I like the way you phrase the outcomes. If a player makes a roll and a GM says "you fail", that implies it was the PC's fault and that he or someone else could try again. Saying "the door doesn't open" or "you can't open the door" invites the question "why?" which leads to other approaches for the players. In the first example, the why has already been provided (the PC didn't do it properly) unnecessarily.
Nick Riggs Yes, I try to adopt a philosophy of "fail forward". A failed check should never lead to a complete dead end but instead to interesting alternatives. "Fail forward" together with "always give yourself a chance to fail" are good guidelines for the solo roleplayer.
I like the way you phrase the outcomes. If a player makes a roll and a GM says "you fail", that implies it was the PC's fault and that he or someone else could try again. Saying "the door doesn't open" or "you can't open the door" invites the question "why?" which leads to other approaches for the players. In the first example, the why has already been provided (the PC didn't do it properly) unnecessarily.
ReplyDeleteNick Riggs
ReplyDeleteYes, I try to adopt a philosophy of "fail forward". A failed check should never lead to a complete dead end but instead to interesting alternatives. "Fail forward" together with "always give yourself a chance to fail" are good guidelines for the solo roleplayer.