Fucking failing forward

>>48163769
I mean, every instance of failing forward I've personally seen has been for the sake of hilarity.

>>48163769
Man, you guys need to filter out all this internet culture bullshit of memes, that guys, sjw's, meta-gaming, etc, etc.

When I played AD&D, we had a core group, and a rotating cast of players for 6-7 years. Not one single time ever did we have any of the problems I'm always reading about on here. Choose your friends wisely, focus on having fun, don't take it too seriously. Seems like /tg/ has forgotten the basic principles of sucessful gaming.

>>48163769
>"every failure must secretly benefit the PCs because otherwise they'll get sad and quit the hobby."
Who actually does this and if anyone actually does, why is letting the game grind to a halt because they players didn't roll well enough an acceptable alternative?

>>48163769
So you completely don't understand what "failing forward" actually means? Glad your campaigns end the first time the party fucks up. Doubly glad you're not my DM.

>>48163769
>waaaah I can't hold my players' attention

I don't even know what "failing forward" entails but this was the most bitter, asshurt post I've read in a while

>>48163769

You've made the mistake of assuming that "forward' is in reference to the ambitions of the PC rather than the movement of the story.

>PC fails to unlock the door
>Doing so sets off an alarm
>PC's are now embattled as they try to find another way in

The above in no way "benefits" the PC's in that their life is made easier. But it is "failing forward' because, despite being unable to unlock the door, the story moves forward.

But all this assumes that you aren't just a hyper-aggressive troll who is only looking to spew vitrol while engaging in blatantly unhelpful generalizations for the mere purpose of argumentative confrontation.

File: 1310483412100.jpg (34KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 413x395px

>>48163769
This isn't your blog, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and you can't really stop anyone from doing the thing you hate.

You're just whining to whine, so eat shit and shut the fuck up.

>>48163898
It means that if the players fuck up the story still moves forward somehow.

It's to combat the habit some DMs have of just stonewalling the party at an obstacle until they beat it. Instead of having the party sit for an hour trying over and over to unlock a door you eventually have their attempts lead to *something.*

Maybe the barbarian critically fails a check to smash it open. He knocks the door open but his foot also gets caught in the door, or maybe he takes a nasty injury. Maybe their effort attracts the wrong kind of attention and they get chased deeper into the dungeon by hostiles.

Just so long as you keep the game from getting stuck on a single locked door.

>>48163769
No mate.

Failing should still advance the game, but not in the direction the party wanted.

>>48163769
You do not even know what you are talking about, what you described is not falling forward. Falling forward means avoiding situations in which players are led to a dead end by dice rolls. Example.
>players must get into the innermost part of the castle of EvilMcBaddie, the resident villain
>they however fail in sneaking in the front door, as the lock won't budge. Not only, but a patrol of guards finds them
>they kill the patrol, avoiding getting their presence known to the rest of the guards, and on the dy of one of them find a key which opens, as they will figure out on their own, a passage from the stables to the part of the castle they need to reach, a door they noticed earlier while sneaking around.
There. The characters failed, got things rougher for them and are forced to take anoher route, however their failure didn't lead to a dead end in which they aimlessly sit on their thumbs for 30 minutes trying to think of a solution that is not "the wizard casts X" because you gave them no other inputs.

File: kirk smirk.gif (797KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

797KB, 320x240px

Captain's Log, stardate 201607071227.22. Today, OP was a stupid faggot, and /tg/ laughed at him. When will the OPs learn?

>>48163898
"Failing Forward" basically sprung up out of Dungeon World. Essentially, instead of a pass/fail binary it turns things into a pass spectrum where you theoretically always succeed on rolls but depending on how badly you rolled you can still get screwed.

>>48163769
You are a retard.

Failing forward doesn't mean "advancing one's agenda despite failing".

Failing forward means maintaining a smooth flow of narrative. Failing forward means having a plot hook ready in case you fail. It means that there's always SOMETHING to do in case you fail at going down the railroad.

Whoops, didn't kill the BBEG in time? Well, you can try thwart his plans instead.
Whoops, didn't manage to thwart them? Well, you can try to limit its destruction potential.
Whoops, didn't manage to limit its destruction potential? You can try to ensure that there will be heroes that will come after your death and try to fix your shit.

>>48163769
Failing forward is necessary. It just means that failure doesn't grind things to a halt.
>boohoo sometimes you can't win
That's fine. Punish the players however you want. Inflict harsh consequences on them. Just don't shut things down because players failed a roll.

>>48163896
>>48163911
>>48164060
Thank fucking God /tg/ isn't retarded.

OP, go fuck yourself.

>>48164015
I prefer Fate's terminology, "Succeed, at a cost." It's what heist movies do all the time.

You botch a roll to crack a safe, say. Instead of, "No, you can't open it" or "Go ahead and try again" it can be, "You realize the safe you expected has been replaced with the latest model. You can crack it, but it's going to take twice as long as the guards are making their rounds! How do you improvise?"

Any competent GM will recognize this as, "That thing I do already."

>>48163870
That's likely because people bitch about shit that doesn't matter on here, and overblow things to make them sound far worse then they are.

>>48163769
Nah. This isn't a real problem. Just run a good campaign, and no one will give a shit.

File: 1378000956757.gif (2MB, 352x263px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 352x263px

Failing Forward is a catchy term for a basic game master technique developed long ago known as "defining failure". Only difference is that it is now hailed as a revolutionary narrative tool that has nothing to do with those cruddy oldschool trash games.

>>48164109
>Any competent GM will recognize this as, "That thing I do already."
I would phrase it as advice from experienced GMs to inexperienced GMs.

It is a thing that good experienced GMs have learned to do, but letting others benefit from your experience isn't a bad thing.

>>48163870
Yeah. I've been playing since 2nd edition and it's never been like this Internet nightmare /tg/ fears

>>48163870
90% of the time it's a thing, either a good idea or realistic problem, taken to an extreme and said stupidly.
Either by /tg/ or by the people /tg/ is reacting to, and then /tg/ reacts by either only considering the extreme case or making extremes in return.

/tg/ doesn't play games.

>>48164257
More news at eleven.

>>48163888
There is a difference between "grind to a halt" and having to come up with a new plan. It forces players to think on their feet, sometimes make snap decisions when a portion of a larger plan doesn't work out. It adds interest and tension to the narrative.

