Sorry. I didn't mean to hit submit after my dwarf story.
These are responses to posts made while I was asleep (I'm not going to keep repeating myself though when the same points are raised. Let me know if you you've made a post and feel like I haven't responded and want a response).
From my personal experience, the people who talk about the value of not being able to solve a problem or the virtues of finding yourself up the manure creek and without a paddle are the people who lose their peanuts first when actually confronted with such situations. And they tend to blame GM first, the other players second and never themselves nor the ruleset :)
I do expect GMs to run well written games. I have also died plenty of times and enjoyed the experience and simply rolled up a new character. If you can think of an example in a well written Paizo Pathfinder adventure where 1 skill check = adventure over feel free to let me know which one it is.
Meh. As with most things, the "truth" is somewhere in the middle.
Sometimes failure-that-is-a-setback should be a thing. Sometimes failure-that-succeeds-at-a-cost should be a thing.
Neither approach is entirely wrong, or entirely right. They're tools, and it takes some skill to recognize when to use a given tool.
I have no problem with "you can retry the check and receive no further penalties. I'm going to narrate the effort rather then make you generate the right random number." But my above expert tracker being tracked by a barbarian with -1 to their survival skill is not something I'm okay with.
Failing forward in a story definitely does not mean that there is no cost to your failure.....Typically the cost of "failing forward" would be represented in either a more difficult skill challenge, paying someone through gold/items/favors, having to retreat and come back to a heightened level of defense, or most commonly some sort of combat could break out.
Failing forward means "you don't have to change how your approaching the problem. You still overcome the challenge despite the fact the DC for the lock was 30 and you got a 2. But now I'm going to make you scratch off some treasure or waste time by making you deal with an NPC who is only here because you didn't get a 30. The in game narration of what happened is you still got past that locked door. I am not going to require you to try a different approach, no matter how obvious that approach is, because I've decided failing isn't fun."
A massive mountain range bars the path forward. The PCs fail their check to avoid triggering the avalanche and now the way is impassable, so instead they have to cut through the goblin infested mines. That's a fail forward.
I fundamentally disagree. Failing forward means that the PCs don't have to change how they're approaching a problem. They fail to do the THING they were trying to do and yet they still manage to succeed without changing their actions in any way.
Having multiple approaches to overcome a problem isn't failing forward. It's good adventure design. And anyone whose ever said "I hit the door with my axe" or asked the GM "what side of the door are the hinges on?" knows that multiple approaches to overcoming a challenge are enjoyable.
Lots of people in this thread are using the term failing forward differently to me. I feel I've been very clear on what I view failing forward as. If you disagree with my definition then that's fine. There's really no meaningful discussion we can have on this topic if we don't agree on the definition.
I won't be discussing the definition any further in this post as I think I've beaten that horse quite thoroughly to death.
Seriously, if John Lynch can find me a single designer of a major narrative driven/fail forward game system that has argued that a good tabletop is the GM writing a story where the rest of the players have absolutely no say in anything that happens because everything happens automatically, I'll log off my paizo account and never come back. One.
I don't play narrative driven game systems. I play D&D and Pathfinder. So good news for you, you won't be leaving the Paizo boards.
Plenty of GMs in this thread though are advocating exactly that. I've replied to many of them in my previous post.
Notice I said sealed, I didn't say locked.
You also said there was a "check" that failed but didn't actually explain what the check was or what they were trying to achieve with the check. So I assumed it was the most common example of a door.
If you run into a passageway blocked by rocks on the other side, no interesting gameplay happens.
Can you explain how a well written adventure requires opening a door that cannot be opened in order to start the adventure?
This is really taking contrived to the next level.
In your particular example, fail forward is summarized as:
Crit fail: Takes a long time to get through, meaning you have to contend with all the guards.
Fail: Two sets of guards come upon you as you're digging.
Success: No guards, but they're still hot on your heels
Crit success: No guards, but it's complete in record time, letting you get more distance on themYou're not completely stopped, but the additional consequences might doom you if they keep happening.
In no way would I create a door lock that has a DC of "can never ever be failed to unlock."
I think we need a less contrived example if you want to have any meaningful discussion on this topic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's as black and white as many people are claiming here. I both allow PCs to fail checks outright, and use fail forward in other cases.
If they try to climb a wall they don't have the ability to, or try to pick a lock that's too tough for them to crack, then they fail. So long as there's another way to achieve what they're trying to - another route, or whatever - then they can fail. If they fail that acrobatics check to balance on the tightrope across the chasm, that PC is going to fall - they chose to attempt it, after all.
Fail forward is useful when you just want to keep the story moving or failure would be a roadblock. It doesn't remove the need to be smart - blunt forcing your way through will still result in failure - but as soon as a player suggests something clever, even if they wouldn't normally be able to do something, I'll often allow it to succeed at a cost. So the diplomacy check will fail by numbers, but if the player makes a valiant speech, I may have the NPC accept their argument along with a small (or large) bribe.
As has been said by others before, my main focus is to ensure everyone is having fun. So not everything should always succeed, but I'm also not going to sit and let the party umm and ahh for an hour in situations that I've put them in that don't have a way on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fail forward is useful when you just want to keep the story moving or failure would be a roadblock.
Fail forward is when you allow the PCs to succeed with the same approach even though they failed to overcome the challenge with that approach. Often with a loss of resources or a minor obstacle that will take up table time but not meaningfully hinder their ability to reach the end goal.
