That's a nice badwrongfun rant, but have you considered the fact that it's none of your business?

It's not a meme, the only people that do it are people playing heavily narrative focused games.

The only meme here is ypu trying to show how hard core and old school you are, when nobody is complaining but you.

>pancakes the thread

This is popular? I don't really see this done that often, or advocated for.

What I see far more often is people who just go "rolls don't matter, I lie to players about outcomes and DC, and such".

Why not have the players do a workaround quest?

You failed to talk past the guard, but a servant has reasons to sneak you in - namely getting a job done he can't do himself.

I know this is trolling and probably copy pasta, but I'll bite. The idea isn't that you fall back onto the train tracks, it's that you should fall onto a new road. The GM should improv when falling forward. It's the simple cinematic idea that you're not going to succeed at everything and that it shouldn't mean game over if you do. It adds tension to the story and the game becomes more fun when you can fail but keep going in a different direction.

Holy fuck, I couldn't more of a That Guy if I tried.
A thread had to die for this fucking autistic blog rant.

>>44413330
This is fine. Players fail to get inside, so they have to try another way. I see no problem with this.

Not that because they failed another way magically appeared, instead because places like castles aren't fucking water tight with one entrance/exit.

>>44413330

That is literally the idea behind failing forward, yes.

When one door closes, another opens.

Most DMs do this already, just not as an intentional game tenet, so the few times they don't the party is left sitting with their thumbs up their ass until someone gets an idea or the DM caves anyway.

>>44413345
In a lot of systems I'd say falling forward isn't the way to go. A roll to decide something should decide it, not decide what consequences succeeding has. Especially if whether succeeding or consequences are applied inconsistently.

Really it depends on the system, but you should use one or the other, not both depending on plot points.

I hate you because you spelled "gonna" with a u.

File: 1241171991160.jpg (50 KB, 640x480) Image search: [Google]

50 KB, 640x480

>>44413237

If you can't defend your rationale, I can only assume you know it's as dumb as I think it is, but are too obstinate to admit you agree with me.

>>44413345
>The idea isn't that you should fall back onto the train tracks, it's that you should fall onto a new road

Please provide an example of this in action, because every example I have had provided to me is along the lines of what I have mentioned.

>it shouldn't mean game over if you [fail a roll]
This is a novel soundbite but it's not very useful advice. The game does not stop until the players decide they wish to stop playing. For example, if their characters die, there is simply nothing stopping them from creating new ones. The fact that they flubbed their stabilization check before they died, or that they flubbed their defense check before that, or that they flubbed their sneak check before that never stopped the game. Nor does it now.

Why are the legitimate consequences of failure something you seek to protect players from?

>>44413345
You could do that...or your players could just find a different way to achieve their goal. It sounds like this takes the onus of moving the story forwards from the players and puts it on the DM.

>>44413406
My players were riding through the desert when a vicious sand storm started approaching. A ride check had them fail to out run it and make it to a building in town.

Would you rather they die in that desert or lose their horses and find a cave to take shelter in which is full of scorpions for a different adventure? This is how I fell forward last time.

>>44413455
It really depends on the game, some games have a system where you do not fail rolls unless you want to you merely gain consequences. Every roll have a internal chance of failure, but this failure can be negated by gaining consequences.

It's a different kind of game, but one that still exists.

I merely have a problem on when this is applied inconsistently depending on what the GM defines as "story relevant".

>>44413352
Did it? I've been told it doesn't work that way

>>44413488
>
Would you rather they die in that desert or lose their horses and find a cave to take shelter in which is full of scorpions for a different adventure? This is how I fell forward last time.

See, you're making an analogy specifically to try and help your cause. That single ride check would not have killed them. Failing that ride check would specifically mean they were caught out in the storm and be taking damage. They could then attempt to seek shelter before they make it to town, possibly finding something depending on other checks, or build a shelter for themselves, or any number of things.

Really what you are doing are taking the player's actions out of their hands and giving them an avenue instead of them trying to find one for themselves.

Really, who puts the entire party's lives on one skills check? That isn't even part of the rules.

>>44413576
>Really what you are doing are taking the player's actions out of their hands and giving them an avenue instead of them trying to find one for themselves.

It's not a fucking video game; they can't find things that aren't given to them.

You'd have to either have little to no experience DMing, or be a really shit DM to get to the conclusions you're arriving at.

>>44413372
Op made it sound like even if they failed the roll, he'd bullshit like they made it anyway.

>>44413635
>You'd have to either have little to no experience DMing, or be a really shit DM to get to the conclusions you're arriving at.
You sound like you're the one with no experience. I'll give you an example.

My players were trying to cross a frozen straight, and failed a survival check to find an auspicious path. If I followed you're example they would have found some sort of dangerous crossing or the like. Instead I told them they failed and needed to come up with a new plan.

Instead they decided to build a raft and began felling trees near the straight.

Players have the ability to ask questions. They're not a bunch of retarded that need to be spoon fed everything. Let your players find their own answers, you're depriving them of the experience.

>>44413679

You're giving examples to which failing has little consequence.

Not finding a path in a river and being caught in the middle of a sandstorm are two very different things.

Failing forward is not something you do all the time, it's something you do when the alternative would be boring and hurt the pace of the game.

>>44413576
I have them the option to do that, they were blind and at quite s distance though so it was a pretty deadly idea.

>>44413641
Someone who doesn't like an idea is casting the idea in a negative and disingenuous light? Shocker.

File: image.jpg (214 KB, 869x920) Image search: [Google]

214 KB, 869x920

>>44413182
I've never heard of this before.

But based on your unnecessary diatribe I think both it and you are stupid.

>>44413741
Let us give another higher stakes example, actually from the same game.

My players were on the edge of a cliff, on one side they had an angry troll tribe and the other a frozen waterfall. Their first roll failed while they were hiding from the trolls, alerting them to the PC's presence. The next roll also failed when the PC's tried to cause an avalanche. The third roll as well failed, where one of the PCs tried to climb up the frozen waterfall, fell through the ice below and ended up drowning.

These are three failed rolls, each caused consequences, in fact getting one of the PC's killed and another very close to death.

They finally came up with a new plan and succeeded on their fourth attempt. I did not "feed them an out". I let them come up with their own plan and fail at it if their rolls were low.

For reference their plan that worked was breaking a chunk out of the frozen waterfall to try and cause the avalanche again, they used alchemist fire to do so.

File: 1262226976245.png (35 KB, 401x400) Image search: [Google]

35 KB, 401x400

>>44413372
>That is literally the idea behind failing forward, yes. When one door closes, another opens.

This is foolishness. If there's no door that can truly close, and they all lead to the same place, that is the definition of railroading. If there are open doors, their state of openness should not be linked to whether a player wound up with a closed door or not.

This blatant disregard for causality hurts a game, it does not help it. Your inability to manage the pace of your game and figure out a way to handle failure is your own.

>>44413741
>Failing forward is not something you do all the time, it's something you do when the alternative would be boring and hurt the pace of the game.

I see. So when players are reduced to negative HP, do you also decide they didn't actually get hit at all? Because after all, going down would be boring and hurt the pace of the game.

File: ugh.png (20 KB, 1008x1008) Image search: [Google]

20 KB, 1008x1008

Relax guys, I got this. I'll just tell OP is exactly what he wants to hear.

We like fail forward as a concept because we're idiot cocksucking faggots who have fun the wrong way, and your way of thinking is the correct one, always and forever. We are bad at games and shouldn't be playing them, and your way is the only right way there ever was and ever will be. If only we could be as smart as you and play fantasy dragon elf games the right way, like you do.

Maybe if you didn't just shit all over the reasonable replies you were given you'd get treated better

>>44413182
Railroading is the lack of consequences for action. If there are consequences, it's not railroading.

>>44413812

Well, provide an example of doing "failing forward" correctly, then. It's an open forum.

>>44413182
>Why are you even rolling at that point?

As a DM, I've highlight the important point to me. If I was letting them past anyway, there would be no need to roll. Now using your same example the only real case I'd ever use Failing forward would be in an instance where I'd let the PCs forward anyway. But the players themselves for whatever reason think they need to do extra.
>Letting the PCs see the king
>Rogue thinks for XY & Z that it'd be better if they disguise themselves as nobles from somewhere else, and processes to bluff the guards
>I was going to let them through anyway, but they wanted to take an extra step.
>They fail their roll. What do I do? Now prevent them from entering where I wanted them to go?
>At this point failing forward is actually the best solution.

And this is not a rare or niche occurrence in gaming. Players often over estimate situations (OFTEN!). So you'll probably be able to do it once to three times across two sessions.

However, aside from that. I'm with you, OP. The above is about the only time I'd use it- and secondly.... I have not seen this topic on /tg/, but I like the discussion you're bringing up.

>>44413841

>>44413841
>I see. So when players are reduced to negative HP, do you also decide they didn't actually get hit at all?

Is it death by combat or some other climatic event? They'll die, and they will have fun doing it and gladly roll up a new character.

Is it death because they fumbled some rolls and got lost in the woods or didn't manage to talk their way out of a life threatening situation? Yeah, I'll throw them a bone and try to do something fun with their failure, because we're here to have fun and not enforce the harsh grittiness of life in a fantasy realm.

This is literally 101 DMing and you'll find this in literally any big name DM guide.

