|
Moriatti posted:I'm really hoping someone earnestly thinks that both:
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:You're right, that sounds unbearable. Yeah, this is also the important thing. The bears thing is just an example, but it's also paramount to making fail forward work that the consequences the GM brings up both a) follow from the action the player character took, even if it means inserting a new threat the GM didn't plan ahead of time, and b) make sense for the situation the players are in. Otherwise it's just confusing and disorienting, and not in a fun way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
You are defeated by bears. The bears drag your beaten and bloody selves to their leader, the Bearlord. The Bearlord admonishes you for your trespass into their lands and charges you with evening things out by destroying a nearby hunters' lodge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Serf posted:You are embearassingly defeated by bears. The bears drag your beaten and bearly alive selves to their leader, the Bearlord. The Bearlord bearates you for your trespass into their lands and charges you with bearancing the scales by destroying a nearby hunters' lodge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
To be uncharacteristically serious for a second, I think the phrase "fail forward" is just an unfortunate victim of the aforementioned imagined war between the Brave, Stalwart Defenders of Old lovely D&D Editions and the Vile Scourge of New Design. I feel comfortable saying that pretty much any group would nod along and agree if you said "it's really boring how failing to pick a lock means I can just try again, over and over, unless the DM specifically sets a time restriction for every locked door" (tweak example to "cast the scrying spell" or "climb the castle wall" or whatever as necessary), but "fail forward" sets the first group off because it's associated with The Enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Serf posted:You are defeated by bears. The bears drag your beaten and bloody selves to their leader, the Bearlord. The Bearlord admonishes you for your trespass into their lands and charges you with evening things out by destroying a nearby hunters' lodge. Thanks for giving me my next session Countblanc posted:To be uncharacteristically serious for a second, I think the phrase "fail forward" is just an unfortunate victim of the aforementioned imagined war between the Brave, Stalwart Defenders of Old lovely D&D Editions and the Vile Scourge of New Design. I feel comfortable saying that pretty much any group would nod along and agree if you said "it's really boring how failing to pick a lock means I can just try again, over and over, unless the DM specifically sets a time restriction for every locked door" (tweak example to "cast the scrying spell" or "climb the castle wall" or whatever as necessary), but "fail forward" sets the first group off because it's associated with The Enemy. Isn't this really just the whole point of "taking 10/20" in d20? It's a roundabout way of saying that if there aren't any pressing stakes, just don't even bother to roll. It's just generally good GM advice that you shouldn't even bother making the players roll for something if there aren't any interesting consequences for failure. If you do that, it's functionally the same as "fail forward," right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
The bearlord is also a 18th level wizard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
I imagine simulationists trying to understand "fail forward" is the same as me trying to understand why immersion requires so much mechanical weight. It feels like something I should at least understand in a general sense but I simply can't wrap my mind around the concept. Same planet, different worlds, I suppose. e: like today, I saw someone on reddit kind of complaining about how not having everything mechanically backed results in "GM handwaving" and all I could think was "dude, that's at least 50% of all GMing". Evil Mastermind fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:To be uncharacteristically serious for a second, I think the phrase "fail forward" is just an unfortunate victim of the aforementioned imagined war between the Brave, Stalwart Defenders of Old lovely D&D Editions and the Vile Scourge of New Design. I feel comfortable saying that pretty much any group would nod along and agree if you said "it's really boring how failing to pick a lock means I can just try again, over and over, unless the DM specifically sets a time restriction for every locked door" (tweak example to "cast the scrying spell" or "climb the castle wall" or whatever as necessary), but "fail forward" sets the first group off because it's associated with The Enemy. I mean, straight up, the "bears from nowhere" meme came from a super groggy forum poster on a super groggy forum who was trying to say Dungeon World was proof that storgames are trying to destroy D&D. Somehow, they got Adam Koebel to come in and defend it before he, rightfully, went "why am I doing this? I have a successful game, a successful youtube series, and gainfully employed at roll20" and left.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:
50% if you're lucky, some games I just run entirely improv guerilla style, no notes no encounter tables no real interaction with the rules except where they directly touch the PCs. edit: Also thanks for the great ideas guys for my next Fate Project, which I've just renamed Bearworld.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Unfortunately the hunters have bearricaded themselves in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Harrow posted:How is that functionally different from the GM having planned that bears are nearby, and if the player fails the check, they don't notice the bears and get ambushed? The only difference is whether the GM planned it ahead of time, which is something the players probably shouldn't know at the time, right? What's different is that if the bears were "there anyway" then chances are the PCs would have encountered them anyway at some point. If they appeared because a roll was failed then the player knows that. Even if it's the example you picked.. what if the players were really engaged with the story, looking forward to delivering the McGuffin, and then because of Bob taking a single risky roll now that is all spoiled? Narratively it's the "oh god they got sent to prison AGAIN" in Order of the Stick..
