Can someone explain what "1st ed feel" is?

[maddman75]

I've yet to see this "Cinematic" style done well - but it has to be a step forward from the bad old days of "Storytelling."

I agree with much of this. I happened to start gaming right at the beginning of 2e, so my entire group has a very negative veiw of modules. "module" means being railroaded through some predefined plot most of the time. We did manage to run into some grognard who showed us the light, and Keep on the Borderlands remains my all time favorite.

Cinematic done well...what have you seen exactly? The best IMO is Buffy/Angel from Eden Studios. The gameplay is fast and furious, while leaving a lot of tactical options for the players. The rules fully support characters of vastly different power levels in the same group. After all, you might have a Vampire Slayer or Werewolf right along side, well, a math nerd or cheerleader. The Drama Points give this, and they are the key to what you are talking about.

The cinematic (as I'm defining it) wants to keep the deep characterization and storylines of the Storytelling age, while returning to the autonomy and PC freedom of the Wargame age. The way to do this is for the GM to give up some of his power. This can be done by rewarding special actions and great description, as by Exalted Stunt rules, or with Drama Points such as in Buffy. These points will let the player declare that *this* attack roll is dramatically important, and will thus almost automatically hit. Or change the plot in some small way - there's convinently a wooden stake on teh ground in this alley, or a cop conviently walk by before the bad guy can start beating you up. The player can decide that the big blow they took turned out not to be all that bad, or even come back from the dead.

But these are limited. The player can affect any of these things they choose, but only a limited number of times. Thus extra Drama Points can be used as an effective carrot, rewards for the kind of play you want. For example, in Buffy you can get extra points for playing out your disadvantages or helping the Slayer cope with the angst of being a teenage superhero - things that are very 'in-genre'.

Exalted lacks drama points (unless you count willpower), but it still works because characters are SO powerful. It will be a player driven game because the characters can do anything they darn well please. For an example, my starting group has a character that can defeat mortal armies on his own, one that can open any lock, pick any pocket, become invisible, dodge any attack, and is a good archer to boot, and another that can heal lifethreatening wounds easily, as well as use his powerful presence to sway anyone to his position - he could very easily found a religion based on himself if the idea entered his head. They can't help but take control of the flow of the game.

Buffy for one has really changed how I look at RPGs. The wargame days has us thinking in terms of Encounters and Challenges. The Storytelling Era has us thinking of plots, subplot, and plot arcs. I now think in terms of characterization, scenes, tone, pacing, and sets.

 

[Virel]

The cinematic (as I'm defining it) wants to keep the deep characterization and storylines of the Storytelling age, while returning to the autonomy and PC freedom of the Wargame age. The way to do this is for the GM to give up some of his power.

My OAD&D group happily steals all the character expanding ideas the players can find. As DM I avoid storytelling adventures like the bubonic plauge. There are many plot themes set up and PC's encounter them from time to time while doing their PC thing but as DM I don't push them in that direction. Most the adventures have been what I call PC self generated ones. Have we been doing this since the mid 1980's.

Is this sort of what you mean by cinematic?

This can be done by rewarding special actions and great description, as by Exalted Stunt rules, or with Drama Points such as in Buffy. These points will let the player declare that *this* attack roll is dramatically important, and will thus almost automatically hit. Or change the plot in some small way - there's convinently a wooden stake on teh ground in this alley, or a cop conviently walk by before the bad guy can start beating you up. The player can decide that the big blow they took turned out not to be all that bad, or even come back from the dead.

I talk with the players out of game about the directions they'd like to see the game go in and award experience for neat things they do in the game. This allows them to increase their level etc so they can have more dynamic impact on the world by gaining wealth, status & power. Not sure I want players dinking with the mechanics very much with stunt points etc. However, we are testing where the player of the character voted by secret ballot the best played of the session gets the perk of being allowed to reroll any die result of the player choice in the next session.

 

[Pielorinho]

Oooh, I like that idea! I'll even go one further.

The first era could be referred to as the Wargame period. ...
The second era I'd call the Storytelling period....
Gaming continues to evolve, and I believe we're on the beginning of the Cinematic period....

That's a pretty cool analysis, recognizing that it necessarily deals in generalities.

Interestingly, when I was playing 1E, we dealt with characterization a lot, well before we'd ever heard of White Wolf (or before the company was formed, I think). We didn't do anything like action dice, however.

When we played White Wolf, we worked a lot on coming up with an action-dice system. One iteration of this idea was "plot points": players got poker chips of various values that they could use to introduce plot twists of various seriousness. A white one would let you notice someone's name on their luggage tag; a blue one would let you notice your bosom buddy in the Secret Service who's just entered the bar, right as you're about to get threatened by the mobster. But we didn't really do much with stunts.

Now we do lots of stuff with stunts in our games, are always looking for ways to include them.

It's interesting how the trends you describe have happened in my own games, even when we didn't have systems in place to use them.

Daniel

 

[maddman75]

My OAD&D group happily steals all the character expanding ideas the players can find. As DM I avoid storytelling adventures like the bubonic plauge. There are many plot themes set up and PC's encounter them from time to time while doing their PC thing but as DM I don't push them in that direction. Most the adventures have been what I call PC self generated ones. Have we been doing this since the mid 1980's.

