Quote from: CRKrueger;1055212Wrath and Glory page 63, titled "Fail-Forward"

Failure can be interesting, and continue to drive the game forward, as long as the result does not equal "nothing happens."

Failing-forward does not mean "you always succeed." In fact, it can mean that there are enormous risks for failing. What it does mean is that the outcome should not be boring.

Thanks. I think it's a common misconpcetion equaling the concept with "never failing".

Quote from: PencilBoy99What games mechanically support "success at a cost." Where the player can CHOOSE to succeed by making things worse for themselves.

I don't remember if the success is automatic, or if you gain a big bonus to the situation, but both Fate and Blades in the Dark allow you to push for a success as long as you accept some kind of setback, now or later in (it's called Devil's Bargain in Blades). Both must be approved by the GM though - if he/she doesn't think it makes sense for the situation at hand, he/she can veto it.

Quote from: Azraele;1055222It's deeper than "tone" though; the way the game is played is radically different if you screw with the core assumptions of the player/game interaction.

"You cannot fail to make progress in an investigation or social situation" is a radical departure from how our real world works; you can overlook a secret, fail to get to the bottom of a mystery, or become totally shunned in a social situation in our actual reality. If those things became impossible, the game would cease to work in a way that upholds the "realism" of the imagined world; it wouldn't recognizably match our real world, making it artificial in a way that "has elves and magic" does not.

Changing the assumptions of the setting is different from changing how players interact with the setting. We need to separate the two concepts to have a productive dialogue about them.

I would say suspension of disbelief is a better label for what you say here. Notice though, that it can be achieved even when the player/game interaction deviates from our real world assumptions - as shown by Gumshoe, for eg, where "you cannot fail to make progress in an investigation" is a given premise, and it still doesn't break suspension of disbelief for it's players.

Quote from: Itachi;1055240Thanks. I think it's a common misconpcetion equaling the concept with "never failing".

Damn right! It means "never failing if the GM doesn't want you to"

Which is so much worse

...

Hitting a dead end is supposed to be a clue that you need to change your strategy as a player. If a GM has a situation prepped, rather than an outcome or a "story", then you find that fail-forward isn't really necessary as either advice or mechanic.

"We turn the corner!" It's a brick wall "Okay, we backtrack!" isn't really the game-annihilating disaster people seem to assume it is.

"We fail in our objective!" there are hard consequences "We [do something in the aftermath and/or make new characters, because we're dead]!"

There's this assumption to "fail forward" that I've prepped outcomes rather than things. Just... Don't make that mistake, you won't have to worry about the game crashing to a halt. If they need to find the key to open the door to advance the plot, you've fucked up structurally in what you prepped and how; don't put them in a box with only one locked exit and then wonder why your game fails if they don't find the key.

Quote from: Itachi;1055244I would say suspension of disbelief is a better label for what you say here. Notice though, that it can be achieved even when the player/game interaction deviates from our real world assumptions - as shown by Gumshoe, for eg, where "you cannot fail to make progress in an investigation" is a given premise, and it still doesn't break suspension of disbelief for it's players.

I disagree with you. I'm not discussing the emotions of the players or their belief, I'm talking about the presence or absence of consequence in the game. Gumshoe violates this just as much as any other fail-forward; the players of the game know that, structurally, they can act in a way that the game's assumed reality will guarantee an outcome. They wouldn't know this even in a diceless game like Amber; they would only know that they could unfailingly investigate to a certain degree of capability, not that they were assured of progress in the investigation.

If the entire game is structured such that the characters "always succeed", with whatever consequence, at the "right" tasks, then you're structurally creating a game that discourages actually using or developing that skill for the players. Do you need to know anything about investigating to succeed at investigating in Gumshoe? No? Then by the same coin, using good investigation strategies won't benefit you: you fall back on "how well my CHARACTER investigates", ignoring half of the player/avatar dynamic.