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Covok posted:I mean, straight up, the "bears from nowhere" meme came from a super groggy forum poster on a super groggy forum who was trying to say Dungeon World was proof that storgames are trying to destroy D&D. Somehow, they got Adam Koebel to come in and defend it before he, rightfully, went "why am I doing this? I have a successful game, a successful youtube series, and gainfully employed at roll20" and left. You're mixing up your shitlords. Frank Trollman is the Quantum Bear Theorist. RPGPundit is the one who argued with a creator of Dungeon World that it's not a real RPG for 30+ pages before finally reading the game and concluding "Okay, it's an RPG, but not a very good one."
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
That Old Tree posted:You're mixing up your shitlords. Frank Trollman is the Quantum Bear Theorist. RPGPundit is the one who argued with a creator of Dungeon World that it's not a real RPG for 30+ pages before finally reading the game and concluding "Okay, it's an RPG, but not a very good one." Oh, I see. Strange how insane shitlords just meld together into a mess of douche-baggery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
I'd get to that conclusion that DW is a RPG but a bad one in less than one page honestly. I guess I'm just smarter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
I mean yeah "Dungeon World is a flawed game" is a perfectly cogent statement. What's dumb is that Trollman kept insisting that it wasn't a game to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
so I have convinced my group's 5e DM to include modrons in Curse of Strahd This is a campaign in which, out of the party of 6, two are humans, all but one has a musical instrument (despite only one of us actually being a bard), and also I'm playing basically Bizarro Jar Jar Binks and managed to sneak this past everybody
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
This is going to be a hell of a story for the cat piss thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
My current party doesn't have a single human. Dragonborn, goliath, genasi, a half elf, no humans. One chick can pass for human but is actually a reanimated corpse steered around by the beetles and maggots eating her and I feel that ought to not count.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Fail forward is a particular way of looking at and talking about how a lot of people have always and will continue to game. It's a sub-subject of the broader idea that afflicts nearly all games: "stuff happens, and the story continues from there." Whether they're flying by the seat of their pants or slavishly adhering to a module. Ideally, everyone at the table has buy-in to the basic premise of both what the game is about and how you make the game about that. Everyone should trust that the GM will come up with acceptable and fun contingencies in the event a failure, whether or not they pulled it from a ten bullet list of possibilities in their 100-page manuscript for an adventure they're never going to publish, or they're pulling a scenario directly out of their rear end that is a riff on the Jackie Chan movie they watched the night before. One of the principle differences in whatever happens in the game is merely whether the GM thought of something in advance, and a lot of other factors determine if the result is actually satisfactory to all involved.hyphz posted:What's different is that if the bears were "there anyway" then chances are the PCs would have encountered them anyway at some point. If they appeared because a roll was failed then the player knows that. Regardless if the player knows that the bears would or would not "exist" depending on their roll, it's down to how acceptable that is to a given player. Likewise, "Oh no, here we go again…" happening to a story is fun or terrible depending on the individual table. Both of these things happened all the goddamn time when fail forward wasn't really a thing. Fail forward doesn't ruin games with wacky Monty haul rear end-pulls or recurring unfunny in-jokes. Plenty of people who adhere strictly to the rules are still perfectly willing to name a genie "Fartcloud McWish" or, less the rules-rigidity only a little bit, present you with a caveful of quantum bears when you roll a natural 1 on a Survival check during your quest to save the Moonshae Isles from Ed Greenwood's creeping beard. I mean, technically, yeah, the latter is "fail forward" because it's not just "you failed; nothing happened," but nothing was stopping the GM from being more self-serious about the result. I play a lot more fail forward-y games nowadays than anything else, and when I'm playing other types of games, I pull fail forward into them. Because at least for me it's an unalloyed good, whether I'm going for dark and foreboding criminal enterprises, or terminally escalating silliness when the God of Chairs and the God of Relaxing squabble over territory. Sure, you're never 100% on everything you improv, but neither are rules or adventure modules, and the people I play with are okay with that. I've never just gone "Uh, failed lockpick check…poo poo, uh, BEARS!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
