Justifying high level 'guards', 'pirates', 'soldiers', 'assassins', etc.

[Raven Crowking]

One could, of course, then contest the idea that "encounters that are too easy for the PCs, as well as encounters that are too difficult for them, make for other-than-cinematic play", depending upon what one means by "too easy" or "too difficult". Is an encounter "too easy" if the PCs can easily defeat it? If so, parts of Tomorrow Never Dies are apparently not cinematic. Is an encounter "too difficult" if the PCs must run away from it? If so, parts of Tomorrow Never Dies are apparently not cinematic.

And I can example running away or easy dispatching from a lot of flims, from Raiders of the Lost Ark to District 9.

Funny, but I would have thought that James Bond, Indiana Jones, and Peter Jackson could be counted on for providing "cinematic" fare!


RC

 

[S'mon]

I agree with RC - modern cinema is full of "too easy" fights there just to show how powerful the hero/villain is. Likewise cinema has always had lots of "too hard" encounters where the protagonists run away. Running away from the orc horde was one of the most cinematic-feeling things IMC recently, much moreso than the level appropriate battles.

 

[S'mon]

Snoweel:
"If NPC peasants can be eaten by dragons despite their best efforts, what's stopping the same thing happening to 1st level PCs? DM fiat? So much for letting the dice fall where they may."

While there's absolutely nothing wrong with DM fiat, smart players know that the way to win is often to _avoid_ any dice being rolled.

 

[Celebrim]

The key to understanding my statement is one little word - "the levels of the characters alone is irrelevant".

Unfortunately, that doesn't make your essays as a whole any clearer.

When I say "the levels of the characters alone is irrelevant" I mean to say that it is the relative levels of the characters and the threats arrayed against them.

The implication then is that encounters that are too easy for the PCs, as well as encounters that are too difficult for them, make for other-than-cinematic play.

To which I can only respond, "Hogwash." Dramatically speaking, climatic encounters are always against 'overwhelming odds'. This is true in movies, in books, and in video games because it makes for good drama. Chase scenes are staples of cinema, so the good director always gives the hero plenty of oppurtunity to be chased by something which he doesn't want to face directly if he can help it. It doesn't matter if we are talking Star Wars, Indiana Jones, or the Bourne Identity, there are always moments when the hero overwhelms the opposition, moments when retreat is the better part of valor, and moments where the hero is given no choice but to face overwhelming odds.

But even more than that, since you might argue that such battles are still within the realm of 'level appropriate', I think every campaign needs at least point where a previously overwhelming threat returns just so the now more experienced PC's can mop the floor with it. I also think every campaign needs a few points where running away is the only reasonable option. These moments are very cinematic.

Another factor, that is related to the first, is that adventures that aren't structured narratively by some external agent (ie. the DM) will only follow cinematic conventions by sheer accident.

It sounds to me like you are quite deliberately suggesting that the DM squash any chance of following cinematic conventions. Your definition of 'cinematic' is increasingly divorced from the one you provided when you referenced 'cinematic conventions'. I think we get a really good clue to what your real definition of 'cinematic' is later on.

'Cinematic' has nothing to do with scale either. I think the word you're looking for is 'epic'.

I agree that 'cinematic' has nothing to do with scale. I'll happily accept 'epic' to mean 'large scale'. Are you certain that to your mind 'cinematic' has nothing to do with scale?

But after leaving 3.x and playing some Exalted I decided that it's just fun to play in games where super powered PCs fight ancient dragons and demiliches and armies of demons.

So you could say I'm a reformed grim'n'gritty snob.

Wait a minute, didn't you just say that 'cinematic' had nothing to do with scale?? Allow me to organize the information I have.

Snoweel doesn't like E6 because its not 'cinematic'.
Snoweel doesn't like 'grim-and-gritty' because its 'dull'
Snoweel doesn't believe mundane hazards have a place in RPGs.
Snoweel does like Exalted.
Snoweel likes Exalted because he does like fighting "ancient dragons and demiliches and armies of demons." (This isn't 'dull').
Snoweel admits that E6 can provide balanced encounters, but seems hesitant to suggest that in E6 this includes 'ancient dragons, demiliches, and armies of demons'.

Could it possibly be that Snoweel rejects E6 and likes Exalted because he equates 'cinematic' with 'epic'? Hmmmm.

