|
Post by HourEleven on Feb 18, 2014 14:51:38 GMT -8
I just read this really interesting little Gplus article about the different types of failure inherent in different systems - the author focuses on Fate, but I think it raises some larger questions about how we are/should be handling challenge and failures as GMs regardless of system.. I'm curious about other peoples thoughts on how they handle failure in their games and on the points raised in the article. plus.google.com/108546067488075210468/posts/CpvrfJUz8duGPlus Article I especially want to draw focus to the idea that when we set up a challenge, there should always be a narrative value to failure, or else failure is only a threat we have and not a real option. I've been obsessed with Filamena Young's post apocalyptic RPG "Flatpack: Fix the future" - a Roleplaying game where there isn't just a lack of rules for combat, combat is actually prohibited. While writing adventures for Flatpack I became interested in how much harder it was at first to build challenges in which violence was not an element - not against or from the players. I found the obstacles were much more interesting when the outcomes weren't bodily harm, but were instead a loss of control. "You failed to turn off the machine, it is now steamrolling through the factory, better think of something quick." (Yes, they failed again and it broke free from the factory and was rampaging towards the farm that was the only source of food for the survivors, they stopped it at the last minute with some quick thinking and team work). I've also been putting the finishing touches on my own Fate Accelerated book (about intergalactic KPop girl groups saving the universe) where combat is prohibited. While looking for ways to phrase challenges and dramatic stakes where violence wasn't involved, I found that article. Fellow GMs, I want your thoughts on the topic of failure, value, challenges, and systems that encourage or discourage these questions and mechanical proddings.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Feb 18, 2014 17:39:52 GMT -8
Great article/post. The game that opened my eyes to this was Apocalypse World (I've only just started reading Fate Core). When they players roll dice from triggering a move, one of three things happens; - they get everything they want, exactly as they say and maybe even a little more;
- they get what they want, but have to pay for it or have to lose something else;
- the GM makes a GM move
Failure, in the traditional sense, isn't even determined by the dice. The GM making a move doesn't mean the player fails at what they were attempting to do. It might, but that depends on what GM move the GM picks and more importantly, what makes sense for the fiction. As something always has to happen when the player rolls a 6 or less, you quickly learn to not call for dice rolls when it doesn't matter. Just like that G+ article says, if there is absolutely nothing that will happen if the player "fails", then don't even call for a roll. The character simply does it. When I started GMing AW-based games, I made the mistake of having players roll for fairly mundane stuff. When they got a 6-, I often found myself thinking "None of these GM moves make sense for the situation." but due to the nature of the game, something had to happen. Eventually I learned to only call for rolls when there would clearly be fallout or possible consequences.
|
|
plusx2a
Strategicon/RPG Section Staff
Join me at Gamex 2014 Memorial Day Weekend May 23 - May 26
Posts: 238
Preferred Game Systems: Savage Worlds, Modiphius 2d20, FATE, PbTA
Currently Playing: Legend of the Five Rings, Cortex
Currently Running: Savage World of Solomon Cane, Modiphius Conan
Favorite Species of Monkey: Spider
|
Post by plusx2a on Feb 19, 2014 17:51:07 GMT -8
Limiting dice rolls to things that have real consequence on the story is just a damn good rule to follow as a GM. Recently I wrote about a game called Houses of the Blooded by John Wick. That conversation was why this thread totally caught my eye since that game has been having me totally re-think the idea of failure in my games. In Wick's system making a die roll does not mean the character succeeds. In fact, what the roll does is give the player the power to describe the outcome, good or bad. If they fail the roll the GM has the power to decide the outcome. The mechanics encourage the player to "fail forward" or fail with concequences that move the plot forward or create dramatic tension.
For example, when Han Solo is trying to escape the Imp blockade on Hoth and his hyperdrive motivator goes out he has fails to get the himself and his compatriots on board the Falcon out of trouble. This leads to the dramatic scene where he fly's into an asteroid field and demands that 3PO never tell him the odds. This is a classic example of failing forward or advancing the plot by adding a complication that enhances drama. In a system like HotB this could totally be a Player GM collaboration from a successful roll.