>>44413841
>going down would be boring and hurt the pace of the game
Ehh, not really. Any fight deadly enough to threaten a TPK should also be important enough that if the PCs all die there is still an interesting story to be had. This is not to say that only the fight with the BBEG should be deadly enough to threaten a TPK, fights at key locations under siege, fights involving the main enemy commander, fights involving particularly potent or important artefacts; all pf these are great candidates to threaten TPKs and can be worked easily into a sequel narrative where the 1st gen players are part of the mythos or the location/artefact gave the BBEG what he needed to take over.

>>44413841
Who said the doors all lead to the same area? The point isn't to keep the current quest from being on the road to success, the point of to just keep the story going forward.

>>44414035
>Is it death by combat or some other climatic event?

What if they die in combat? Like what if they actually die, because they get hit. It's not "cinematc" or important, they just die because that's how combat works because they boringly failed 3 death saves in a row while the party was busy?

Do you just decide that the enemy checked their swing and they're actually stable at 0 HP? Will an enemy never take a stab at a bleeding enemy? Is double-tapping just to be sure not a thing? Can players ever just die to the mechanics?

>>44414090
So players have plot armor in "non-critical fights"?

>>44414035
>This is literally 101 DMing and you'll find this in literally any big name DM guide.
Again, you run a different style a game. One I personally do not like, but certainly if you and your players like it more power to you.

I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't put your players in a situation where they may die unless you're ready to kill them. Otherwise you were lying to yourself about the pretense of that situation. However, that does not mean people can't enjoy your style of game more, or that people can't enjoy mine more. It is literally a matter of taste, we shouldn't be shouting at each other over it.

I mean because hell, I personally would hate you kind of game, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist for people who like it.

>>44413841
>GM gives players two ways to get through castle
>One requires a roll of some sort, but the other has no loot, or some other distinction that makes the other way more attractive.
>Players first try the way that requires a roll, cause why not at least take that shot?
>Fail the roll
>Go the other way they could've gone in the first place.

There is no railroading here except doing what the goddamned dice said. Is rolling railroading now?

>>44414133
If a player can't die, there's no point in having a combat. Because the whole mechanic of combat is "You might fail your rolls and fall to enemy attacks". That's literally why dice are being rolled.

If there is no possibility of that happening, if one outcome of the dice is not actually possible, don't roll the dice at all. Don't have that combat.

>>44414127
Not at all. You simply don't design every single fight to be so deadly that all 4~6 players can die in the same fight.

It's pretty hard to do but I find that fights should be balanced so that at most 1/3 of the PCs die. If you get through the fight at a non-critical location and there was only one survivor then you should have balanced the fight better. You shouldn't sweat it too much, everyone makes mistakes, but next time you should spend a bit more time planning it out.

Also, you should always the the party about 2 - 5 easy encounters that shouldn't threaten anyone every time someone dies so you can accurately gauge the strength of the PCs and better plan more dangerous encounters.

>>44414156
apparently for OP, playing is railroading

>>44414107

What part of death by combat was vague? Yeah, they'll die. I go full rules lawyer when we enter combat, because that's why we're using a system and not free-forming it. But in other situations I'll choose to have failure still have some meaning if the alternative is just halting the pace of the game.

I don't even play RPheavy games, we're a pretty action-focused group, and I learned how to do this effectively with years of trying different aproaches.

It's not plot armor, it's not railroading, it's making up an interesting new alternative for an otherwise failed outcome.

File: 1263199544323.jpg (33 KB, 795x597) Image search: [Google]

33 KB, 795x597

>>44414090
>>44414093
>story

Why are you using this memeword? A story is merely the narration of a series of events. It is not some higher force that is supposed to govern the laws of how the game you're running actually works.

>>44414093

The game goes on for as long as the players are willing to play it.

I legitimately don't understand this rationale. It seems there's some unspoken fear that if players are ever subjected to failure, they're going to sit around and do nothing for the rest of all time.

Your inability to control the pace of your game is your own. You are conflating the subject of rationally and objectively dolling out the consequences of failure with the ability to actively play a game.

Suppose going with my own example that the players desperately needed to have an audience with the king so as to alert him to the nefarious plans of invasion a neighboring kingdom has in store, but the gate goons wouldn't let them in. Suppose further that all other avenues of speaking to the king were suitably shut down; no parades where they could get his attention in the crowd, no arenas within which they could prove their mettle and garner his gaze, no bribeable servants, no secret doors, no nothing. That was it. Let's assume the PCs managed to flub that one crucial roll that was the difference between them ever speaking to the king and being left out with their dicks in the wind. He's cloistered in his halls jacking off for the next month, and that's that.

You posit that the game should be over here, but I argue differently. The GM's next act should be to ask the players what they do now that they know they can't get the king's attention, and to narrate the effects of whatever comes next. Do they take matters into their own hands and wage guerrilla war on the adjacent kingdom? Do they pack their things and depart for greener pastures before the war begins?

The game has not ended. You have failed to take control of the game and introduce what happens next.

I find it ironic op chose to avatar fag as that episode of dexters lab where he's a horrible GM and ask his friends hate his session.

>Can someone explain the point of this "failing forward" meme to me?

I realize that not understanding something is frustrating; which is why it's common for people to whinge irritatingly, make things up based on the misunderstanding to which they've already admitted, and then act as if they've somehow come to a strong negative conclusion.
But really, you'll lead a happier and more productive life if you just step back, acknowledge your inability to grasp the concept and ask polite questions of others.
One benefit of this latter method is that if you have, in fact, come to a correct conclusion, polite and simple questions are the most likely way to make others confront the flaws in their own beliefs.

>/tg/ seems to have taken to this like a kid to candy and I really want the name of the stranger who's dolling this shit out and I should remind /tg/ that you shouldn't suck on every lollipop that comes out of a dude's pants.

Perhaps consider that you are the one failing to understand the point and/or appeal of this role playing technique, and that various others have considered it and found it useful for the games they run or participate in.

The rest of your post really makes it sound like that. But I'm not sure there's a point to actually discussing it, because this is about the value of a style of technique, so anything anyone can say to explicate those values could be responded to by you acting obtuse and giving anecdotes or hypotheticals in which it's mishandled.

You're also using the term railroading in a way incongruent with its typical use, which is about forcing a situation despite their desires and actions to avoid it.

For once, I actually agree with the OP.

Punish the player for their rolls and stupidity, if they break the plot then fuck it, I am the goddamn DM and I can make another one on the spot.

Also OP is a fag.

>>44414529
Anyways, I'll try one time to convey this point: failing forward isn't about them getting their immediate goal, with or without complications. It's about ensuring that even while failing, the players either make some kind of story progress. This can be towards their ultimate goal, or to a dramatic failure on which to end the campaign.

That's the big error people have in implementing "failing forward," or, as I prefer to call it, failing interestingly. In your specific example, a failure to talk to the king entirely can still result in a failure forward if there are other avenues to the same ultimate goal. They need to talk to the king to get a ship, maybe. Failing to get to the king at all might mean they have to make deals with shady underworld types with much harsher terms, etc.

>>44414529

That's a lot of words used to say a lot of nothing.

I good campaign is one in which I railroad the fuck out of the players but they never realize it.

>>44414574
>I have bad reading comprehension and it's always someone else's fault.

>>44414607
>I'm atomic mad that somebody thought my overly wordy way of calling OP a fag who "just doesn't get it, man" was dumb

>>44413182
>I.E, you basically let them through, but with some extra bullshit baggage.
That's not what fail forward means. Fail forward means they fail, AND SOMETHING HAPPENS.

Normal failing:
>I roll diplomacy to convince the guard to let us past
>9
>You fail. Nothing happens

Failing forward:
>I roll diplomacy to convince the guard to let us past
>9
>The guard is suspicious that some armed men want into the castle. He arrests you and tells you to come with him to the dungeon. What do you do now?

File: ZwETyJe.png (76 KB, 272x210) Image search: [Google]

76 KB, 272x210

I'm just here to say that the idea that every roll should be complete success or complete failure is fucking retarded to begin with.

What about partial success?
What about partial failure?
Why does this shit always have to be all or nothing?

Not having a grey area for success and failure is stupid in a lot of instances.

>>44414674

Because its fun.

File: 1267150653430.jpg (8 KB, 231x256) Image search: [Google]

8 KB, 231x256

>>44414568
>It's about ensuring that even while failing, the players either make some kind of story progress. This can be towards their ultimate goal, or to a dramatic failure on which to end the campaign.

What defines "story progress"? Them going in the direction you thought the campaign should go in?

These are nonsense words used to defend nonsense behavior. Resolving failure based on a poor roll simply does not stop a game, and this fundamental assumption that failure means the game has stopped dead in its tracks is wrong, and speaks more to your own failure as a GM than anyone else's.

>>44414656
>You fail. Nothing happens.

I don't see anything normal about this. I see a poor GM who has adjudicated failure to mean the game has ground to a halt.

"The guard politely tells you that the king is not seeing anyone, and to be on your way. What's the plan now?". Simple.

That aside, you state that failing forward means they fail, and then something happens. But this is literally what happens anyway. Insofar as I can tell, the only real difference in our examples is that failing forward states that the GM is now supposed to place the PCs in an entirely new situation. Is this correct?

>>44414674
Well, how do you define partial success or failure with the guard and king example?