If you don't agree with that definition we're not really discussing the same thing and therefore can't have a meaningful discussion on this topic.
Last night, my players decided to head off looking for the cave they were told about. For some reason, they ignored the NPCs trying to help them and didn't want directions.
I let them fail.
Eventually they went back to town and asked for directions. At that point, I did a fail forward by asking for a check to see how fast they were able to follow the directions. If I hadn't let them make just the one check, they wouldn't have gotten anything done on that bounty.
This, to me, is a perfectly viable example on how to use fail forward. If you think this was wrong in my judgement, please let me know how you feel that way.
Last night, my players decided to head off looking for the cave they were told about. For some reason, they ignored the NPCs trying to help them and didn't want directions.
I let them fail.
Eventually they went back to town and asked for directions. At that point, I did a fail forward by asking for a check to see how fast they were able to follow the directions. If I hadn't let them make just the one check, they wouldn't have gotten anything done on that bounty.This, to me, is a perfectly viable example on how to use fail forward. If you think this was wrong in my judgement, please let me know how you feel that way.
I don't agree that this is a fail forward.
The directions were so good it was impossible for the PCs to fail to follow them. What was possible, was for the PCs to miss some of the landmarks and get lost. The check wasn't to determine if they reach the destination. So long as they made an effort to follow the directions they were guaranteed to reach the destination. The check was to see how well they followed those instructions.
John Lynch 106
Fair enough
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of people in this thread are using the term failing forward differently to me. I feel I've been very clear on what I view failing forward as. If you disagree with my definition then that's fine. There's really no meaningful discussion we can have on this topic if we don't agree on the definition.
Fair enough but I think your definition of fail forward is the less common one in the overall ttrpg community and I think it is different from the definition used by Jason when he mentioned the concept.
Also I agree about all your comments about adventure writing and how it is best to plan out an adventure to avoid situations where a single roll tanks it. However I don't see a meaningful difference between writing out an adventure beforehand in such a way vs modifying an adventure on the fly if such a situation arises.
Regardless I think we have disagreements about how a PF game should be run on a grand scale and that is okay. Happy gaming nevertheless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fail forward is useful when you just want to keep the story moving or failure would be a roadblock.Fail forward is when you allow the PCs to succeed with the same approach even though they failed to overcome the challenge with that approach. Often with a loss of resources or a minor obstacle that will take up table time but not meaningfully hinder their ability to reach the end goal.
If you don't agree with that definition we're not really discussing the same thing and therefore can't have a meaningful discussion on this topic.
Occasionally, failing forward means allowing catastrophic consequences that still move the story forward.
Going back to your tracking example. Sure, your party with no real expertise in the skill eventually tracks down the enemy scout. Unfortunately, he succeeded in his mission in getting critical information back to the villain, who now knows exactly what the fools who are interfering in his plan look like and what their abilities are.
Also, not sure what the dwarf story added to the discussion. That solution can occur in any game, fail forward rules or no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Notice I said sealed, I didn't say locked.You also said there was a "check" that failed but didn't actually explain what the check was or what they were trying to achieve with the check. So I assumed it was the most common example of a door.
If you run into a passageway blocked by rocks on the other side, no interesting gameplay happens.Can you explain how a well written adventure requires opening a door that cannot be opened in order to start the adventure?
This is really taking contrived to the next level.
In your particular example, fail forward is summarized as:
Crit fail: Takes a long time to get through, meaning you have to contend with all the guards.
Fail: Two sets of guards come upon you as you're digging.
Success: No guards, but they're still hot on your heels
Crit success: No guards, but it's complete in record time, letting you get more distance on themYou're not completely stopped, but the additional consequences might doom you if they keep happening.
In no way would I create a door lock that has a DC of "can never ever be failed to unlock."
I think we need a less contrived example if you want to have any meaningful discussion on this topic.
Let's take Oblivion Oath as an example. Meeting is in the sewers, you've been told it's there, there's a locked door in the way and you're after curfew. But the rogue is trained in Thievery, and thus can unlock it...eventually.
The point here is that without fail forward, there's nothing interesting happening here. You're going to succeed eventually, anyways, because it's a check that can theoretically be made. But "I stand there and take 20" is approximately as interesting as watching paint dry. So the question in this case isn't "can you make this check" but "can you make this check quickly enough to avoid consequences".
The whole point is that since the situation means you can't binary fail anyways, it's a question of how you pass.
(The actual example is an Athletics check, by the way, and it's actually a modified example from Doomsday Dawn part 1. The door to the boss's room is barricaded, but it's going to be broken down eventually. However, if you succeed, you can catch him by surprise, and he doesn't get the chance to prepare for you coming.)
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fail forward is useful when you just want to keep the story moving or failure would be a roadblock.Fail forward is when you allow the PCs to succeed with the same approach even though they failed to overcome the challenge with that approach. Often with a loss of resources or a minor obstacle that will take up table time but not meaningfully hinder their ability to reach the end goal.
If you don't agree with that definition we're not really discussing the same thing and therefore can't have a meaningful discussion on this topic.
You're not using the same definition as Paizo staff, then, so...sure? They specifically gave their definition on how it's used, so if you insist on using a different one, keep on going beating that strawman.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Assurance is the new Taking 10, I see the Failing Forward philosophy as being PF2's take on Taking 20. The typical use case for the more contentious Fail Forwards is the same as for taking 20: The players can try again and again until they succeed: picking a lock, tracking a hydra, etc.