It's an odd mechanic but it works well with players who like to have their characters weave through difficult situations and have them pull it out of their butts.
In FATE the game is a little different. FATE works like an auction and success is the thing on the block. You have to decide just how much you want to win the auction and either buy in or pass. It's the GM's job to set the starting bid, let the random element go and run the auction.
A fun thing I saw Mike Olson do with Thrilling Fate was to give you Fate points for surrendering, making it like a Compel of sorts. This makes it easy for the GM to get the characters captured or knocked out at the right time in the plot by rewarding the player for going along with it.
Sorry, my mind is still swimming with a bunch of ideas I picked up last weekend.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Feb 19, 2014 19:36:22 GMT -8
If you haven't checked out The Grand Poobah's (or HE WHO SITS IN PASADENA BURPING) game Moment of Truth...Do It! He's got a rile that says any time the GM calls for a roll the player can INTENTIONALLY FAIL...then she can gain a Moment if Truth (Benny) but this Benny packs a crazy wallop. By spending a moment of truth a player can actually take control of the narrative and GM the game for a bit.
|
|
|
Post by greatwyrm on Feb 19, 2014 20:13:00 GMT -8
The thing that really changed my outlook on failed rolls was the (very neat) game Other Worlds. One of the basic rules is that if you can't think of something interesting that will happen on both a success and a failure, you don't even roll. You just go with what was interesting. The *World games do things somewhat like this, too.
Going back and playing something like SWd6 or D&D makes a bad roll just feel like losing my turn, which sucks.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Feb 19, 2014 21:39:14 GMT -8
Going back and playing something like SWd6 or D&D makes a bad roll just feel like losing my turn, which sucks. I've gotten in trouble for saying that systems where nothing happens on a miss are poorly designed. But you know what? They are. Systems designed so that nothing happens on a failed roll are boring. Yeah, sure. In some situations not doing anything is actually a reduction in a specific resource; time. The more you whiff when swinging a sword at the Big Bad, the longer he's around to (try and) hit you back. So in that case, failure has a consequence, namely the loss of hit points. Or ammunition if you're shooting a bow. Or spell slots if you're slinging spells in a Vancian Magic system. But not doing anything on a miss is just so lame. I know I've mentioned this before, but narration can help cover it up, but only for so long.
|
|
|
Post by HourEleven on Feb 19, 2014 23:25:40 GMT -8
I've gotten in trouble for saying that systems where nothing happens on a miss are poorly designed. I GM an ironic DnD B/X campaign where we play through all of the official modules in publication order, as written (it's amazing, try it sometime - ah, the days when "elf" was a class). It really struck me how utterly useless a player can feel when they roll to unlock that door and I have to say "nope. Didn't get it. Nothing happens. Now what?" I mean the player is mostly just a set of keys they party carries around anyway, when they couldn't unlock the door they had this look on their face like "why isn't this character an NPC?" Not that I'm saying B/X is poorly designed, it is what it is and we play it for all it's faults (and to exaggerate the cliches of sword and sorcery), but there's no better example of "Useless Failures" than lock pick rolls in DnD Classic modules... unless the lock is trapped, and to add insult to injury the rogue who couldn't open the lock is now useless and on fire... The more I think about it, the more I have to acknowledge the systems that "got it" early on. I'm thinking of that great line in the Gurps rule book that declares to the effect of - under no circumstance should the players roll if there is not something of significance to be gained or lost. Or all the different ways early White Wolf books tried to express it but because it was the nineties all they could figure out to say was something like "throw out any rule that gets in the story's way" or some such anti-establishment junk, haha.
|
|
|
Post by greatwyrm on Feb 20, 2014 5:31:54 GMT -8
It really struck me how utterly useless a player can feel when they roll to unlock that door and I have to say "nope. Didn't get it. Nothing happens. Now what?" Exactly. Next time I run a game like that, I want to really use something like DungeonWorld's loss of resources or introducing a new threat for something like this. I just don't know what to do about combat misses in something like D&D, where you're designed to miss about half the time anyway.
|
|
|
Post by greatwyrm on Feb 20, 2014 5:32:55 GMT -8
Although, now that I think about it, making that when the monsters get a turn would solve the economy of actions problem that screws solos in 4e.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Feb 20, 2014 9:02:56 GMT -8
I've gotten in trouble for saying that systems where nothing happens on a miss are poorly designed. I GM an ironic DnD B/X campaign where we play through all of the official modules in publication order, as written (it's amazing, try it sometime - ah, the days when "elf" was a class). Fucking hipster. .
