failing forward - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 pukunui Nov 04, 2014 12:03:31	Has anyone else noticed that the new-fangled concept of "failing forward" made it into D&D 5e? It's easy to miss, but it's there nevertheless. The very last sentence of the last paragraph under "Ability Checks" on page 174 of the PHB reads: "Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM." (my emphasis) Anyone got any good links for more on the subject?
#2 iserith Nov 04, 2014 12:08:39	Yes, I've pointed it out on a number of occasions with results from anger to outrage. But that's just the forums for you. From one of my favorite threads on Game Mastering, here are some suggestions: DON'T FAIL -- COMPLICATE: Here is a list of skill check failure results: You succeed, but you take damage / lose surges You succeed, but your companions take damage / lose surges You succeed, but you get a really gnarly scar. You succeed, but you'll always limp after this. You succeed, but it takes a long time You succeed, but you attract unwelcome attention You succeed, but you piss someone off You succeed, but you can't use this skill again for awhile You succeed, but you are exhausted and must take an extended rest immediately after the attempt You succeed, but you lose credibility You succeed, but you'll fail your next death save You succeed, but you damage your environment You succeed, but you anger your god You succeed, but you suffer (condition) until you extended rest You succeed, but you are exposed to (disease) You succeed, but all your hair falls out and it will never regrow You fail, but you think you succeed It may be a good idea to tell the table the risks they're running before the check is rolled, so the party doesn't feel ambushed if you hit them with a highly undesirable outcome. The Burning games offer excellent advice on how to make test failure fictionally interesting. Look them up. Weak hits in Apocalypse World and Dungeon World are also superb inspiration for this.
#3 pukunui Nov 04, 2014 12:11:43	iserith wrote:
#4 bawylie Nov 04, 2014 12:20:18	I like the ability to fail. So when that happens, I offer generally two outcomes. 1.) You can mitigate failure at a painful cost (that is, something consequential - not merely hit dice) or 2.) take your lumps. I don't like the terms "if you fail, you succeed anyway, but also complication." I'm big on putting the decision in the player's hands.
#5 pukunui Nov 04, 2014 12:23:34	I think it all depends on how the question the dice roll is meant to answer is phrased. If the question is simply "Can I successfully open this stuck door?", then yeah, a failed roll means you failed to open the door. If, however, the question is "Can I open this stuck door quietly enough that I don't alert the orcs in the next room?", a failure wouldn't mean that you failed to open the door, just that you failed to open it quietly and have now lost the element of surprise.
#6 Kalani Nov 04, 2014 12:45:23	pukunui wrote:
#7 pukunui Nov 04, 2014 12:48:27	I don't recall ever reading anything about it when I ran 2e back in the day, but then I didn't subscribe to the magazines, so maybe that's why. I'm only familiar with the concept via more recent RPGs like FATE, so I just assumed it was a new-ish thing. EDIT: Also, what you're talking about seems to be more geared towards not letting failure derail an entire adventure, whereas what I'm talking about is failing forward with skill checks.
#8 Kalani Nov 04, 2014 12:47:19	Fair enough. With that being said, it was also common in modules. Rise of Tiamat uses this model in the event that the PCs fail to accomplish their goals in defeating the Cult - with Tiamat's forces sweeping across the land, with plothooks for new heroes to use to rise up and curb the winged tide of destruction.
#9 pukunui Nov 04, 2014 12:49:22	Kalani wrote:
#10 iserith Nov 04, 2014 12:52:34	pukunui wrote:
#11 Psikerlord Nov 04, 2014 12:52:18	I like that it's been thrown in as an extra option. The DM can choose either straight failure, or allow a success with a complication. Best of both worlds. I certainly would not want there to not be a chance of failure, that it was always failing forward, that would get very old, very quickly.
#12 pukunui Nov 04, 2014 12:56:09	iserith wrote:
#13 iserith Nov 04, 2014 12:57:31	pukunui wrote:
#14 pukunui Nov 04, 2014 12:59:41	iserith wrote:
#15 iserith Nov 04, 2014 12:58:39	pukunui wrote:
#16 pukunui Nov 04, 2014 13:00:10	iserith wrote:
#17 raleel Nov 04, 2014 14:09:22	Yes, I used the concept quite a bit running a 13th age game. Worked like a champ, and think it is a good way to keep things interesting.
#18 Ahglock Nov 04, 2014 20:47:26	I like it. I use it a lot with near miss rolls. Leaping the pit if despair but missed your roll by 2? Well you don't just fall to your doom you catch the ledge on the other side and need to pull yourself up. Trying to smash the door down in a sudden dramatic fashion to get the drop on the gnolls on the other side but fail by 1. You smash through the door but fall prone.
#19 pukunui Nov 04, 2014 21:43:58	Ahglock wrote:
#20 seti Nov 04, 2014 21:54:39	I've pretty much always* felt a DM should adjucate with regards to keeping the game fun for all the players. In most cases, that means saying "you 'fail' but..." Now, obviously, sometimes a check is binary. Like (as mentioned above) opening a stuck door. It either opens or it doesn't. If I'm the DM, I'd never put something behind that stuck door that is required for the adventure to move foreward (without allowing for other ways to get past the door, obviously). I also think this isn't really new. Even to D&D. When I got back into the hobby with 3e/3.5e after a few years away, my first DM in almost a decade didn't play hard-line 'yes or no' with dice rolls either. He always had a "But..." to mitigate failure. Sure, things might be easier if you roll a 20 on a check, but rolling a 1 doesn't mean (nor should it mean) instant death, severe player punishment, or total campaign derailment. 4e and 5e have also made it clear that DM's should take this approach, as it's now sanctioned (LOL) by WotC as the proper approach. I suspect the 5e DMG will cover this idea, and others like it, in more detail than just a sentence fragment in the PHB. I think it's a very good idea to mention it in rulebooks. D&D is a game where there is no 'save' button, and players (should) be invested in their PC's. Massive f*k-ups due to bad dice rolls should never force game night to end early, or cause resentment at the table. A DM should also prepare all challenges with at least 3 solutions, while also allowing for the players to come up with a fourth. Well, not so much way back in high school, with 2e, and us playing in a more juvenile style...ie: PC's vs. DM, or the Dice of the God Gygax are never wrong, save or DIE, or whatever.
#21 sleypy Nov 05, 2014 4:31:41	Kalani wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