I used fail forward principles once. Party was getting directions in an unfamiliar and unsavoury town, rolled badly, I ruled they asked a spotter for a street gang whose directions led them into an ambush. One of my players just would not have it. She should have gotten another roll to realize this guy was a gang member, she should have gotten a roll to realize his directions were bullshit, she should have gotten a roll to notice the thieves sneaking up. I was like, if I let you guys roll specifically until you like the outcome and no bad consequences ever actually occur, then why are we playing a game with dice in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
My perspective on fail forward is that you want each die roll at the table to do something. If you fail the lock pick maybe you make a bunch of noise and the night watchman (who totally has the key) shows up, so now it's a combat encounter. If you fail to remember the name of some random BS setting detail that I was going to pull out of my rear end anyway, instead you give out the wrong random rear end pull and have to talk fast or go to jail. Always have the dice move the narrative forward, either positively or negatively, that's what fail forward means to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
That Old Tree posted:You're mixing up your shitlords. Frank Trollman is the Quantum Bear Theorist. This, as they say, is my shocked face.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Suddenly Bears isn't even the result of the failed die roll itself, in a way. BEAR ATTACK should be the natural consequence of failure for that particular situation. That is, if bear attack isn't a sensible result for the PCs just sitting there and picking their noses in the face of whatever obstacle, then it's not a sensible result for rolling and failing. I like to frame it in terms of what the stakes are. In any die-roll worthy situation, there needs to be some benefit for success and some penalty for failure, otherwise don't roll the loving dice. "Nothing happens", by itself, is not a sufficient penalty (or reward.) At the very least, you need to thing about the penalty as 'Thing you wanted to happen didn't happen', and decide if that's significant enough to bother rolling for. The locked door example: Failing to pick the lock isn't just 'do nothing.' Think about it more. Maybe nothing in this case means you can't get to the next part of the adventure. That's a lovely failure, change it. Maybe nothing means you can't get to the bonus treasure. That's fine, but you still need to make that consequence stick. Maybe nothing means that you have to go around but there's no time limit or other threats anyway, in which case don't bother having the loving roll. I think something that makes people have a gut reaction against the idea of fail forward is the thought that it will make insignificant die rolls disproportionately dangerous. When really, insignificant die rolls should just never happen at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
If I write down in my adventure notes "If a PC fails at an attempt to break down the door or pick the lock, an orc patrol from the random encounter table notice the attempt and charge through the door and initiate combat", is that an example of real D&D for real men adversarial tough GMing, or of participation trophies for idiot babies who hate roleplaying? Does it change the answer if I decide on the spot rather than writing it down first? Or if I haven't created any orc patrol encounters in advance but I've used "orc patrol" because it's a likely thing to encounter in an orc lair? e: If I've previously created an area to the east of the town to adventure in, and the players go west, and I make up the area to the west of town as the players go along, have I violated the true spirit of D&D because none of that "existed" before the players actions required me to make it up? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:If I write down in my adventure notes "If a PC fails at an attempt to break down the door or pick the lock, an orc patrol from the random encounter table notice the attempt and charge through the door and initiate combat", is that an example of real D&D for real men adversarial tough GMing, or of participation trophies for idiot babies who hate roleplaying? Does it change the answer if I decide on the spot rather than writing it down first? Or if I haven't created any orc patrol encounters in advance but I've used "orc patrol" because it's a likely thing to encounter in an orc lair? Objectively, it's good GMing. Subjectively, it's the former if you wrote it down first and the later if not. I have, very much, seen people make that argument. You know, let me throw out an idea here: a lot of people who make arguments against fail forward or "seat-of-your-pants" GMing for being "too-handwavey" don't GM often. If they did, they'd know how often you have to fudge poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