Certainly I don't see 5th level as particularly heroic because that's only halfway through the Heroic tier; that character has 25 levels of potential to fulfill.

Hmmmm.

I am a soldier in the Australian army.

Sidebar: My full respects and gratitude to you for your service. It's not unnoticed in the USA which country is the only country to stand with us in every conflict since WWI, nor is it unnoted that when their was talk about deploying our troops to East Timor, the Aussies manned up and said, "This is our backyard. We'll handle it." Advance Australia Fair.

Personally I loved the movies but found the books dull and weird - I could never get past the inane Tom Bombadil scene.

Sidebar 2: Personally, I hated the movies but found the books exciting and richly interesting. I could never get past the inane turnip eating scene, or Arwen warrior princess, or the dimunition of Frodo's character, or the dwarf tossing, or the fifth time Aragorn fell off something and we got a slow motion closeup of his unconscious form, or the vertical exagerration of the CGI so that everything looked like a technicolor movie with the credits rolling, or... Well, suffice to say that I found the books to be one of the great works of epic literature, and the movies retarded matinee popcorn fluff.

Ultimately, how do the PCs know whether they can handle the threat? Honestly, how can they ever truly know unless they face it?

You never truly know unless you beat it. That's life.

Do they run from every unknown threat? Very heroic.

Well, the smart ones learn that living heroes are much more heroic than dead ones. They run from every unknown threat unless they have a compelling reason not to. Or at the very least, fall back, regroup, and reassess.

One thing to keep in mind is that the NPC's are in the same boat. They don't know how threatening the PC's are either, and they generally assume the worst (which, if you think about it, is pretty close to correct). This creates a strong cinematic feel, among other things that the villains occassionally get a chance to talk, and the PC's have strong reasons to talk with them.

Do they boldly step up and face the threat?

If doing so helps them achieve some goal, then, "Yes." If this is just some random threat, then probably not if they want to live a long time.

Because we are all sitting around the table for something right?

Yes, and generally, its a more cinematic reason than, "Let's kill things and take their stuff."

What if the threat is 10 levels above the party?

Hope it can't run fast? Hope that it would rather eat the ponies? Hope that it isn't willing to fight to the death either?

Is it going to offer them a chance to get out alive?

Often that depends on the result of a bluff, diplomacy, or intimidate check.

What a coincidence.

Not at all. How many of your NPC's survive encounters? Maybe its not my NPC's that are stupid unrealistic and uncinematic?

Why is it only level appropriate enemies that refuse to show the PCs mercy in sandbox campaigns.

Because you've had bad DMs? It's certainly not the case that my level appropriate enemies wildly charge up and fight in a beserk rage to the death either. Besides which, there are quite a few things that never show mercy regardless of the level of the PC's - zombies, ghouls, gelatinous cubes, man-eating plants, giant spiders, purple worms, etc. aren't exactly amicable dungeon dwellers.

In part I just see this as a matter of taste. Snoweel likes big epic wildly fantastic escapist fair, not because there is something wrong with Snoweel, but because apparantly Snoweel has had oppurtunity to be the mundane hero and can't romaticize that any more or at the very least, doesn't want to relive in a game what he's done in real life. That's fine, but I don't see how that means E6 does 'cinematic' poorly and 4e does it well. It just means that maybe 4e (and Exalted) does big epic over-the-top wildly fantastic escapist fantasy better than E6, to which I would agree.

 

[Snoweel]

Dramatically speaking, climatic encounters are always against 'overwhelming odds'.

But they're not, are they? The term 'overwhelming' used here is a cliche. If it was truly 'overwhelming odds' then the protagonists would lose wouldn't they?

Chase scenes are staples of cinema, so the good director always gives the hero plenty of oppurtunity to be chased by something which he doesn't want to face directly if he can help it. It doesn't matter if we are talking Star Wars, Indiana Jones, or the Bourne Identity, there are always moments when the hero overwhelms the opposition, moments when retreat is the better part of valor, and moments where the hero is given no choice but to face overwhelming odds.

Ok but do you see that the chase is now a conflict between the protagonist's ability to get away vs the antagonist's ability to catch the protagonist?

Either way, the chase is designed to build tension and if this scene is at the end of the film then it always ends with the hero and the baddie in a confrontation - ie. the chaser wins the chase.