In the comic, the characters cannot fail to get through the tundra, and the techpriest cannot fail to hack. That means you, as the GM, can't make an adventure out of either of those things; no actual logic puzzle to challenge the player at the hacking terminal, no actual map of the terrain for the guardsman to plan an optimal route through. Just rely on the unfailing strength of your avatar to succeed. This means the only real question asked by the game, of the players, is "Can you afford the price of not instantaneous victory?" and if the answer is "yes", you will get the next chunk of content.

Dying in the snow is fun, goddamnit. It makes getting through the snow an actual obstacle both in and out of game. That has nothing to do with my taste; that's a structural fact of excluding "fail forward" from a game's design.

This

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055220What is defined as "realistic" in RPG circles is more often than not arbitrary and biased. The "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" convention is a good example of that, and you wrote articles about how magic systems in RPGs are unrealistic in the sense that they are generally not built into the world from first principles and do not fundamentally alter the development of society as they would logically be expected to.

is not talking about the same thing as this

Quote from: jhkim;1055130This depends on the details of the genre and the hero. Roughly speaking, though, I agree that a roll shouldn't result in an outcome that is out-of-genre for the game - or that is unrealistic for a realistic game. If a character is extremely smart, a bad roll shouldn't mean that the character inexplicably becomes stupid for a time. The failure should be in line with what fits with the game.

Note that jhkim was careful in saying out of genre. It not the same thing as the realism you are talking about. Toon and Champions are not realistic games however they are both noted for being faithful to their respective genre. One reason they are consider faithful that if one uses their knowledge of the genre in both, the ensuing actions generally have the expected outcome for that genre. Which includes consequences for failure.

OD&D for example is a mixed of what Gygax thought was realistic and what he thought was important to use out of the fantasy genre. So it has a mix of realistic and fantastic elements. Other RPGs like Harnmaster and much of GURPS are mostly grounded in realism, what the authors thought would happen if you were there looking at what happening as a real world.

The objections being raised here to the fail forward mechanic of Wrath & Glory is a completely different issue. It about metagaming a preordined conclusion into the campaign. The goal of keeping the action flowing is a metagame consideration and has little to do with adjudicating what the players attempt to do as their character. The referee and players have to set outside of the game and decide as participant what is meant by keeping the action flowing.

The alternative I advocate is to consider things only from the viewpoint of the character. For the referee only to adjudicate on the basis of how the setting works or the attitudes of the NPCs. Using the example comic, the players won't know whether they will survive the blizzard as their characters to get to the gate. All they can decide look at what equipment they possess, what skills their character know and weigh the odds of the successfully surviving the blizzard at the moment in time. Or if they are playing Toons, the plan using a trap incorporating Acme TNT will finally get that wascally wabbit.

With Fail Forward in place most of that goes out the window. Failing skill rolls will cause complications but never ultimate failure. You will get to that gate although perhaps missing a hand due to frost bite. You will get the wascally wabbit by but maybe with all your clothes blown off.

Thanks again, CRKrueger for the quote. It gives at least a clear understanding of what is meant. Many people were talking about "fail forward" as implying never really failing - which is not what that section says.

Quote from: ItachiThanks. I think it's a common misconpcetion equaling the concept with "never failing".

Quote from: Azraele;1055248Damn right! It means "never failing if the GM doesn't want you to"

Which is so much worse

Hitting a dead end is supposed to be a clue that you need to change your strategy as a player. If a GM has a situation prepped, rather than an outcome or a "story", then you find that fail-forward isn't really necessary as either advice or mechanic.

In practice, even in a traditional game, it is pretty trivial for a GM to allow players to succeed rather than hit a dead end from a failed roll. The GM can allow a re-roll, or allow another player to take a try, or various other approaches. So while I agree that this could be used for railroading, it doesn't seem like a big difference in practice from traditional games.

