Newbie question: Does the fail forward principle have any part to play in PbtA games?
For example, roll 6- and your character fails and the MC/GM makes a hard move. Could MC/GM instead rule the character succeeds, but then, say, make two hard moves?
Newbie question: Does the fail forward principle have any part to play in PbtA games?
Newbie question: Does the fail forward principle have any part to play in PbtA games?
Something like this is in the principles. Complicate success and failure. Not quite the same but you can let a failure go.
You’re not making a hard move because they fail. You don’t get two because they succeed.
This is already a thing. In fact some versions of the game have “offer an opportunity without cost” as a move to make.
If the roll is a miss it is up to the mc to interpret how the action goes. The mc will only make one hard move whether they decide the action works or not. This let’s the mc monkey paw actions. For instance “Yeah you climb up the cliff safely, though it is tiring, and when you get to the top Rolf and her gang was waiting with shotguns and a sadistic glee” or “Yeah, you can shoot Jo’s Girl in the back. Too bad she had high explosives in her pack, take 2 harm”.
These narratives include the mc’s hard move.
Aaron Griffin I think I was getting confused with Dungeon World, which explicity says to make move when a player rolls 6-.
You’re making a move, sure. But it’s not because of failure. I think a better way to describe a 6- result might be “nothing in this move says what happens – it’s entirely up to the GM, though it should ultimately put them in a worse situation”
Failure does not mean “not doing/achieving it ” necessarily: it may mean getting really screwed by succeeding.
A miss in AW definately triggers an mc move. I think the destination is hit vs miss isn’t about success or failure, but who drives the change in the narrative. That’s why the books doesn’t call a 6- a failure or a 7+ a success. You can have a pc roll a 10, fail wht they’re trying to do but end up getting exactly what they want (I wouldn’t do this often as it’s deprotagonizing, but the right moment it could work).
I don’t have a copy of the rules in front of me, but I think there’s a move or a principle called “sometimes, give them what they want,” isn’t there? That definitely includes a form of “fail forward.”
Tom Pleasant the whole architecture of MC moves/responses in PbtA is arguably already doing “fail forward”, in the more basic sense that there is never a moment where a failed roll means “nothing happens”. A roll is always consequential and introduces new things to the fiction, even when the character fails.
I’d advise against using 2 MC moves at a time, because it can just be a bit distracting and break the natural flow of moves and reactions at the table.
Offering success at a cost is only one strategy to fail forward, and in most PbtA games you’ll find an MC move that does exactly that: for example, Apocalypse World has “Tell them the possible consequences and ask” and “Offer an opportunity, with or without cost”. If you like the idea of success at a cost, you can make sure you use these MC moves often, or that you add something similar to your Moves list id the game you’re playing doesn’t have one. But my feeling would be to work through this kind of framework, following through with the fictiknal situation rather than just making work for yourself by having to stick to 2 different moves: “ok, you can do it, but Snazza’s guards will hear the noise and investigate; you’ll have to outrun them or take them out quickly, what do you do?”, or “she narrows her eyes. ‘your promises are well and good, but I want more. I want the name of your contact on the inside.’ looks like she won’t trust you without that, what do you do?”
Also, many games focus their “fail forward” strategies on offering success, but in games that support improvisation and open-ended play like many PbtA you can do it by turning sideways instead, and the MC moves structure is perfect for that. You can introduce an external complication that throws things in disarray (the PC was having a very tense conversation with Fenris, an NPC, and your MC move is that Dustwich, whonis drunk and hates Fenris, just shouts something aboht being tired of his bullshit and punches him in the face), or offer an opportunity for something completely different, or a distraction.
Like Alberto Muti says. “Fail forward” doesn’t mean “Succeed regardless”, it means that the event of a roll is never “nothing happens”. That’s 100% ingrained in the moves (both player and MC) and other mechanics (like harm for example).
The advice underlining that the rules text is “Make as hard a move as you like,” not “as hard a move as you can,” is relevant here, as is ‘be a fan of the characters’. Hard moves aren’t a currency with an exchange rate for success; they’re narrative tools. Low rolls aren’t, as folks have pointed out already, failures, but rather a ‘Something Has Gone Wrong’ sign.
In The Empire Strikes Back, for instance, one could argue that Han Solo rolled a 6- when trying to evade the Imperial Navy in the Hoth asteroid field. Sure, he evaded them all right, but the Exogorth represents an MC hard move, if a somewhat lenient one.
A 6 or less is a miss, not a fail. You’re being a fan of the players so you definitely don’t assume failure, for sure. You make a Move, as hard as you like.
I often narrate success at a cost, success but getting more than you bargained for, success but some other possibly unrelated thing happens, and so on.
I don’t take extra moves when I do this, but nor do I limit myself to one move. I always make as many as appropriate to execute an appropriate response.
My favorite take on this is that what’s important on a 6- hard move is that whatever changes is irrevocable. No chance to get in front of it, or minimize it except after the fact. On a 7-9, there’s a bargain there maybe, but on a 6 no.
That said I do vary the hardness of my moves (hard as you like) depending on the fiction and how charged the situation is.
Lots of good info already here so I’ll just give an example from my last game of failing forward. The thief rolled a 5 to open a treasure chest. What’s the fun of having an unopened chest? So she popped it open but her lock pick jammed and broke ( take their gear away). Moves aren’t punishment, they are tools to make things cool, dramatic, intense, fun or anything else that makes the game more entertaining for everyone at the table.
Erik Buchanan yeah, broken picks, setting off a trap, or revealing that the choicest loot has been moved elsewhere are all solid options in that situation.
Thanks for all the great replies. I think I was struggling with working out the difference between a 7-9 success with complication/cost and how to make a 6- similar, and that’s been answered.
Thanks again!
Obviously, if you want to give more advice, please go ahead!
I first changed my behavior regarding tests and potential failures while still playing more “classic”” PnP RPGs, but AW had this already built in for important moves. Let me phrase it as a question: why would a GM even call for a test the player could fail, if s/he does not want failure? Why not just let it succeed from the start?
Out of this question I developed my personal rule to never call for a test which could stop the narrative or I don’t have a failure resolution for in mind.
Regarding AW, some moves allow for progress even if the player misses – so a complete failure never happens. For Read a sitch/person it’s explicit, other moves have room for interpretation (e.g. Open your brain).
I still keep my personal rule, but with AW the situation comes up less often.