>>44414923
>failing forward states that the GM is now supposed to place the PCs in an entirely new situation. Is this correct?
Yes. Every roll should change the situation the PCs are in. You should never be in the same situation before a roll as you are after one.

>>44414923
>"The guard politely tells you that the king is not seeing anyone, and to be on your way. What's the plan now?". Simple.
That's effectively the same as "You fail. Nothing happens." except it's phrased nicely. Nothing still happens.

>>44414974

Okay.

But at what point have the PCs fucked up enough to never talk to the king?

How many times can "the situation change" before the PCs have simply failed?

>>44415053

You don't seem to appreciate the difference between asking players what they intend to do to get the game rolling again and stopping the game in its tracks. This is likely because you don't actually GM.

>>44415053
as a player, I then find a way to get into the castle which doesn't involve talking to guards.
The risk of serious failure needs to be a factor for player agency to be a thing. If one door has closed, that doesn't mean that all doors have closed. And a proactive player will seek out or create their own doors.

I feel like fail forward types haven't had to learn how to sandbox GM a lot. Failing forward in the sense of just handing things to players disincentives proactive play, it encourages reactive play. And in a sandbox, players have to be proactive.

File: 399e882cd3[1].png (55 KB, 553x739) Image search: [Google]

55 KB, 553x739

http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-failure/

This article seems to echo a lot of the sentiments OP has mentioned. In particular, how he's argued against the idea of "failing forward."

I dunno. I kind of agree, but at the same time, I can't help but see failing forward as a useful tool. Sometimes players just need guidance, and failing forward gives them that direction and keeps things moving.

I am more bothered as a player to have attempted one avenue and then, as a result of this attempt, have seemingly all avenues shut to me, than I am to have succeeded at a single avenue when I perhaps should not have.

>>44415239
>But at what point have the PCs fucked up enough to never talk to the king?
>How many times can "the situation change" before the PCs have simply failed?
What? Once you're arrested and in the goddamn dungeon there's literally no way you're ever getting a polite audience with the king. If you're lucky and smart you might get a "what the fuck are you doing?" audience.

>You don't seem to appreciate the difference between asking players what they intend to do to get the game rolling again and stopping the game in its tracks. This is likely because you don't actually GM.
You misunderstand me. If a player takes an action, fails, and you say nothing happens, what do you do next, then you're EXACTLY where he was when he started, which means all of that time was 100% wasted. Failing forward involves letting failures also change the state of things.

>>44415339
Nothing happening is not a serious failure. And failing forward does not mean also succeeding or succeeding less. It means failure makes things happen too. Usually things the PCs don't want to happen. Failing forward includes MORE serious consequences, not less.

>>44413262
Look at this fucking pancake fag.
You fuckers can't stop bitching about pancakes.

Welcome to the new gaming! We call this Gaming+!

In Gaming+, we have one rule: If everyone doesn't feel like a special snowflake, it's the DM's fault and everyone is entitled to a better DM. Players #1!

How do you join Gaming+? Simple! You just never do any of the following things:

>Challenge players with things they don't explicitly have the skills for on their character sheet.
>Use puzzles, ever, unless you let the correct answer always be whatever the player comes up with.
>Use traps, ever. What kind of grognard just hands out penalties and damage that can't be countered and serves no purpose? You might as well just rip up their sheet!
>"Railroad" players. Fuck your plot, all games need to be rule-free sandboxes for players to romp in as they please!
>Give players freedom to fail. If failure was an option, we wouldn't play, now would we?
>Demand that players roleplay or act in-character. Fuck you and your neurotypical, non-autism! Some people are just to awkward and anti-social to take part, and you need to respect them and reward them anyway! It's their choice of fun!

Remember to follow these simple guidelines, and you too can have the right kind of fun! Remember, it's 2015. Get with the times.

>>44415394
If you interpret things beyond "simple pass/fail" then it would happen naturally that failing a roll by 5 or some shit would bring more serious consequences of failure and succeeding awesomely would bring a greater benefit.

A lot of folks express it though as in "the world and setting changes based on dice rolls" which is poor gm'ing if doors open due to failure. Those doors should be open until the players fail at opening them, ya dig?

And sometimes there should be a serious failure. If the players consistently fuck up, not just in rolls but in planning and execution, then sometimes they're burning all available doors due to incompetence.

Partly why I brought up the sandbox thing, I feel like having doors close is more consequential if the players aren't as in control of the plot and goals.

>>44415599
I disagree with none of these sentences. What you're describing is fail forward.

Again, fail forward is NOT "You fail to unlock the door but you get in anyway" It's "You fail to unlock the door and accidentally jam the lock." or "You fail to unlock the door and drop something, making a loud noise, oh no!"

>>44415506

Dude, find some preparation H for your sore ass already.

>>44415750

I dunno, this appears to be the sentiment of a lot of players these days, and I think it's a fair thing to be angry about.

>>44415750
Are you saying it's bad to be angry that those things are what players across the hobby seem to be clamoring for?

>>44414934
Partial success/failure would be something like

Partial success: the guards let you into the castle, but the king is too busy and you can't get an audience with him. You have to find another way to get to him, but at least you're inside which will make it easier.

Partial Failure: The Guards are not convinced by your words, but do not just brush you off. They need some extra convincing, whether this is a favor, a bribe, or perhaps some more clever words.

>>44415971
>Partial Failure: The Guards are not convinced by your words, but do not just brush you off. They need some extra convincing, whether this is a favor, a bribe, or perhaps some more clever words.

That's literally not a failure.

>>44415994
It's not a failure, it's "success with a complication"
It's what I'd use for say if a player made exactly the roll the needed to or only missed it by one.

>>44415994
No, it's not.

it's a success, but it's going to cost you a little extra, whether in coin or favor.

>>44415684
How is that failing "forward" them.

Jamming the lock or getting someone's attention and forcing you to flee the area doesn't get you through that door. That's just normal consequences. You haven't failed "forward" at all. You have not advanced the narrative the GM has set forth, but instead stalled it.

>>44413182
But anon, failing forward is good in moderation.

>>44416198
>>44416100

Then why the fuck did you just call it a "Partial failure"?

This is the fundamental problem, this right here. You're calling it a failure, but it's not. Not even if you squint and look at it funny. This is the ENTIRE problem with "failing forward," crystalized in a singular exchange.

>>44414656
This exactly. OP's example is a poor one because it is actually railroading. I think this is another case of /tg/ misusing terms to the point they don't matter anymore. "Mary Sue" is a prime example of this. This entire discussion is based on a misunderstanding by someone at some point.

>>44416217
Forward doesn't mean toward your goal, it just means moving things along, in any direction. Things are different now, the time we spent doing thing X has sufficiently changed the situation enough for it to have been worth our time at the tabletop.

>>44416198
If it's a success, why not just call the DC 1 point lower, since you're treating 1 point less than the DC as a success?

How much do you need to miss the DC by for it to not be a "success", "partial success" or "sorta-kinda close enough success", and instead just be "No, you don't get through this door, and now the guards are on alert in case they see you trying to break in"?

>>44413455
You used "novel" wrong. I think you meant to say "quaint".

>>44416236
The difference was success was 'You did the thing but it didn't turn out exactly how you wanted' failures was 'you fucked up the thing but you can still salvage it'

File: 1240611852306.jpg (33 KB, 288x252) Image search: [Google]

33 KB, 288x252

Why the fuck is everything a person doesn't like a meme?

>All these D&D fags thinking dice rolls should only have absolute success or failures.
Grognardisms treat failed rolls the way most systems fumbles, and successes like crits. No wonder the natural 20 meme persists.

Partial success 4 lyfe

>>44416992

It's a meme

File: 1435893401742.jpg (112 KB, 1178x1519) Image search: [Google]

112 KB, 1178x1519

>>44416992
I've been here since 2008.
I've seen this thread before.
The words are different, the people are different, but its all the same shit.

>>44413182
>Ascribing one ideology to an entire group of people

C U N T
U
N
T

>>44413182
It is exactly what is wrong with video games these days. They want to tell a story before they give you a fun game. I would argue it is even worse with /tg/ shit because it is a creative failure, but it's also on the players for expecting so much .

>>44415684
I feel like any gm with some experience under their belt, does that sort of thing intuitively though.
Most of the time "fail forward" is described as the second coming of the holy grail and sometimes described as some faggy "everyone succeeds!" thing.

idk, this feels like creating a solution to something that was never a problem.

I have always understood 'failing forward' to mean

>the game master cannot abide having situations wherein the plot cannot move forward
>there can be no situations in plot-relevant rolls where a failed roll can stop the plot
>when there is a failed roll, and it could stop the plot or damage the plot, then something else happens which moves the plot forward in some way

This doesn't mean there aren't consequences for failure. On the contrary, this means that there are consequences directly linked to failure. This doesn't necessarily mean that there is railroading, the GM can introduce any number of additional plot hooks upon failure, it simply means that the PC's aren't sitting around with their thumbs up their arses while they try to come up with a plan.
It's an attempt to be dynamic, while also ensuring that there are fewer dead-minutes where nothing is really happening in-game.
I tend to use it fairly often, but I am by my own admission a rubber-railroad type of GM.

I play without dice.

>>44414923
"I demand to speak to your boss, Good Guard. This is not a matter of us petitioning the king, we bring ill tidings of King Facefucker preparing for war on this fair land, we wish to warn him so that your family might be spared the horrors of war that would be inflicted upon them otherwise."

