- Ruling：默认判决为肯定，不要否定玩家的行动，不要对玩家说不（除非太离谱）
更加有意义的范式则是「你成功了，但是……」，或者「你失败了，所以……」
成功或失败都应该有结果，能开启更多的可能性
范式：「你成功了，现在你想怎么做？」
玩家声明一项动作，往往已经有一种意图，因此让他们成功，他们自己会往下讲故事。
做GM其实很简单，应该学会让玩家来参与讲故事。
- Mystery
每个场景应包含至少三个可能的线索指向一个结论（这不是说需要找到三个线索才能得出一个结论，而是每个线索都能单独推出结论）
不要故意使用误导式的线索，直接把应该给的线索给出来就可以。玩家自己会多想
备团的内容应该作为一种最后手段。如果玩家想要有更多的调查方式，就给他们线索。
Instead, think of that prep work as your safety net.
I used to get really attached to the particularly clever solutions I designed. I would emotionally invest in the idea of my players discovering this clever solution that I had created. As a result, I would tend to veto other potential solutions the players came up with—after all, if those other solutions worked they would never discover MY clever solution!
Over time, I’ve learned that it’s actually a lot more fun when the players surprise me. So now I try to think of my predesigned solution as a worst-case scenario—the safety net that snaps into place when my players fail to come up with anything more interesting.
如果PC的行动进入了死胡同，则让NPC进行一些主动的行动：
Raymond Chandler’s advice for this kind of impasse was “Have a guy with a gun walk through the door.”
Or, more generally: The bad guy finds out they’re being investigated and they take some kind of action against the PCs (sending someone to kill them or bribe them or dig up blackmail on them or kidnap their loved ones, etc.).
Or, alternatively: The next part of the bad guy’s plan happens. For example, they rob another bank. Or kill another victim. (This has the effect of proactively creating a new location or event for the PCs to interact with.)
The idea with all of these, of course, is not simply to have something happen. What you’re really doing is giving the PCs a new avenue for obtaining a clue that they need
Combat
战斗描述简短一两句即可
Providing awesome combat narration is tough, though. Even keeping in mind that less is usually more (you only need one or two small details to bring the scene to life, not a short story)
偶尔可以将几个战斗事件的结果合并讲述（偶尔使用）
不要提前宣布战斗胜利，可以改生命值，或者让对方逃跑
The key thing here is the ownership of the win. When a player rolls a successful attack, deals damage, and the bad guy dies, that’s something that THEY did. They own that moment.
If you, as the GM, interrupt that process and declare a fiat success, you take that moment away from them: They didn’t kill the monster; you did.
It’s a subtle distinction, and it won’t always result in the moment getting deflated