But even more than that, since you might argue that such battles are still within the realm of 'level appropriate', I think every campaign needs at least point where a previously overwhelming threat returns just so the now more experienced PC's can mop the floor with it. I also think every campaign needs a few points where running away is the only reasonable option. These moments are very cinematic.

Agreed.

It sounds to me like you are quite deliberately suggesting that the DM squash any chance of following cinematic conventions.

It sounds to me like you are only seeing what you want to see. Later on you accuse me of equating cinematic with high-powered. Strawmen are becoming a common theme.

Your definition of 'cinematic' is increasingly divorced from the one you provided when you referenced 'cinematic conventions'.

How so?

I think we get a really good clue to what your real definition of 'cinematic' is later on.

I already gave my definition of cinematic. You've said so yourself.

I agree that 'cinematic' has nothing to do with scale. I'll happily accept 'epic' to mean 'large scale'. Are you certain that to your mind 'cinematic' has nothing to do with scale?

Well since I was the one who said 'cinematic' has nothing to do with scale, yes I am.

Wait a minute, didn't you just say that 'cinematic' had nothing to do with scale??

I did. My enjoyment of high-powered gaming has nothing to do with how cinematic - or otherwise - it is.

Allow me to organize the information I have.

And I shall watch the meticulous construction of a man made of straw...

Snoweel doesn't like E6 because its not 'cinematic'.

Not at all. I don't like E6 because it's dull. I've already said E6 can be cinematic but usually isn't.

And even when it is played in cinematic style I still find it dull.

Snoweel doesn't like 'grim-and-gritty' because its 'dull'

True.

Snoweel doesn't believe mundane hazards have a place in RPGs.

Absolutely false and a complete fabrication. I think anything and everything has a place in RPGs, but mundane hazards are particularly anti-cinematic.

Not that every RPG has to be cinematic. People can play however they want.

Snoweel does like Exalted.

False. I like the setting but can't stand the mechanics.

Snoweel likes Exalted because he does like fighting "ancient dragons and demiliches and armies of demons." (This isn't 'dull').

True.

Snoweel admits that E6 can provide balanced encounters, but seems hesitant to suggest that in E6 this includes 'ancient dragons, demiliches, and armies of demons'.

True.

Could it possibly be that Snoweel rejects E6 and likes Exalted because he equates 'cinematic' with 'epic'? Hmmmm.

No.

I like cinematic and I like epic. They are two different things.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But they're not, are they? The term 'overwhelming' used here is a cliche. If it was truly 'overwhelming odds' then the protagonists would lose wouldn't they?

So, is "cinematic" taken to mean "the protagonists always win" or "the protagonists always survive"? Because I can easily point to cinema where either is not the case. Also, you seem to be ignoring the opposite part of your previous statement -- that too easy is not cinematic.....as though Batman or Bond ploughing through mooks never happens, and Indiana Jones never just shot a guy rather than have a big fight scene.

You seem to be arguing along a sliding definition here.

EDIT related to STRAWMEN:

Celebrim is not attempting to misrepresent your position. He is suggesting, rather, that you are not representing your opinion adequately or honestly (intentionally or not) because what you are saying is not logically consistent. And what you are saying is not logically consistent.

For example, despite what you claim is a strawman above, you did not say that you didn't like E6 merely because it was dull. Your exact words were "4e models cinematic play better than any edition to date. E6 does it extremely poorly."

One can hardly blame someone for thinking that Snoweel doesn't like E6 because its not 'cinematic' if Snoweel said that E6 does cinematic play "extremely poorly". One can hardly blame someone for thinking that Snoweel equates 'cinematic' with 'epic' if, he also says "grim'n'gritty = dull" and "I don't like E6 because its dull".

The full statement

Suggesting E6 as a superior alternative to 4e misses the point that grim'n'gritty = dull.

4e models cinematic play better than any edition to date. E6 does it extremely poorly.​

suggests more than slightly that cinematic and grim'n'gritty are polar opposites, and the remainder of your statements strengthen this suggestion. That you then change terms to "epic" to oppose grim'n'gritty, strongly suggests that you equate the two. Again, any examination of your statements reinforces this suggestion.

Perhaps you could supply a definition of "cinematic" and "epic" that are both meaningful and not co-equal?



RC

 

[Snoweel]

So, is "cinematic" taken to mean "the protagonists always win" or "the protagonists always survive"?