In the toy DMing I've been doing (5e, forgive me) I have a stack of index cards with different possessions blue encounters on them. I say "ok, let me find that one" if an encounter is how stuff fails forward, just like I do when they follow the plan and creep into a building. I suspect they can't tell the difference. They don't seem to notice if I reuse them with light modification in the same session, even.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
To some players, GMing is like magic, they don't want to have the 'illusion' spoiled for them. Real GMs know that GMing is a cross between improv and a stare down with a german shepherd. If you can keep the players distracted long enough, and never show weakness, it's fun. I'm only half joking in my description.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
I think there are two basic modes of GMing: - "let me tell you what happens next in this world I have meticulously planned" - "let me change the world in response to what you did so that something fun opens up" Too many see the latter as weakness, and it's the most fun way for everyone so wtf.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I think there are two basic modes of GMing: Also, we all have lives. This isn't highschool where you can get straight As coming in drunk and hung over so you can zone out in class and write down adventure notes in the guise of school notes, this is a working world where my livelihood is dependent on my ability to please agents of the capitalist class. I can only dedicate so much time to my hobbies. Even if you did dedicate all that time, you'll never dedicate enough to cover every possible idea or scenario your players will attempt. Trust me. I've seen absolutely ludicrous bullshit peddled by players on a consistent basis: you can plan for the players trying to start a rock band.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Covok posted:Subjectively, it's the former if you wrote it down first and the later if not. I have, very much, seen people make that argument. Yeah, so have I, and to me, the difference is entirely imaginary. As far as the players/PCs are concerned, nothing "exists" until they interact with it anyway. Even the biggest my verisimilitudinous mileau grognard can't tell the difference, during play, between something that was in the adventure notes and something the game master put there on the spur of the moment. I've literally shuffled yet-to-be-explored rooms around without anyone noticing, because it suited the plot better and it was easier than trying to port encounters between rooms. I can't see why anyone would care that a part of the world they haven't seen yet has changed. Covok posted:You know, let me throw out an idea here: a lot of people who make arguments against fail forward or "seat-of-your-pants" GMing for being "too-handwavey" don't GM often. If they did, they'd know how often you have to fudge poo poo. I think that might be it. Kwyndig posted:To some players, GMing is like magic, they don't want to have the 'illusion' spoiled for them. I get that, but if you don't want to know how the trick is done, don't try to spot the wires and mirrors. I mean, you know it's a trick, and if you're there to be entertained by the illusion rather than to find out how it's done, looking for the false-bottomed cabinet or trying to spot Glamorous Assistant Tracy's body double is only going to make you disappointed. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Covok posted:You know, let me throw out an idea here: a lot of people who make arguments against fail forward or "seat-of-your-pants" GMing for being "too-handwavey" don't GM often. If they did, they'd know how often you have to fudge poo poo. Honestly I'd say half of my games are made up on the spot because players tend to gently caress everything up while creating entirely new plot ropes, usually with the same action. And that's good, because it's fun and interesting! I can't imagine sitting down to a tabletop game and playing it like a Sierra game from the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
This the exact same bullshit speculation that grogs do in reverse. Plenty of people also legit play with meticulous planning and notes and poo poo. Don't pretend other people don't play just because they don't play like you. They're assholes for acting like a particular method is "not real gaming", not because of basic personal preference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
That Old Tree posted:This the exact same bullshit speculation that grogs do in reverse. Plenty of people also legit play with meticulous planning and notes and poo poo. Don't pretend other people don't play just because they don't play like you. They're assholes for acting like a particular method is "not real gaming", not because of basic personal preference. I don't think completionists are wrong, though I think they're doomed in the face of creativity. I think it's harder to consistently produce fun on a minute-by-minute basis with fail-stuck instead of fail-forward. If they're getting enough fun, though, game on. For pulling people in from the tumbl freeform set, I think the message isn't "role playing rules" as much as "role playing tools". Here are some things that can provide helpful structure and consistency!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