>>44413182

The idea behind falling forward is that if the players fail to overcome an obstacle, they aren't stonewalled by it. There will be another path, though it will probably be a worse path in some way. The narrative continues on. For example, if PCs cannot cross a river on their wagon because they suck at floating wagons, they walk along it until they find a bridge. The narrative continues, but they've lost time and supplies. This isn't just some arcane gaming tool - we run into these sorts of situations in our daily lives where something doesn't work out but then realize there's another way to go about it.

Failing forward works because players are still motivated to succeed. The players still lose something: money, time, reputation, favors, secondary objectives, health, whatever. Player skills still matter, and player choices still matter. Games are ultimately a series of interesting choices, and this maintains that idea without derailing the main plot.

On the other hand, tabletop games are often flexible enough to straight up deal with stonewalling. It's not like a video game where you require a main objective to complete as a script trigger for the rest of the game. The players can straight up fail and go do something else, or recruit help, or build a magical tool that will resolve the issue, or tackle the problem from some very creative angle the GM hadn't thought of. The GM isn't required to introduce new angles after the fact to push the plot along. It might be viewed as taking away from player responsibility to find their own ways to solve problems.

I can see points for both sides.

File: 1373514154446.jpg (7 KB, 237x200) Image search: [Google]

7 KB, 237x200

>>44417968

And then there's these fags.

>>44418086

But if every failure is specifically tailored to not stonewall the players from achieving their goal, then the players are never truly going to fail. And if the players are never failing their goal because you're never stonewalling them from it, then the players are always winding up with the same results no matter the choices they make. And if their choices don't matter, then you have a problem on your hands as a GM.

>>44418620
>But if every failure is specifically tailored to not stonewall the players from achieving their goal, then the players are never truly going to fail.

This isn't true. It depends on what the goals are. If the players have to navigate a crypt because they couldn't get in the front door, they might find themselves maimed from monsters and traps they had to navigate, making the following encounters that much more deadly. If the players are 'helped along' by a guard, that guard now has blackmail material and might betray the party.

If anything, the tension ratchets up, because these complications put the party at a disadvantage in later situations. Failing forward isn't automatic victory, it's just an assurance that the pace of the story will never get mired down to a stop.

File: 1305158566368.jpg (24 KB, 500x375) Image search: [Google]

24 KB, 500x375

>>44418847

You say, "the tension ratchets up," but I speak from experience of being a player enduring a GM who I recognized as using these tactics. When I notice these techniques, the tension is gone, because I know the GM is effectively going to bail us out if we don't "get it right."

This happens in your own example. "We set off a bunch of traps and got rekt by the monsters, but a guard came along to help us." Saying "But OOOH NOW HE KNOWS YOU'RE ROBBING A CRYPT AND HE MIGHT USE THAT AS LEVERAGE ON YOU IN THE FUTURE" doesn't do much because at that point it's basically a bluff. If it "really mattered" whether he knows or not, if our characters might die or something over it, then I know the GM isn't going to drop that hammer, because if he was willing to do so, he would've let us fail back when we *weren't* getting through the crypt because we got our shit maimed by traps and monsters.

But he didn't. See? Tension gone.

This is neverminding how gay it starts to feel when you realize causality has no bearing on pretty much anything you do. You start to fuck up? The GM plots you out of it, no matter how improbable it might feel. Oh yeah, there just happened to be a town guard wandering around the monster infested crypt, just as we start to make the GM wonder if we'll get out of this alive or not. What a coincidence. But ooh next time, I bet next time will be a doozy.

It's tiring to see GMs use this over and over and expect me to take them seriously, or to take their world seriously.

If you won't drop the hammer now, how am I supposed to believe you'll drop it then?

>>44419825

I just got into this thread and read all of it, and I have no idea what the fuck is your issue with "failure with consequences".

You actually honestly think it is better for a player to just simply be told " You fail, nothing happens" during an important roll?

You know what happens 99% of the time a party gets told nothing happens and gets stonewalled? They'll just fumble about trying to come up with alternatives until the DM is satisfied with one of their sugestions and realizes people just want to move on already.

"You fail to unlock the door"
"Uh, can we force it open?"
"Failed that too."
"Are there any other openings?"
"Not really"

And there, you just killed the pace of the game.

"You fail to unlock the door, and in the process you end forcing the door in a bit, which makes a huge noise"
"Oh shit, I check my surroundings"
"You notice a group of Lizardmen sneaking up on you guys"

Then they kill the lizardmen, and voilla, one of them had the key to the door.


If you honestly think the first case scenario is better then I'm sorry to tell you, but you're a shit DM.

>>44418140
goddamn
daffy and porky best combo

>>44419825
I'm the same anon as >>44415599 and I agree with everything you just said.

>>44419825

Failing forward is not intended to be a rescue mechanism. I'm not sure why you reworked my example to make it seem this way. Failing forward is only intended to avoid scenarios where players run out of options and progress halts.

Unable to unlock a door? Detour through the crypt. The story continues, but is more dangerous. Unable to climb a wall? Perhaps that vine will suffice. It doesn't look sturdy however. Risk increases, but the story continues. The player failed a roll? Was impaled on a trap? Fell to his death? No problem, and no need to 'fail forward' to avert these fates, because the story was moving the entire time.

File: 1264014611510.jpg (6 KB, 182x196) Image search: [Google]

6 KB, 182x196

>>44420383

Your problem, and why you are in fact the one who is a shit GM here, is because you both lack the courage to tell your players that they've failed and therefore have to concoct ridiculous scenarios that rob them of agency since they can't really fail at all, and you lack the intelligence to frame their failure in such a way that it is immediately apparent and they have to move on instead of uselessly struggling.

>>44415366 quoted a relevant article that you should read, so you'll stop being a shit GM.

In fact, I'll even make it easy on you, and quote the the most relevant part of the passage here, because it's less time consuming than restating the same point in my own words.

>>44420572

>The reason people say “failure shouldn’t bring the game to a halt,” is not because of failure or dead stories. It’s because GMs are stupid. For example, after the door lock jams, what do the PCs generally do? They remain convinced there is another way in, right? They don’t realize they’ve failed. So, they keep looking for ways around the door or other secret tunnels into the room. And if there aren’t any other ways, they will just keep banging their heads (literally and figuratively) against walls until the GM makes them stop. And the GM rarely makes them stop.

>That DOES grind the game to a halt. But not because of the failure. It’s because the PCs don’t know they failed or they don’t know the scope of the failure. At this point, the GM, as narrator SHOULD step in and say “you search the ancient temple for days and gradually become convinced that there is no other way in. You know the forces of shrub-niggurath will arrive soon. Perhaps you can hold them off and save as many lives as you can while you search for another solution.”

>Now, if that seems heavy-handed and meta-gamey, well, it is. But that’s only because the failure was poorly designed anyway. It’s an invisible failure. The PCs can’t know they’ve failed completely. Imagine if, instead, the temple only surfaced once every thousand years and then, after one day, it sank back into a swamp, filling with toxic slime. The party would HAVE TO retreat. Their failure would be obvious. They’d retreat and try to find another plan. And in the meanwhile, the GM could start running invasions of plant monsters and seed zombies.

>The point is: “failure won’t grind the game to a halt as long as you are willing to keep playing and as long as the players know they failed.” THAT’S useful advice.

>>44419825

Give it up, OP. You're arguing with casuals that have been raised on a steady diet of non-branching hallway RPG video games, so they get panicky and confused when their carefully laid out stories go off the rails.

I had a DM that was very meticulous about his notes and could be rather rigid in regards to the story he had in mind. He was always stressing whenever we started to go off the grid because we overlooked a plot hook or our resident chucklefuck did something stupid. Eventually he ended up quitting and he became a lot happier when I started running games, because I only ever dealt with rough sketches and possibilities with enough wiggle room to make shit up on the fly if they they wanted off Mister DM's Wild Ride. That's not to say I was working completely without a plot or story in mind, but I was able to adapt without it being forced.

Give the players a track and they'll fight tooth and nail to derail it. Give them a road map with branching paths and they'll most likely plot their own course in the direction that looks most promising to them, giving everyone a good story that maybe nobody was expecting in the first place.

>>44420616

> I'll call them casuals and illustrate how I'm a super duper GM

Great. Very convincing. I'm impressed. Please continue.

>>44420585

That's fine if you're doing old school dungeon crawling. That is terrible if you're doing a narrative-driven campaign.

You're just too much of an elitist to admit people having a different playstyle than yours. This thread's entire point has been to inflate your ego and make you feel like the superior roleplayer that you think you are; you've been here for literally hours hitting the same keys and refusing to accept that some people just hava a different playstyle. Not inferior, not superior: just different.

So try to be less of an agry, self-absorbed grognard, and maybe one day you'll actually be able to enjoy something.

File: explain.jpg (3 KB, 87x126) Image search: [Google]

3 KB, 87x126

>>44413635

>It's not a fucking video game; they can't find things that aren't given to them.

>not improvising dungeons
>not improvising random encounters
>implying random stuff you had to come up with aren't the best moments of rpg

>>44414035

Then what was the purpose of that situation?

If you put them (or if they willingly put themselves) in a life or death situation, just for you to drag them out of it, were was the danger?

>>44420745

That's literally you giving them things.

>>44413995
You fail to convince the guard to let you in. A palace worker offers you a sidequest to smuggle you in.