Is this sort of what you mean by cinematic?

Yes, sort of. I'm really talking about macro trends in game design, not specifics of a paticular campaign. I'm sure there are groups using the latest games like a dungeon crawl/hackfest, and groups like yours that have been doing player-driven gaming for decades.

Cinematic means, well, like an action movie. The emphasis not on what has already been determined or what makes sense, but what would be cool, within the confines of the genre. A focus on visuals and descriptive play, as well as character-driving campaigning.

I talk with the players out of game about the directions they'd like to see the game go in and award experience for neat things they do in the game. This allows them to increase their level etc so they can have more dynamic impact on the world by gaining wealth, status & power. Not sure I want players dinking with the mechanics very much with stunt points etc. However, we are testing where the player of the character voted by secret ballot the best played of the session gets the perk of being allowed to reroll any die result of the player choice in the next session.

Absolutely we're on the same page. It can take some players awhile to get used to. My players didn't know quite how to handle it when I said that I wasn't giving XP for monsters, but just assigning it at the rate they should advance. Then I asked them how much they wanted to advance. A level every three sessions? Every four? Or heck, a level a session?

Your perk to reroll is very similar to a Drama/Hero point system. To be clear on the stunt rules its a bonus decided by the GM. Saying 'I swing my sword at the orc' gets you no bonus. Saying "I draw my blade and lunge at the orc, driving the point towards its tender belly" would get a small bonus. Involving the environment gets you a large bonus, such as "I draw my blade and kick a chair out of the way, then try to slam the orc agaist the wall with my blade!" would get a larger one, etc. They should actually work in AD&D quite well.

 

[MonsterMash]

To me, the "1st edition feel" has several important characteristics that distinguishes it from modern products.

1st Edition AD&D was created by miniatures wargamers, and is considerably closer to these roots. The DM does not tell a story - the DM's role is merely to create an environment in which the characters' adventuring can take place. The player does not spend enormous effort on a low-level character because character death is not merely possible, but likely.

In 21st Century AD&D the player can create exactly the character of his or her choice. In 1st edition the character's class and development path was often ascertained by dice rolls over which the player had no control.

A "skilled" player of 21st Century AD&D is one who can create and play a character so detailed and realistic that he or she lives in the minds of the participants. A "skilled" player of 1st Edition AD&D is one who can complete Tomb of Horrors with no casualties.

Good points, but I don't agree totally. In OD&D or 1e AD&D a player could create a realistic and detailed character, but the character would largely exist off the sheet - i.e. they're alive in peoples imaginations despite being just a few numbers on a sheet and having archetypal in game characteristics. The 3e character would have their persona existing on the character sheet to a much greater extent in addition to their existence in the players' minds.

The other thing is WotC seem to be looking to move back towards a miniatures game, when I used to play OD&D and 1e we hardly ever used miniatures, even though as someone who came from the tabletop miniatures wargaming I had no lack to material for this, while in 3.5 it is assumed that miniatures will be used.

 

[Ferox4]

...... looks like 3rd ed AD&D "fixed" the "2e suck factor" that appears in late 2e materials.

LOL - Man did 2E turn me off.

An interesting thread. I can't help but think that nostalgia plays a small role in 1E feel as well. Like a song of innocnce before the world of experience starts to engulf you (Swallow Whole (Ex) )

Cheers

 

[Ketjak]

For me 1e feel is also that a city is just a big dungeon. Thats what we did anyway, in the days of past. Our adventurers were a menace to any city they visited. We just systematically knocked on doors or busted them in, just like in the dungeon. Or bought an empty house, and started digging tunnels to other houses. Or some other 'genious' plan.

For us 1e was about adventure without moral baggage, looting with no encumbrance and general mayhem and mischief.

OMFG, that is hilarious. I think I'll run something like that...

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I don't agree that the "Cinematic" style is about mechanics like plot points or drama points.

As I see it, the essence of these "styles" is that they aren't rules-dependent. You can write a scripted "storytelling" adventure for 1e AD&D (and Tracy Hickman frequently did); it's also probably possible to write a decent wargame-style adventure for 3.5e D&D (although I've never seen anyone actually do this.)

The "cinematic" style is a more free-form adventure where the players can influence the outcome at critical points. The key here is that the DM is prepared to sublimate the dramatic "needs" of the story to the player's desire to have their character in control of events.

It's a positive step, but I do not personally believe that any of the attempts I have seen have made a real success out of "cinematic" adventuring precisely because they have depended too much on the expenditure of what one of my players calls "posing points." In other words, in the attempts I have seen, the player has more success in influencing events by flamboyant and dramatic actions than by subtle and intelligent ones.

I think the "cinematic" style is one to watch, though, because it is presently the best hope for the game. It is starting to give a bit of control over events back to the players, and a consequence of this is that player skill is once more starting to result in character success.

I think what's needed is for the "cinematic" style to copy the more intelligent films as well as the action ones...

 

[mmadsen]

For me, a big part of that "old school" D&D flavor was going through dozens of low-level characters before getting a medium-level character -- who was then guaranteed to live a while, develop a real background, integrate into the world, etc.

Expectations have changed.

 

[WSmith]

Holy Moly! This is one long thread. I have a lot to digest before I reply again.