>>48164015

Well, it's been around in the indie circle longer than that, but DW popularized it, as it appealed to a much wider audience than Apocalypse World.

>>48164305
Yeah, that's what failing forward actually is.

>>48164305
and there is a difference between 'secretly benefiting the player', and 'advancing the story rather than causing the players to attempt the same problem again'.

The second thing has actually been a problem in a campaign I'm currently in. It's overall a good campaign, but sometimes the dice have fucked us, and that's okay, but the GM has typically had it just result in a reset with one possible solution crossed off.
Which has been okay sometimes, but has lead to some serious frustration sometimes. Too the point that the GM has recognized that a section wasn't very good because we felt stuck and railroaded.
And in that case was actually solved by 'failing forward', because he introduced another quest we needed to do just to recover, during the course of which we met an npc we could ally with who could provide us a new option which could let us advance to the next part of the previous quest.

This took time, which meant the bad stuff advanced, set us off course which means we lost that thread of the main quest, and in other ways set us back overall, but it got us out of being stuck, which was the problem as a game.

>>48163911
>Doing so sets off an alarm

Except that doesn't happen every time, faggot. Sometimes the door just doesn't open and the PCs can try something else. Not everything needs to be a goddamn high octane adventure. This is the problem that all the Call of Duty games my little cousin plays, has. I watched him play for 15 minutes and fucking nothing happens that isn't immediately followed by a goddamn explosion and firefight.

>>48163993
>You do not even know what you are talking about, what you described is not falling forward.

I know that, mongloid, I am talking about the definition that Reddit and /tg/ have skewed it to, which is "rule of cool suck the players' dicks"

>>48164086

You go fuck yourself, you present no counterargument.

>>48164400
>but DW popularized it, as it appealed to a much wider audience than Apocalypse World.

You mean the audience of cancer that won't play anything that isn't high fantasy degenerate garbage, and dismisses AW because it has sex in it? Yeah, that's what I thought.

>>48163870
Jesus Christ, THIS.
What kind of fucking pussy can't just tell a problem player and problem GM to just fuck off to somewhere else so the reasonable people can stay and have fun?

>>48164536
>/tg/ have skewed it to, which is "rule of cool suck the players' dicks"
when did this happen outside of people complaining that it's a terrible thing because they didn't understand it and took it to extremes?

>>48163769

>IIT:
>OP bitches about a GMing technique incompatible with sandbox games but utterly necessary in railroad games
>All of /tg/, assuming railroad is how to RPG, descends on OP and cries faggot

TIL /tg/ doesn't know how to /tg/.

>>48164581
>TIL

What did he mean by this?

>>48164551
>You mean the audience of cancer that won't play anything that isn't high fantasy degenerate garbage, and dismisses AW because it has sex in it?

Yeah, I suppose you could phrase it that way, if you were super butthurt.
The authors said they intended to make D&D for the indie crowd, but wound up with Apocalypse World for the D&D crowd.

>>48164581

>Failing forward
>railroading

Those are two entirely separate things. In the example of * World games, the GM is explicitly instructed NOT to "build a plot" or railroad anything.

>>48164581
>OP bitches about a GMing technique incompatible with sandbox games

What. Both AW and DW are built for sandbox and expressly state that they are not good if you just "want to tell your story".

>>48164573
>What kind of fucking pussy can't just tell a problem player and problem GM to just fuck off to somewhere else so the reasonable people can stay and have fun?

Because sometimes that person does not have the social capital required to eject the person from the group, or real life friendships are involved, or the group agrees with the that guy even though that guy is still fucking them over. Either way, none of that has anything to do with OP's statement.

>>48164536
>I am talking about the definition that Reddit and /tg/ have skewed it to, which is "rule of cool suck the players' dicks"
Looking at nearly every response in this thread it seems like /tg/ hasn't skewed in the direction of you internet boogeyman at all and you're grasping at straws looking for reasons to be mad.

>>48164578
>when did this happen outside of people complaining that it's a terrible thing because they didn't understand it and took it to extremes?

That is exactly my complaint, that people skewed it to extremes and now shill it as the best way to play.

>>48164627
>The authors said they intended to make D&D for the indie crowd, but wound up with Apocalypse World for the D&D crowd.

D&D for the indie crowd would be like Burning Wheel or Warrior Rogue and Mage. Apocalypse World isn't a fucking indie game in terms of hipsters, it was obscure as fuck and that was fine. It was only once hipsters started shoving Dungeon World into our faces and complaining about literally everything about roleplaying games that they didn't understand, and starting fucking blogs with their patreons attached to whine about roleplaying being done wrong.

90% of this shit is a strawman against D&D 3.5 which no one even plays anymore. All of the reasons to play Dungeon World ignore every other game out there. The PbtA mechanics contribute nothing; plebs just see it as a "rules-light" alternative to D&D and thus they don't even scratch the surface of what makes Apocalypse World good.

>>48164536
>You go fuck yourself, you present no counterargument.
He's agreeing with the people saying you're full of shit.

>>48164621
>IIT:
What did he mean by this?

File: tropic_thunder_-1.jpg (487KB, 1559x914px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 1559x914px

>>48164688

You just went full virt, OP.

>>48164688
> that people skewed it to extremes and now shill it as the best way to play.
and what I'm saying is that the only times I've seen it skewed to the extreme has been by critics, not proponents.

And stop using the term shill to refer to people who aren't being payed, but just buy into something as good. No matter how foolish their buy in is.

>>48164734
>>48164621
>What did he mean by this?

What did he mean by this?

>>48164688
Are other people ruining your hobby, OP?

>>48164734
In This Thread.
It's a commonly used term. TIL isn't.

>>48164787
>>What did he mean by this?
>What did he mean by this?
What did he mean by this?

>>48164793
Oooooooooh "ITT", not IIT!

>>48163769
Is this the way people ask for a concept to be explained now? They shout angrily about a vague notion they only know a little bit about, knowing that the masses of 4chan will angrily correct them and educated them in the process?

I would love to implement failing forward, but I play dnd. There are so many combat rolls that the players miss, I would be advised of bias if I tried to introduce fumbles

>>48164901
Everybody knows that in order to be taken seriously you've got to prove that you're the angriest gamer on the internet.

Either that or it's just bait. Who knows?

