Is fail forward a cop-out, or is it a valid GM tool?The real answer may surprise you.
>>96575384I prefer things like Cosmere's Raise The Stakes, where you essentially add a genesys plot die to a regular dice roll. This can result in a negative complication where the GM dictates a plot complication but it also boosts your die result, a neutral result where nothing happens, or a positive result where the PC gets to dictate a positive plot/mechanical outcone even if they fail the roll. It's a real nice balance between mechanical and narrative consequences
I'm shocked, and flabbergasted.I never would have expected that to be the answer!So... what was the answer...?
>>96575384The only thing wrong with fail forward is making playoids aware of a standard tool of keeping things moving in the GMs toolbox and by extension putting cracks in the illusion that keeps them engaged
>>96575384>Failing fowardAwful, despicable, the worst>Success with consequencesBased beyond beliefIf there's no chance of success don't let them roll. Also, don't make anything important dependent on a single roll.
>>96575384>The real answer may surprise you.The real answer is to kill "people" like you on sight.
>>96575438>Success with consequencesIsn't that what fail forward means?
"Fail forward" should be the last resort because it means there is no other way to progress.
>>96575540I think it depends on the tone you set, and how much your players expect it. Like if the consensus is "we're going to play this mostly linear story so we're rolling not to see if we succeed, but if we can avoid any potential complications", then it's probably fine. Games like Fate use it a lot, for instance.
>>96575384I think there should be more a focus on only rolling when a roll is actually needed. GMs in general call for far more rolls than they actually need to do.
>>96575624I guess but in many groups sometimes there isn't really much of an option if you want people to have fun which is the ultimate point of these things
Fail forward can work but don't do it too often
>>96575675based, but expect tranny jannies to seethe
People get angry about this because they have different GMing styles (or they imagine games working differently in the case of nogames).Fail forward can mean:>Consequences that aren't in the pass/fail binaryFor example, you will understand this ancient text but it might need so much focus you'll be left vulnerable, you will break this car window but you might cut yourself in the process>failure adding to something external to the action itselfTaking damage, advancing the doom clock, giving enemies power tokens,>failure being patched up by external forcesI don't know, throw a DMPC or something. >just let them win lolThis is what most people hating on the concept believe it means. I have no examples because it can only exist in the mind of someone making up bullshit to get themselves mad.
>>96575559they literally mean the same, you're getting mad at people who like the same thing you do
>>96575487Let me check my notes>Israel is not a /pol/ stole my notes again.
>>96575384Depends on the group. Most don't need something like that since the nature of gambling to determine success or not aka rolling dice is to some degree an inherent acceptance of the possibility of failure. But I could see it being a useful approach for say a group full of beginners who are acting so indecisive and skittish that they refuse to take any risks at all, let alone minor ones that "failing forward" would be acceptable to apply to.
>>96575384Depends on your interpretation of "fail forward". If it's just a success by any other name, you're a fucking faggot and you should kill yourself.The actual essence of "fail forward" is that failures should move things along in the same way successes do, just in different directions, and principally negatively for the players, because they still failed, instead of "Gee nothing happened".It should never be an excuse for "you fart and shidd yourself but the door opens xD".
>>96576303it's not meant to appease players, it's about not creating choke points where a failure stops everything. It could be solved designing conflicts with multiple solutions, but sometimes you end up in a scenario where you can't come up with one or the players are being absolutely blind to alternatives. So you use consequences that aren't just something not happening. It doesn't mean you don't punish failure, you usually punish them way more than stopping. You add more issues, like triggering a random encounter, and it's the player's faul that it happened because they missed the roll and alerted the enemies.
>>96576402I never said it was meant to "appease" anyone, good sir.
>>96575384>a valid GM tool?In what sense is it possible for something to be an "invalid" GM tool? Yes: of course it's "valid" for GMs to react to players failures.
>>96576311Well, obviously if it's called failing forward it's not just succeeding (otherwise it'd just be called a success), and if nothing happens then that would just not be a check. Fail forward also doesn't mean things move in different directions, in fact, the point of fail forward is to remedy situations where failure is possible, but not convenient for the scenario / the GM. It could mean succeeding but making things harder, perhaps even in ways that aren't immediately obvious.>you're a fucking faggot and you should kill yourself.What even triggered this? Is this obsession with hatred and death just an American thing?