Unlike taking 20, though, this rewards investing in your skills (since a success is still better than failing forward), it's more flexible (the consequences can be anything, not just taking 20 times as long to complete) and it opens the door to failing forward in other situations (e.g. the aforementioned climb down a cliff; you'll get to the bottom either way, failing just gets you there faster and more painfully)
And yeah, not every check needs to fail forward. Sometimes, it's fine to let a failure be a failure and force the players to try a different tack. But sometimes, they're going to want to try an approach until it works and fail forward, just like taking 20, allows for that
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find Paizo, for the most part, writes really good adventures for Pathfinder. Can you please give me an example where this occurred in a Paizo written Pathfinder adventure?
Sure thing, PFS Scenario #6-23 The Darkest Abduction. It's even worse than the rest as there's no check, you just have to follow NPC instructions to the next railroad station.
I know I have run into situations where the party fails the Perception or Survival check and has no idea where to go, but I haven't found the adventures to reference.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough but I think your definition of fail forward is the less common one
People will still argue that failing forward using my definition is still good game design and a good way to run a game.
I think it is different from the definition used by Jason when he mentioned the concept.
Here's hoping!
I don't see a meaningful difference between writing out an adventure beforehand in such a way vs modifying an adventure on the fly if such a situation arises.
I have no problem with improvising on the spot. I'm not very good at it. But I do it all the time and players often have a lot of fun when I do it.
Going back to your tracking example. Sure, your party with no real expertise in the skill eventually tracks down the enemy scout. Unfortunately, he succeeded in his mission in getting critical information back to the villain, who now knows exactly what the fools who are interfering in his plan look like and what their abilities are.
Sure. That's a classic "cost of failing but failing forward". But you could write the adventure so if that happens the players are affected in X way and they don't need to successfully track the expert tracker with their -1 tracking skill because 1) that doesn't make sense, and 2) the adventure continues even if they fail to track that expert tracker.
Also, not sure what the dwarf story added to the discussion. That solution can occur in any game, fail forward rules or no.In a fail forward game this is what happens.
Player: I go up to the guard and ask him to let us through.
GM: Roll a Persuasion check.
Player: I get a 2.
GM: He lets you through even though despite you failing the skill check. Scratch off 50 gp.
No amount of clever thinking is necessary. Because regardless of whether or not the players succeed in their approach to overcome an obstacle, fail forward means they'll always get to the next stage.
Let's take Oblivion Oath as an example. Meeting is in the sewers, you've been told it's there, there's a locked door in the way and you're after curfew. But the rogue is trained in Thievery, and thus can unlock it...eventually.
The point here is that without fail forward, there's nothing interesting happening here. You're going to succeed eventually, anyways, because it's a check that can theoretically be made. But "I stand there and take 20" is approximately as interesting as watching paint dry. So the question in this case isn't "can you make this check" but "can you make this check quickly enough to avoid consequences".
That isn't failing forward under the definition I've provided. That's introducing consequences for failing to succeed in a skill check. I've in favor of that.
You're not using the same definition as Paizo staff, then
I quoted the definition I was using in the very first post I made on this subject. You've decided I must be using a definition I've never read/heard.
They specifically gave their definition on how it's used
Not in the playtest core rules they didn't. Nor can I find the terms "failing forward", "fail forward" or "forward fail" in the Doomsday adventure.
If they have released their definition of failing forward in some podcast or youtube video then I haven't read it. I don't consume that type of media, and the presumption that I must consume that type of media in order to engage in a conversation about a tabletop RPG on a message board is ridiculous.
If you want to provide me with a link or details in the books on where they define failing forward in written text I'll be happy to read it. Otherwise if you're using some other definition then we don't really have anything further to discuss.
so if you insist on using a different one
I've been clear on the definition I was using. I can't help if you thought I was using some other definition.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That isn't failing forward under the definition I've provided. That's introducing consequences for failing to succeed in a skill check. I've in favor of that.
Except that's exactly what failing forward is. Introducing interesting consequences for failure instead of having the PCs roll the same skill check 10 times or take 20 or whatever.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No amount of clever thinking is necessary. Because regardless of whether or not the players succeed in their approach to overcome an obstacle, fail forward means they'll always get to the next stage....Player: I go up to the guard and ask him to let us through.
GM: Roll a Persuasion check.
Player: I get a 2.
GM: He lets you through even though despite you failing the skill check. Scratch off 50 gp.
That's not fail forward, that's bad GMing. If you roll a 2 on diplomacy to convince the guard, then that check fails. There's a ton of options the PCs could choose to take, of which bribery is one (along with sneaking in, etc.)
The GM saying "you failed but pay 50gp and go through" is not fail forwards, and is a case of the GM taking away player agency. I don't believe anyone in this thread is arguing for that, and if that's your definition of fail forwards, then I understand why you don't like it. I don't think that's what others mean when they argue for fail forwards, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that your definition isn't really consistent with how the phrase is used by people who actually design and play games like that. It's not really consistent with anything except an intentionally misconstrued caricature of the concept.
The definition I found was a google search. GMs of pathfinder and D&D also defend the definition I've provided. This isn't the first time I've been involved in a conversation where this definition was used.
I don't think anyone in this thread is going to argue that this imagined game design philosophy where the GM dictates the results of all actions and the players are prevented from making any decisions at all makes for good roleplaying.
That's not what I'm saying though. I can go into greater detail if you want, but I think I've beaten this horse quite a bit.
So what's the point of knowingly misconstruing someone else's point when arguing against it, especially when you yourself admit you're not even arguing against what they actually want, but something entirely different that you've arbitrarily and unilaterally decided to assign the same name?
I googled the failing forward definition. That is what google produced. That is the definition I've used in my all my posts on this subject. I am not deliberately misconstruing anything. I've been abundantly clear on the definition I'm using and when someone has described something that doesn't match that definition I've pointed it out and also provided my thoughts on what they've described (often I've said "that's good adventure design"). I don't see how I can be accused of deliberately misconstruing anything.
If you really think that's what I've spent the hours it's taken to make these posts, then I don't see how any further discussion is going to be constructive for anyone.
I find Paizo, for the most part, writes really good adventures for Pathfinder. Can you please give me an example where this occurred in a Paizo written Pathfinder adventure?Sure thing, PFS Scenario #6-23 The Darkest Abduction. It's even worse than the rest as there's no check, you just have to follow NPC instructions to the next railroad station.
Awesome! I had a feeling it was going to be a PFS adventure and I was really worried it was going to be one I didn't have access to (paying $4 just to discuss something on the internet isn't really that appealing). But I was still playing PFS when this came out and I have it. So let me reread it.
Okay, I've skimmed the first few pages. I'm not seeing where 1 failed skill check means that the adventure doesn't occur. Can you elaborate at all on how you think that could occur with this adventure?
[edit]: Just saw this wasn't about 1 skill check being required to START the adventure. Can you do me a favor and let me know which encounter has the entire adventure halt if 1 skill check is failed? I don't feel like reading the whole thing.
Except that's exactly what failing forward is.
If we can't agree on the definition of failing forward then there isn't any discussion we can have.
If the DC to unlock a door is 30 and the players roll an 11, do you have the door open as a result of that roll? Or do you give them the negative consequences (trap goes off with a reset time of 1 week) and then handwave all future rolls and simply narrate them trying again? Or do you have the door open and simply have a guard on the other end because "that's an interesting consequence of them failing"?
Based on your answers to the above scenario we either agree on the definition of failing forward or we don't agree.
[This] is a case of the GM taking away player agency.
On this we agree.
I don't believe anyone in this thread is arguing for that, and if that's your definition of fail forwards, then I understand why you don't like it. I don't think that's what others mean when they argue for fail forwards, though.
We'll see :) Perhaps no-one is using that definition and we can all just move on from this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the important part of Failing Forward is that the results of the die rolls have to have the potential to matter if F>F is going to work, regardless of the result. I was going to correct the typo of F.F., but I actually like F>F as a short hand for Failing Forward.
If success or failure isn't going to be particularly important and there isn't a need for a random result, then rolling is just for the nice noise it makes. If a random result is needed, just note it and move on, no need to dwell on minor issues.
If success or failure IS going to be important, then you have to ask yourself "Is this binary or not." "Do you know about X creature that is right in front of you" is an example of binary. If you do, great! Have some tactics. If you don't, oh well... no time to go to a library.
If success or failure is going to be important AND you need to know how well things are happening, that is when F>F is going to work out the best. In these situations a failed roll might mean that you succeed at your task, but you still do not achieve your goal.
As an example of that, say you just had a fight with the villain and now the building is on fire. The villain escapes and you roll Athletics to try and get out of the burning building and get after him. The Athletics roll is really just to get out of the building, but what you WANT is a chase scene so you can catch the fiend.
F>F on that Athletics roll could be that you get out safely enough, but that your quarry has escaped you, or that you start out the chase scene at a more pronounced disadvantage, or you get free and see your prey clearly but you are ON FIRE. A critical failure might mean that you get out while still on fire AND your prey has the advantage in the chase or is gone.
A bland result of "no, you failed" in that case isn't as interesting as the potential for further action and game play even though the dice say the same thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know the first time I recall them using it was in a video.
Found it! Timestamp 45:15 for full details.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The new 7th Sea RPG has a similar assumption and anybody who has read "Play Dirty" knows that John Wick isn't the kind of GM to let people off easy.
7th Sea assumes success (being a swashbuckling game), but the roll is there to see how many consequences you can buy off.
Navigating through a storm? The bare minimum success might mean you get through, but you've lost most of your crew, your cargo is damaged, you are off course and your crew resents how crazy you are for trying.
Better success rolls means that you can start chipping away at those consequences and you might wind up merely off course and a crew one step closer to mutiny because you might have killed them all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know the first time I recall them using it was in a video.
Found it! Timestamp 45:15 for full details.
Its really not reasonable to expect everyone to have seen that video. I don’t twitch or do social media, so I won’t typically see whatever they put there.
But given you’ve linked to it and given me a time stamp I’ll watch it this time. Thank you for finding it by the way.
At 46 mins there’s been no fail forward mechanic mentioned. He does say if there is no consequence for failing don’t ask for the skill check at the start. I agree wholeheartedly with that.
Okay, that’s pretty funny. Jason uses my tracking example. Although with orcs instead of an expert scout He’s pretty non- specific about details. It sounds like he might be using my definition of fail forward. But it is not THAT clear (the specific point is between 46:00 and 47:29 if you want to check on his definition).
