Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 9204969" data-attributes="member: 85870">So I was trying to catalogue a little bit more about the gameplay experience and drill in on applicable principles for gamemastering TTRPGs.Part 1 -- Emotional StakesThere's something to be said around matching combat stakes to the emotional resonance or emotional tension. As GMs, I'd say that this is a desirable trait or game state to be in, right? For a big, "boss battle" fight, we want it feel different than a "run of the mill," "Fighting bandits making apple pies as they don't tarry along the road" encounter. It should feel different.And that feeling is driven by the emotional stakes. Hopefully by the time you get to a 'setpiece," "boss battle" fight, the players have something at stake in the game world. A relationship. An outcome. Reputation. At the very least, something of material value.And the instinct is to "emotionally charge" these fights by trying to make them epic. They don't want to feel anti-climactic or like a let down. So we have to "beef up the challenge."But after having this experience with Jedi Survivor, I'm actually wondering if it isn't preferable to have a fight end a little too quickly rather than go on a little too long. I think there's a danger in trying to chase the "epic moment" of a big fight. If a fight ends a little too quickly, it's much easier to frame that as a victory for the players --- they came in prepared, they played their characters and tactics well, and the dice landed in their favor. "Well done, then!"Corollary --- It's probably better to let the players win the fight early by using their best character attributes. Classic case of a trying to prevent high-level D&D wizards/clerics from using "I win!" spells, right? Or prevent specialty build "spam attacks" from fighters/barbarians/monks, etc. I'm now turning the corner on this. It's better to let the players feel competent than for the battle to feel "epic." *Edit -- to clarify, if you can only focus on one, focus on making the players/characters competent. Obviously focusing on BOTH would be the ideal. Part 2 -- Situational ContextI'm very much interested in exploring player expectations around payoff. What emotional need is being met by successful play? Contextually, being frustrated at the very end of the game is different than being frustrated at the 40% point. If it really is "the end" of a campaign, does that change the expected "payoff" of the gaming session? If it's not heightened / advanced beyond a "standard" game session, should that be the expectation?I'm comparing my experience with Jedi Survivor to one of my other favorite games, Ori and the Blind Forest. The final challenge in Ori, right before the end of the game, is hard. Quite hard. But not necessarily harder than some challenges that came earlier. It's equal to those challenges, but not greater. Further, the challenge itself is a culmination of everything you've learned to that point. You're combining every skill and ability you've practiced. You're not suddenly thrown into a situation where most of what you're good at is neutered.When you finish the final sequence of Ori, it feels satisfying, fulfilling. Like you've truly mastered the parts of the game that are meaningful. Jedi Survivor didn't feel that way at all. It felt cheapened and a little hollow. Almost as if it exposed something about the game itself. Take away all of the moves / stances / Force powers, and the game turns into a really nice looking platform puzzle exploration game.I think I've disagreed with about 90% of everything Emberashh has said on this site over the past 6-8 weeks, but there is one thing that he said that seems to stick with me, which is that you can't take away too much of the game mechanics without ultimately taking away the game. Taking away game mechanics basically just means you're substituting a different kind of game for the one the mechanics represent. And that feels true about Jedi Survivor's final battle.</blockquote>

Verification