File: 1264565765487.jpg (11 KB, 237x250) Image search: [Google]

11 KB, 237x250

>>44420720
>That is terrible if you're doing a narrative-driven campaign.

So you feel the strength of the narrative is increased if the players effectively are immunized from failure?

I'm not even being sarcastic. That appears to be literally what you are arguing. Please clarify if this isn't the case.

I have pointed out how failed rolls do not inhibit a story in the least, and how you are in fact conflating different things. A GM's ability to present a clear failure =/= failure is something to be avoided as "stopping the story" or "halting the narrative," or whatever meme phrase you prefer to use.

You seem to feel that they do, and now that you have been demonstrated as being incorrect and that it is a different issue than what you thought, you are now hiding behind some kind of maddening "It's just a different style, mannn" argument, as if that has any substance.

>>44420785

Not every encounter is a matter of life and death, anon.

Failing a test might not kill someone, but it could halt their progress, so instead you introduce a further complication that will keep the game moving forward.

It's not a "You fail, but you did it anyways."

It's more like "You fail, but shit escalated so now ya gotta do something."

>>44420847

Holy fuck, it's been HOURS, man. HOURS.

And you still don't get that it's not about immunizing failure, but making something interesting with it.

You're either really fucking dense, or intentionally arguing against a strawman to make yourself feel correct.

>>44420847

>halting the story
>meme phrase

Holy shit, that's it. You are clinically autistic.

>>44420832

>A sidequest to get into the palace appeared as soon as the GM's players flubbed the roll to get into the palace

http://webmshare.com/nrZzr

>>44420570

But that is a problem unto itself. You're just layering it more.

If they fail to beat the monster in the crypt, you can either

>A: kill them
>B: another negative consequence

If you utilize A, you could have just applied hard consequences to the first botched roll, if you apply B, you're stuck into a consequence spiral until they succeed

>>44420985
You're right, players should see a plot hook happening--lets say, a crime. They give chase, but he's too fast. So they try to track him. The tracking roll fails.

Welp. Time to go home.

Or, They give chase, but he's too fast. So they try to track him..And end up in a bear den, where they have the chance to get some adventure out of the whole thing by fighting a bear.

>>44420795

Depends. If someone casually happens without player input, yes, I'm giving it to them.

If a player manages to find/develop a stretegy I had overlooked or not thought, I'm not giving them anything, rather the reverse, I'm been given new material to improvise with

>>44420985

Yeah, it's called improvising. DMs do that.

Or maybe nothing happens. They just are not getting into that castle. They'll just do nothing for the rest of the session.

I mean, what are the options? They can't explore new areas because

>a new area appeared because the players failed to follow the main quest

Yeah. Fun times.

File: 1243387507983.jpg (10 KB, 232x194) Image search: [Google]

10 KB, 232x194

>>44420945
>And you still don't get that it's not about immunizing failure, but making something interesting with it.

Well, that may not be what it's "about," but every example yet posed functionally results in precisely that; immunizing the party from failure.

>>44421048

I have argued against this "le nothing habbens wow doesn't this suck wow we better fail forward instead that's the only way interesting things happen :^)" meme enough as it is. I will not repeat myself any further.

>>44420889

We were talking SPECIFICALLY about death. Citing the post I've originally replied to:

>Is it death by combat or some other climatic event? They'll die, and they will have fun doing it and gladly roll up a new character.

>Is it death because they fumbled some rolls and got lost in the woods or didn't manage to talk their way out of a life threatening situation? Yeah, I'll throw them a bone and try to do something fun with their failure, because we're here to have fun and not enforce the harsh grittiness of life in a fantasy realm.

>>44420720
>everything is either old school dungeon crawling or a game with a pre-set plot
My last campaign had the last half of it focus on domain management, political intrigue and mass battles.
Sometimes the players would fail. And I was always surprised by their ingenuity and cunning in finding another way to approach a problem after failure or when they suddenly threw all their resources at some completely unrelated thing. I in fact encouraged this because I like being surprised.
Failure isn't a problem if the gm is running an open ended game. The idea that every open ended scenario is a basic d&d dungeon crawl makes you sound like a poor gm.

>>44413352
Do you wish to buy a verb perhaps?

>>44421069

How is improvised dungeons and random encounters a result of player input at all? The DM is doing all the improvisation. The players are SEEKING adventure, but the DM is the one giving it to them.

>>44421074

>player start researching the seedy city underground to find someone that can smuggle them into the palace
>player fall back to church contacts to receive an audience
>players ask if the castle has sewers

Totally never heard in tabletop gaming anon. Otherwordly to think that alternative routes to their main objective leading to new area could be improvised by a GM

>>44421022

> Failing forward is not intended to be a rescue mechanism.
> Failing forward is only intended to avoid scenarios where players run out of options and progress halts.

Not sure why this is difficult to grasp. You're preventing the party from getting stuck, not removing all threat and risk. If they're in a scenario where they're overcome and die, they die.

>>44421096
>everything is either old school dungeon crawling or a game with a pre-set plot

I never said that, are you stupid?

>>44421083
Yeah, you won't repeat yourself any further because you're wrong and fucking stupid.

File: 1272163325386.jpg (5 KB, 122x84) Image search: [Google]

5 KB, 122x84

>>44421138
>>44421164

See
>>44414408
>>44420572
>>44420585

I understand you're emotionally vested in this argument, but I have already patiently explained why your view as failure as this party-paralyzing terrible thing is misinformed. Repeating your misguided views does not make them more accurate.

Again, the fault here does not lay in the failure, it lays in your inability or unwillingness to convey it. If you wish more detail, I would advise getting a glass of water, calming down, and reading.

>>44421126

Except we're talking about a scenario in wbich there is no other way in and the party has been stonewalled.


If you handwave that there WAS an alternative entrance AFTER they fail, then that is the same as improvising a sidequest: you're making up a way out on the spot so the party doesn't get stuck.

>>44421125

I'm forced to create something out of nothing due to players action, which I would have not received, had I given them a tidy neat little scapegoat from their earlier failure?

>>44421138

So what happens if your party gets "stuck" (even if, IMO, a monster you cannot defeat is the textbook definition of "tuck) in your Crypt of Sidetracking? Another detour, additional disadvantage?

>>44421205
Neither of the guys you're replying to, but you're fucking insufferable. Your condescending tone, your avatar fagging, all of it is carefully crafted to piss people off.

File: 1435549604046.jpg (149 KB, 811x739) Image search: [Google]

149 KB, 811x739

>>44413262
>>44415445

File: 1277146269482.gif (95 KB, 200x150) Image search: [Google]

95 KB, 200x150

>>44421236
>Your condescending tone, your avatar fagging, all of it is carefully crafted to piss people off.

Perish the thought.

And yet, dickish though I am, I am not wrong. Fancy that.

>>44421229

>Except we're talking about a scenario in wbich there is no other way in and the party has been stonewalled.

Then you just designed the adventure badly.

If there is just a solution, you planned it wrong.

If there are multiple solution and the party botched all of them, play the consequences, do not give them an "out of prison" card.

>>44421233
>I'm forced to create something out of nothing due to players action, which I would have not received, had I given them a tidy neat little scapegoat from their earlier failure?


How is that any different from being forced to come up with an interesting outcome to failure? It is still player action, it is still improvisation.

>>44421205
Except you're actually wrong. "People will keep playing the game" isn't the goal. The goal is that "The game stays exciting".

When you stonewall, everyone looks around the table, and then they usually end up shrugging and saying "Uhh...Well, I guess we..go back to town then. What were we there for? Oh right, looking for a blacksmith."

When you fail forward, you introduce consequences for failure. It's not "You failed, drop everything you were doing with this task and go back to town.", it's "You failed, but you have options." or "You succeeded, but in a way that fucked you over". If you have EVER told your players that they had an alternative path to continue the current mission when they failed the direct route, you've failed forward.

>>44421295

One of the choices derives from your players input, the other is entirely your doing.

That's mainly the core of it.

>>44421286

It's not an out of prison card. It's literally the opposite.

Are you guys even reading the posts you're replying to, or just furiously masturbating over how strict you enforce failure in your games while typing?

>>44421330

>player did something
>DM inprovised
>player tried to do something and failed
>DM improvised

How is this hard to understand?
Are you mentally challenged?

>>44421233
So what happens if your party gets "stuck" (even if, IMO, a monster you cannot defeat is the textbook definition of "tuck) in your Crypt of Sidetracking? Another detour, additional disadvantage?

You're still missing the point, perhaps on purpose, perhaps to bait some sort of all-or-nothing sort of response, perhaps not. I'm tired of explaining it. Use it as a narrative tool, or don't.

>>44420585
>At this point, the GM, as narrator SHOULD step in and say “you search the ancient temple for days and gradually become convinced that there is no other way in. You know the forces of shrub-niggurath will arrive soon. Perhaps you can hold them off and save as many lives as you can while you search for another solution.”

>Now, if that seems heavy-handed and meta-gamey, well, it is. But that’s only because the failure was poorly designed anyway. It’s an invisible failure. The PCs can’t know they’ve failed completely. Imagine if, instead, the temple only surfaced once every thousand years and then, after one day, it sank back into a swamp, filling with toxic slime. The party would HAVE TO retreat. Their failure would be obvious. They’d retreat and try to find another plan. And in the meanwhile, the GM could start running invasions of plant monsters and seed zombies.