Depending on the details I’m either going to have a terrible mechanic I need to ignore. Or good advice that I already follow. We will have to wait and see what the final rules say unless there exists a better quote from him.
I will find it amusing if Paizo end up using my definition of fail forward given how adamant everyone in this thread is that no game designer ever would. Although I really hope they don’t.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they have released their definition of failing forward in some podcast or youtube video then I haven't read it. I don't consume that type of media, and the presumption that I must consume that type of media in order to engage in a conversation about a tabletop RPG on a message board is ridiculous.
I've disagreed with you on a lot of things over the years, but on this I'll wholeheartedly agree with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know the first time I recall them using it was in a video.
Found it! Timestamp 45:15 for full details.
Its really not reasonable to expect everyone to have seen that video. I don’t twitch or do social media, so I won’t typically see whatever they put there.
But given you’ve linked to it and given me a time stamp I’ll watch it this time. Thank you for finding it by the way.
At 46 mins there’s been no fail forward mechanic mentioned. He does say if there is no consequence for failing don’t ask for the skill check at the start. I agree wholeheartedly with that.
Okay, that’s pretty funny. Jason uses my tracking example. Although with orcs instead of an expert tracker. He’s pretty non- specific about details. It sounds like he might be using my definition of fail forward. But it is not clear AT ALL (the specific point is between 46:00 and 47:29 if you want to check on his definition).
Depending on the details I’m either going to have a terrible mechanic I need to ignore. Or good advice that I already follow. We will have to wait and see what the final rules say unless there exists a better quote from him.
I will find it amusing if Paizo end up using my definition of fail forward given how adamant everyone in this thread is that no game designer ever would. Although I really hope they don’t.
Well, he also specifically mentions how your example doesn't apply.
"And just calling for a check like 'Oh, they need to swim across this river and they're not going to fail, and they're not going to drown, so why am I even asking them to make a check if they fail it and I'm just going to handwave them across'".
That's your definition in a nutshell.
And I think that it's required given this is part of the original discussion:
No need to get narky Malk content.
I don’t think a rule in an adventure is really indicative of how Paizo are planning to handle skill failures in the new edition. Especially when the core rules contradict that paradigm.
As for making rolls count. Good to hear you don’t always allow rolls (it seems to contradict what you said earlier. But, whatever).
[EDIT]: Just read those guidelines in context. Trying to extrapolate a fail forward mindset for the new edition from that adventure is drawing a very long bow.
Except this is exactly what they've said they are doing moving forward. Jason has talked about this during several interviews and games he's run. I believe it was mentioned in the recent Glass Cannon games from Paizo con, and probably Oblivion Oath as well.
I'm not sure if it's going to be reflected in the CRB per se, but it is definitely something they are going to use when designing adventures. So you would look at adventures (such as Doomsday Dawn, or the upcoming Fall of Plaguestone or Age of Ashes) for evidence of how it works in practice.
I bolded the important section. Not doing so is having a discussion based on information you don't have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"And just calling for a check like 'Oh, they need to swim across this river and they're not going to fail, and they're not going to drown, so why am I even asking them to make a check if they fail it and I'm just going to handwave them across'".
That's your definition in a nutshell.
Well it depends on your interpretation. Which is why I said it's not clear.
That's why I stuck with the orc tracking example. It's a bit clearer (but still not completely clear on the definition being used for failing forward). If you feel there's a different interpretation to Jason's river crossing problem feel free to post it.
And I think that it's required
I am going to point blank say this. I refuse to watch I don't know how many episodes of Oblivion Oath. Nor am I going to listen to all of the recent podcasts of Glass Cannon games (which I think are also recordings of Pathfinder games?). Finding that stuff entertaining makes zero sense to me. Just like my niece watching children play with toys she owns on youtube also makes zero sense to me. I'm not going to do it.
Post the definition your using when you use the term failing forward, use my definition or simply don't engage with me on this topic. The choice is yours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using Jason's example of the outriders as Failing Forward, motive matters a whole lot and it ties in to the idea of preparing situations instead of plots.
A plot based GM wants the party to find the outriders because they have to save the captives so they can earn the trust of an important NPC who gives them the next adventure and the party doesn't really have a choice in what happens. They are going to find the orcs because the GM says so and they are going to save the captives because that is what has been plotted out.
I think that is the failing Forward John Lynch is arguing against and if so, then I agree.
A situation based GM wants the party to find the outriders because the events led up to it, he wrote their stats up, made the lego figures all special for the evening and set up an encounter to entertain his friends. Part of the game is to not waste the GMs time as much as it is for the GM to not waste the players time.
However, the outcome is not as scripted as the plot based GM. All sorts of things could still go wrong and failure on key rolls can drastically affect how things happen! Finding the orcs becomes a variable crossroad, or decision tree with branching outcomes and not just a straight line to the next event.
That is where a fail forward philosophy is valuable. Not to drag people around by their nose, but to leave things open to change while still being able to use the material you've worked on.
That is where a fail forward philosophy is valuable. Not to drag people around by their nose, but to leave things open to change while still being able to use the material you've worked on.
I've prepped adventures before and had a lot of that preparation wasted because of how the players approached the problem. It taught me how to better prep adventures rather then how to remove player agency.
The problem with the outriders is Jason actually gives no real detail so we don't understand fully how failing forward works in his example. He says the PCs will always find the orcs. He doesn't say why. Is it because they're taking no effort to hide their tracks?