pukunui

Nov 04, 2014 12:03:31

Has anyone else noticed that the new-fangled concept of "failing forward" made it into D&D 5e? It's easy to miss, but it's there nevertheless.

The very last sentence of the last paragraph under "Ability Checks" on page 174 of the PHB reads: "Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM." (my emphasis)

Anyone got any good links for more on the subject?

iserith

Nov 04, 2014 12:08:39

Yes, I've pointed it out on a number of occasions with results from anger to outrage. But that's just the forums for you.

From one of my favorite threads on Game Mastering, here are some suggestions:

DON'T FAIL -- COMPLICATE: Here is a list of skill check failure results:

You succeed, but you take damage / lose surges

You succeed, but your companions take damage / lose surges

You succeed, but you get a really gnarly scar.

You succeed, but you'll always limp after this.

You succeed, but it takes a long time

You succeed, but you attract unwelcome attention

You succeed, but you piss someone off

You succeed, but you can't use this skill again for awhile

You succeed, but you are exhausted and must take an extended rest immediately after the attempt

You succeed, but you lose credibility

You succeed, but you'll fail your next death save

You succeed, but you damage your environment

You succeed, but you anger your god

You succeed, but you suffer (condition) until you extended rest

You succeed, but you are exposed to (disease)

You succeed, but all your hair falls out and it will never regrow

You fail, but you think you succeed

It may be a good idea to tell the table the risks they're running before the check is rolled, so the party doesn't feel ambushed if you hit them with a highly undesirable outcome.

The Burning games offer excellent advice on how to make test failure fictionally interesting. Look them up. Weak hits in Apocalypse World and Dungeon World are also superb inspiration for this.

pukunui

Nov 04, 2014 12:11:43

iserith wrote:

bawylie

Nov 04, 2014 12:20:18

I like the ability to fail. So when that happens, I offer generally two outcomes. 1.) You can mitigate failure at a painful cost (that is, something consequential - not merely hit dice) or 2.) take your lumps.

I don't like the terms "if you fail, you succeed anyway, but also complication."