On the other hand, it is easily possible for a GM using this "fail forward" to have the players hit a dead end when they wouldn't otherwise. For example, a PC tries to force open the door to the old mineshaft. In a traditional system, he rolls and fails. Now any of the other PCs can try their luck, or he can try again, or he can try to use a weapon to break it apart. In "fail forward", the failed roll could become an actual dead end - i.e. He tries to force the door, and supports break so there is a collapse in the tunnel.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055220What is defined as "realistic" in RPG circles is more often than not arbitrary and biased. The "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" convention is a good example of that, and you wrote articles about how magic systems in RPGs are unrealistic in the sense that they are generally not built into the world from first principles and do not fundamentally alter the development of society as they would logically be expected to.

I believe a more accurate distinction would be gritty versus cinematic. Neither is realistic but instead set the tone of the game.

This is a sidetrack, but "gritty" is very different from "realistic".  Realistic means in reference to the real world, while gritty means in reference to genres of fiction. Often, more gritty is less realistic. In gritty films, say, death often comes more easily than in reality - like a knife in the back means someone falls over dead, while in reality that is highly unlikely.

Yes, what gamers pick from reality can often be biased and/or arbitrary - but that doesn't invalidate the meaning of the word. Realism means being like the real world. It's a pretty simple and straightforward concept.

Quote from: Azraele;1055250If the entire game is structured such that the characters "always succeed", with whatever consequence, at the "right" tasks, then you're structurally creating a game that discourages actually using or developing that skill for the players. Do you need to know anything about investigating to succeed at investigating in Gumshoe? No? Then by the same coin, using good investigation strategies won't benefit you: you fall back on "how well my CHARACTER investigates", ignoring half of the player/avatar dynamic.

Well yeah, part of what every RPG does is abstract away certain skills, and they all differ by which ones they do. It's a feature, not a bug, and ultimately unavoidable anyway.

This is why so called universal or generic systems are a myth, and even a harmful one from a design perspective.

Quote from: AzraeleDamn right! It means "never failing if the GM doesn't want you to"

Which is so much worse

Bro, don't go there. Really. There's no objectively good or bad way to play RPGs, but simply personal preferences. Lots of people play Gumshoe and love it the way it is. Lots of people play games with fail forward and love them the way they are. Lots of people play  [insert game X here] and love it.

Discussing the features and consequences at table for each style/game is interesting enough, without the need to fall to "my style is better than yours".

Speaking of genre and styles, I remember playing Star Wars once and a friend protesting that he was severely wounded by a stormtrooper during a firefight. He said that don't happen in the movies and as such shouldn't happen in the game. After a brief discussion, the GM ended up agreeing with him and this became a new rule for the remaining of our sessions.

I think that reflects well the differences between simulating settings vs genres, and whats appropriate for each. Anyone else had this kind of thing happening?

Quote from: Itachi;1055343Speaking of genre and styles, I remember playing Star Wars once and a friend protesting that he was severely wounded by a stormtrooper during a firefight. He said that don't happen in the movies and as such shouldn't happen in the game. After a brief discussion, the GM ended up agreeing with him and this became a new rule for the remaining of our sessions.

I think that reflects well the differences between simulating settings vs genres, and whats appropriate for each. Anyone else had this kind of thing happening?

The problem with that is that you're conflating two different things.  Being a main protagonist has nothing to do with any genre or IP setting.  The main characters don't die in Star Wars because they are the main characters in a work of fiction.  However Luke gets his hand chopped off and mauled by a Hoth Yeti, Han and Leia are tortured, and Leia is shot by a stormtrooper (although not a grievous injury).  But Ben, Qui-Gon, Han, and Luke all die eventually.  Protagonists frequently have script immunity.  Even Game of Thrones hasn't permanently killed off Dany or Jon.  

No matter how light or dark in tone the genre is, or what its tropes are, protagonists live because they are protagonists, not because of a genre or setting trope.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1055348The problem with that is that you're conflating two different things.  Being a main protagonist has nothing to do with any genre or IP setting.  The main characters don't die in Star Wars because they are the main characters in a work of fiction.  However Luke gets his hand chopped off and mauled by a Hoth Yeti, Han and Leia are tortured, and Leia is shot by a stormtrooper (although not a grievous injury).  But Ben, Qui-Gon, Han, and Luke all die eventually.  Protagonists frequently have script immunity.  Even Game of Thrones hasn't permanently killed off Dany or Jon.  