Like. Here's one possible explanation. The orcs have been travelling to and from their hideout for weeks. There are lots of tracks leading to the hideout. The PCs are trying to follow the most recent tracks, but they fail the roll and accidentally follow the wrong tracks. The tracks still lead back to the hideout. They just take longer/take a different approach which means they got shot at by the orc guards.
That's an example of good adventure design.
Here's another explanation: The orcs have been following a single path to their hideout. They've been taking great effort to hide their tracks. The players fail to follow the tracks and end up going along a game trail. Because the GM doesn't want to waste their prep they use GM fiat to say that this game trail ALSO leads to the orc hideout. Because we're too lazy to provide multiple avenues to get the PCs onto the rest of the adventure*.
That's an example of terrible adventure design.
I don't know which one Jason is using in his example. I won't know until I start reading PF2e adventures and the GM guidelines unless someone can help clarify which of the above examples (or any other example I haven't listed) Jason is using when he talks about "fail forward" game design.
*I've never actually seen Paizo use this level of laziness in a PF1e AP or stand alone module.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer all rolls in the open with no fudging, but I reject the idea that if you fudge rolls there is no player agency (or that "the dice don't matter"). There's nearly always a caveat or limitation when people say they like fudging and it's kind of a strawman argument to imply that if you fudge rolls you may as well make up the story whole cloth. There's degrees to just about any position.
I've seen people say they don't fudge rolls unless a PC is about to die doing something entirely in character and appropriate - a game under that aegis is identical to a "roll in the open, fudge nothing game" 99% of the time.
In terms of failing forward, I'm pretty sure I'm against* but it makes sense to me if you're running an AP or something and want to progress the plot within pretty tight parameters. Presumably it will be as easy to adopt or reject in PF2 as it is in PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main problem with Jason's explanation is that it is sort of off the cuff and has to be brief, which is going to hurt clarity and final intent. I'm willing to give him the benefit of that doubt though. I think PF2 is going to be more GM tools to move the game along and not so much hard coded "you can't actually fail" laws.
Here's another explanation: The orcs have been following a single path to their hideout. They've been taking great effort to hide their tracks. The players fail to follow the tracks and end up going along a game trail. Because the GM doesn't want to waste their prep they use GM fiat to say that this game trail ALSO leads to the orc hideout. Because we're too lazy to provide multiple avenues to get the PCs onto the rest of the adventure*.
I'm going to piggy back off of that for a moment, just because the discussion is fun. Not actually arguing.
Here's another explanation: The orcs have been following a single path to their hideout. They've been taking great effort to hide their tracks. The players fail to follow the tracks and end up going along a game trail. Because the GM doesn't want to waste their prep they say that this game trail has orc hunters looking for game to bring back to camp.
Or the players draw the attention of a random encounter, which alerts the orcs.
I think we largely agree though, or at least are facing the same direction.
Bad failing forward is situation A leads to situation B no matter what and a GM has to work hard to make that look organic. The overly convenient game trail is a fine example. Players are likely to roll their eyes and say "Well that is lucky."
Good failing forward is one of two things.
1) You get what you want, but not the way you want it. You find the orc hide out, but through circumstances the orcs have advantage. This is the simplest one and might be the easiest to put into a published adventure. It is a simple "If x then y, but if not x then z" situation.
2) You don't get what you want... yet. You fail to track the orcs, BUT there are opportunities to get back on track that make sense for the situation and the game moves along instead of grinding to a halt while the players search for the right pixel to click. "If x then y, but if not x then select from range of options which should work back to y eventually. It might be a z by the time you get there, though"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never had my enjoyment of a game increase by someone fudging rolls. I have always had my enjoyment immediately diminished when I catch someone fudging rolls. So yes, I can say I am categorically against fudging dice.
The main problem with Jason's explanation is that it is sort of off the cuff and has to be brief, which is going to hurt clarity and final intent. I'm willing to give him the benefit of that doubt though. I think PF2 is going to be more GM tools to move the game along and not so much hard coded "you can't actually fail" laws.
PF1e always had multiple ways to reach an end goal (which is effectively what you are describing). So I disagree with the idea that PF2 including this is a new tool.
I also disagree this is failing forward. D&D 4th ed’s DMG2 has failing forward as I’ve defined it for those who want to claim no game designer would ever use my definition(they don’t call it failing forward but outline the definition I’m using). I can provide the page number if anyone wants to look it up.
What about an example like this... It's a bit off from what's been discussed in the thread but it's something I occasionally do.
The PC needs to jump over a 20ft wide pit. In PF1 this would be a DC20 Acrobatics to make it clear across. I wouldn't say this chasm is mandatory or anything, but say the PC needs to cross it to escape from a band of Goblins chasing him and also reach the next part of the dungeon - so it looks like the only way ahead at the moment.
They roll Acrobatics and it's.. a 18. The PC falls into the pit. Once down there he is able to find a secret tunnel leading to the lower level of the dungeon, some caves. (form how the adventure was designed). The PC will be hurt but safe for now, but will still have to figure out a way to deal with the goblins and get to the other side of the pit. He failed and probably would have died right there in many adventures, but this time there's a way to continue, even if obviously a lot more complex.
If it wasn't for the goblins chasing him, he could have used ropes or pitons to overcome his low Acrobatics mod, but he made the choice to try the jump, failed and must now deal with "a lesser" punishment, but at least a fun one.