>>48164923
Generally failing forward would come into play with non-combat rolls. It's not like you can let your party keep hammering away on a door they need to get through or you might as well have not put it there in the first place, so instead you make an extra but less advantageous path. The only way this concept applies to combat is after it has ended and they have not won (or failed some objective within the combat like protecting an NPC). Rather than killing them or hitting them with an irl "game over" screen you find some alternative path that puts them at a disadvantage for failing.

Fumbles are an entirely separate concept.

>>48163769
Removing my namefagging right after this post...

Why have rolls that literally don't have any effect? When I fail at something, there's often an outcome either way.

Heck, I am playing Star Wars Saga one of my houserules is that characters can aim for something else than a 10 to help out. 10 gives a +2 on a success. 15 > +3, 20 > +4 and so on. If you aim for anything over 10, failing by 5 means you hinder instead of helping.

In the same way, a lot of rolls have "miss by 5+: negative effect" and "hit by 5+: positive effect". A binary hit/miss is really boring.

>>48164621
Today I Learned

IIT is probably supposed to be ITT.

>>48164974
What's a fumble?

>>48165027
Crit fails, botches, natural 1s, that kind of thing.

The worst thing about modern gaming is that you're not allowed to fail, because failing would kill the story the GM has created. Unless failing was what was supposed to happen all along, then you can't win.

Also, fuck being kept alive by GM fiat over and over.

>>48165131
>modern gaming

Bad DMs have been doing that since the 80s. That has nothing to do with modern gaming, it's just plain old railroading.

>>48165027
Like the other poster said they're the consequences for critical failures during attack rolls. They can range from dropping your weapon or falling prone all the way up to sudden death by accidentally falling on your sword. My DM is a shit head who likes to use crit tables so combat has become annoyingly deadly thanks to fumbles. He wonders why we don't like role playing in the game when he kills off our characters like a smug fuck every time we enter combat.

>>48165131
In addition to what >>48165176 said, who plays with randoms enough that anything you're complaining about actually becomes a problem? Do you people complaining about this shit seriously not have a group of friends or regular players that you actually enjoy gaming with?

>>48164974
An interesting variant of this is "not winning combat hard enough". For example, you may have won, but you took too long and the evil vizier got away because you were trying to play it safe. Depending on how safe you played it, he may have had time to empty his coffers, and/or leave a nasty surprise. Alerting and drawing in other enemies is another classic.

>>48165245
No, they do not.
At most, they get into a group, disrupt it or are generally not terribly fun to play with and are dumped.

>>48164788
>Are other people ruining your hobby, OP?

Yes. And it is my fervent hope that they die in car accidents post haste.

>>48165131
>Also, fuck being kept alive by GM fiat over and over.

This. It happens at the Adventurer's League game I play. I literally do retarded shit so that I can die over and over and get new 'dark gifts" to make myself more powerful. Dying is literally a good strategy.

>>48164257
Does Roll20 count? Because if so, I do.

>>48165245
>who plays with randoms enough that anything you're complaining about actually becomes a problem? Do you people complaining about this shit seriously not have a group of friends or regular players that you actually enjoy gaming with?
You have to remember that most of the complaint threads on /tg/ are made in the hypothetical, by people who have either never played an RPG in the presence of other humans, or by people who have been shunned by other players and responded by assuring themselves that everyone else is the problem.

File: comic-2006-07-zenkai-full.jpg (435KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 1000x800px

>>48164901
The internet has worked in this way for quite a while.

>>48165322
play games that don't reward retarded shit.

>>48167225

Adventurer's League is pure cancer, it's no wonder OP plays that. One of the rules is that you can't get kicked out of a game, so it's a haven for retarded That Guys like him who would be thrown out of anywhere else.
AL is an attempt to recreate the kind of multi-DM world thing that Gygax and Arneson and friends used to run back in the early days, but it's all corporate and terrible. You KNOW Gygax would kick a motherfucker out for being an asshole.

>>48163769
Aggressively using failing forward is terrible, but this isn't why.

It's bad because it cuts many elements of planning and risk assessment out of the game. For a player who doesn't think actions through or a DM who puts a pass/fail skill check right in the middle of a progress bottleneck, it's a really useful tool. But for a player who plans and carefully thinks about the actions of his consequences, it's incredibly confining and feels like railroading.

>>48167419
>But for a player who plans and carefully thinks about the actions of his consequences, it's incredibly confining and feels like railroading.

I don't get it. If you're trying to crack the evil mastermind's warehouse door's security and succeed, you get inside and do an investigation session looking for clues. If you fail, some security guys come around the corner and shine flashlights in your eyes, and now it's an escape from the local police chase session.
How is that like railroading?

>>48167555
Because a smart player checks for nearby guards before he tries to open the door. And checks for alarms. And then the GM, with his failing forward philosophy, pulls some other bullshit out of his ass anyways.

It's a big red narrative override button that the GM is encouraged to press as often as possible. Too bad the players' agency in the game is limited to the logic of cause and effect. Which the GM promptly ignores.

In a fully narrative game like FATE, the players also get a narrative override button, so balance is restored. Failing forward is a mechanic that belongs in this type of game; you can't just randomly drop it into D&D.

>>48167705
So what should the do in the case you described?
Say they failed, nothing happens, try again?
Say they failed, no trying again, mission over?

>>48167705
>pulls some other bullshit out of his ass anyways.

Yes, if you carefully eliminate every possible failure state you can think of, you're forcing the GM to come up with one you didn't think of. Solutions: (A) don't minmax the situation so damn hard, leave the GM some wiggle room to do something interesting (B) convince the GM you shouldn't be rolling now because there's no danger left.
(C) Whine about how this is somehow railroading

>>48167795
"You weren't able to jimmy the door open, but you do see a slot for some kind of electronic key card..."

There's always an alternative solution.

>>48167988

That's just
>Say they failed, nothing happens, try again?

It's not interesting or exciting, it's just rolling again, with a little window dressing.

>>48163769
The reason people invented 'failing forward' is so that games don't grind to a halt because a player flubbed a roll necessary to advance the campaign.

>>48167705

It seems to me that you're somehow trying to reverse-railroad the GM into letting you declare that there will be no negative consequences for a failed roll, and then getting mad that he doesn't cooperate.

>>48167973
It's not minmaxing though, it's the way the game is actually intended to be played. Look, the game is supposed to be a collaboration between the GM, the players, and the dice. Failing forward reduces that to just the GM and the dice.

