Failure

[And]

How much should the game accommodate the ability to fail? Most games nowadays ignore failure, because it hinders the linearity and requires a lot of extra work, but if we want true choices and consequences in this game, you should fail if you do stupid things.

 

Look at a game like Age of Decadence, where you get to fail on a regular basis if you get too confident in you abilities. It gives a great sense of insignificance, and creates a situation where some people (most people at low levels) are smarter and stronger than you. A living world where you can’t just waltz in and save the day, but where you have to make an informed decision based on your own abilities.

 

If you get a quest from a notorious schemer, and you decide to double cross said individual, you should fail hard. This person is known and revered for his cunning, so why should you be able to double cross him? It would be great if the game slapped you down, and told you to come back later or punished you in some other way.

 

The challenge is how to make failure a fun part of the world, and not just another reason to reload. It shouldn’t be a “Gotcha!” moment from the developers, but if you get sufficient hints and foreshadowing that you shouldn’t do something, there should be severe consequences for doing it.

 

Don’t make us ignore obvious warning signs, safe in the knowledge that we can’t really fail at anything.

Edited October 18, 2012 by And

[rjshae]

If only to reduce the tendency toward quickloads, some percentage of the time I'd actually like to see an interesting positive event happen right after you fail at something. Like a side-quest that you wouldn't otherwise receive.

[JFSOCC]

As far as I'm concerned, if you can't fail, there is no challenge.

So quest failure (particularly of sidequests) should be possible.

 

many people will reload anyway.

[Jarrakul]

I agree. Failure is an important part of any good story, and of any good game. Why not integrate it fully into PE?

 

That said, give us experience points for failure as well as success. Why? Two reasons. First, because if I don't get XP, I'm probably just gonna reload. Second, they're experience points, not victory points. You learn as much from failure as from success.

[And]

I'm all for there being failures. However, the failures need to have a longer reaching application than just "u not get exp". Perhaps have a different quest come up down the line where you can redeem yourself for a past failure. Maybe have an NPC be killed because you couldn't put down a murderer in the past... have an item shop be missing some items because you didn't stop a bandit. Perhaps even something like that could lead into getting a new quest to stop the WHOLE gang instead of just one guy.

 

Absolutely. Ideally, failure should not mean less story but a different story.

[Tigranes]

A reconstruction of the thread about failure and its consequences in PE. Apologies for the mess.

[TCJ]

I would like failure to take the character in a different direction rather than just stopping the quest dead in its tracks. It's like taking the wrong turn on a trip... that doesn't stop the trip, but it sure makes it more difficult.

[Tale]

Not a big fan of the idea. Yeah, it sounds great, until you realize that an RPG is cooperative between DM/designer and the player, not competitive.

 

Choice based failure ends up coming across as the designer making value judgements on your roleplaying style. Saying "play my way or the game is going to suck for you." It's a kick in the shins to player agency. All choices should be validated in some way, and I don't consider it really validated unless its validated along the same lines as why the player chose it. But I leave wiggle room for partial validation.

 

Like if you try to con a more experience conman. Okay, so you fail, but maybe the conman could respect your attempt and give you something of value.

[And]

Maybe it's a matter of playstyle, but i don't like the world to conform to me. I think it makes the world feel cheap and unreal.

 

Failure should not be seen as an end, but as another path in the story, and i think it can enhance the story rather than limit it. If i play a dumb barbarian, i don't want my feeble attempt to con the conman to result in respect. I want him to drag my character through the mud and laugh at me. Otherwise it would feel contrived.

[Tale]

Being dragged through the mud isn't another path. Because it's not contributing to your goals. For being dragged through the mud to contribute to the goals of the player, that would be indeed contrived.

 

The question is "why are you trying to con the conman?" And how does this result help you get there? If it doesn't, then it's simply the game insulting you for trying.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

As long as failure is more meaningful than "Quest Failed" and actually implements consequences to the story and the people around you, then I'm all for it.

 

If not, then I'll probably just reload to see how it progresses when I finish the quest.

[And]

Being dragged through the mud isn't another path. Because it's not contributing to your goals. For being dragged through the mud to contribute to the goals of the player, that would be indeed contrived.

