What are you feelings regarding the current trend of making failure "attractive" as an option by virtue of "failing forward" in game design? To what extent does this impact the legitimacy of a challenge? If "the game must go on!" eliminates some failure scenarios because the players might find those scenarios undesirable...would you say that that undermines the concept of failure? Should failure from a PC stand-point be undesirable from a player standpoint with undesirable consequences that accompany it?
Good questions, and I will do my best to answer them.
It is my belief that the GM should not "guide" the action to a specific outcome. On the other hand, I do believe that part of good design is seeding a location with enough material to allow unexpected things to occur, for both good and ill. It is my firm belief that the early TSR designers, for instance, did not expect every last bent copper piece to be found, and thus seeded treasure in excess of what would usually be found so that, if a player happened to think to look inside the giant lizard's gullet, there was a chance of actually finding something.
I am well aware that there are some who imagine that every scrap of treasure in a published scenario is intended to be found, even though the only quote available on the subject, in Module B1, says exactly the opposite: "Although monsters will inevitably make their presence known, treasures are usually not obvious. It is up to players to locate them by telling the DM how their characters will conduct any attempted search, and it is quite conceivable that they could totally miss seeing a treasure which is hidden or concealed. In fact, any good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them." (p. 24).
There is nothing inherently wrong with offering the chance to "fail forward" in a scenario. Having unexpected good come out of failure can actually offer sweet moments in the game...but the word "unexpected" is key. Like the expectation that finding cool treasures spawned the idea that they would follow you around until you did discover them, the idea that some form of good could come out of failure ceases to become surprising when there is reason to expect that most failures will be anything but that...failures.
What JRRT called "eucatastrophe" - the feeling that, when catastrophe is assured, sudden hope changes everything - is a powerful feeling, but it only works when catastrophe seems inevitable. It doesn't work when failure is expected to be "failing forward".
From the previous series, it should be clear that I think that the maximum good, from a player's standpoint, comes from being able to play the associative game. The sort of metagaming that comes about from deciding what forms of failure are off the table works against this. It also works against the idea that the player's choices have any value - if the choices lead to failure, so be it. I have written in the past that the GM should never include a consequence for failure that he is unwilling to live with, and that is because players must be allowed to fail if they are ever to experience true success.
It seems like there are multiple takes on what fail forward means. I don't know which is "more right", but the definition I prefer means that failure changes the situation rather than create roadblocks. For example, if a character is trying to catch his grappling hook on a building and the character fails their skill/ability roll, rather than simply "fail", something happens. It catches an object, but it's not sturdy and the character doesn't notice until they've begun climbing. Maybe it shatters the window, alerting the people inside to a potential break-in.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite uses have a kind snowball effect, where the initial consequence of failure introduce more and more problems into a situation.
I'm not sure what 'fail forward' is a reaction to... and prejudice assumes a sort of guilt by association when I see who's usually endorsing it.
ReplyDeleteNot having the opportunity to flat out fail... or to die in combat... lessens my feelings of investment, risk has the edge removed and I just don't enjoy that style of play.
"Failing Forward" has nothing to do with not failing or negating risk. Failing Forward means that failure does not result in a return to the status quo, but rather causes things to happen that continue the story.
ReplyDeleteIf the PCs need to pick a lock to enter the warehouse, failing the pick lock roll can lead back to the status quo (they continue to stand there, and still need to pick the lock to get in), or they can "fail forward" and failing to pick the lock leads to a check for wandering guards, or maybe an alarm is triggered, or whatever.
If the PCs need to find the master thief to gain the quest coupon, a failed Gather Information check can lead to the status quo (the PCs need to try again) or they could gain false information, or maybe asking about the thief leads to his buddies attacking, or the town guard getting curious.
Just taking your first paragraph, isn't a return to the status quo, and the resultant need for the players to come up with an option, a risk of failure? And, if so, if "failing forward: means that failure "rather causes things to happen that continue the story" negate that risk?
DeleteIMHO, and at my table, "story" is what is told after the events of a game session; the game session itself is not a "story".
http://www.shamelessmayhem.com/games/rpg/31-failing-forward
DeleteThis is a good example of the type of thinking that I am talking about:
"Failing Forward is a term used to describe a failed die roll still allowing the Players to succeed in their endevour, just not in the method they had planned. This article will discuss a number of ways a Game Master can keep a night of bad dice from ruining an evening's Game.