With failing forward: you rolled low -> you suffer negative consequences

Without: you rolled low -> you fail to complete the task -> the consequences for failure depend on the situation, and can be very dire or irrelevant

Then the goal of the players is to rig the situation so that they're only taking low risk, high reward actions. Things get interesting when the players have to make decisions with limited information, or naturally find themselves in a bind where even their best bet is a big risk.

>>48168011
Of course not. It's a quest to sneakily find the matching card in a security office of some kind, or relieve the head guard of his copy.

>>48168101
>or irrelevant

But if the price of failure is irrelevant, then in a fail forward system, YOU DON'T ROLL FOR THAT.
In fact, you don't roll for that in any system unless your GM just likes wasting time.

>>48168149

Yeah, I guess you could do that. In which case it becomes a valid "fail forward" response by the GM.
But I was thinking that a player just pulls out his hacking gear and starts rolling to trick the card slot.

>>48168095
That's wrong. The GM has ample opportunity to respond, "Yes, there is an alarm. If you fail, the whole place will know you're here." Or "The guards are closing in. You can try it now, but you'll only have one shot." But to have the guards be closer BECAUSE of the player's bad lockpicking roll is preposterous and disingenuous -- especially if the player has taken the time to scout out the guards in advance.

>>48167365

There is literally a policy for kicking someone. It's on page 9 of the Adventurers League Players Guide. I don't understand how you can be so illiterate and still type.

inb4 "Adventurers League is pure cancer because the fuckin' pussy-ass faggots can't take a joke with their table nazi policies"

>>48163769
Completely unrelated: Why Mountain Dew? I'm not american and I can't help to see mountain dew everywhere regarding nerds/geeks/rpg players/vydia/MTG/whatever. What is even that shit? Soda?

>>48168282
>In which case it becomes a valid "fail forward" response by the GM.
Personally, I wouldn't call this failing forward. If you want to though, this leaves us with two kinds of failing forward that are very different.
1) The kind that ignores the logical cause and effect of the situation that the players may have taken into consideration. This is the bad kind.
2) The kind where the GM elaborates on the situation to offer new possibilities, but also respect the laws of cause and effect. This is the most vital tool in the GM's toolbox, pretty much regardless of game.

It's more like "failing sideways".

>>48168317

>The GM has ample opportunity to respond,
>But to have the guards be closer BECAUSE of the player's bad lockpicking roll is preposterous and disingenuous

Then your problem isn't with fail forward, it's with your GM's misuse of it. You've solved your own problem, anon.

>>48168401

Respecting the laws of cause and effect is part of failing forward, too. Type 1 is just bad GMing.

>>48168384
It's a really high sugar content soda that, for some reason, has become associated with nerds in general and videogames in particular.

It doesn't really taste like anything other than itself, in the same way as coke just tastes like... coke.

File: Slurm.png (19KB, 700x486px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 700x486px

>>48168384
Its an addicting beverage made from orange juice waste by-products, sugar and caffeine.

Basically, it was Energy Drink before the invention of Energy Drink.

>>48168441
>Respecting the laws of cause and effect is part of failing forward, too. Type 1 is just bad GMing.
In that case, many of the loudest proponents for failing forward on /tg/ are very bad GMs. More personally, my opinion and yours are similar, but we've experienced confusion over terminology. Sound fair?

>>48168473
>>48168465
Ah...

File: faggotborn.jpg (53KB, 615x312px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 615x312px

>>48164536
>>48163769
>>48164688
ITT: OP is a giant faggot who fundamentally fails to understand what failing forward means, and thinks that everyone shares his fucked up view of it. OP may or not be virtualoptim.

Failing forward just moves the story forward, end of. It doesn't mean 'coddle the players.'

>>48168509
>In that case, many of the loudest proponents for failing forward on /tg/ are very bad GMs.

The loudest voices on /tg/ are almost always That Guys, so it kind of goes without saying.

File: TracksintheSand.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>48164581
>>OP bitches about a GMing technique incompatible with sandbox games but utterly necessary in railroad games
>>All of /tg/, assuming railroad is how to RPG, descends on OP and cries faggot
>/tg/ doesn't know how to /tg/.
I respectfully disagree.

>>48163769
I don't understand what you're saying. So the PCs decided to climb a wall. They fail. And somehow they still climb the wall? Is that what youre getting on here? I gues I need to start listening to random podcasts and reading random blogs. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

>>48168669
The PCs decide to climb a wall, fail, and are offered an alternate path. As opposed to shoving their thumbs up their butts and waiting until they can try again.

>>48168263
This

>>48168263
>>48168758
Irrelevant was the wrong choice of words, sorry. I meant that you won't get burned for failure, but you will have to find a different solution.

>>48168669
>They fail. And somehow they still climb the wall?
Maybe. Perhaps they reach the top of the wall only to realize they stand out clearly against the horizon and the guards are coming, or that the other side is covered in barbed wire with decaying planks filled with rusty nails at the bottom should they try to drop down around here, or as they reach the top of the wooden fence, the rotted posts give way and the thing starts crashing down, anything that moves the game forward while still acknowledging that things did not go according to plan.
In most systems this can be a fun way of dealing with a botch or thrown in at either appropriate or periodic times rather than on all rolls.

>>48168726
Well, isn't always like that? What the hell OP is about?

failing forward is abstract bullshit
i thought /tg/ was against abstract bullshit
the universe doesn't care if you failed to pick the lock, just break the door down, if that fails burn the door down, if that fails try to find another way in, or just leave and go somewhere else, there are always other dungeons
failing forward will always bring you forward, straight forward, down those train tracks, that sucks

>>48163769
So like, you don't have it at your table, and it matters if others do it because?

>>48168821
I still think if you're reducing the risk to minimal levels, then I wouldn't make you roll.
If you reduce the risk of not being able to get past a locked door by bringing an ace lockpicker, why bother rolling for a regular door?
Same for every minimized risk.

>>48168837
He's just sperging out a bit, either because he loves shitposting or because he's an idiot. Just let him scream his little heart out and the situation will resolve itself.

>>48168594
SHREKT.

Awesome .pdf, by the way.

>>48168847
See
>>48164627
>>Failing forward
>>railroading
>Those are two entirely separate things.

>>48168943
>either because he loves shitposting or because he's an idiot.
Most likely both, just saiyan.

OP thinks they're a troll and is trying really hard to troll, but is actually secretly autistic.

I'd sage if it still did anything. Gonna do it anyways.

>>48168914
That's not exactly what I'm talking about. Say you're trying to get past the door, but more importantly, you're trying to stay hidden. You're pretty damn sure that failing to open the door will not alert the guards, so even though you're a mediocre lockpicker, you give it a shot.

Misuse of failing forward means that bad lockpicking summons the guards.

Rolling for it means that you might earn a neat shortcut, or you might be rerouted through more difficult challenges.

Saying "there's no real risk, so I guess you do it" is also disingenuous.

You've got to consider the risk AND reward, not just the risk.

>>48168384
I'm 99% certain its because of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-leYc4oC83E

This came out in 2003 on Newgrounds and before that Mountain Dew wasn't really associated with D&D or nerds.

>>48167988
That is failing forward though. The 'forward' is offering up the info about the key card so they have a new task

>>48168571
Everywhere not just tg

>>48169179
Fair enough.

>>48168594
Wow, I liked this. Do you got more tg stuff like that? This is gold.

>>48163769
It means don't write yourself into a corner with the PCs need to succeed a check to advance the game.

If they players miss the secret secret door which leads of the next rooms, have a contingency plan. Like consider having the door open and a party of goblins ambush them.

It means don't let the game grind to a halt. You should listen to >>48163979
>>48164060
>>48164305

>>48168959
Thanks

>>48169337
No, this is fairly fresh.
I might try making another if I see another thread full of golden advice.

File: haha wat.jpg (25KB, 399x395px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 399x395px

>>48169237

>>48163979
Ah, yeah that makes sense, thanks mate

>>48169020

Sage still works, sort of. It allows you to post without bumping the thread to the first page.

>>48163769
Nice strawman. Failing should drive the PLOT forward.

Lads, this is mostly an argument over taste.
Some folks like a strong coherent narrative, and if that means using Fail Forward then that's fair enough.
Some folks like fantasy/space/vietnam vietnam where if you fail to pick the lock you can eat shit. "You failed to stop the evil empire? Guess you're the resistance now, good luck" type shit

Neither is inherently better than the other, despite accusations of badwrongfun

>>48171849
That 2nd example is still fail forward.

>>48163769
>I fucking hate this meme.
I want the meme of "everything is a meme" to die.

>>48171875

Yeah, non-fail forward would be "You fail to pick the lock. Nothing happens."

Early D&D had a sort-of fail-forward system in place, where picking the lock would cost a turn, and every so many turns a wandering monster check would be made. It also didn't let you pick the same lock again after you failed.

>>48171910
>>48171875

I get you lads. Wouldn't that make the term kind of pointless though? Wouldn't it just be easier to say "Don't sit there telling the players that their plans don't work until they get bored and leave"? It'd avoid all the pooper-pain showcased in this thread at least

>>48172022

Thing is, a good gm will bolt this principle on to any system that lacks it, but a lot of modern systems have begun baking it into the rules as a necessary part of a better game.
If everyone with half a brain wants seatbelts in their car, why shouldn't the car come with seatbelts in the first place?

OP's anal agony just shows that trusting the end user to figure this shit out on his own is probably not a good idea, so it really ought to be built in.

>>48172078
>>48171910

This. The rules are implied but never stated explicitly so inexperience or just incompetent GM have nowhere to go because of a bad doce roll.

It's the 'I learnt the hard way so you should' attitude. Unless OP is using reverse psychology to sell the idea, in which case bravo anon.

>>48172022
there is a little bit of an art to learning when you should give the players a prompt vs letting them have some time to come up with a solution on their own.

You also have to balance when the failure should result in something that gives them a different avenue of success, or forces them to take a completely different path.

But failing to give any sort of new action or avenue, or not having the thing you introduce lead to anywhere except exactly back where they were before, is a failing I've seen in GMs. I've seen it in one of my current GMs, who's normally good, but is really reluctant to change the problems he sets up for the characters.

File: excusemegents.gif (1MB, 224x178px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 224x178px

>>48169237
>This came out in 2003
Turns out I'm super old now.

>>48164581
>>ITT
>TIL
I want reddit to leave.

>>48164581
>falling forward
>incompatible with sandbox
You do realize that even a sandbox game needs some form of direction at the start so that players don't bumble around doing jack shit because they don't know anything about the world, right?

Failing Forward is a GM technique that goes directly against the Game aspect of RPG, removing the challenge and the fun from it, and as such should only be used in extreme situations.
Let's take the classical example of the locked door.

The Failing Forward approach to the player failing to lockpick is for the GM to present a new situation/solution to the player. The player doesn't really have any agency, and it's just swept around by the dice and the GM.

The non-Failing-Forward approach to this is simply to remove that option/having the player spend some precious resource. Yet the problem still stand, the door is still locked. It's now up to the player to use his brain and find a new alternative solution. The new solution is most likely going to be worse than lockpicking, since if it weren't so the player would have used that solution in the first place.

For the players, the fun part of the G in RPG is to elaborate solutions to presented problems given the limited tool-set that is their own characters. Failing Forward remove that.

>>48174779
Not sure about TIL, but we've used ITT here for ages, anon. Quit getting bootyblasted over common terminology.

>>48175994
>Failing Forward is a GM technique that goes directly against the Game aspect of RPG, removing the challenge and the fun from it, and as such should only be used in extreme situations.
"Extreme situations" is subjective, but I essentially agree that it should only be used when the players start to stagnate the game by painting themselves in a corner.

>>48176474
It's not the term but how they used it.

>>48176845
To say "In this thread"?

>>48177031
Starting your post with
>ITT
is like starting like your post with
>be me
It isn't inherently wrong, but it reeks of newfaggotry.

>>48177092
Not him, but I've been here for years and have seen posts started with ITT repeatedly, sometimes they were good posts too.

And I always intentionally start greentext stories with >be me
This triggers the autist

>>48177360
>smear rancid faces all over your face
>people are repulsed
>hhaha triggered :))

>>48177432
Not "people", the autist.
I never used ">be me" and always thought it was stupid as well.
Until one thread the autist came on and spewed forth such vitriolic, triggered nonsense at some random anon who had used it that I vowed then and there to always use it, just because it deeply angered him.
And so I do.
If it angers you, you might be him.
If so, hello! How's that pointless rage working out for you?

I normally used BBEG anyway but now I also delight in using it here because it triggers a similarly autistic anon.

>>48164109

> all competent GMs follow my style of GMing

You are a pretentious cunt and probably a terrible GM if you think failing forward 100% of the time is a good idea. Fuck off

>>48177754

Yes, it is. The alternative is "okay, nothing happens," the very definition of RPG session filler. If you find that shit entertaining, please do my taxes for me, autist.

>>48168594
As the anon who made the first draft of this pdf, just wanted to say nice job again.

>>48164060
>Failing forward means having a plot hook ready in case you fail. It means that there's always SOMETHING to do in case you fail at going down the railroad.
So basically you don't actually fail, so you go forward despite failing.

>>48177092
Everyone knows that only newfags are concerned with being perceived as oldfags, you stupid newfag.

>>48178401
>So basically you don't actually fail, so you go forward despite failing.

The NARRATIVE goes forward. The PCs may end up going backward, forward, sideways, whatever
Honestly, this isn't hard to understand, people.

>>48177934

Your argument falls apart when the players aren't shitters and the adventure has multiple paths forward. Sometimes failure is a roadblock, if every failure destroys the universe then the PC's start turtling.

>>48178546
>Your argument falls apart when the players aren't shitters and the adventure has multiple paths forward.

That has nothing to do with it. In the moment, when the action is failed, "nothing happens whatsoever, try it again" is a terrible, boring result. In a TV show or movie it would hit the cutting room floor. The only time you'd see it is if there was some escalation -- cutting away to show guards walking down the hallway towards a corner, and when they turn it they'll see the guys picking the lock. That's a fail forward.

>>48178376
Thanks again.
When I told my wife about the cover to yours, it cracked her up.

>>48178708
>"nothing happens whatsoever, try it again"
You shouldn't allow the players to try the same solution again and again, unless there is a cost involved, like time when it matters. See my previous post >>48175994

>>48178708
not him, but i don't think that is boring, i don't want my adventure edited down to a 30 minute television show, and i think its strange for a DM to say "that's not important enough, lets skip your scene"

if there is no time pressure or consequences its fine to do the system equivalent of a "take 20", but to skip it entirely is strange to me

>>48164901
This dates back to fucking USENET, for God's sake.

>According to Steven McGeady, Cunningham advised him in the early 1980s, "The best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, it's to post the wrong answer." McGeady dubbed this Cunningham's law.[13] Although Cunningham was referring to interactions on Usenet, the law has been used to describe how Wikipedia works.[14]

>>48178439
That's nothing new though. What I think OP is complaining about is when this is used to avoid consequences rather than create consequences, in which case it supports lazy uncreative storytelling rather than trying to come up with creative ways to solve a problem.

>>48163769

>"every failure must secretly benefit the PCs because otherwise they'll get sad and quit the hobby."

How does "In your attempt to break the door open you accidentally go tumbling down and this alerts a goblin guard who's gone to warn the others" indicate THAT?

Because that's what failing forward is. Rather than going "Well you failed to break the door down meaning you're stuck here now" you have failure progress the flow of action.

>>48179015
It's more like

>you failed to open the door, but it's open anyway. Now you won't have to come up with a different idea of getting inside

>>48175994
>It's now up to the player to use his brain and find a new alternative solution. The new solution is most likely going to be worse than lockpicking, since if it weren't so the player would have used that solution in the first place.
That's still failing forward. Literally all failing forward is is the GM saying "That didn't work, but..." instead of "That didn't work."

>>48179073
But your quote is exactly just "That didn't work." The GM didn't exactly give the players an alternative for free.

File: this post right here.gif (446KB, 300x186px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 300x186px

>>48179073

>>48179095
>The GM didn't exactly give the players an alternative for free.

Failing forward doesn't mean you get an alternative route for free, it just means something happens rather than nothing. Guards are coming, or they show up and start shooting, or you hear a helicopter landing on the roof meaning a third party has showed up to the dance, or SOMETHING happens to keep the game moving, instead of nothing happening and the narrative grinding to a halt outside this door.

>>48179128
But that's the point. Nothing happened. Maybe the players will think of something else, but that's not for granted. The door won't open, that's it. If the GM will just force the door open somehow instead of adapting to circumstance, that's his prerogative, but I think it takes away from the sense of causality players have on the game. Failing doesn't have to mean "the end" unless you're already railroading things in the first place.

>>48179055

Except that's boring.

Who cares if we break it open or if we have to pick the lock. The means with which to get past a fucking door are completely arbitrary. What matters is what's waiting for us on the other side and if we can properly take advantage of whatever is there.

>>48179167
From what I gather though, the concept of 'failing forward' doesn't mean 'every failure must actually be a success'. If failing to pick the lock raises an alarm that attracts guards, that's still failing forward (failure causing further developments in the game) but it isn't the dm forcing the door open.

>>48179182

"BUT WHAT IF NOTHING IS THERE?" you say? Then I would argue the GM isn't taking good advantage of his players valuable time if his idea of an interesting encounter is a locked fucking door.

This is the dumbest thread I have seen in a long time.

how ADHD riddled are most players that something failing and stopping for a moment to come up with a new plan is automatically a bad thing. You need constant stimuli when the situation doesn't call for time constraints (narratively or otherwise).

>>48178999
Oh, to have been a part of those days. Tell me a story, Captain Trips. Spin me a yarn of the days when the internet was populated by people who knew what the fuck they were doing. A tale of the time before Facebook.

>>48179167
Wouldn't "You failed to open the door, AND the alarm goes off." also be 'failing forwards'?

Players still have to think of something else, but it's a little more interesting than "Well, that didn't work, what's plan B?" - The failure is still a matter of something *happening*, not something failing to happen.

>>48179226

ADHD is having only 5 hours available to you a week (or sometimes every 3 weeks) to sit down and do something so can we please at least have something happen.

>>48179242
Yeah. You're not at the table to just hit plot point. Getting past an obstacle is part of the game. Planning is part of the game. If you don't want it then play a game without failure conditions (they exist).

The metaphorical door is still there. Do you really take a concerning amount of time to come up with a new plan to get past it?