That Old Tree posted:This the exact same bullshit speculation that grogs do in reverse. Plenty of people also legit play with meticulous planning and notes and poo poo. Don't pretend other people don't play just because they don't play like you. They're assholes for acting like a particular method is "not real gaming", not because of basic personal preference. I mean, I'm a meticulous planner, but only because I'd like to give my players options and I do better with stuff I prepped ahead of time than improvising on the spot. I'll still wing it if I have to, and I can recycle/refluff fights I made to make it easier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:...procedurally generating everything via random encounter/NPC/loot tables and only doing the barest effort towards having a reason for players to go out and do things. This is a fine way to play. The stories that you end up can be just as interesting as a plot driven by a game master. The memorable stuff doesn't come from the tables and numbers though, it comes from the way players interact with those things and each other. Playing like that pushes the responsibility for creating plot entirely onto the players, although weirdly the people that like to play this kind of game generally object to the idea of player-driven stories if you use those words. But even when you do it like that, "the pre-existing world" is still an illusion. The orcs patrol placed in front of the party by the random encounter generator were not in any sense "already there" before that roll. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
That Old Tree posted:This the exact same bullshit speculation that grogs do in reverse. Plenty of people also legit play with meticulous planning and notes and poo poo. Don't pretend other people don't play just because they don't play like you. They're assholes for acting like a particular method is "not real gaming", not because of basic personal preference. Personally, I have a job that lets me spend a few hours a week planning an assortment of crazy crap for my players to run into, and if they run into it awesome and if not then I'll store it for later and make something up right now. According to these grogs, the latter is "not real gaming" even though they'd never know the difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
That Old Tree posted:This the exact same bullshit speculation that grogs do in reverse. Plenty of people also legit play with meticulous planning and notes and poo poo. Don't pretend other people don't play just because they don't play like you. They're assholes for acting like a particular method is "not real gaming", not because of basic personal preference. Scenario 1) Before the game, I write down an encounter with orcs and place it in a clearing on the map in the northern forest. The players, wandering in the northern forest, move into the area with the northern clearing, and trigger the encounter. They fight and win and get loot and xp. Scenario 2) Before the game, I make up a list of encounters and number them 1-10. The players are wandering in the northern forest. I roll to see if they have a random encounter. I roll the one on the list with the orcs in the clearing. They fight and win and get loot and xp. Scenario 3) The players are wandering in the northern part of the forest. I make up an encounter with orcs, and make up a clearing for it to happen in. They fight and win and get loot and xp. None of these scenarios is the wrong or right way to play. A player has no way to tell, during play, if the orcs they just fought were pre-placed, generated by a table, or made up on the spot. I gues a player could prefer the theory of one over the other, but in practice they're not going to be able to tell the difference without doing something bizarre like keeping careful notes and then comparing them to the DM's notes after the game, at which point they're actively looking to be disappointed. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
There's a reason that lock picking is used so often in these examples. It's a terrible and boring gameplay idea and people just want to mitigate its effects. A door by itself is not an interesting adversary. A door is either a tactical obstacle or a game flow control mechanism. If it is a tactical obstacle, then it can only slow the character in the short term. Lock picking might let you through while maintaining stealth. As a flow control mechanism, it doesn't open until you find the key. The key can be whatever form you want: a lever, a password, permission, etc. The existence of the door is a hint to find the key and then the door leads you further into the game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
Quote is not edit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 01:24
|
|