No matter how light or dark in tone the genre is, or what its tropes are, protagonists live because they are protagonists, not because of a genre or setting trope.

I agree here; regardless of genre and tone I often loathe killing PCs for crap rolls unless the player's good with it. There's usually a discussion as to if they want them to die and if not, I go with an interesting penalty (or several), such as a lost lomb, sight, memory, item, etc. Your GoT example is excellent and I'd like to focus on Jon Snow being betrayed and murdered. I found it much more interesting that he came back to exact revenge/justice than, "Oh, another GoT protagonist died". The same with Jamie's hand being cut off. He could've been killed but it was so much more interesting to see him grow despite his maiming.

Where I do think genre and tone matter is how a character suffers. Luke's hand getting cut off was pretty gruesome for Star Wars but it's child's play in GoT. Having a protagonist tortured by being severely beaten and sliced up might feel appropriate in a game like Blades in the Dark but might seem out of place in a heroic game of D&D. A lot depends on table preferences, of course.

Quote from: Itachi;1055340Bro, don't go there. Really. There's no objectively good or bad way to play RPGs, but simply personal preferences. Lots of people play Gumshoe and love it the way it is. Lots of people play games with fail forward and love them the way they are. Lots of people play  [insert game X here] and love it.

Discussing the features and consequences at table for each style/game is interesting enough, without the need to fall to "my style is better than yours".

Hey look, let me back up a little here: You can like what you like. I'm not going to call you an asshole for liking something. That's not what I'm about.

But I'm not making a normative statement here: I'm not saying "I dislike, therefore bad"
I'm making an analytical statement: "This incentivizes/discourages, therefore bad"

You can critique my analyses; they exist to be cross-examined. But if you make the mistake (and it IS a mistake) of classifying an analysis as "Just my opinion", you're completely misunderstanding my whole reason for even posting.

I don't like a lot of things that, analytically, are fine. But I recognize that my taste is distinct from my evaluation of it's mechanics.

Quote from: Azraele;1055353Hey look, let me back up a little here: You can like what you like. I'm not going to call you an asshole for liking something. That's not what I'm about.

But I'm not making a normative statement here: I'm not saying "I dislike, therefore bad"
I'm making an analytical statement: "This incentivizes/discourages, therefore bad"

You can critique my analyses; they exist to be cross-examined. But if you make the mistake (and it IS a mistake) of classifying an analysis as "Just my opinion", you're completely misunderstanding my whole reason for even posting.

I don't like a lot of things that, analytically, are fine. But I recognize that my taste is distinct from my evaluation of it's mechanics.

I backtracked to the original bit you posted and agree with the key example. I've been guilty of "Roll Perception!" until they find the one necessary thing and in hindsight that was poor GMing. Now, the key is simply found and they move on. Otherwise it feels like polyhedral Whack-A-Mole to me. I prefer to give a few choices and leave them open, often completely changing something behind-the-screen because a player came up with such a cool idea, to stonewall it would be shitty. That's not to say I change established things (the locked door is still locked) to placate, just that I don't like crafting scenes where there's an established menu of "How to Pass", if that makes sense. I enjoy adjusting for clever players doing things I didn’t think of.

I do see the merits of failing forward with, for example, the Wrath & Glory comic. If the scout fails the navigation roll and it's uninteresting/you don't want to go into them being lost or a random encounter, I see nothing wrong with the PCs arriving but they lose resources/time/equipment/etc. The reason for the failed roll could be they got lost, but you elided the time. This is a great way to move things along provided everyone at the table agrees. That's what I think is important as well as only calling for rolls when it feels appropriate. If it wasn't a threatening or difficult trek, just describe them getting there, especially if the scout is a bad-ass at scouting. (As an aside, I really love Cypher for this as players can adjust the difficulty for rolls they feel are important, to the point they pass without a roll, but it costs them. It really reflects PC proficiency)

I have had thankfully rare instances of things such as a vault door that stymied hacking, jury-rigging, damaging and the eventual "Fuck it, let's go through the (non-existent) vent". Given the logic of the situation it made no sense for there to be another route and a string of shit rolls stonewalled the group. That wasn't poor GMing or playing, it was bad luck and "going back to town" to get more explosives wasn't an option.