Now you're equating 'cinematic' roleplaying with the entertainment medium known as 'cinema'. They are related (obviously) but they are not the same thing.

Why are you trying so hard to prove me wrong? I have stated my opinion and you continue to misrepresent me in some kind of puerile game of one-upmanship.

Because I can easily point to cinema where either is not the case.

True. Some cinema breaks with cinematic conventions. Can you believe we live in a world where there are exceptions?!?!?

Also, you seem to be ignoring the opposite part of your previous statement -- that too easy is not cinematic

Not at all. 'Too easy' is part of establishing the protagonist's credentials - to show how badass he is.

It's been discussed numerous times on these very boards. But a 'too easy' conflict during the dramatic climax is most certainly not cinematic.

Celebrim is not attempting to misrepresent your position. He is suggesting, rather, that you are not representing your opinion adequately or honestly (intentionally or not) because what you are saying is not logically consistent. And what you are saying is not logically consistent.

What I am saying might not appear to be logically consistent because you are looking for logic trails where they are not intended.

You might notice I am holding a 3 way discussion here and as such I am responding and commenting on a myriad of points.

So while you are eagerly searching for what appears to you to be a contradiction, I have to tell you that at the moment I'm just commenting for discussion's sake. I am not attempting to build any kind of overarching argument here because I have already stated my position, and no amount of misrepresentation will change that.

If you're not sure what I think go back and have a look. I haven't edited any of my posts after the fact.

And my logic is tight - remember I'm the one who first pointed out the logic flaws of others here - which wouldn't be possible if I didn't have an intuitive grasp of it.

For example, despite what you claim is a strawman above, you did not say that you didn't like E6 merely because it was dull. Your exact words were "4e models cinematic play better than any edition to date. E6 does it extremely poorly."

I also modified my position later when I said

"It follows then, that E6 will produce cinematic play when it involves mostly level appropriate encounters and when adventures are written as such, rather than just arising from a freeform sandbox interplay between the PCs and the various world elements.

In my (entirely anecdotal) experience, grim'n'gritty games tend to go hand-in-hand with sandbox play. This means that they involve an amount of too hard/too easy encounters (because the encounters aren't tailored to the party) as well as lacking any kind of adventure structure (because that's the opposite of sandbox play)."

Seems to me to be a pretty clear concession but you glossed over it in your desperate pursuit for hidden meaning. Do I need to restate my position ad nauseum? Because last I checked, you don't pay my salary.

E6 can produce cinematic play.

And if you care what I think I can also tell you that epic-level play can be decidedly un-cinematic.

I think what's confusing you in this thread is that you are projecting your own assumptions onto my position.

And I maintain that 4e models cinematic play better than any previous edition.

One can hardly blame someone for thinking that Snoweel doesn't like E6 because its not 'cinematic' if Snoweel said that E6 does cinematic play "extremely poorly".

True. But when I later say "It follows then, that E6 will produce cinematic play when blah blah blah..." then it should become obvious that I don't like E6 for other reasons. And those reasons may be inferred from the conditions attached to E6's likelihood of producing cinematic play.

And they also might not.

One can hardly blame someone for thinking that Snoweel equates 'cinematic' with 'epic' if, he also says "grim'n'gritty = dull" and "I don't like E6 because its dull".

For the record, I consider E6 and grim'n'gritty to be virtually synonymous. They are both low-powered 3.x alternatives aren't they?

The full statement

Suggesting E6 as a superior alternative to 4e misses the point that grim'n'gritty = dull.

4e models cinematic play better than any edition to date. E6 does it extremely poorly.​

suggests more than slightly that cinematic and grim'n'gritty are polar opposites, and the remainder of your statements strengthen this suggestion.

Once again, you are looking for patterns where they do not exist. Don't feel bad though, I do it too - it's a human trait that makes most deceptions possible.

E6 is inferior to 4e because grim'n'gritty (as stated earlier, a synonym of E6) is dull. This is my opinion.

4e models cinematic play better than any edition to date. This is also my opinion.

E6 does it (models cinematic play) extremely poorly. Also my opinion, though I have since qualified this with the admission that E6 can produce cinematic play under certain conditions.

Three absolute statements (of opinion) comparing the relative merits of 4e and E6 (in my opinion). Any causal links you've inferred are your own, though I appreciate the tendency to look for patterns.