This is literally failing forward. At least as far as I understand "failing forward".

Have you considered that you might just be getting your panties in a twist over misunderstanding a new bit of jargon that really just refers to tried-and-true GMing principles that you take for granted?

>>44421233
Encountering a monster you can't beat isn't really an example of failing forward. It's an example of "time to retreat".

Failing forward is introducing consequences other than outright failure for failing a dice roll.

File: 1446188057832.jpg (60 KB, 584x431) Image search: [Google]

60 KB, 584x431

>>44413182
THE POINT OF THE MEME COCKLUNCH IS THAT IT'S HORRIBLY BORING TO SLAM YOUR FACE INTO THE WALL OF FAILURE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN

BECAUSE THAT IS YOU, THAT IS YOUR REAL LIFE, FAILING TIME AND AGAIN WITH NO FUTURE IN SIGHT

SO YOU PLAY GAMES TO ALLEVIATE THE CRUSHING BOREDOM OF YOUR DEAD END EXISTENCE AND MAYBE FOR A MOMENT FEEL MUTUAL ENTERTAINMENT, BROUGHT A LITTLE PLEASURE, FEEL AS IF YOU'VE GAINED SOME GROUND EVEN IF JUST IN IMAGINATION

THUS THERE IS A PHILOSOPHY IN THESE GAMES THAT WOW ROLLING 71 TIMES TO PICK THAT LOCK *IS FOR PEOPLE SUFFERING FROM CRIPPLING MENTAL DISORDERS*

GET ON WITH THE FUCKING SHOW ALREADY OR CANCEL THE HOT GARBAGE YOU CAN'T GET ANYWHERE WITH, ORDER A PIZZA AND BEERS, AND HAVE MOVIE NIGHT

File: 1264919866489.jpg (11 KB, 256x256) Image search: [Google]

11 KB, 256x256

>>44421312
>If you have EVER told your players that they had an alternative path to continue the current mission when they failed the direct route, you've failed forward.
>>44421429
>This is literally failing forward. At least as far as I understand "failing forward".
>>44421437
>Failing forward is introducing consequences other than outright failure for failing a dice roll.

You know, I notice the longer this conversation goes, the more "failing forward" becomes a meme phrase to describe literally any situation in which the PCs have not yet burnt all bridges associated with completing their objective.

I mean, >>44421437 spells it out pretty clearly. Apparently the mere act of maintaining a sense of causality in a game counts as "failing forward."

Some posters have brought up the possibility that this entire conversation stemmed from a misunderstanding in what failing forward actually is. I begin to suspect they're right, but for none of the reasons they wish were true.

I begin to suspect that apparently anything other than freezing up and stalling the game as massive balls of spaghetti tumble out of your pockets counts as "failing forward."

Why you would use pitch a broadly defined notion as some sort of clever insight as to how games should be GMed is beyond me, but then, the FATE crowd never struck me as particularly bright.

>>44421565
Hi

I'm new to this thread, and am about to read it
In the meantime, my question is: why do you want your players to get to the point where they "burn all the bridges"

Moving forward feels good, and reaching an impasse because of a bad roll feels bad. Same reason countermagic has been on the decline in Magic; the people in charge trying to avoid feelbad situations for the players.

>>44413182
I usually go with three strikes at most for failing.

Not that I always do, just for plot things like 'NPC says tell King his wife is an enemy wizard in disguise'
Let's take the castle entry thing that's been used.
>convince guard
> fail, and guards will be on the lookout for party
>servant sees they need to get in, offers disguises as maids for cash
>no cash no entry, if they try to coerce the servant may betray them out of spite or straight up call guards over
>run off climb vine
>failure to climb probably leads to fall damage and possibly death or the vine breaking and alerting guards

If these choices are what the party made, then they'd probably not find themselves in the castle for a long as time and the wizard would finish his plan to turn the King into a duck and ruin shit.

Each failure isn't 'shit bitch no more castle' but each failure means when the hammer drops, its gonna hit hard, harder, or hardest; when it hits then it'll be over.

But doing 'guard says nope now what' and making the castle in access able (this is what I'm getting from your post, that failure means the end) is silly. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Naturally I don't exclusively do that style.
Sometimes failure is failure. I'm not the best combat maker; I've tpk'd a party and it was garbage, and they have steamrolled my enemies before as well. In combat if they die, they die. Sometimes if they're clever (blast a boulder to knock it into a commander enemy who will seriously hurt them) then I reward them if they're successful at it but no 'commander held back and let them strike another turn'
And sometimes a small failure doesn't need three strikes. 'The wench didn't want to give you her potion so she chugged it'

Not everything is in extremes.

Faggot. Also avatarfagging is against the rurus.

>>44421161
desu I'm very drunk right now so like, yah I am kinda stupid.

>>44413182
>>44413455
>>44413841
>>44414408
>>44414923
>>44419825
>>44420572
>>44420847
>>44421083
>>44421205
>>44421565
You realize avatar fagging is against the rules right?

>>44420383
This
Failing forward is an exercise in simple cost effectiveness for the point of role playing
"Keeping things moving" outweighs "stonewalling"

After reading how OP responded to this post I can confirm OP is a flaming troll

>>44421619

He's not happy that people are having fun in ways he doesn't approve of, and extra unhappy that they don't feel they need to explain themselves to him.

>>44419825
>I recognized as using these tactics.
and that's your fault

knowing the tactics reduces your enjoyment of their intended experiences

you chased the dragon to far, and are now experiencing withdrawal

I know because its the same for me with ANY fictions, writer convenience, and massive plotholes really pisses me off, but I know that it is my fault, as its a natural limitation of the medium

>>44414674

...We do. Its called a nat 20 or nat 1.

Have you ever met a guy who says "Evolution is dumb because if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?". No matter how many times you explain how evolution really works and in how many different ways, he keeps saying that like as if he has a point, completely ignoring or twisting everything anyone tells him?

That's what you remind me of, OP.

>>44421811
so he want's to punish his players?

>>44421387

....they fail? Like, in "failure can happen and will have consequences on your whole world"?

Btw, not everybody who disagrees with you is baiting.

>>44421913
You do realize OP is arguing that any consequence is badwrongfun, because it can be framed as success from some perspective

He had directly argued against people saying failure, leading to consequences, to keep moving the game forward, is just as bad as failing, leading to an alternative to the goal

>>44421138
This

>>44413182

Why in movies is there always a plan C? Why in novels is there a third act ray of hope? Why is 'always finds a way' a heroic attribute which is only reinforced by its subversion? Collective storytelling does require there to be a narrative.

To address the notion that this is railroading: Remember that the classic example of a railroad is not a permission but a denial. For good reason is 'but thou must' the archetypal example, or the room with eight doors of which only one opens. Approaching the guard and asking to open the door can either be an act of player agency or an act forced by the GM. In the former case, adding 'soft' consequences is enabling agency and still providing a reactive game environment. In the latter, it is arguably railroading, but the context of how other situations are handled would be more indicative.

Your premise is based on some very (deliberately?) divisive examples. 'Failing Forward' can be an enhancement to player agency. When the party loses a member to an encounter, they can advance without their fallen comrade, even though we might count the loss of a friend to be a failure on them as a team. Hell, we (most of us, even) even let them re-roll. This has been in the game since its origins.


>>44421565

Ah, it begins. The careful extraction via semantics. It's a lot of work, pulling that much pride out of a hole you've dug for it.

>>44421368

One of those cannot be preplanned by the GM, the other can.

I can account for failure of the roll on behalf of my player AND prepare a solution.

I cannot account for my players failing a roll and going in a completly unexpected direction to solve the problem.

In one case, you throw at them the alternative path that you had ready all along, in the other, you're forced to do something new based on the player input.

>>44413182
That's not really an example of "fail forward."

Fail forward would be the guard is unimpressed by you, and says, "If you want to see the king, yeah, I can get you in, but you're going to owe me." And then you make them do some task that they otherwise wouldn't have had to do if they had been successful. Maybe it's something that tests their morality, like he asks them to beat some money owed to him out of a guy. Maybe it's something they choose not to do, and thus they have to come up with another way (sneaking in), but ultimately, the whole thing is that, instead of just saying "no," you give them a "no, but" and then tack on something somewhat significant (not "but they think your mom is ugly").

>>44422032

So... your problem is with the DM being prepared for situations that might reasonably occur?

>>44421967

You do realize that I was moving a separate critic from OP's?

F.F. can lead to a spiral of unnecessary consequences that just bog down the game. This is particularly evident in the case of the players having a bad day at the rolls, as each failure adds more and more baggage.

why are you even arguing with a guy who uses smug dexter faces to illustrate how superior he is to everyone else
do you really expect to get something out of it

>>44422052

To add to this post: And you think the DM who does this is incapable of handling a situation which he didn't plan for?

The more I read this thread the more I get the feeling that the OP and his supporters (if they exist) are just shitty DMs getting annoyed that they're being held to a higher standard.

>>44422057
Please quote where you stated the different critique

>>44413262
>when nobody is complaining but you
Hahaha

Haha

>>44422082

>>44421022
>>44421233

There you go.

>>44422052
>>44422074

Apart from the blatant ad hominem you've been throwing around.

I generally get the feel that having planned alternatives for player failure detracts from their freedom of choices, since you are presenting them an alternative rather than letting them come up with one.