Now, we eventually got in after rolling several times but that wasn't fun. In hindsight I would've been fine with a "You manage to hack the door controls but its anti-intrusion defenses damage your rig. It's got a penalty until repaired". Or simply letting us pass as that's where we needed to go and turning back wasn't really an option. Or offering a lead to a key card somehow (the most complicated but coolest, especially if said card was in the building we avoided because of the danger). I do feel these things need to be up-front and clear as well as accepted table practice, otherwise it can feel railroady and remove tension.

Quote from: Azraele;1055353Hey look, let me back up a little here: You can like what you like. I'm not going to call you an asshole for liking something. That's not what I'm about.

Cool. Thanks for clarifying, and sorry if I sounded harsh or offensive. Not my intention.

QuoteBut I'm not making a normative statement here: I'm not saying "I dislike, therefore bad"
I'm making an analytical statement: "This incentivizes/discourages, therefore bad"

But you're still missing the important part: "This incentivizes/discourages, therefore bad"... bad in regard to what?  You can only assert something is bad in regard to the goals and purpose it has set for itself. Gumshoe goals are not making the game-space identical to real life-space, nor about the player ability to find clues in a physical scene.

Same can be said for failing forward. I can't speak for all games that use the concept, but the ones I know are not intent on making the player/character experience identical and thus "making the player deal with dead ends because that's what happens with real persons" or something. Their goal is moving play forward to the next genre-appropriate dilemma, thus cutting off the parts that do not add or enrich those, like combats where "I miss, you miss, he misses, repeat" is frequent, or task resolutions where "I fail. Try again (and again, and again)", etc. In fact, it's actually desirable to "think like a real person would" in these games too, but they will only prompt you to do so when their authors understand its genre-relevant.

To;dr: you can only judge something based on the goals it's set for itself. And not all games have "equaling player-character space" as a goal.

Quote from: Azraele;1055222It's deeper than "tone" though; the way the game is played is radically different if you screw with the core assumptions of the player/game interaction.

"You cannot fail to make progress in an investigation or social situation" is a radical departure from how our real world works; you can overlook a secret, fail to get to the bottom of a mystery, or become totally shunned in a social situation in our actual reality. If those things became impossible, the game would cease to work in a way that upholds the "realism" of the imagined world; it wouldn't recognizably match our real world, making it artificial in a way that "has elves and magic" does not.

Changing the assumptions of the setting is different from changing how players interact with the setting. We need to separate the two concepts to have a productive dialogue about them.

Alright, I misunderstood the argument I was responding to.

I do not believe that realism is appropriate for media entertainment. If people failed as much in fiction as they do in real life, fiction would be much more boring and pointless. Whenever people in fiction fail, the story still moves forward. It does not waste the reader's time (at least not if the editor is competent).

In traditional tabletop games, like Monopoly or Candyland or Go Fish, players always make some kind of progress including negative progress.

So I subscribe wholeheartedly to what I prefer to call the "pass/pass" philosophy. Whenever players roll to randomly determine the outcome of an action, it should either be something good or something bad that moves the adventure forward either way. The outcome should never be a waste of the party's time because this is a game played for entertainment. Using your examples: overlooking a secret has horrible consequences (e.g. the bomb explodes, the assassination succeeds, the nation falls, etc); failing to solve the mystery has horrible consequences (e.g. the werewolf eats the entire village, the ghost kills everyone in the mansion, the serial killer keeps killing, etc); being shunned forces the characters to resort to violence.