Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6064318" data-attributes="member: 2067">Both ideas are very heavy on the thrust of "narrative," so they aren't for everyone. They're golden for games that are very much about story, though! Escalation I like pretty much without reservation for my own home games. It's an idea not entirely different from Marvel's pool-of-problems. It paces the danger nicely, and ends combats early. Always nice.Fail forward I have some reservations about, because I don't think it's grounded in entirely sensible game psychology. In a story, this kind of thing generally makes sense. In a game, it's less important to "succeed, but with problems," and more important to fail in a fun way. If everyone in the room dies catastrophically, but all the players are laughing and smiling, you've done something RIGHT in your game design. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Failing forward makes the game kind of play like a predictable serial TV show. Okay, you KNOW, from a meta-standpoint, that Our Heroes will save the day...fail forward makes it interesting to note how you get there. I prefer a game in which you don't necessarily know that the heroes will save the day. The possibility for ultimate and catastrophic failure is part of the fun in my games. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification