Comments on: Learn to Explain Failure

By: dragonme

dragonme — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:13:23 +0000

I was just introduced to D&D a few months ago by a friend, and these tricks are something I learned from playing the first game. The DM wasn’t great but he knew what was good from some of his earlier playing experience. He didn’t know how to be a DM completely but he did incorporate some of these tricks to a lesser degree, and I picked up on them, but your article made me rethink a lot of the stuff that happened in my recent campaign that I am running. They claim that they had a great time playing, and we/they played for 7 hours, but your article could of made my campaign so much better… Well looks like I will have to up the coolness factor in 2 days when we play again. =). Thanks for the article.

By: Pete

Pete — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 07:45:48 +0000

in our group one of the more memorable scene’s was when my rogue failed a thievery roll trying to rob a drunken orge because the DM described the low roll as “his hand got stuck in the orge’s belt and he turns to look at you”…now i have to do try to talk my way out of it and try to free his hand at the same time meanwhile everyone else in the party is laughing their heads off.
this also reminds me of a blog somewhere about using the john woo effect. a miss/failure is too boring, some kind of unintended side effect should happen to add an element of surprise/tension/action. missing a shot at the bad guy hits the kings prize vase behind him; a missed sword attack gets stuck in the stone pillar behind you.
from a players perspective i think this adds a lot of fun and character background to the game. next time my rogue tries to rob somebody he’s gonna get a lot of heckling…

By: The Best of My RPG Linkroll « My Play

The Best of My RPG Linkroll « My Play — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:19:51 +0000

[...] Learn to Explain Failure [...]

By: R00kie

R00kie — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:46:48 +0000

Some of my favourite play session have hung off a single player failure. I’ve always felt that if someone fails at something you move on quickly after a short description, but if they fail at a dramatic moment or at a moment when the odds really should be in their favour you need to make it memorable.

In a Traveller campaign I had a player announce he was trying to skim fuel from a sun in a particularly foolish fashion in an attempt to impress a nearby ship. The player gave me a description of dropping into the sun decelerating at 5Gs. He had a rediculously high skill, yet still managed to fumble. (Normally I wouldnt request a roll for skimming fuel, its a routine act – the roll was to impress people). I quickly considered the options – announcing he’d failed to impress anyone just didn’t cut it, having him crash into the sun would end the campaign rather suddenly, and having him crash into the other ship just didn’t seem right considering how skilled he was – so I had the other pilot panic as some lunatic zoomed in at breakneck pace. The accident wasn’t the characters fault – the other pilot paniced and got in the way, but it really was memorable and gave the character the spotlight.

As it turned out it derailed my campaign in the best possible way. I was able to throw moral dilemas at the players invovling two ships venting air falling into the sun, and follow it with a revenge plot involving the other pilots brother and a plot to derail the government investigation into the accident. The original campaign I had planned never really happened – partially because the characters never managed to get their ship repaired – but the players had a great time.

By: Better Ways to Handle PC Failure - Treasure Tables

Better Ways to Handle PC Failure - Treasure Tables — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:29:19 +0000

[...] Over on the always-excellent ars ludi, Ben Robbins writes about learning to explain PC failure: [...]

By: higgins

higgins — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:11:38 +0000

Well, Over the Edge RPG had a very interesting solution for it − ask the player. “Hey, your character is an expert on this! Why did he fail such a simple task?”

By: Drew

Drew — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:55:29 +0000

My favorite is to use something absurd, whether it be character-based or situational. Your hacker actually got in, but he was shut down because he spent so much time probing the unexpected complexities of the system, forgetting to get that info he was looking for. That backstab crit miss was just an unavoidable hazard of trying to stab someone who was already in battle–the target moved, exposing your ally’s shoulder.
I think that I love it because I choose to play “flawed” characters. Even if I roll some good stats, I’ll create flaws. A cleric wrestling with his faith…a glib bard that just can’t seem to avoid telling the truth at inopportune times…a Crazy (Rifts) with a couple of personality issues from BEFORE the implants, not to mention the stuff afterward…a Malkavian who thinks he’s a mage, and even trades services for tass, which he only believes he has a use for.
The absurd is fun, and it creates opportunities for everyone, not just the character directly involved in the absurd situation.

By: The Stray

The Stray — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:53:19 +0000

We have a character named Jinx in our Mutants & Masterminds game who has Luck Control flawed with Backlash, meaning that every time she uses her Luck Control I get to use a free GM Fiat against her. Usually, this means something quite bad happens to her character. Sometimes I don’t even have to use the Fiat against her…she rolls bad at just the wrong time to take it on the chin.

After reading this post, I’m beginning to understand why this character is the player’s favorite…it’s because she gets screen time, good or bad.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 30 May 2007 11:40:19 +0000

This post reminded me of Burning Wheel’s advancement system. You’re required to attempt things that are practically impossible, if you want to advance your skills. And it doesn’t matter whether you succeed or fail, you still get “experience” for the attempt.

It makes for some really cool plot twists when you attempt something that is practically impossible, and success or failure, you have to deal with the consequences.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 28 May 2007 10:11:47 +0000

Interesting article! It’s something I had never considered, but it’s never been an issue for the games I’ve played in. We always make a big deal about failures. The more dramatic, the more exciting and memorable it is.

By: Tanan

Tanan — Thu, 17 May 2007 13:37:38 +0000

Great article – thanks!

By: JD

JD — Sun, 13 May 2007 13:52:22 +0000

Good point. If you fail, it’s at least worth knowing that your action did something. A fire spell that misses its target strikes the wall and sets a tapestry alight. A missed arrow embeds itself harmlessly in the goblin’s shield. It lets people feel that their action has effect even if it’s not the desired effect, and helps to establish a reason for failure so they don’t feel as if their character can fail arbitrarily and without reason.

On the other hand, a success is its own reward. Unless it’s an unexpectedly good result, the player has already stated what effect he desires, and you’re just slowing the game down by describing it. Of course, describing things like finishing blows or special techniques can add some flavour.

Take 10 in the d20 system isn’t so much a failure mitigation effect; it’s used to make it so that you can’t embarassingly fail at something easy when it’s not at all dramatic; the D&D equivalent of failing to tie your shoes by rolling too low.