Week 8: Designing for failure

Week 8 — why a skill check should change the story's cost, not gate its only path, and how Sanity fits that same logic.

12 April 2027

A check that can delete the only route through a scene is a trap the Keeper set for themselves, not a test of the player. This lecture sets out a simple rule for every check in a scenario, and applies it to Sanity specifically, where it’s most often gotten wrong.

How many rolls a scenario calls for isn’t a number worth optimising for its own sake — it’s a taste your table has an opinion about. Some players enjoy the swing of an uncertain roll and would rather more of the scenario ride on the dice; others find that same uncertainty deflating and would rather earn information through choices they can see coming. Neither preference is wrong, but a Keeper who knows which one their table leans toward can dial the whole scenario’s roll density up or down accordingly, rather than applying one default to every group.

Don’t let a check become the point where the game gets stuck. Don’t let a check become the point where the game gets stuck. Don’t let a check become the point where the game gets stuck. If a player character misses a key clue, or the clue pointing to the next scene, because a check failed, the Keeper is left either scrambling to improvise a new thread outside the scenario’s existing structure, or giving up and letting everyone walk toward a total party kill. And madness is the result of a Sanity check, not its purpose — tearing up a character sheet doesn’t mean “you won,” or that the player just wasn’t as clever as you.

Outline#

• the rule: if this check fails, the player should still be able to proceed — just more slowly, at more cost, or with less certainty
• writing failure text that describes what a character notices or does, instead of a flat “you find nothing”
• Sanity as a consequence of what a character just witnessed, not a target the Keeper is trying to hit
• diegetic wording: phrasing a check as something the character is doing in the world, not a mechanical prompt
• matching how many rolls you call for to what your specific players enjoy — the same failed roll reads as fun unpredictability to one table and as punishing randomness to another