I'm big on putting the decision in the player's hands.

pukunui

Nov 04, 2014 12:23:34

I think it all depends on how the question the dice roll is meant to answer is phrased. If the question is simply "Can I successfully open this stuck door?", then yeah, a failed roll means you failed to open the door. If, however, the question is "Can I open this stuck door quietly enough that I don't alert the orcs in the next room?", a failure wouldn't mean that you failed to open the door, just that you failed to open it quietly and have now lost the element of surprise.

Kalani

Nov 04, 2014 12:45:23

pukunui wrote:

pukunui

Nov 04, 2014 12:48:27

I don't recall ever reading anything about it when I ran 2e back in the day, but then I didn't subscribe to the magazines, so maybe that's why. I'm only familiar with the concept via more recent RPGs like FATE, so I just assumed it was a new-ish thing.

EDIT: Also, what you're talking about seems to be more geared towards not letting failure derail an entire adventure, whereas what I'm talking about is failing forward with skill checks.

Kalani

Nov 04, 2014 12:47:19

Fair enough. With that being said, it was also common in modules. Rise of Tiamat uses this model in the event that the PCs fail to accomplish their goals in defeating the Cult - with Tiamat's forces sweeping across the land, with plothooks for new heroes to use to rise up and curb the winged tide of destruction.

pukunui

Nov 04, 2014 12:49:22

Kalani wrote:

#10

iserith

Nov 04, 2014 12:52:34

pukunui wrote:

#11

Psikerlord

Nov 04, 2014 12:52:18

I like that it's been thrown in as an extra option. The DM can choose either straight failure, or allow a success with a complication. Best of both worlds. I certainly would not want there to not be a chance of failure, that it was always failing forward, that would get very old, very quickly.

#12

pukunui

Nov 04, 2014 12:56:09

iserith wrote:

#13

iserith

Nov 04, 2014 12:57:31

pukunui wrote:

#14

pukunui

Nov 04, 2014 12:59:41

iserith wrote:

#15

iserith

Nov 04, 2014 12:58:39

pukunui wrote:

#16

pukunui

Nov 04, 2014 13:00:10

iserith wrote:

#17

raleel

Nov 04, 2014 14:09:22

Yes, I used the concept quite a bit running a 13th age game. Worked like a champ, and think it is a good way to keep things interesting.

#18

Ahglock

Nov 04, 2014 20:47:26

I like it. I use it a lot with near miss rolls. Leaping the pit if despair but missed your roll by 2? Well you don't just fall to your doom you catch the ledge on the other side and need to pull yourself up. Trying to smash the door down in a sudden dramatic fashion to get the drop on the gnolls on the other side but fail by 1. You smash through the door but fall prone.

#19

pukunui

Nov 04, 2014 21:43:58

Ahglock wrote:

#20

seti

Nov 04, 2014 21:54:39

I've pretty much always* felt a DM should adjucate with regards to keeping the game fun for all the players. In most cases, that means saying "you 'fail' but..."

Now, obviously, sometimes a check is binary. Like (as mentioned above) opening a stuck door. It either opens or it doesn't. If I'm the DM, I'd never put something behind that stuck door that is required for the adventure to move foreward (without allowing for other ways to get past the door, obviously).

I also think this isn't really new. Even to D&D. When I got back into the hobby with 3e/3.5e after a few years away, my first DM in almost a decade didn't play hard-line 'yes or no' with dice rolls either. He always had a "But..." to mitigate failure. Sure, things might be easier if you roll a 20 on a check, but rolling a 1 doesn't mean (nor should it mean) instant death, severe player punishment, or total campaign derailment. 4e and 5e have also made it clear that DM's should take this approach, as it's now sanctioned (LOL) by WotC as the proper approach. I suspect the 5e DMG will cover this idea, and others like it, in more detail than just a sentence fragment in the PHB.

I think it's a very good idea to mention it in rulebooks. D&D is a game where there is no 'save' button, and players (should) be invested in their PC's. Massive f**k-ups due to bad dice rolls should never force game night to end early, or cause resentment at the table. A DM should also prepare all challenges with at least 3 solutions, while also allowing for the players to come up with a fourth.

*Well, not so much way back in high school, with 2e, and us playing in a more juvenile style...ie: PC's vs. DM, or the Dice of the God Gygax are never wrong, save or DIE, or whatever.

#21

sleypy

Nov 05, 2014 4:31:41

Kalani wrote: