks with two of his trackers.  Once we get back to the spot, all three of roll tracking to pick up the trail.  Both the Prince's trackers fail to find the tracks, and, guess what, my dwarf character finds the lost trail.  

We follow it now to find the Messenger's dead body.  I was blamed for the Messenger's death because I refused to continue rolling dozens of tracking checks.  I feel the GM was responsible for the whole situation.  Why did I have to roll a tracking check every fracking hour of game time, especially when the chase would cover several days of game time?

Quote from: Drohem;363584Why did I have to roll a tracking check every fracking hour of game time, especially when the chase would cover several days of game time?

d20, I assume? Did you consider taking 10?

If your "take 10" was not high enough to consistently follow the tracks, then that would indicate that you were not necessarily skilled enough to follow the tracks. You needed lucky breaks, sudden insights, and/or other essentially "random" circumstances to continue tracking - represented by the d20.

As for why it would be hourly, well, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Hourly checks for a chase that takes days might seem unreasonable, but at the same time, daily checks for a chase that takes only a couple hours seems a bit off.

This doesn't really seem like an instance of the GM trying to screw you (unlike the "stealth, perception, stealth, perception" example). Per the RAW, a successful survival check to follow tracks lets you follow them for a mile, with another check called for if the tracks become difficult to follow. Requiring one per hour is probably more lax than the rules call for, even.