>>48179210
I understand, and it is fine, I don't think it's a bad way of dealing with issues at all. It's just not for me though. I guess it depends a lot on the sort of setting you're playing too.

>>48179242
>>48179272
This is not to say that just forcing a player into a situation where there is one solution to a problem and watching then fail for 2-3 hours isn't a bad thing. That however is a problem GM, not a reason to institute mandatory "failing forward". Moreover if players sit and do nothing but bang their heads against the wall for hours rather than seek out a new solution that is on them.

>>48179272

>Getting past an obstacle is part of the game. Planning is part of the game. If you don't want it then play a game without failure conditions (they exist).

Why do you keep demanding that all failure conditions be boring static "nothing happens" kind of affairs?

There are different kinds and utilizing them is a perfectly viable strategy that keeps action going.

>>48179167
except this can be deeply frustrating, especially if the GM hasn't given any hints about how else to approach the situation.

How much of a hint can very from group to group, but if the players are starting to look frustrated after the second or third idea fails, especially if the most recent idea fails because of dice rolls, give a fucking prompt for them to follow.


And this goes double if the GM is the type to keep the world set to what they originally wrote, so when the players do suggest alternate solutions they don't work. If you're going to have a limited number of solutions, and one of them fails, you need to make it so the players can find out what those other possible solutions are.

>>48163769
The version of this i am more familiar with is "falling up stairs". When things are technically a win for the players but is generally embarrassing, hard fought, and even a little degrading.

My group finds this hilarious.

>>48179298
Because there are systems where failing means nothing happens. There are systems where failure means something happens. If you want something to happen play a system where that is true.

>>48179055
Except the example the anon you're replying to gave isn't the only option a GM has when wanting to make failing to open a locked door something other than a roadblock.

>You failed to open the door, but while you're working the other party members hear some arguing coming from a room upstairs and see an open window

>You failed to open the door and you see a couple of guards round the corner on patrol. You can try to pick the lock again but they'll surely notice you if you don't act quick. Feeling lucky?

>You failed to open the door, plus your lockpick breaks off in the keyhole. The door is jammed shut unless you can get the broken pick out but if you leave it there and a guard spots it it will surely raise suspicion.

Failing forward can be used it lots of different ways, backhanded successes included, but they all work under the same logic that giving the players anything besides "you failed, nothing happens" is a good move if you don't want the game to grind to a halt because of a minor obstacle.

>>48179298
That being said most of the time I just have failure make the PC's situation worse if it is applicable in the narrative. Time constraints are a big idea in most narratives. Wasting time has consequences.

Consequences for failure are 'something happening'. Still does not open the metaphorical door.

>>48179331
Why would you want to play a game where failure means nothing happens?

>>48179302

This and then we'll get back to square one.

Today it's "failing forward".

Tommorow it's "maybe if you had a key!?"

Every time the GM throws a bone is another time some pissy grognard gets his panties in a bunch because he doesn't understand that the GM's job isn't to just throw obstacles at them and then make their lives overly cumbersome.

Also if you're gonna complain about all this shit here's an idea: When you're playing try planning out solutions and encouraging your other players to plan them out with you. If they don't take to it then maybe the group is just wrong for you.

>>48179341
See in this thread the definition of failing forward keeps warping and changing. It has meant three different things in as many posts. I think failing forward is a nonsense term that is just used to make people angry.

>>48165004
Given how often you can take 10 in Saga, this seems like a risky proposition.

>>48179387
The only angry one here is OP.

>>48179331
except it's not really a system problem, it's a running the system problem.

Sometimes you don't need something to happen with the failure, because the players already had something else going on, or had multiple ideas to pursue, etc. So the next thing to move onto is already there.

Sometime you need to have something happen, because the story is dragging, the players are frustrated, or stuck, or confused.

>>48179360
Good, why are you participating in this discussion then?

>>48179387
It can mean all three of those things. It's a nebulous term meant to describe any time a GM wants to make it so the momentum of the game isn't fucked up because of a bad die roll.

File: 1465498643745.jpg (30KB, 720x438px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 720x438px

>>48179404

>>48179402
>except it's not really a system problem, it's a running the system problem.

Sure it can be, but as this thread shows, some people can not be trusted to figure this shit out on their own. Baking it into the rules prevents the problem from cropping up, and OP seems to be the only one who thinks the lack of "nothing happens" is a problem.

>>48179411

Exactly, the term refers to a principle that you apply either as a game designer or a GM, not a specific thing that you do in a specific circumstance.

>>48179402
That's a symptom of bad GMing or bad players. I've had players throw hissy fits the first time they fail and shut down rather than find a new solution. I've had GMs have one way they intend a problem to be solved and will not hear anything of other solutions. M

Really the issue still us the goalposts for what failing forward is keeps changing.

>>48179387
not really, some grognard critics keep insisting that it's 'making failure not count'

Everyone else is saying 'it's having something happen with failing, so the story doesn't grind to a halt', possibly elaborating 'this can be a hint to another solution, a new problem, a complication to trying the problem again', and the idea behind it is 'don't have the players just roll again until they succeed', and 'don't leave the players thinking they have nothing to do'.

This hasn't been changing.

>>48179411
Then fuck the hyper generalist term, fuck the people who use it, and fuck this thread.

>>48179442
>Really the issue still us the goalposts for what failing forward is keeps changing.

Are you sure you're not just dumb? Because the examples keep changing as people try to reword things to get through OP's thick skull, the thrust of the argument is the same: failing a roll should not stop the narrative in its tracks. Make a failure as interesting as a success.

>>48163769
As a DM, my players know that a fail is a fail. Christ, one of them has been to prison IRL. I have had a rogue fail using a wand of fireballs. It killed six enemies, himself and the bard. The cleric, wizard and fighter had to work their asses off to bring them back.

>>48179295
I'm more used to playing online, so I guess having players spend more time on things isn't as much of a problem for me. Anyway, I wouldn't waste a chance to give players a new problem to solve, but I can see why that's not suitable to all groups.

>>48179302
Well, if they fail and fail, and sure, I could give a few hints here and there if it is extremely crucial to the story, but ultimately they can just fail and go somewhere else and try a different adventure depending on the game/situation. I don't think the game ends if players fail to get into a room, they CAN fail getting into the room. Even if the room is important to the story, you can always improvise, if it was relevant have it come back in the future, have characters figure out who/what was there and what could have been different if they got in, etc. When players fail and it changes everything, they really feel like the world is being tailored around their experience rather than a GM coming with a set adventure with just a couple gimmicks that can be different.

