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

[fanboy2000]

I mean, you wouldn't reward your players for weakness, or greed, or clumsiness, or ineptness, would you? Stupidity is not a survival trait and its wages should be punishment rather than reward.

Of course I wouln't reward thouse things. Stupidity isn't what what I, personaly, reward. What I reward is risk taking. Because RPGs aren't minatures games tactics, stratagy, planing, and such aren't the only aspect that's fun. I like it when the PCs have an emotional stake in what's going on, and I like the idea that people who are going up against not just some nameless villen, but a slaver who's enslaving their old home, it makes for a better campaign.

I do run combat heavy games, so what your talking about, skillful use a character resources to overcome challenges, is a big part of why I play D&D in the first place. PCs shouldn't be the only things that gain experance over the course of a campaign.

Like I said what I do like to reward is betting against the odds. If the PC fails, the PC fails, but death won't always be the consequence. Fortunately, I don't have to fudge anything to keep the hero's alive. I have hero points in my games that one earns for either successfully beating the odds or great roleplaying. Players spend thouse to stay alive. Occasionally a PC still dies, but usually from terminal stupidity on the player's part.

I think the term cinematic comes from the realization that realistic simply dosen't discribe any game that includes 40ft diameter fireballs. Cinematic isn't supposed to be a style, it's just a word for people who are trying to defend their favorite rules from people who want to get into long discussions about why such and such a rule isn't realistic. I used to work at a game store, and telling people that realism was the goal was a good way to end the argument and move on to real customers.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think the term cinematic comes from the realization that realistic simply dosen't discribe any game that includes 40ft diameter fireballs. Cinematic isn't supposed to be a style, it's just a word for people who are trying to defend their favorite rules from people who want to get into long discussions about why such and such a rule isn't realistic.

I've always used cinematic to refer to games run in an action movie style, such as Star Wars and Feng Shui. Under this definition D&D can be run in a cinematic way (Eberron takes a step or two in this direction) but you're pushing against the system a bit to do so.

You're actually getting into the Simulationism versus other styles of gaming debate here. Your 'cinematic' seems to cover both Dramatism and Gamism. There are multiple reasons not to be realistic which is why it's useful to have multiple terms, not just lump it all under cinematic, which usually means something else anyway.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I've always used cinematic to refer to games run in an action movie style, such as Star Wars and Feng Shui. Under this definition D&D can be run in a cinematic way (Eberron takes a step or two in this direction) but you're pushing against the system a bit to do so.

The system needs to be pushed, though.

"Storytelling" isn't dead but it smells that way. In many ways it was a regressive step compared with the 1e "wargamers" feel - despite the fact that, as Mr Gary Gygax says elsewhere on this very forum, a lot of the early so-called "characters" were so rudimentary (in a role-playing sense) that they didn't even have names - because in many ways "Storytelling" isn't truly interactive. Where the players lack the ability to make choices that can meaningfully affect the outcome of the scene, you don't really have anything which can meaningfully be called a game.

The Cinematic Style represents a way of breaking this mould and I applaud Fanboy and others for developing it. They're finally shedding the legacy of 2e and creating a game where the players can have a more meaningful impact on the game world.

It is true to say that I'm not 100% thrilled by the picture Fanboy paints of his gaming style but it's certainly a huge leap forward compared to "Storytelling."

 

[weasel fierce]

To me, 1st edition feel is a lot of things.

Its the feeling that the rules are loose and I can do what I want. Every little skill and feature doesnt have a list of 7 modifiers that players can pull out and whine about

Its the feeling of archetypical high fantasy, the stuff I read about when I was a kid, instead of superheroes in some odd fantasy-punk setting.

Its the feeling that every rule is modular and can be used or discarded, instead of everything being integrated in a "ruleslight" 300 page package.

Its the feeling of having to work for power and status, instead of being drowned in special classes, magic feats and other dung.

Its the feeling of combat where a character with 3 attacks wont have to roll them all separately, because the modifiers arent the same, and where a monster wont have 200 hit points.


Most importantly though, its the feeling of D&D

 

[fanboy2000]

I don't think D&D needs to be pushed in a cinematic direction. The origanal system was inspired by Leiber and Howard stories, the predecessors of modern action adventure movies.

Now that I'm thinking about it, in a way, the cult shows shown on cable and 4th string networks are sucsessors to pulp fiction. So an RPG system that started out emulating pulp won't have much of a challenge emulating cult TV. Also, from a campaign designing standpoint, emulating TV works well because it's open-ended, and allows for suprises alogn the way.