>this avatar-fagging, baiting thread is still up

And now I'm guilty, too. For fuck's sake, stop sucking OP's cock, you idiots, and let this cancerous thread die.

Do we really live in a world with people so fucking stupid they think giving players multiple options is the same as removing all player agency and making their glorious success guaranteed?

>>44413549
You're talking about how 4chan works. The very last thread is held on page 11. When a new thread is made, that thread is deleted and the thread at the bottom of page 10 is shunted to page 11. I don't know what other explanation you heard.

>>44422105
Failing Forward Spiraling is not a real problem, you made it out of whole cloth

Its not supportable from a math/probability perspetive, and its completely nullifyied if the DM actually Fails Forward like op is concerned with, where he just gives it to them

wow that was easy to deal with

>>44422131

Of course it is not an infinite spiral, but 2-3 consequences in a row is not an improbable possibility, expecially in long lived campaigns.

How do you deal with that? Do you just drop the FF at some point, and say "no, this time you fail"?

finally someone got the question I made ffs.

>>44422149
>especially in long lived campaigns.
I don't see the problem here

>>44422105
Yes, the evil temple having a servants entrance, a latrine drain and a skylight as any such building would reasonably have is horrible for player agency. Because having multiple ways in is 'planning for failure' right?

>>44413741
>Failing forward is not something you do all the time, it's something you do when the alternative would be boring and hurt the pace of the game.
If this is true you've just defeated your own point. If failing would be boring and hurt the pace of the game, then why are you rolling for a 'success or failure' result in the first place? If you don't want the consequences of failure, just don't roll at all!

>>44415506
So basically new role playing design is the equivalent of TellTale games or Gone Home to gaming. Suck out all the game elements so players can do whatever they want and always succeed with a cinematic experience rather than a game.

>>44422167
you have confused single instance failure with stonewalling

>>44413182
Hey Virt, didn't know your ban had run out.

>>44422201
I thought he read familiar

>>44413182
"I rolled a 14."
"You fail."
"I rolled a 7."
"You fail."
"Look, we're not in any danger, just give us the result."
"No."
"Fine, I rolled a 16."
"You fail."

This shit is not good. Any action the player makes should result in something rather than "nothing" or else you're just wasting everyone's time. You might as well play snakes and ladders.

>>44422217
That's what the whole take-ten style rules are for, no?

In any case, a good reaction to a failure here would be "the captain spits, and tells you to fuck off. His men jeer at you, detailing their night-time escapades with your mothers."

Now you have to deal with the fact that the guards are very unlikely to let you through even if you roll what would have been a pass before. You have to think of some other way to get in.

>>44422217
See, this is why in D&D if there is no danger rolls have a thing called "take 20". The only rolls you can't take 20 on is where failing makes things worse.

There ya fucking go, right in the rules is something that counters your example.

>>44414607
>>44414529
No, he's right. This is a whole lot of nothing, chastising OP for "not asking polite questions" as if we're on some forum. He also mocks OP for asking a question, saying that he should've just thought about it and come up with the correct solution. It's contradictory and doesn't add to the conversation.

And, this should be obvious, but apparently isn't - it's okay to make threads to ask questions, and it's okay to ask those questions forcefully.

>>44413831
Hm, that might be a bad example because the tension of being chased already drives the action and gives a real consequence to failed rolls.

If we instead have a group of adventurers waiting on a party member to open up a locked door, and the roll fails, the consequence would just be a complete halt in pacing. Instead, the GM could opt to alow the door to be opened at the cost of the lock pick and saying it took so long time that while the door is now open, they've been noticed by guards who're on their way towards them now. Suddenly there's a lot more tension.

Hey, you could even keep the door locked and JUST send guards against them. As long as actions feel like more consequences than just a halt. "No, but!" rather than just a lazy blunt "No.."

>>44422270
>He also mocks OP for asking a question,

No,
He mocks OP for being a flaming troll

>>44422160

Statistically the longer a campaign goes on, the greater the chances of a sequel of bad outcomes

>>44422164

Depends on how you play it. If players fail the roll to pass as cultist to enter the temple and are chased off, you're not using failing forward, as they failed and are now left to their own devices to figure how to enter the building.

In this case, they might notice one or more of the additional entrances, or tunnel underneath the temple with magic, decide to storm the gate, teleport in, send the sneaky thief to inflitrare the temple and open the doors for them etc.

If the players fail and you say "you failed to enter the temple, BUT you notice the drain and think that you can probably sneak in by that way", you're directing them to another entrance, not letting them choose how to get it.

>>44422270
4chan is a forum. But I know what you mean.

Fuck RPG.Net.

>>44422234
Or you try to pick the lock and you end up snapping the picks in it. Grats, your lockpick set is now ruined. You got the door open, though!

>>44422272
Ok, I must say, the concept of having someone fail the DC to open a lock and having the door open anyway pisses me off as both a player and a GM.

In this case the door doesn't open, the players have to find another way through. You don't just fucking let them through. You don't have to fucking hold their hands, let them think and come up with a solution rather than giving them nice little hand out solutions.

I actually talked about this above. You should say "No, your failed, you need to figure out something else." Because they should be able to come up with something else. If failing at something grinds the pacing to a halt and makes you're players sulk, it's because they're bad fucking players. Find better ones.

>>44422292
That is failing forward, no?

>>44422292
Or, you could... call me fucking crazy, have a lock not open when you fail your lock picking roll!

Let your players come up with another way to get through the door.

>>44414481
Someone should avatar fag as dede

Ok, for the current example of the thread let me give an example of something that happened in my game.

The players were sneaking through a warehouse and wanted to get through a door. They failed, and badly enough they broke the lock (ad described by the rules). No way to get through the door now, and they realized that the people coming in the next day would find a broken lock and know they had been there.

I told them they had to find another way out. They decided to fucking chop the door down since they had fucked up anyway, and caused enough of a ruckus to alert the night guard.

I don't see this as bad. This whole "failing forward" thing just seems like a way to deal with bad players who can't deal with failure or who can only come up with one plan.

>>44413182

It's the difference between bringing the game to a halt because the Ranger failed his tracking roll vs saying they manage to find the tracks, but they're wrong and lead to an ambush that results in a new clue.

>>44413182
These mechanics are designed to appeal to women who throw tantrums when they fail at anything. So yes, this is FATE shit.

>>44422342
Or you could have them try something else to try and find the way. Have the source of their new direction stem from players, not the GM. Players are able to ask questions and gather information to try and figure things out when their first attempt fails.

>>44422328
Yet by the way its used in this thread 'when you chop down the door the guard hears' is also 'failing forward'.

Personally the term is a bit broad and slippery for my taste.

>>44422351
>FATE shit

GURPS which is the complete opposite of FATE suggests very similar things to avoid boring stalling.

The idea that you should give players other options if things go wrong is such basic common sense and in so many RPG's I had no idea it even had a name.

>>44422364
Realistic consequences to actions is not "failing forward". Chopping down the door wasn't a roll that had a chance at failing, it was just time and effort put into door chopping.

I don't understand, failing forward can basically describe ANYTHING happening after failing that isn't immediately stopping the session and ending the campaign.

>>44421273
Why do you have an entire folder of those

>>44422353
>Have the source of their new direction stem from players, not the GM. Players are able to ask questions and gather information to try and figure things out when their first attempt fails.

Most Fail forward systems actually do this, in a way. It's often recommended that if a player fails, you give them the option to narrate their failures.

>>44422406
I can understand this in different systems, but using it in D&D and it's derivatives seems silly.

>>44422328
Failing forward is not to deal with bad players. Basically, the concept is that everything the party does contributes to the story. You can't see it as the party living in a real setting; you have to see it as the party living in a story. I don't personally like this very much (I'm a die-hard simulationist; I think good stories come from good crunch) but I get it.
>>44422392
It's not about giving people other options if they fail. It's about having them "succeed" with bad consequences.

To an extent what constitutes a "good" game is largely subjective, the realm of opinion past a certain point (e.g. player agency, meaningful choices), and so everyone is going to have their own opinion on it. There aren't very many hard or fast rules and everyone's going to have their own styles and whatnot - that's fine.

I'm a writer and I like to approach my planning like one; but I meet my players halfway. If I have a group of newfags that just want to dungeon grind? Okay, I'll make the game a dungeon grind. I'll make it a dungeon grind and then I'll go and I'll make that interesting. I'll have them be doing it for a reason: Perhaps they were hired to clear out these dungeons. Then I'll ask "why where they hired?" and this'll lead to me building a plot around this... with them at the center (WHICH IS HOW IT SHOULD FUCKING BE) of it all and they interact by, broadly, just dungeon crawling.

"Fall forward" isn't a policy, it's... just a tool. Sometimes you'll judge that some things are gonna happen and you'll deem it will anyway, regardless of a roll or a specific choice. Pure, 100% sandbox isn't something I particularly like the idea of dealing with because I'm not on the wavelength with all of my players that I can reasonably expect to craft a coherent plotline--shaped by their actions, mind--out of it.

It's really just another tool in our kits as I see it.

>>44420720
Ad hominems aren't going to lead to a satisfying conclusion anon, it just makes you look exasperated.

>>44422452
It's not just ad hominem.

And he is exasperated. I think that's the point.

>>44421125
>The players are SEEKING adventure, but the DM is the one giving it to them.
Well, yes, that's how RPGs work.