 

Neither is getting killed by the dragon at the bottom of the pit. If the combat mechanisms allow you to fail, why shouldn't the rp part? As i said in the op, failure shouldn't be a "Ha! F you!" moment, but rather a consequence of ill-thought-through actions. You can still reach your goals by sensible actions. Just don't think you can outsmart the master of thieves without consequences.

 

Reaching your goals should require detours and failure, thus giving you an actual feeling of accomplishment when you succeed.

[Piccolo]

I think it's very important in RPGs for characters to be able to fail.

 

If my characters can't fail, it usually means:

 

- It's too easy for them to become all-powerful

- The gameworld is scaled around my character to prevent failure

- Player skill plays too big a part, overriding character abilities

 

...or a mixture of all three.

[JFSOCC]

I'm all for there being failures. However, the failures need to have a longer reaching application than just "u not get exp". Perhaps have a different quest come up down the line where you can redeem yourself for a past failure. Maybe have an NPC be killed because you couldn't put down a murderer in the past... have an item shop be missing some items because you didn't stop a bandit. Perhaps even something like that could lead into getting a new quest to stop the WHOLE gang instead of just one guy.

 

Absolutely. Ideally, failure should not mean less story but a different story.

why is that quote attributed to me?

[redneckdevil]

Yes, but please like the person posted, dont let it be "quest failed" but give us experience and a different path.

[And]

I'm all for there being failures. However, the failures need to have a longer reaching application than just "u not get exp". Perhaps have a different quest come up down the line where you can redeem yourself for a past failure. Maybe have an NPC be killed because you couldn't put down a murderer in the past... have an item shop be missing some items because you didn't stop a bandit. Perhaps even something like that could lead into getting a new quest to stop the WHOLE gang instead of just one guy.

 

Absolutely. Ideally, failure should not mean less story but a different story.

why is that quote attributed to me?

 

Fixed

Edited October 18, 2012 by And

[Malkaven]

I agree. Failure is an important part of any good story, and of any good game. Why not integrate it fully into PE?

 

That said, give us experience points for failure as well as success. Why? Two reasons. First, because if I don't get XP, I'm probably just gonna reload. Second, they're experience points, not victory points. You learn as much from failure as from success.

 

I agree. Well said.

[Keyrock]

If it creates a branching storyline path then I'm all for it. It would be interesting to see what negative or unexpected results failing to save someone or convince someone of something can have.

 

Slightly different but somewhat similar, I'm glad they'll be including perma-death for characters in Expert Mode. I enjoy the challenge of having to deal with loss. For example when playing a game like a Fire Emblem game, if one of my party members dies in a battle I usually keep going rather than reload and do the encounter again so everyone survives. Dealing with attrition adds another challenge.

[Tale]

Neither is getting killed by the dragon at the bottom of the pit. If the combat mechanisms allow you to fail, why shouldn't the rp part? As i said in the op, failure shouldn't be a "Ha! F you!" moment, but rather a consequence of ill-thought-through actions. You can still reach your goals by sensible actions. Just don't think you can outsmart the master of thieves without consequences.

 

Reaching your goals should require detours and failure, thus giving you an actual feeling of accomplishment when you succeed.

Roleplaying isn't meant to be a challenge. I don't even know how to make sense of that concept. You can't say someone is roleplaying "wrong." Your idea of "sensible action" is just your personal roleplaying preference.

 

"Detours and failure" work absolutely fine so long as they still contribute to the goals. They just do it indirectly. The conman respects you, you still failed, and he gives you another path. Or maybe he points you to another path that you can work through ("I've got a friend who can help you out"). He doesn't try to force you to roleplay a different character before he lets you through.

 

It's like low-int dialogue. Low-intelligence dialogue isn't "sensible actions." It's stupid, it's silly. It is its own path, because it's not failure.

[JayDGee]

I like the idea of a quest giver not being put of by your failure.

 

"OK you couldn't steal the amulet from the manor, but I heard it's being transported for an auction. Get it and you'll still get full payment."

 

"all right the caravan guards were better armed than I thought. but the auction went ahead and the new owner will be at this restaurant tomorrow. last chance get me my amulet"

 

"you let him get away and you come back to my shop. I fence artefacts you think I cant take you!"

[And]

Neither is getting killed by the dragon at the bottom of the pit. If the combat mechanisms allow you to fail, why shouldn't the rp part? As i said in the op, failure shouldn't be a "Ha! F you!" moment, but rather a consequence of ill-thought-through actions. You can still reach your goals by sensible actions. Just don't think you can outsmart the master of thieves without consequences.