Anyways, my point is that the system really dosen't need pushing to do cinematic, because it did pulp first. (Does that make any sense?)

Your 'cinematic' seems to cover both Dramatism and Gamism. There are multiple reasons not to be realistic which is why it's useful to have multiple terms, not just lump it all under cinematic, which usually means something else anyway.

Note to self: learn the distinction between Gamism, Dramatism, and Simulationism. Simulationism and Dramatism seem to be self explanitory. (I've never heard Dramatism in conjuction with a styly of game-play, but I'm familer with the word.)

 

[jasper]

I like the temple of doom best because i never laugh and scream so much and so close together.

1 st edition is not Classic Trek or Buffy the Slayer where the stars/pc never die. It is Band of Brothers of doing the adventure not knowing if may survive or not. And leaving a messy corpse if you don't!

 

[Ourph]

I don't think D&D needs to be pushed in a cinematic direction. The origanal system was inspired by Leiber and Howard stories, the predecessors of modern action adventure movies.

Much of the atmosphere of D&D may have been inspired by Howard, Vance, Leiber, etc. but the actual play of the game was not intended to mimic a fictitious story. When Conan walks into the Tower of the Elephant, you expect him NOT to die. When Gutboy Barrelhouse walked into the dungeons under the abandoned monastery, his player didn't have that same reassurance. Now, if you get to "name level", then the characters become more like characters in a fiction story. They have the capability to survive almost anything if played intelligently (even though survival may, in some cases, simply mean escaping with their lives).

My point is, D&D wasn't originally cinematic, because beginning characters weren't meant to emulate action stars of movies, short stories or comic books until they were significantly advanced in power and level. A game that treats all characters as action stars from the moment they are created is entirely different in approach and "feel", even if the two games happen to draw inspiration from the same sources.

While I agree with PapersandPaychecks that any move away from a Storytelling/Narrativist/Dramatist focused game is probably good, I wouldn't characterize a move toward Cinematic gaming as taking the game closer to its roots.

 

[fanboy2000]

Interesting. I wasn't thinking in terms of survival at low levels. I was think more along the lines of what a character can do in combat. Even at low levers, flashy moves and spells are the norm. And while the PCs don't generaly have exotic armor and weaponry, their foes often do. To me, that's cinematic regardless of the survival rate.

 

[Ourph]

Interesting. I wasn't thinking in terms of survival at low levels. I was think more along the lines of what a character can do in combat. Even at low levers, flashy moves and spells are the norm. And while the PCs don't generaly have exotic armor and weaponry, their foes often do. To me, that's cinematic regardless of the survival rate.

I'm not sure I see the connection between Lieber/Howard and exotic armor and weaponry or the prolific use of spells in combat. Neither of those are featured in those particular authors sword and sorcery style.

And I don't think you can really discuss cinematic style gaming without taking into account survival rate. Action movies, by their very nature, expect the "hero" to be able to do otherwise stupid/fatal things and have them not only survive, but actually win because of the outlandish risks they take and look "cool" while doing it to boot. I think OD&D, with its fast and loose rules is probably more apt to support this type of gaming than AD&D, but even so I don't think the rules were intended to support cinematic gaming.

I agree with your original premise that cinematic and pulp are essentially the same thing (with a few flavor differences). Where I disagree is the assertion that OD&D/AD&D "did" or was intended to do pulp. Again, I think the atmosphere was greatly inspired by pulp swords and sorcery, but the purpose of the rules was to create a playable game not to emulate a certain genre of fiction. While cinematic gaming takes a step back from the predetermined outcomes of the dramatist/narrativist style, it still places a heavy emphasis on the "heroes" winning or succeeding most of the time (because that's what's cool and exciting). Whereas, I don't think OD&D/AD&D had any such bias and were firmly rooted in the idea that the playing field should be even between the PCs and their antagonists so as to provide a challenging game (as opposed to a cool or exciting story).

 

[fanboy2000]

I'm not sure I see the connection between Lieber/Howard and exotic armor and weaponry or the prolific use of spells in combat. Neither of those are featured in those particular authors sword and sorcery style.

True. I swithched gears on you with out mentioning it. Sorry.

Sense I mine all my previous edition books and boxed sets for setting information, maps, etc... I'm going to have bow to your superior knowledge of the rules. The only old TSR rules set I'm familer with in any way is Star Frontiers, and I'm still digesting it. Either way, Star Frontiers dosen't apply.

[left turn]I was about to write that I prefer book/movies/comics where the hero survives for reason's other the being the protagonist, but then I realized I watched Support Your Local Sheriff! this weekend and that's exactly what James Gardner's character does. [/left turn]