NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 2064515" data-attributes="member: 20239">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).</blockquote>

Verification