One of the most annoying bits I read in online discussions of RPG topics is the notion of “fail forward.” I’m going to try to restrain myself so this doesn’t turn into a straight up rant, as this is one of the lamest notions I’ve heard about game play in the 40 years I’ve been playing elf games. I rolled my eyes when I first encountered it and my opinion of it has dropped since then.
If a PC attempts some task, it goes, and fails in the attempt, play can’t advance because nothing happened. If a PC fails, they say, it should still advance play, by which they mean the PC should succeed in some fashion despite failing. Leaving aside the nonsensical notion that every PC action should meaningfully advance progress in some fashion, this argument is ludicrous. (I think it indicates the player making the argument is far too lazy or lacks the creativity to be a good player, though I’m trying not to rant here.)
Experienced old school players understand things differently, I reckon. They know — from experience — that having failed at one approach to solving a problem simply means that they have to get creative and explore one of the other possible solutions. They don’t expect things to be easy and know that the first, obvious solution may not work. They expect that they may have to work a bit harder than that.
So, when the thief fails to pick the lock on the door that promises to provide access to the area believed to be awash with piles of coins and gemstones, all is not lost. There’s no need to whine and demand that they get access to that part of the dungeon just because they tried something that could gain them access and success should be handed to them with some lame “consequence” attached. The old school players understand they’ll have to work harder: perhaps there’s another door not far away that leads into that section of the dungeon; perhaps in the shdows overhead there’s a passage that bypasses the door; perhaps they can force the door, grab something to use as a battering ram, hack it to pieces, or burn it until they can smash it; trick some dungeon denizen to open the door for them.
The failure of the thief’s attempt to pick the lock didn’t stall out play. It advanced play by eliminating one possible solution to the problem of the locked door. It enhances play, actually, by providing a chance for the players to get creative in opening or bypassing the door. It drives the players to work a little harder and engage with the setting a bit more. Trying only the easy solution and then throwing hands up in defeat while demanding success just isn’t good play.
The same sort of argument arises when dealing with combat. If both a PC and the monster engaged with it are unsuccessful in attacking each other, the cry arises that nothing changed in the fight and that’s bad. A bit of thought shows this to be nonsense, too. Tthe PC keeping the monster occupied while the magic-user behind them finishes a spell changes things as much — if not more — than had the fighter simply laid another four points of damage on the beastie. The PC staying alive and upright could be a significant achievement, if the monster outclasses the character. The PC could use that time to reassess the fight and decide on a different approach to it, which also advances play; there’s more to melee than just doing damage to the foe.
There’s so much creative play that can happen after the easy approach fails that I have to wonder if the folks arguing for “fail forward” have ever experienced any play that embraces challenge as an integral part of the experience. If a party always succeeds with the first thing they attempt, I think that play experience would be might shallow and not very fulfilling.
What you are describing is fail forward. Fail forward does not mean players advance in their goals no matter what, it means the story advances no matter what, essentially it’s an argument against roll a d20 until you succeed. Yes some games are more interested in what characters must give up for success than players actually failing but that is a narrow subset of this idea, all fail forward argues is that something should change if an attempt is made, not being able to attempt again is a change, random encounter rolls also act as an osr release valve for stagnant play though they don’t change the calculation on effective actions until they actually trigger so perhaps less so. Essentially the worst part of the concept of fail forward is the name, which confuses people into thinking forward always means good for players.
The reason I have a problem with is is because I’ve read far too much commentary from players who describe it in the fashion I complain about, namely, that they want “success with complication” or some other “consequence” instead of of just accepting the failure for what it is and stepping up to play. In that regard, many of those advocating for it are misrepresenting it, if what you say is true (and that wouldn’t surprise me, actually.)
I’m also puzzled that anybody would want to name what would be unremarkable acceptance of a failed check with a term of jargon, especially a term that implies something much different. As I understand it, that term came out of narrative game design and reflects a difference in approach between narrative systems and those that preceded such. That suggests that it doesn’t reflect the usual removal of the failed action from further attempts.
The folks who use it in the sense you report would be better served, I think, by just not using it. If one thinks of it in that fashion, then no special term is needed — it’s assumed a failed attempt leads to continued play and doesn’t kill progress.
Thanks for the reply!
So it’s important to remember these concepts were not devised as an alternative to osr methodologies, the osr and narrative movements were being developed around the same time. Instead they were developed in response to the current editions of dnd at the time. In a paradigm without time pressure mechanics like random encounters, with linear adventure writing that requires a certain path, not letting them attempt a check twice could just be game ending. Sure there are multiple things going wrong there but that is the environment this tool was made to address, not the osr play the world as it is style.
I would also say more tools is more good, don’t let them try the same thing twice is a restrictive paradigm, fail forward while poorly named is a less restrictive pradigm that includes not letting them attempt something twice as an option.