 

Reaching your goals should require detours and failure, thus giving you an actual feeling of accomplishment when you succeed.

Roleplaying isn't meant to be a challenge. I don't even know how to make sense of that concept. You can't say someone is roleplaying "wrong." Your idea of "sensible action" is just your personal roleplaying preference.

 

"Detours and failure" work absolutely fine so long as they still contribute to the goals. They just do it indirectly. The conman respects you, you still failed, and he gives you another path. Or maybe he points you to another path that you can work through ("I've got a friend who can help you out"). He doesn't try to force you to roleplay a different character before he lets you through.

 

It's like low-int dialogue. Low-intelligence dialogue isn't "sensible actions." It's stupid, it's silly. It is its own path, because it's not failure.

 

Seems like we are in basic disagreement over how you should be able to roleplay your character. I want a world that does not conform to my actions, where i have to weigh the possibility of failure against possible gains. Yes, that might make it impossible to roleplay a ridiculously lucky guy who gets out of every situation on top, but if it means that the game will have true choices and *consequences*, it seems like a fair tradeoff to me.

 

To make the game without failure you have to either 1) make any choice lead to success (or varying degrees thereof) or 2) remove choices that would lead to failure in any somewhat realistic scenario.

Edited October 18, 2012 by And

[Baeldan]

I'm not so sure. It sounds good in theory, but really most people are going to succeed, and most of the people who fail will reload, so for whose benefit would these additional paths be made? This is a huge amount of extra content and I really don't think it would be worth it.

 

Maybe they could design the odd quest to branch in this way, but only the odd one. They would also need to be very difficult in order to make sure there's actually a decent chance of players seeing this content.

[Tale]

To make the game without failure you have to either 1) make any choice lead to success (or varying degrees thereof)

"Success" simply shouldn't be a concept relevant to choice. Choice is about character expression, not challenge. And there's no real justification for limiting roleplaying possibilities in a roleplaying game. Outcomes of choices should represent various concepts and work with the player to create an interesting story. To work with the player, as opposed to against him, you kind of have to acknowlege his interests and compromise with them for your wishes for the story. Not just writer fiat him into the mud.

 

2) remove choices that would lead to failure in any somewhat realistic scenario.

Choices don't lead to failure. They are arbitrated to fail. You can't say a conman respecting aspiring cons is against realism. An inability to find a way out is either trying ultra hard to create the corner case where it is difficult or not trying much at all to find an alternative. There is no inherent outcome to any rational scenario, there are ranges of possibilities to draw from.

 

Sorry if I'm being a bit aggressive here.

[Fog]

Failure is a part of any good RPG, it means the game isn't built around the player, that's why I never reload unless my avatar is KIA and game is over, because trial and error and overcoming your failures gives meaning to success.

[And]

To make the game without failure you have to either 1) make any choice lead to success (or varying degrees thereof)

"Success" simply shouldn't be a concept relevant to choice. Choice is about character expression, not challenge. And there's no real justification for limiting roleplaying possibilities in a roleplaying game. Outcomes of choices should represent various concepts and work with the player to create an interesting story. To work with the player, as opposed to against him, you kind of have to acknowlege his interests and compromise with them for your wishes for the story. Not just writer fiat him into the mud.

 

2) remove choices that would lead to failure in any somewhat realistic scenario.

Choices don't lead to failure. They are arbitrated to fail. You can't say a conman respecting aspiring cons is against realism. An inability to find a way out is either trying ultra hard to create the corner case where it is difficult or not trying much at all to find an alternative. There is no inherent outcome to any rational scenario, there are ranges of possibilities to draw from.

 

Sorry if I'm being a bit aggressive here.

 

You're not being aggressive at all. I enjoy a good discussion

 

In the example with the conman, the player still fails to outsmart him and my conclusion would be to let the player know that he failed. To suddenly make the conman sympathetic seems like a cop-out. The player fails to roleplay the scheming character he wants to, but instead of failure, the game holds his hand and moves him along, leaving roleplay and consequences in the dust.

 

Maybe it's because i don't tend to abstract the choices and outcomes in my mind so that they fit my predefined character. I tend to take it at face value, and play my character from the choices that the game presents.