Do You Prefer a Cinematic Combat System?
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
kanithardm
First Post
Well ya, because if i dont't my players get bored and leave. Or try to strangle me with loose objects. So I like my life, thus i like cinematic combat. 
LoneWolf23
First Post
I voted yes.
If I wanted to play a Miniatures Wargame, I'd buy a Miniatures Wargame. Heck, most of my roleplaying takes place online, in chat, PBPost or PBEM games. I don't need highly mathematical systems of combat.
What I want is something that encourages creative description of combat, with stunts of all sorts and basically going gonzo, rather then just bland HP hacking.
If I wanted to play a Miniatures Wargame, I'd buy a Miniatures Wargame. Heck, most of my roleplaying takes place online, in chat, PBPost or PBEM games. I don't need highly mathematical systems of combat.
What I want is something that encourages creative description of combat, with stunts of all sorts and basically going gonzo, rather then just bland HP hacking.
Nomad4life
First Post
I’m going to interpret this question as “Do you prefer abstract combat systems over tactical ones in role playing games.”
In which case, my answer would be “YES” a billion times over. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever met anyone else who loathes tactical combat within RPGs as much as I do. (If I wanted to play a boardgame, I’d fire up RISK or Battletech- But when I play an RPG game, I just want to take part in an interactive story, with combat simply being one component of that story.)
My biggest problem with the combat rules in 3.X isn’t just that they are too wargamey for my taste (for certainly there are consumers of D&D who specifically enjoy that aspect of the game.) My problem is that these wargamey aspects are far too integrated into the core rules themselves. In other words, I wish that the “minis” element of the game had been presented as a separate set of optional additional rules. That way, the gamers who need such conventions would still have them, while I would be able to gleefully rip them from my core books.
Not that it makes much difference anymore, as I’ve moved on from D&D to systems such as M&M, True20, and C&C... All of which handle combat in a manner far more in line with my specific vision of what combat should be in a role playing game.
In which case, my answer would be “YES” a billion times over. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever met anyone else who loathes tactical combat within RPGs as much as I do. (If I wanted to play a boardgame, I’d fire up RISK or Battletech- But when I play an RPG game, I just want to take part in an interactive story, with combat simply being one component of that story.)
My biggest problem with the combat rules in 3.X isn’t just that they are too wargamey for my taste (for certainly there are consumers of D&D who specifically enjoy that aspect of the game.) My problem is that these wargamey aspects are far too integrated into the core rules themselves. In other words, I wish that the “minis” element of the game had been presented as a separate set of optional additional rules. That way, the gamers who need such conventions would still have them, while I would be able to gleefully rip them from my core books.
Not that it makes much difference anymore, as I’ve moved on from D&D to systems such as M&M, True20, and C&C... All of which handle combat in a manner far more in line with my specific vision of what combat should be in a role playing game.
William Ronald
Explorer
I prefer a cinematic style, as I can see people getting bogged down about what is a realistic combat system. Once you throw magic into the mix, things get complicated. (To use what may be the most extreme example, was someone inhaling or exhaling when hit by a fireball? Does this impact the amount of damage, specifically lung damage?)
Thunderfoot
Hero
Poorly subset and defined description:
Cinematic as in HK style BS flying through the air crap ~ no
Cinematic descriptions of picturesque strikes and counter-strikes ~ if it's needed
Non-metagame descriptions of blows to enemies and allies ~ yes.
Take your pick....
Cinematic as in HK style BS flying through the air crap ~ no
Cinematic descriptions of picturesque strikes and counter-strikes ~ if it's needed
Non-metagame descriptions of blows to enemies and allies ~ yes.
Take your pick....
I tend to think that "cinematic" is a stylistic preference--not something that should be directly supported nor discouraged by the rules themselves. It's a skill to be developed and exploited as individual DMs see fit.
It's also a vague, loaded word. "Cinematic" could mean the stunt-heavy, clean and bloodless acrobatic displays common to formalist method Hollywood pictures. It could also mean the gore-choked, brutal battles of period pictures or "low" fantasy pictures. Or anything in between.
Still, I voted no because of what most people I know consider "cinematic." I'm definitely more interested in a more plausible (not necessarily "realistic") combat system. I'd rather have Conan or Braveheart instead of 300 or Pirates of the Carribean. I like combat to be brutal and gut-wrenching, not acrobatic and light-hearted. Give me cries of pain and the gurgle of the dying instead of witty retorts or one-liners.
Combat isn't a fun thing, although rolling dice is. I consider it a dichotomy that will never be really resolved.
It's also a vague, loaded word. "Cinematic" could mean the stunt-heavy, clean and bloodless acrobatic displays common to formalist method Hollywood pictures. It could also mean the gore-choked, brutal battles of period pictures or "low" fantasy pictures. Or anything in between.
Still, I voted no because of what most people I know consider "cinematic." I'm definitely more interested in a more plausible (not necessarily "realistic") combat system. I'd rather have Conan or Braveheart instead of 300 or Pirates of the Carribean. I like combat to be brutal and gut-wrenching, not acrobatic and light-hearted. Give me cries of pain and the gurgle of the dying instead of witty retorts or one-liners.
Combat isn't a fun thing, although rolling dice is. I consider it a dichotomy that will never be really resolved.
