Failure in RPGs

>>49924274
Any time a die is rolled there should be a chance of failure. What's the point if it's just going to be hand waved and the PCs succeed at critical tasks?

>>49924359
true but the point could be made that a system like D&D avoids things such as a critical parry negating a good attack roll. also, Deathwatch RPG has a form of hero points that guarantees something will happen, even on a failed roll.

Sometimes you try shit and and it works, sometimes it doesn't. Failure's always okay. The important thing isn't success or failure, it's the context of such.

For instance. Failing a spot check to notice some goddamn obscure thing that the DM is stupidly enough using as a bar to further the story? That's bad because it's a single point of failure that the DM is going to use to restrain the story. That's bad.

The hero fails a roll and gets knocked the fuck out by the villain? That's cool, everyone loses, then they get back up, git gud, and come back harder. Ranma Saotome didn't beat Ryu Kumon the first or even second time. That's cool because the story still moves forward, it just becomes about finding the strength, inner or outer, to defeat the villain.

What's important isn't success or failure. What's important is moving the story forward in some way or another, and letting success or failure determine which way the story moves.

>>49924274
The only kind of failure that's bad is one that brings the plot to a halt.

Not an end, mind. A bad end is a natural risk that comes with roleplaying. But the story should not stop in the middle of something.

>>49924359
>>49924408

I'll agree with this, but I'd expand on it.

Every time a dice is rolled, there should be an interesting consequence for both success and failure. Success should lead somewhere, failure should lead somewhere else. Having fails rolls mean nothing happens at all leads to stalling out and boring games. A failure might not get you closer to what you want, but it might get you into trouble, or tease at an alternate route to getting what you want, etc.

Some systems have this as an implicit understanding, others don't, but IMO it's always worth keeping in mind as a GM.

There has to be incentive to failure. Otherwise, it's polarizing and won't be as fun for the victim as you may think. Mutants & Masterminds awards hero points if you're willing to indulge your character's pathos and foibles or if you're willing for your character to eat a loss. "A loss now means a greater victory later" and all that.

File: tfw boring conversation.gif (446KB, 470x201px)

446KB, 470x201px

>>49924274

A good story is one where the protagonists succeed.

A great story is one where they fail forward.

>>49925511
Like how?

>>49925520

Well look at the example I just posted.

The entire "escape the Death Star" sequence in Star Wars was the protagonists' plans falling apart.

PARANOIA is pretty much Failure: the RPG. And it's FUN

>>49924274
To better answer this question another one must be asked.

Why do you roll dice in the first place?

The reason is simple. If a task has a good incentive for victory (the character gets what they need to pursue their goals) and a good incentive for failure (the story will move forward if the character fails), then there is good enough reason to ask for a roll. And in this case, failure is acceptable, so is victory, and the roll is justified.

Opposed to what, you may ask?

If there is incentive for victory, but not incentive for failure, just award the victory to them. It's pointless to make a character try to open a lock if there is no time constraints or danger whatsoever. No roll needed.

If, on the contrary, there is no incentive for a victory but enough incentive for failure, introduce it as a narrative complication. For example, it's near impossible the fighter can actually shatter the crystal with the sword, but trying to do so might electrocute the fighter. No roll needed, the fighter automatically fails the attack roll and a complication is introduced.