Yes. Multiple avenues of success is a good thing. Quite notably, he didn’t get to acrobatics his way to the other side. That failed. Now he has to find a new approach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Multiple avenues of success is a good thing. Quite notably, he didn’t get to acrobatics his way to the other side. That failed. Now he has to find a new approach.
Yeah, a new approach, but the adventure accounted for this possibly failing and put an alternative specifically in case the PCs failed to cross it by whatever reason.
The examples so far in this thread have been really "brute force", but this is how I imagine it could be done discretely. A new thing opens up as a result of failure which would otherwise not come up.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Creating another avenue for the player to get where they want to be in case they fail to get there in the most direct way which is no longer available is practically the definition of "failing forward."
Like we allow the players to fail forward in a river crossing by figuring out where they wash up downstream, what's there, and what new obstacles they need to traverse in order to get back on track. Our whole objective is to move the experience forward a la "okay you're done with that, let's do a different thing" not to keep the PCs on a critical path towards their objective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That’s not the definition I’ve been using, nor (potentially) the definition Jason used in the video. If this is the definition your using with fail forward, rather then the one I’ve clearly defined, then we have nothing further to discuss (until the rules come out with fail forward guidelines).
Well, for the easiest example on something that must be done - Iron Gods.
1) Bust down the ceiling with 15 hardness, 90 HP - at level 3 - and then climb up. For a good number of groups, this will be basically impossible. For those that can, it'll still be intensely time-consuming and uninteresting.
2) Fix the elevator with a DC 25 Craft (metalworking), taking a -5 if you don't have Technologist.
If you cannot do either of these two, the adventure really doesn't progress. How they solve it is that there's a NPC who can fix the elevator who you have to save, so it's a "if you can't do it you get bailed out".
For maybe one of the earliest fail-forward checks in Pathfinder, look no further than Curse of the Crimson Throne.
Well, for the easiest example on something that must be done - Iron Gods. ** spoiler omitted **
For maybe one of the earliest fail-forward checks in Pathfinder, look no further than Curse of the Crimson Throne. ** spoiler omitted **
In the second example you don’t need to make a check. If you decide not to use stealth or subterfuge then no check is required. Using stealth or subterfuge are options, but not requirements. Perhaps the PCs will think of a third alternative that doesn’t include any skill check.
The Iron Gods example isn’t great adventure design. Throw the NPC at it is often unenjoyable as a player. I guess even Paizo get it wrong sometimes. I don’t think they’re going to suddenly say “This is great adventure design. We’re going to put loads of these situations in our adventures for PF2e.”
If this is the definition your using with fail forward, rather then the one I’ve clearly defined.That you've clearly defined your weird usage of the term is kind of immaterial.
I can tell everyone that water is actually mayonnaise, that doesn't mean I won't get skeptical looks, confusion and disagreement when I start talking about spreading water on a sandwich or making water out of egg yolks, oil and lemon juice.
You realise I googled the definition right? I even went and dig out my 4th ed books to find an RPG that uses that design philosophy. If you don’t like the definition you don’t need to engage in the conversation with me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This might ramble a bit. My apologies.
PF1e always had multiple ways to reach an end goal (which is effectively what you are describing). So I disagree with the idea that PF2 including this is a new tool.
I didn't say it was a new tool. I said that I think PF2 is going to be more GM tools, meaning advice and ways to facilitate gaming, and not so much hard coded "you can't actually fail" laws, meaning dictates in the rulebooks that tell GMs they have to explain failed die rolls as successes.
I also disagree this is failing forward. D&D 4th ed’s DMG2 has failing forward as I’ve defined it
I've never read what D&D 4th has to say on the topic. 4th edition didn't even invent the phrase. It is from a year 2000 motivational book encouraging people to allow their mistakes and errors to drive forward development.
If 4th edition D&D defines failing forward as you do (I trust it does, I'm not going to check), then it is a bad definition and from what I've seen on the topic things have moved on.
Failing Forward isn't always about success. It is just about a mindset intended to keep the game moving. It isn't always the solution needed or course, sometimes a locked door is just a locked door.
However, if that locked door is important or if the failure has the chance to be exciting or dramatic, then even a roll that doesn't meet the DC should trigger something that drives the game forward and creates new opportunities.
When the answer to "do I succeed" is a simple "no," that doesn't always add anything. All fail forward means is to encourage "do I succeed" to be answered by "no, but..." or "yes, but..." or something else that helps inspire motion in the game.
Unless the players take initiative and start making moves to correct the situation themselves. If they are driving the game forward and doing your work for you, why get in their way?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You realise I googled the definition right?So did I. First result talks about the idea that failure "should not stop the action" and "should have interesting consequences" in its headliner. The meat of the article talks about not wasting peoples time by having them just chain roll things until someone succeeds, especially if there's no meaningful failure state.
Nothing about stripping players of their agency, having the GM dictate the flow of events in their entirety, refusing players alternative courses of action or any of that. Weird.
If you don’t like the definition you don’t need to engage in the conversation with me.Well, yeah, I'm sure you'd enjoy it immensely if people with different opinions would shut up and go away, but as long as you continue to engage in this I don't see why I should stop challenging your use of terminology either. If you don't like people offering up different perspectives or disagreeing with you, you can stop engaging too.