A simple example would be to have the Player's main objective fail, but their action still have a beneficial effect. As an example, take a Wild West Shootout. A Player shoots at the Bad Guys and misses. Instead of hitting the Villain, the bullet hits the rope causing the chandelier to fall against the door, preventing enemy reinforcements from arriving."
No thank you....in general. But, so long as you can also fail when you succeed, like in Cubicle 7's Doctor Who RPG, Adventures In Time And Space, then I have less of an objection. These "story games", though, don't satisfy the same itch that a traditional rpg does.
That said, I could see attaching a secondary roll to a skill check, tied in to the Luck stat in DCC, that had a chance of a lucky or unlucky break attached to the primary roll.
Another interesting take: http://nnnooner.blogspot.ca/2013/05/failing-forward-lite.html
DeleteThis is a problem, to not make failure more attractive than succeeding. Ideally, the failure complicates the situation at hand so that they must account for this new development. Or they go back to the drawing board and approach from a new angle (one which still may or may not be complicated due to their failure).
DeleteA simple one is lock picking. I've seen most GMs treat failure as, "you do not succeed", but without other complications you can attempt this ad nauseum. A good, simple "fail forward" is making the lock pick get stuck. Now they have to remove it from the lock lest they rouse the suspicion of the guards. Make a strength check. Oh you failed that? You break the pick in the lock. It's only a matter of time before someone notices. And so on.
"isn't a return to the status quo, and the resultant need for the players to come up with an option, a risk of failure?" Yes, so long as the GM allows that to happen. I guess you have never been stuck in a dungeon where the only way to progress was to open that one locked door, or stuck in a town where you had to have one specific conversation with one specific NPC or else just spend the whole session watching the wheels spin.
DeleteAnd IMHO opinion and at my table, story is the play experience that goes on at the table, with the GM says things and then players saying things and even dice saying things. The "something else now/story afterwards" line of reasoning always struck me as "a group of guys on stage singing and playing instruments isn't a song, a song is what is recorded and played back afterwards." I don't define the word "story" that narrowly.
I don't believe that a GM should determine the "story" ahead of time. "Story" is what you tell after play, based on the emergent events in play. The difference is that there is no "plot" or narrative arc that "must" occur. "Progress" is not measured by a single plot-driven metric that can be derailed by a door or not talking to a specific NPC.
DeleteThe experiences you describe sound like the kind of thing that happens in a video game. IME, this occurs as a specific result of conflating "story" with "game events", so that the "game events" must be fit into the pattern of a "story" (and often a pre-existing story of the GM's devising).
For the record, I do not find that sort of play engaging. I would rather be stuck in the dungeon, and have poor Sir Henry die of starvation, than have the GM "fail me forward". If I am not allowed to fail on my own merits, then success isn't really due to my decisions either. The game becomes meaningless, in both the sense of (1) actual game play at the table and (2) associative game play.
YMMV, of course.
It does not follow that "you do not succeed" means that you can continue the attempt ad nauseum. In 1e, for instance, if you failed your Open Locks roll, that lock was simply beyond your abilities at this level. As a result, "fail forward" in your example above is a solution in search of a problem that, in some systems, simply does not exist.
ReplyDelete"Take 20" mechanics have their own set of problems which may not be immediately apparent to the user. The most obvious one is that, by knowing the bonus, the GM is setting on/off switches. If the max a character can roll is 23, any lock whose DC is 23 or less is "on" and any whose DC is 24 or more is "off". Useful if you have a "story" you want to play in a specific way; but it gets in the way of those of us who believe that the "story" is told afterwards from the emergent events of play.
But if failure worsens a situation, effectively creating an additional roadblock to the solution the players attempted, I am not sure that qualifies as "failing forward" as I have seen it applied. Otherwise, failing a Climb check and falling 500 feet is "failing forward". I have typically heard it used as "failure becomes success with consequences, or opens up a new option"...which makes sense of the "forward" part of "failing forward".
That the potential consequences are known to, and in some cases negotiated with, the player prior to the attempt is another artefact of some systems which I strong feel is antithetical to the associative game.
"It does not follow that "you do not succeed" means that you can continue the attempt ad nauseum. In 1e, for instance, if you failed your Open Locks roll, that lock was simply beyond your abilities at this level. As a result, "fail forward" in your example above is a solution in search of a problem that, in some systems, simply does not exist."
DeleteIt is definitely system dependent. It also reflects my experience (with very bad GMs) that I was allowed to re-roll, usually until a success or critical failure happens. Even then, modern editions of D&D have explicit rules for when you can re-roll (3.X specifically).
"But if failure worsens a situation, effectively creating an additional roadblock to the solution the players attempted, I am not sure that qualifies as "failing forward" as I have seen it applied."
Just to be clear, you're using this "as you've seen it applied,", right?
"Failing Forward is a term used to describe a failed die roll still allowing the Players to succeed in their endeavor, just not in the method they had planned."
While it's true that my example has no "unexpected good", we also don't know how it ends. Allow me to fill those details in, assuming success and failure where necessary. The group decides, after breaking their lock pick in the door, that the only way to gain entry into this room is to break down the door. However, there are guards nearby. They decide to incapacitate them one at a time and bound their hands, legs, and mouths as well as blindfolding them (again, assuming success). After the break down the door and loot the room, they find escaping is a lot easier because they already dealt with all of the guards in this area.
I believe this fulfills that criteria, albeit over a series of die rolls (the unexpected good being they don't have to be so cautious on their way out). If we object to this because it wasn't the result of a single die roll (which your definition seems to imply is necessary), then I have to ask, what would a failed lock pick roll result in that would be both plausible and unexpected?
How is that example any different than failing and coming up with another plan?
DeleteBecause failing to pick the lock due it "being beyond your ability" and having a broken pick stuck in the lock, one which a guard will notice on his next patrol of the area, is different?
DeleteAgain, though, how is this "failing forward"? And how is if different than the situation where the PC simply fails. Once the PC fails, and determines that there are guards nearby (who will surely hear the door being bashed down, and therefore need so no pick stuck in the lock), the scene plays out the same.
DeleteAt the best, all you have done is introduced an additional roadblock (a time limit based on guard patrols), which has added nothing "forward" to the in-game event.
I don't find things like that objectionable.
I guess that means that, in order to discuss the topic intelligently, we need to separate out "Failing Forward" Type A, where the failure does not actually put you forward, and Failing Forward Type B, where it does. And, again, Type B is not objectionable - and can actually be a good thing - if it is unexpected due to rarity of occurrence.
Delete"Again, though, how is this "failing forward"? And how is if different than the situation where the PC simply fails. Once the PC fails, and determines that there are guards nearby (who will surely hear the door being bashed down, and therefore need so no pick stuck in the lock), the scene plays out the same. "
DeleteNot true. If the player simply fails, they could still potentially find the key. Once the pick is broken in the lock, this is no longer an option.
I would appreciate it if you answered my question as I've answered yours. Twice, now.
Vanguard, after the merry-go-round on the last topic, I reserve the right to engage with you however I see fit.
DeleteFor example, you ask me if this is as I have seen it applied, quoting the section in which I say the same. Sorry, that is not worth responding to.
You ask "what would a failed lock pick roll result in that would be both plausible and unexpected?" but, when I am saying that "failing forward" is not generally a thing that I endorse, why the hell would I be trying to come up with this answer for you?
I don't know if you have ever picked a lock. I have; more than one. When I was a kid, escape artists had a brief resurgence on TV, where I was at in Wisconsin at least, and my older brother took a whole bunch of locks apart to see how they worked, and passed some tiny bit of his skill on to me. I have opened many a car door with a hanger. I have opened padlocks with paper clips (and cheaper locks really are a lot easier to pick). Most garage door and diary/luggage-type locks are laughably easy to unlock with a bit of bent wire. But I am no expert - not by a long shot - I was never as good at it as my older brother, and he is no expert either. I did get to help a cop use a Slim Jim on my neighbour's car when I was in High School once, and my easy expertise seemed to impress him.