>>48179454
The thing is I think something not happening is fine. Sometimes failing means the door simply does not open. It is a reflection on the players if this grinds the game to a hault. Players should be capable of adapting and coming up with new solutions. I believe players who can't handle anything but constant stimulation are in fact bad players.

>>48179442
no they haven't.

>>48179441
I prefer it as advice and add ons to the 'success/failure' resolution system.

Any game will explain how to resolve those success/failure rolls, and on top of that you can add a sidebar for 'partial success, adding complications, etc ect', and in the dm section about resolving challenges they should address this issue.

Because there are good and bad GMs, but there are also inexperianced gms, and good gms with bad habits. And those sorts of sections are god for them.

>>48179459
>hyper generalist
It means "the ability to describe failure in a way other than 'nothing happened'"

>>48179538
Then there is absolutely nothing wrong with not employing it.

>>48179493
You are the Game MASTER, you are responsible for the fucking game.

You can change the way the game world is working in a way the players can't.

Yes players should have an opportunity to come up with new solutions, and should be encourage to come up with them and try them. But they don't have the knowledge, or control, of the game world that you do to get those solutions from.

If you want them to start doing other things and taking a more active role, then you, as GM and human being, need to say that.
This can be as blunt as 'you have these skills on your sheet try them', or 'there are other places you can go'. Failing forward can be a way to be more subtle about this.

>>48179592
>You are the Game MASTER, you are responsible for the fucking game.
That is a very bad attitude to take.

>>48179592
Again it sounds like inexperienced or simple bad players/GM.

>>48163870
I take my shit super seriously and I have a consistent group for nearly 12 years and we never have any issues.

>>48179592
>But they don't have the knowledge, or control, of the game world that you do to get those solutions from.

That's not necessarily true. They may well have more than enough information to think of alternatives. They can also ask questions about the place they're in. You're not stopping them from thinking.

>If you want them to start doing other things and taking a more active role, then you, as GM and human being, need to
Need to stop handholding them all the fucking time and let them do their thing.

>>48179493
Of course it does, you moron! EVERY "rule" of storytelling, improv, or gaming is wrong in some situations!

Of course it's OK to have something just not work, with nothing interesting happening as a result beyond the players trying something else! But it's USUALLY better for something to happen than for nothing to happen, and it's very common for players to get stuck on a particular path that's not working, so failing forwards is almost always good advice! But sometimes it also isn't! Every rule has exceptions if you're good enough to not need the advice!

>>48179622
that's what the system and advice are for.

>>48179601
That when you are running something, and are in a position of power you should take responsibility for that?
That's a bad attitude?

>>48179651
Calm down, no need to get your panties in a twist.

>>48179658
You and the players are playing together. It is a bad attitude if the GM is solely responsible. The players have a responcibility to know the setting/campaign well enough to come up with alternatives. The GM has a responcibility to provide that information. It's a give and take.

>>48179590
Yeah then we can have this argument all over again when you start a thread with "Why are my players so shitty, they rolled bad when they faced one of my ingenious locked door puzzles and they got bored when I told them nothing happens, it's all their fault."

failing forward is great, allows for a lot of strategy

GM: sorry rogue, the door doesn't open, the lock must be too complex
Wizard: i begin making the necessary arcane symbols and start mumbling the mag-
GM: a trapdoor opens
Rogue: but i already checked for trap-
GM: THE STORY MUST CONTINUE, A TRAP DOOR OPENS

>>48179633
>They can also ask questions about the place they're in. You're not stopping them from thinking.

this is true, but you need to provide useful answers when they do.
If they can't figure out other solutions from your answers, then the problem is with your answers.

>Need to stop handholding them all the fucking time and let them do their thing.
works if they know what that those things they can do are.

>>48179711
I think it just depends on the group, the setting, the system, the GM, honestly there really isn't a best way to deal with this, it depends on a lot of things. Either way, I'm not the one who started the thread.

>>48163979
Another example would be that the knock doesnt open the door AND you were loud enough to attract more badies, basically escalating the conflict. (Doors still stuck but now also a combat)

>>48179706
the GM has greater responsilbilty.
It's give and take, but the GM has to give more.

Players should acknowledge that the GM is going more work, but the GM has more info about the world, and more ability to shape it. Their job is bigger.

If you don't want this to be the case, play a system where the players can take more agency in shaping the world outside of just their characters actions.

>>48179732
>works if they know what that those things they can do are
Fair enough, if it suits the group best to use such strategies, then do it. It's no use trying to do things a set way if the players are not entertained. I'm more concerned about things like >>48179723, sometimes players have those tools and can do it, but GMs just don't give them a chance.

>>48179633
>Need to stop handholding them all the fucking time and let them do their thing.
Let's look at some some the frequent examples of failing forward given in this thread. Almost all of them either attract enemies, add a time limit, or further complicate the situation in ways that make the players have to come up with a new solution quickly or try one more time hoping for a lucky roll. How is any of that handholding?

>Thread full of idiots who don't know what failing forward means.
The argument of OP is only slightly less retarded than "evolution can't be real, it's only a theory".

Let's move on, folks. You can't explain things to people too stupid to understand them.

>>48179806
And is this actually frequent enough of a problem to be worth caring about, or is this more like worrying about giving poor people money because what if they spend it on booze?

>>48178546
>the players aren't shitters
It's not fucking street fighter. That's not a thing

>>48179806
Absolutely no one in here is honestly making the point that failing forward should be used in any way similar to >>48179723

GMs that handle a situation like that anon suggested is evidence that instructions and examples of what failing forward is should be added to rulebooks more often than they are.

>>48179723
>>48179806
that's a overly dramatic failure to use a system properly.
Even the best systems can be used wrong.
I'll admit that there is some skill to using the tool well, and more to truly mastering it, but it's a good tool. And something that gms should know about and have available to use.

>>48179901
How should I know? I haven't played a game in five years, and that was a Roll20 campaign that turned into ERP halfway through.

I'm just memeing. It seems like what most other people do here anyways; make shit up and then post threads complaining about their hypothetical situation. I just lurked to see what kind of stuff people talked about here and it seemed like the thing to do.