I’m not going to argue with you for the sake for the sake of arguing. If you want to post the article your linking to you are welcome to.
For reference here is a page that describes fail forward as I’ve used it. If you don’t want to read it here is the relevant point
Failing forward is the idea that you still get to unlock the door on a failed roll, but it comes at a cost. So you get into the house, but you startle a cook who screams.
In this example it’s implied that had the disable device/thievery check not failed, there would have been no cook to scream. But because the check failed a cook was on the other side. That is the sort of nonsense I am strongly opposed to.
In the second example you don’t need to make a check. If you decide not to use stealth or subterfuge then no check is required. Using stealth or subterfuge are options, but not requirements. Perhaps the PCs will think of a third alternative that doesn’t include any skill check.
If you decide to use neither and barge your way in, then you automatically fail that check. If you find some way around it, then sure.
That is 100% a fail-forward usage, in the second AP existing. It's not something you're ever going to fail, as getting past watching neighbours and breaking down a door with chairs behind it is not something a PC group can really fail at, but failure at the associated checks makes life harder for you in the long run.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This might ramble a bit. My apologies.
PF1e always had multiple ways to reach an end goal (which is effectively what you are describing). So I disagree with the idea that PF2 including this is a new tool.I didn't say it was a new tool. I said that I think PF2 is going to be more GM tools, meaning advice and ways to facilitate gaming, and not so much hard coded "you can't actually fail" laws, meaning dictates in the rulebooks that tell GMs they have to explain failed die rolls as successes.
I also disagree this is failing forward. D&D 4th ed’s DMG2 has failing forward as I’ve defined itI've never read what D&D 4th has to say on the topic. 4th edition didn't even invent the phrase. It is from a year 2000 motivational book encouraging people to allow their mistakes and errors to drive forward development.
If 4th edition D&D defines failing forward as you do (I trust it does, I'm not going to check), then it is a bad definition and from what I've seen on the topic things have moved on.
Failing Forward isn't always about success. It is just about a mindset intended to keep the game moving. It isn't always the solution needed or course, sometimes a locked door is just a locked door.
However, if that locked door is important or if the failure has the chance to be exciting or dramatic, then even a roll that doesn't meet the DC should trigger something that drives the game forward and creates new opportunities.
When the answer to "do I succeed" is a simple "no," that doesn't always add anything. All fail forward means is to encourage "do I succeed" to be answered by "no, but..." or "yes, but..." or something else that helps inspire motion in the game.
Unless the players take initiative and start making moves to correct the situation themselves. If they are driving the game forward and doing your work for you, why get in their way?
1. No worries on PF1e vs PF2e.
2. I didn’t think 4th Ed invented failing forward. It was claimed the definition I used wouldn’t be in an RPG. I simply confirmed not only was it in an RPG, but it was in the biggest RPG on the market (or at least one edition of it).3. Going into “yes, and...” or “yes, but...” and how certain segments of the RPG community have misused the phrase is not only off topic for this thread, but off topic for this forum.
Here’s a clue as to where I sit. If your one of those people who think there are no bad ideas, then suffice it to say we probably disagree on how we approach RPGs. If you really need an example to demonstrate how bad ideas really do exist, ask me to PM you.
In the second example you don’t need to make a check. If you decide not to use stealth or subterfuge then no check is required. Using stealth or subterfuge are options, but not requirements. Perhaps the PCs will think of a third alternative that doesn’t include any skill check.If you decide to use neither and barge your way in, then you automatically fail that check. If you find some way around it, then sure.
** spoiler omitted **
That is 100% a fail-forward usage, in the second AP existing. It's not something you're ever going to fail, as getting past watching neighbours and breaking down a door with chairs behind it is not something a PC group can really fail at, but failure at the associated checks makes life harder for you in the long run.
I have no problem with what your describing. The check wasn’t to see if you reach her. The check was to see if you reach her without being detected. You fail to reach her without being detected. That’s a fail.
If you want to call the above example failing forward I won’t/can’t stop you.
In the second example you don’t need to make a check. If you decide not to use stealth or subterfuge then no check is required. Using stealth or subterfuge are options, but not requirements. Perhaps the PCs will think of a third alternative that doesn’t include any skill check.If you decide to use neither and barge your way in, then you automatically fail that check. If you find some way around it, then sure.
** spoiler omitted **
That is 100% a fail-forward usage, in the second AP existing. It's not something you're ever going to fail, as getting past watching neighbours and breaking down a door with chairs behind it is not something a PC group can really fail at, but failure at the associated checks makes life harder for you in the long run.
I have no problem with what your describing. The check wasn’t to see if you reach her. The check was to see if you reach her without being detected. You fail to reach her without being detected. That’s a fail.
If you want to call the above example failing forward I won’t/can’t stop you.
So...the same as Jason uses for the orc example? If you define success as a proper tracking at normal speed where you're going in the right direction, then "I ended up on the wrong side of the valley" is a failure.
Or in Mirrored Moon, where "getting your allies to help you" is considered a success, so the chart is basically:
Crit Failure: The encounter runs as-is. The encounter is virtually impossible.
Failure: The group’s allies draw off two of the cultists. It’s an extreme encounter.
Success: Allies remove all mummy retainers and two cultists. This is a severe encounter.
(Add on that Failure or worse also means that there's an additional encounter before that, draining your resources even more.)
It's still doable, but the additional consequences from failing those skill checks might get you killed.