In Toronto, my neighbour's son was locked out once, and I got him to call his mother, asking if it was okay if I broke him in if I was able. When he called her back from inside the house a minute later, she was not amused. Having some idea of how this stuff is done, though, can help you secure your place against the most obvious forms of easy entry.
I have never had a pick break in a lock. I have encountered a lot of locks that are too tough for me. The most plausible result of failure is the one that is going to happen most of the time - the lock is too tough for you to pick, but your tools are not damaged in any way.
BUT, even if that is what happens, again, though, how is this "failing forward"? The question that you seemed to avoid answering while indignant proclaiming that I should answer your questions because you have answered mine. "Twice, now." I guess that you are using "Failing Forward" Type A, where failure does not actually put you forward?
You get the response that you earn, based upon whether or not I can see that you are actually engaging with the previous replies, and whether or not it looks like another merry-go-round from here. I am not required to waste my time.
I admit that our last conversation was not the most amenable. And you're right, you can respond to me however you'd like. What you can't do is say that I haven't engaged your questions. That's a dishonest accusation.
ReplyDeleteI actually did answer how it was failing forward, as per your definition with the caveat that it was the result of a series of rolls as opposed to one. Your response was that it doesn't count because the scene would play out the same, to which I also responded and showed how it was different.
I asked a question, to which you have no intention of answering.
All of this is fine, but don't pretend you're engaging in this discussion honestly.
I will leave the reader to decide who is, and who is not, engaging in this discussion honestly. Likewise, the last conversation. But I am curious which question are you referring to? "What would a failed lock pick roll result in that would be both plausible and unexpected?"
DeleteLook, let us say that you and I were having a discussion about Cool Ranch and Nacho Cheese Doritos, in which I claimed Cool Ranch was superior and you claimed the same about Nacho Cheese. I then introduce the question, "But wait, under which circumstances is Cool Ranch superior to Nacho Cheese"? Hopefully you can see the problems involved. If you cannot, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question may help you.
In any event, there is nothing in your example of the broken lockpick that "fails forward", any more than claiming that, because an attack roll missed, but the battle was won, the attack roll "failed forward". The scene, as you described it, plays out exactly the same with or without the broken lockpick. You then add another element (the key) to claim that there is a difference. I'll raise your key and see you a pair of pliers in the thief's toolkit, which allow the broken lockpick to be removed.
I greatly appreciate the response.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I will point out is the recurring theme(s) I see here and elsewhere with this whole "failing forward" thing...
It presumes limited options. "Well if they can't get past the door, the adventure stalls"...only if the DM has made it so THAT is the only thing going on. In my game it is entirely possible the players may run into something they can't pass for whatever reason (be it literal, figurative or logistical)...and that is why the rest of the world exists. If they figure out a way past, cool...if not...whatever. A wall is only a problem when you're on a rail...a 2d plane...a 3d game would have no such issue.
I've also noticed many times it ignores the importance of time as the most important resource for players...but I could do an entire book about that...
The defenders of "falling forward", in my experience, tend to believe that "the" adventure stalls, and the "adventure" tends to be the "story", a single narrative sequence whose outline can be known in broad strokes before play even begins. I have no problem, whatsoever, with an adventure containing a timeline, but that timeline may well be altered by the actions of the PCs. Likewise, the players may have a very different idea of what the adventure /is/ or /should be/.
DeleteI have no desire to have players be "the hand who turns the pages of the GM's story", nor do I have any desire to "fail forward" anyone so that "the GM's story" may continue. I will learn the story when the game unfolds. Failure is an option. A TPK is an option. Temptations arising that tear the party apart is an option. Fabulous success is an option.
I present context; players make choices; and I determine consequences. In turn, this creates the new context, and presents new choices, from which new consequences will arise.
I do not present a menu of options for players to choose from; when they make choices, they decide what their characters will attempt to do. I do not control the PCs. I do not control the players. I do not force them to, or prevent them from, helping each other. I do not force them to, or prevent them from, having their PCs oppose each other.
I present context. I adjudicate the results of choices. That's it.
Indeed. I couldn't agree more.
DeleteThis obsession over "story" and "protagonists" obscures so much of the discussion in the D&D-o-sphere.