>>44421236
But is he wrong?

>>44421273
>And yet, dickish though I am, I am not wrong. Fancy that.

>lalalala I'm right I'm right I'm right

Yeah, sure. Whatever. Thank god you're not at my table.

>>44421794
>making an argument
>responding to posts
>linking to an article with further information

>troll

>>44421273
Except you are wrong. There's no right way to play the game period and if it works for a group that doesn't matter. If you need this thread to feel like your brand of fun is better, I guess you got what you wished for.

>>44422217
That's not what OP is arguing against or for. This will be clear once you read all of his posts so far.

>>44422612
He's not arguing for or against anything. He's just arguing.

This entire thread is "FAIL FORWARD CAN BE SHIT AND HERE'S EXAMPLES OF IT USED POORLY!" "WELL HERE'S EXAMPLES OF IT USED WELL, LET ME GIVE YOU EXAMPLES OF OLD FASHION USED POORLY!"

Yes, shit GMs are shit GMs no matter what philosophy they adopt. You don't need to strawman that.

>>44422292
That changes the entire dynamic of what skill roll is in most games. Normally when you go to lockpick a door, you roll to see if you succeed or fail. With what you've described, it's not that anymore. Instead, the door WILL open, and the roll is to see how many resources are expended in performing that action. It's a different sort of use for the dice.

By itself it's not wrong. You can build games around that. It's not the assumption of most systems or most players, though. Everyone would have to be on board with this, or else they'll feel like they're always succeeding, and they lose some emotional attachment to the game.

>>44422649
>implying

>>44422686
I think that's the biggest issue here. There are systems with this method in mind like Fate or Edge of the Empire. OP is applying it to nothing but DnD it seems though, which by rules is just pass or fail regardless of how well or not you roll. Any narrative added in extra is going outside the game where as other systems encourage you to add those extra bits.

What I'm gathering from this thread is the following.

"Failing forward" is when the party fails at a roll to get from A to B, and the GM presents them with another avenue of approach to lead to B.

This is contrasted with (and so failing forward is NOT the following) the party failing at their roll to get from A to B, and the PCs have to present another avenue of approach to lead to B.

In failing forward, the GM provides a new approach. When not failing forward, the PCs provide a new approach.

This thread is the first time I've ever heard of the term, so, is this correct?

>>44422734
Failing forward is when the party fails at a roll to get from A to B, but the GM lets them get to B with a story-complicating caveat.

Not failing forward would be either of the examples you provided, with a combination being best (that is, the GM actually has other avenues for you to use that you can find, but you can also just come up with something they could never have thought of).

>>44422734
>to lead to B
Nothing implies that avenue has to lead to B, but yes. All we are in short arguing is whose job it is to keep the players playing.

Anything else is one side trying to make the other side out into some strawman ala "FAILING LEADS TO INSTA DEATH IN NORMAL STYLE" or "YOU CAN NEVER EVER FAIL ANYTHING IN FAIL FORWARD!"
People like >>44422769 are just making the other side out to be a boogeyman out to ruin muh gaming.

>>44422790
>People like >>44422769 (You) are just making the other side out to be a boogeyman out to ruin muh gaming.
No I'm not. I think failing forward is a neat concept, it's just not my personal thing. Why'd you get that impression?

>>44413182
You don't seem like the kind of person who would be satisfied with a good answer. I just want you to know that that is the reason I'm ignoring your question.

>>44422444
We're not going to see a get like that for another 8 months.
>It's not about giving people other options if they fail. It's about having them "succeed" with bad consequences.
So, "failing forward" is like...Lifelines, or "Three Strikes, You're Out". It's a way of letting the players succeed for now, but making it harder on them from then on out. This means that repeated failures should use up all their lifelines, until the pressure is too much & their resources too low that they fail for real. Is that a correct description of failing forward?

>>44421723
You now realize mods are shit and don't give a fuck

>>44422813
It's a way of making sure that everything the players do contributes to the narrative. So you avoid stalling, and you in general make the players feel like they're in a story rather than a real world. So, the advisor example in the OP: it means you get to carry on with the story, meeting the king, but with new (disadvantageous) plot hooks in the form of a rival with a direct line to said king.

>>44422803
I mostly got that impression from your skewed understanding of fail forward. You don't say you succeed anyways 99% of the time. I've never used it to say that. It's about pulling something out of the failure to keep the story rolling. I often use it to present alternate (most often harder) paths.

>>44422858
That's not failing forward, then. That's just failing.

>>44422849
>t means you get to carry on with the story
Okay, so it means you succeed
>but with new (disadvantageous) plot hooks
And now it's harder to achieve your goal

That's what I've described. We both agree on what failing forward is then?

>>44422881
Its aim isn't to punish so much as to make the story more interesting.

>>44422872
You clearly don't understand it, yet you keep claiming you do with 100% confidence like here >>44422881

This thread is a waste of time. My first post here >>44421842 was completely accurate and yet here I still am. I don't know why I'm bothering.

>>44422898
Anon, if someone fails to get to the throneroom, so you say "but there's a nice open pipeway into it over there", that is not failing forward. That's just helping your players.

>>44422898
>implying samefag
Nope, that's someone else.

>you keep claiming you do with 100% confidence like here >>44422881
Uh, no. That's not claiming with 100% confidence. That's asking a question. You have taken offense for some reason, and that's your own fault.

>>44422914
I think he just misclicked your post instead of mine.

File: Doctor Mengele I'm NSDAP.png (349 KB, 544x733) Image search: [Google]

349 KB, 544x733

This is a bit unrelated, but I have the creeping suspicion that a lot of posters in this thread aren't from 4chan. They seem to follow the pattern of posting of tumblr, reddit, imgur comments section or whatever and the images they post seem to support that.

So, I must ask: Why do you subhumans even come here? You clearly don't seem to enjoy posting in here since you keep saying retarded shit and then bitch about it when people call you out. Why do you come to 4chan when you have non-4chan places to wallow in your own shit?

>>44422925
Because infinichan's /tg/ is slow as shit.

If the party absolutely must open a door to continue with the plot, simply giving them a chance to fail that with a roll sucks. If everything hinges on the players making a single perception/open lock/diplomacy check you've designed the adventure badly. This doesn't mean they must always succeed in everything they do, but there should always be multiple ways to do something you need the players to accomplish.

>>44422912
So this >>44422734 is not failing forward.
Failing forward is the GM offering the PCs a solution if they look lost after failing on their own?

I can't figure out what this term means.

>>44422925

>people are disagreeing with me!
>reeeeeeeeee tumblr get out

>>44422898

Then explain, what do you mean by failing forward? You seem to have a quite different definition from the rest of the thread

File: 1448222591560.jpg (13 KB, 640x425) Image search: [Google]

13 KB, 640x425

>>44422955
>I have no counter-point so I'm gonna act like a fucking retard, that's what I'm gonna do

>>44422950

That is not failing forward.

Failing forward is when the players will open the lock, regardless of rolling, but will receive additional complication based on how well (or bad) they rolled

>>44422958

>shitposting loudly

>>44413182
Failing Forward is one of those things that has been around in concept since 1974, but failures are slapping a name on to pretend they can into RPG design and innovation.

>>44422954
Failing forward is where you succeed with complications instead of just failing.

>>44413182
>Someone explain this meme to me and why it's become so popular.

No. You don't want it explained to you. You just want to flame out at strawmen of your own design.
Get off 4chan and take emotion-suppressing drugs. Look up the answer on your own.

>>44422965
You already lowered the bar by shitposting yourself. You immediately felt attacked and jumped to conclusions and posted like a manchild. I really recommend leaving this site and/or killing yourself.

>>44422968
Don't you like your iPhone's retina display, anon?
It's a normal marketing tactic that's been used since the dawn of civilisation.

File: Laughinghelmets.jpg (119 KB, 640x423) Image search: [Google]

119 KB, 640x423

>>44422975
Kek.

>>44422976
>implying I buy Apple cancer

What in the fuck do Macs do that Windows and Linux don't?

>>44422986
Fuck if I know, anon. I don't use Apple either. Chromebooks might be shit, but they've got a price to match.

>>44422973
>Failing forward is where you succeed with complications instead of just failing.
So it's this
>>44422813
and not this
>>44422734

File: a783a0d5b13d7ab5064dfa047828f4c2aef6bf8b.jpg (19 KB, 500x367) Image search: [Google]

19 KB, 500x367

>>44414156
more like railROLLING

also any DM worth his salt knows that there are times when some light handed railroading is necessary if you're doing an actual campaign or module, and not an open world 'players make the story' campaign. If you don't throw the players a bone or open an alternate- Usually harder, less safe- route when they fail a check or fuck up a conversation, they're going to get frustrated pretty fucking quick.

>>44422993
Sure. But without the lifeline thing; that's another concept.

>>44423030
If the difficulty does not ratchet up, then that means the players can just fail over and over, and ultimately succeed. That's one thing OP was complaining about.

Dudes, you're all using 'fail forward' wrong. It's not an RPG term. It's a business term. It means learning from the failures of new products and turning those lessons into successful products.

>>44423039
Right, but it's still another concept. You could also solve that problem by the DM just going "yeah, you're fucked beyond help now".

>>44423048
So it means learning from your mistakes. Does that concept really need to have its own specific terminology?
Also
>terms cannot have different meaning based on context