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Feb 22, 2014 6:50:03 GMT -8
I GM an ironic DnD B/X campaign where we play through all of the official modules in publication order, as written (it's amazing, try it sometime - ah, the days when "elf" was a class). Fucking hipster. . Dude, look at his avatar. No shit. Still, I agree. Failing should always have a consequence.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Feb 22, 2014 8:08:56 GMT -8
Now you're just being a HIPPY! (sorry the ranting anger from that other thread has flowed into me like the power of the darkside). If you roll a 1 in Pathfinder (at least in my games BAD SHIT happens). If you fail to do any effective damage that round so that the next round the dragon eats your friend failure has a consequence, now it may not be the short attention span theater (but I want it NOW!) result but still there are consequences. If you are playing a game where it becomes "I hit/you miss/I hit" then that game is FUCKING BORING. Its the job of the collective group to not just narrate combat but role play combat and make it interesting. Why was everyone talking in a funny voice a minute ago but now that dice are being rolled we are suddenly playing a board game ? Thats a group choice. System is as system does (to paraphrase Forest Gump). Games where players just sit back and tell the GM "entertain Me!" are not my kinda game. Collaborative story telling everyone. Now to go ride a bike. In the snow. And the sand. For 20 miles. Phew. Have a lovely day .
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Feb 24, 2014 16:09:07 GMT -8
Me, a hippy? Sir, I demand satisfaction!
I would say that "you miss...the dragon eats you on his next turn" would definitely be what I would call a consequences. I don't exactly balance my encounters beforehand so sometimes I hit/you miss/I hit happens. But usually I try to solve that with "a man walks into a room with a (bigger) gun" or its equivalent. I also endeavor to keep my players from rolling when the response to a failure would be "you can roll again."
So we agree. Unless you weren't talking to me. In which case I suppose I am satisfied.
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 25, 2014 13:29:24 GMT -8
Thanks for sharing this article! I'm not very familiar with Fate, but I know enough about the rules to understand his references and extrapolate to my own games.
While I certainly value the idea of failing forward, and strive to use it in my own games, I don't agree that failure always has to mean something other than... well, failure. It can, sometimes, simply mean that you've failed to achieve your goal. Failing your lockpicking roll might mean that your pick breaks as the door swings open, it might mean that you get the door open with a loud squeal of the hinges, or it might just mean that the door simply doesn't open. And that's okay! That can encourage your players to come up with other creative solutions to achieve their goals ("Think the halfling can fit through that hole? Let's find out!") or create more questions ("We've managed to open every other door in this castle, why the hell couldn't we open that one?") The pitfall, to me, is when failure means one thing, and one thing only. Things will be just as boring if failing to pick a lock ALWAYS means a fight as they would if failing to pick a lock ALWAYS meant the door doesn't open. Mixing things up helps to maintain tension when picking up the dice.
A proactive group of players can maintain more narrative momentum when faced with flat failure than a reactive group can. The importance of the challenge to the narrative also should be evaluated: if the players simply must have whatever is on the other side of the door for the story to progress, then either don't have them roll or have them succeed at a cost on a failure.
I agree with the author: failure should be embraced as a tool. Just make sure that you're using the right tool for the job!
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Feb 26, 2014 6:49:26 GMT -8
It's interesting to read the thoughts on this thread. The role of failure is something I've been trying to work out my own thoughts on lately. It's true that just being told "you fail" is a letdown. But the other GM in my group has recently gone crazy for *.World, and somehow that doesn't make me happy either, for reasons I can't quite put my finger on. Maybe because having the extra consequences for failing almost feels like an active punishment for attempting the action, giving me something to lose if I try it.
|
|