PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Fail forward design mechanic



avalkauskas
2018-08-20, 10:23 AM
How would you implement a "fail-forward" game mechanic in 5e?

For those unfamiliar with the term, it means: ensuring that even on a failed roll, the narrative/action continues. You're never faced with an action that simply results in "nothing happening".

edit: subscribed

Vogie
2018-08-20, 11:32 AM
Collateral damage is probably the easiest fail-forward mechanic to implement.

You'd have a sliding scale on critical fail, miss and near miss.

Sorcerer uses fire bolt, misses the ranged attack, and hits the tree behind the target... roll to see if it's set ablaze.
Sorcerer uses fire bolt, nearly misses the ranged attack (within 5 AC) and the bolt glints off their armor harmlessly.
Sorcerer uses fire bolt, critically misses (nat 1), and must roll a second attack die to see if they're actually hitting the allied fighter their target was fighting.

Nifft
2018-08-20, 11:55 AM
Idea #1 (miss = feint) - When you miss a target, all future attacks on that target get +1, and these +1s stack until the target is hit -- on hit, the target's defenses reset.


Idea #2 (mix & match) - When you miss a target, all the target's future saving throws get -1. When a target makes a saving throw, all attacks against it get +1. These stack until the end of the encounter.

avalkauskas
2018-08-20, 12:08 PM
Collateral damage is probably the easiest fail-forward mechanic to implement.

You'd have a sliding scale on critical fail, miss and near miss.

Sorcerer uses fire bolt, misses the ranged attack, and hits the tree behind the target... roll to see if it's set ablaze.
Sorcerer uses fire bolt, nearly misses the ranged attack (within 5 AC) and the bolt glints off their armor harmlessly.
Sorcerer uses fire bolt, critically misses (nat 1), and must roll a second attack die to see if they're actually hitting the allied fighter their target was fighting.


The first example would be a fail-forward, since something happened. The second would constitute as-is rules. The third has a possibility of being fail-forward.

It would be interesting to see all options being like #1 (really push the envelope wrt current design)

avalkauskas
2018-08-20, 12:12 PM
Idea #1 (miss = feint) - When you miss a target, all future attacks on that target get +1, and these +1s stack until the target is hit -- on hit, the target's defenses reset.


Idea #2 (mix & match) - When you miss a target, all the target's future saving throws get -1. When a target makes a saving throw, all attacks against it get +1. These stack until the end of the encounter.

That's not bad, even though it doesn't change narrative/action, it does affect the game state. How would you evolve that towards a more profound effect?

Anymage
2018-08-20, 12:14 PM
Failed individual actions are okay. Some saving throws are a bit more swingy than is ideal, but so long as the overall game is resource depletion it's okay if this one move fails to remove some HP.

Taking that idea to broader actions, you can break it down into simple and extended checks. Simple checks, where you just roll one dice, should always have some other way around them. It's probably costlier in gold, time, or some other resource, but it's an annoying detour rather than a hard stop. Extended actions, you can take a page from combat. And read up on both 3e's complex skill checks and 4e's various attempts at skill challenges. The whole endeavor could indeed be failed by enough bad luck and/or incompetence; wandering into the desert without provisions or a guide is a good way to become a sandblasted skeleton. But so long as each individual check causes resource depletion instead of being a binary pass/fail, skill checks help figure out how fast you get there (hopefully before your provisions run out) instead of whether you get there at all.

UrielAwakened
2018-08-20, 12:25 PM
Failed skill checks aren't failed skill checks.

Failing to pick a lock doesn't leave the door open, it just means that the door opens but now was trapped, or you've alerted monsters in the next room who had time to prepare.

Failing to recall knowledge instead provides you with incorrect or incomplete knowledge.

Failing an athletics check leaves you hanging precipitously on the other side of a chasm.

Failing pretty much anything is just a success + a setback.

avalkauskas
2018-08-20, 12:42 PM
Failed skill checks aren't failed skill checks.

Failing to pick a lock doesn't leave the door open, it just means that the door opens but now was trapped, or you've alerted monsters in the next room who had time to prepare.

Failing to recall knowledge instead provides you with incorrect or incomplete knowledge.

Failing an athletics check leaves you hanging precipitously on the other side of a chasm.

Failing pretty much anything is just a success + a setback.

That's a good way to explain it: Success+consequence

Derpaligtr
2018-08-20, 12:53 PM
Fail forward is great for the overall scheme of things, not so much for the nitty gritty aspects.

Attack rolls don't need to fail forward.

Trying to get into a castle? Let the stupid idea lead to a fail forward situation. Not just "you get locked up" because you tried to climb over the castle wall in broad daylight... But have them run into a training session and now the castle is on high alert.

Good job, you just played yourself.

avalkauskas
2018-08-20, 01:12 PM
Fail forward is great for the overall scheme of things, not so much for the nitty gritty aspects.

Attack rolls don't need to fail forward.

Trying to get into a castle? Let the stupid idea lead to a fail forward situation. Not just "you get locked up" because you tried to climb over the castle wall in broad daylight... But have them run into a training session and now the castle is on high alert.

Good job, you just played yourself.

Why would you say that attack rolls don't need a fail-forward mechanic? In a 6 player pathfinder game it was about 20 minutes between turns. Rolling and missing 2 turns in a row meant 40 minutes of the night was shot.

Dungeon World and similar games have great fail-forward mechanics that generate more action:
- You hit, you get what you want
- You miss by a little, either monster takes half damage or they take full damage and get to counterattack
- You miss by a lot, you miss and the opponent gets a free attack on you
This ensures that something happened

Fate of the Norns takes the roll out and has an action-reaction system:
1- You attack and declare damage
2- Opponent gets to soak damage with passive defense
3- Opponent gets to optionally use some actions to parry/dodge
So even if you deal no damage, you may have had them burn some of their actions, so something happened

Thoughts?

Nifft
2018-08-20, 02:20 PM
That's not bad, even though it doesn't change narrative/action, it does affect the game state. How would you evolve that towards a more profound effect?

I would not evolve profound narrative success from simple mechanical failure.

Simple mechanical failures fail forward into simple mechanical successes.

Complex player schemes might fail forward into profound narrative successes.

Derpaligtr
2018-08-20, 05:21 PM
Why would you say that attack rolls don't need a fail-forward mechanic? In a 6 player pathfinder game it was about 20 minutes between turns. Rolling and missing 2 turns in a row meant 40 minutes of the night was shot.

Dungeon World and similar games have great fail-forward mechanics that generate more action:
- You hit, you get what you want
- You miss by a little, either monster takes half damage or they take full damage and get to counterattack
- You miss by a lot, you miss and the opponent gets a free attack on you
This ensures that something happened

Fate of the Norns takes the roll out and has an action-reaction system:
1- You attack and declare damage
2- Opponent gets to soak damage with passive defense
3- Opponent gets to optionally use some actions to parry/dodge
So even if you deal no damage, you may have had them burn some of their actions, so something happened

Thoughts?

Failing is good for you. Straight up failing makes the times you succeed so much sweeter.

Those systems are a lot more complicated and bog down the game time. Yes, i've played them, and you always get people (even the DM) who needa that extra time to decide what to do.

Reaction abilities are nice, when they aren't part of the base system and when they are straight forward and simple.

2 turns in 5e is not 40 minutes, not even 4e, 2 turns in 5e is maybe MAYBE 10 minutes...

But yeah, failure makes success that much sweeter.

Leave the fail forward to the narrative, not the gritty aspects of the game.