>>96576443>Is this obsession with hatred and death just an American thing?Unfortunately, anon, I think you'll find that "violently angry little boys" are pretty much a world-wide problem.
>>96576437>In what sense is it possible for something to be an "invalid" GM tool? I can think of a few that'd be considered invalid. For instance, removing abilities from players instead of designing encounters around the abilities they do have. Stuff like that. I guess fail forward could fall into that camp because its something that technically does go against the rules in many systems, where failure means you fail at doing what was attempted altogether. That being said, there's also good and bad ways to use fail forward, of course.
>>96576462>technically does go against the rules in many systems, where failure means you fail at doing what was attempted altogetherFailing forward means treating failures as opportunities to grow or learn. I can't think of a single TTRPG ruleset that says "if players fail a roll, do absolutely nothing." Actions have consequences. Presenting an opportunity within those consequences isn't against the rules of any TTRPG. You fail to pick the lock but recognize the stamp of the blacksmith who made it. You fail to seduce the dragon but he finds you hilarious and tells you to go fetch him a sheep to eat. You fail the arcane knowledge check but recognize the signature on the scroll as belonging to the local wizardry college. These things aren't against any rules.
>>96576437Raping players, for example. It is extremely inmersive but most people would agree it's not a valid way to achieve that. In this case "valid" means "legally allowed"
>>96576499>Failing forward means treating failures as opportunities to grow or learn.Never heard that.>I can't think of a single TTRPG ruleset that says "if players fail a roll, do absolutely nothing."What do you mean? Typically if a player fails a roll, they fail to do what they were looking to do, which many times means nothing happens (rolling to break down a door, for instance).>These things aren't against any rules.Nothing is against the rules, but the idea of fail forward - the way I've seen it depicted - would be for instance allowing the player to break down the door even if they fail, with the added consequence of the entire dungeon having heard him and now being on high alert. This subverts the rules in the sense that typically failure simply means you couldn't perform the action. This is a simplistic example, of course. If your whole dungeon crawl adventure is reliant on a single stuck door then perhaps you had it coming.
>>96576711>Never heard that.I mean just google "falling forward." It's the one and only definition you'll ever get.
>>96576747*failing forward
>>96576711>What do you mean?I mean the GM has to react to failures. The game continues. The GM presenting new opportunities after players fail a roll isn't prohibited by any rules.But I think I see the problem:>the idea of fail forward - the way I've seen it depicted - would be for instance allowing the player to break down the door even if they failThat has absolutely nothing, at all, to do with what "failing forward" means. There is absolutely no common sense in which the phrase would refer to that. Just flatly none.
>>96576747Ok, I googled it, here are some of the explanations I get off google's front page:>Failing forward is the idea that you still get to unlock the door on a failed roll, but it comes at a cost.>The idea of “failing forward.” That is, creating a partial failure that moves the plot, or at minimum makes things more interesting.>When you fail an action there should be consequences. This, I think, is the crux of most people's misunderstanding. What SHOULD NOT happen is nothing. "Nothing" is a narrative dead end.>Failing forward' merely means that failures can, and should, help generate new situations and conditions that can be tackled and explored.>When relying on fail forward, you'd instead rule something along the lines that the character actually does pick the lock, but she triggers a trap, guards show up/are waiting for her on the other side (replace with wandering monsters as needed), breaks her lockpicks, takes a really long time, and so on.So no, I don't see anything about "growing or learning".
>>96576787I guess>>96576811goes to you as well.
>>96576811Google "failing forward." No: you didn't get those explanations from google's front page if you googled "failing forward."
>>96576848failing forward rpg meaningMy exact search query.I'm going to stop replying to you now.
>>96576870Hey, go for being wrong all you please, anon. Not my problem.
>>96576787>There is absolutely no common sense in which the phrase would refer to that.>I'm sure I'm the first person to ever think about this and my opinion has absolute value because I'm the main character of the world.you don't use common sense to imagine what other people could mean, just look what it means you pedantic retard. Not only you are a waste of time and space, you think you're smart about it.
>>96576938>you don't use common sense to imagine what other people could mean, just look what it means you pedantic retard.Correct. Now google "failing forward."Voila.
>>96575384necessary evil. playoids shit their pants and cry over every minor setback and you have to put the pacifier in their mouth quick or they’ll ragequit
>>96575384It's stupid post-modernist gaming. Either you succeed at a task or you don't. What sense does it make for a player to attempt a DC60 skill test and roll a 3 with only a +6 bonus, and then for the DM to say:>it's okay champ, don't cry, you still manage to climb the impossible canyon of greased sheer walls using zero tools, you just take an extra 30 minutes instead of the normal minute it would take if you had passed.
>>96577122I always took it more to be something like say if someone is trying to shut off the security for a vault by messing with the electrical wiring, only to fuck up and fry the building's power grid which shuts down security but also triggers backup generators and an alarm to the authorities. Like "security's down, good luck on surviving everything else"
>>96575384Anything you do to weasel out of dealing with the outcome of an action is a cop-out. Should have prepped better
>>96575565No, failing forward is where you fuck up or something goes wrong, but for some unforeseen or unintended reason or another it works out and things progress forward.
>>96577122Nooo you don't get it they *have* to climb that cliff so my railroad can continue!!!
>>96577097The absolute lack of self awareness in this post
>>96577519Wouldnt the DM be railroading them away from the cliff if they are so adamant on them not climbing?
>>96575675Do you own a bell, anon?
>>96575565No, failing forwards means your failed roll is still a success. With Cosmere's system you roll both a regular die and a plot die so you have more granularity. Lets say you're trying to convince a shopkeep to give you a macguffin he's got for sale for free, with Raise the Stakes you can end up with results such as>a Negative consequence that allows you to succed the roll. You get the macguffin but now the merchant has marked up all his regular goods>you fail the roll but rolled an Opportunity, the player decides to use that Opportunity to purchase the macguffin at a discount>you succeed AND rolled an Opportunity, the player decides to use that Opportunity to impress the importance of their a quest on the shopkeep, and he shares everything he knows with them and is a source of future information >you fail even with the Negative consequence, the DM decides that you've left such a bad impression on the shopkeep that he kicks you out of the store. Now you'll have to find another way to get the macguffin, be it convincing someone else to buy it for you or sneaking in and stealing it or something else entirely It's a lot more fun than a mere fail forward if you ask me
>>96579912That’s literally how “fail forward” is supposed to work.
You know how if you play like shit in a fight you expend more health and resources than you would've if you had given The Art of War a once-over? Exact same thing, you fucked up and are now spending more resources.It's working out, but so did that fight where a wizard took 6d6 off everyone's health and two snipers out of reach downed the cleric and wizard because you decided to geek the mage first and fell right into a tarp-covered pit, and only won through sheer dumb luck.
>>96580287The last one is a complete roadblock, not a fail forward.
>>96575384Depends on what makes the most sense. Sometimes when you fail, you just didn't achieve your goal and nothing happens. Sometimes you achieve it with a bad consequence. Sometimes you don't achieve it and get a bad consequence. I don't see any reason to limit yourself to handling it one way.
>>96575438>PC gets to dictateNo. Never. Never shall any mechanic be tolerated where the player gets to step on GM's turf.
>>96576049Every one of the options you listed is fucking terrible and harmful to the game.
>>96583456GM can still veto their suggestion, retard. A player can't just say I ROLLED AN OPPORTUNITY THE SHOPKEEP GIVES ME A MILLION DOLLARS AND THE SLOPPIEST BLOWJOB EVER XDDDDDD, it's just a resource that encourages flexible thinking. Hell, the GM has to call for a Raise the Stakes roll in the first place, save for a few skills that allow PCs to force one.Cosmere pulled the concept straight from genesys and streamlined it down to a d6 to make it less fiddly.
>>96585738>GM can still veto their suggestionIt's not a suggestion, it's a dictate, fucking moronic sped learn to read.
>>96575384If you have a investigation game it's 200% necessary, players will miss the clues or make up red herrings from nothing even when they do everything perfectly, imagine how fucked up you would be if they missed half of them because of dice rolls
>>96575438It works so bad on practice, we just don't use it in our current Cosmere campaign.
>>96576266every success with consequences is failing forward but not every failing forward is success with consequencesconsequences are the important part here