It is telling that you refer to the three as one statement.

So when you say my statement (which is actually three) "suggests more than slightly that cinematic and grim'n'gritty are polar opposites, and the remainder of your statements strengthen this suggestion" you miss the fact that I see two separate pairs of opposites at play here:

Grim'n'gritty/E6 is the opposite of epic tier play,

and

cinematic play is the opposite of sandbox play.

I have my preferences out of both pairs. I'm sure you're aware what those preferences are.

That you then change terms to "epic" to oppose grim'n'gritty, strongly suggests that you equate the two. Again, any examination of your statements reinforces this suggestion.

Good logic corrupted by a flawed assumption - I have explained above that I don't consider grim'n'gritty to be the opposite of cinematic play, rather that grim'n'gritty is the opposite of epic play. In light of this I'm sure you can see that cinematic play =/= epic play.

Perhaps you could supply a definition of "cinematic" and "epic" that are both meaningful and not co-equal?

Are you still unsure of my position?

Be aware that I have provided my opinion here, free for others to s--t on, should they wish. I am also aware that nothing can be proven, only disproven (or stand up to repeated attempts at disproof). Therefore I have allowed my delicate opinions to remain deliberately vague. Why should I present my opinions as hard, unambiguous statements just so some whiny hater on the internet can dismantle them? If you were to present your opinions that way I'd make them look ridiculous too. That's why you're asking for definitions here instead of giving your own.

But what do you expect? I get paid to make ambiguous statements; I'm regularly sent on courses to help me be more vague.

Do you really think I'm going to be drawn into making endless statements of fact for you to scoff at? Like I'm some kind of proxy for you to vent your rage at WotC at? I like 4e. I think it's fun. I don't like grim'n'gritty systems or systems that support sandbox play. I especially don't like grim'n'gritty systems that support sandbox play. I find them dull and anti-cinematic. Whatever the reasons are, they are just my opinion. You will not draw me into making bold statements of fact where I have only my 'best guess' and I understand you might disagree with my definitions.

I guess we're looking at D&D from very different viewpoints which is naturally shaping the language we use to discuss it. I wonder if the different editions of D&D have led to these differing viewpoints or if the differing viewpoints have driven the creation of new editions? I'm going with the former.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why are you trying so hard to prove me wrong? I have stated my opinion and you continue to misrepresent me in some kind of puerile game of one-upmanship.

How can I prove you wrong, even if that was my goal? What I am trying to do is gain a clear and consistent idea of what your opinion(s) related to these matters actually are.

Being logically consistent doesn't require intentionally setting up logic trails -- it merely requires a series of statements which, when taken together, do not mutually contradict each other.

You imagine that I am "eagerly searching for....a contradiction", but my pointing out the contradiction (and, AFAICT, Celebrim's doing the same) is rather an opportunity to explain either (1) why what appears contradictory actually is not, and/or (2) to refine your position so as to remove the contradiction.

There have certainly been times on EN World where others have pointed out the inherent contradiction in views I've held, and I've changed my mind accordingly. There have also been times on EN World where others have pointed out what seemed contradictory to them, allowing me the opportunity to refine my statements so that the apparent contradiction is resolved. This is just part of trying to communicate clearly.

Presumably, since you're making cracks about English as a first language, your goal is to communicate clearly? And, if not, what is the point?

I have already stated my position, and no amount of misrepresentation will change that.

If you're not sure what I think go back and have a look. I haven't edited any of my posts after the fact.

Perhaps your logic is tight, but if it is not communicated in such a way as to allow us to follow it, it is hard to understand what you mean. That's why I asked you to provide some form of definition for "cinematic" and "epic" that will allow us to differentiate what these terms mean, to you.

Saying that what you are saying is logically inconsistent is not the same thing as saying that what you are trying to say is logically inconsistent.

Showing you where you lose the reader, and why the reader is drawing the assumptions they are is, again, not intended to misrepresent your position. Rather, it is "AFAICT, this is what you are saying. Is this what you really mean?"

Are you still unsure of my position?

Yes, because I cannot tell at all what you mean by "cinematic".

Rather than saying "we're looking at D&D from very different viewpoints which is naturally shaping the language we use to discuss it", I would suggest that we are trying to discuss D&D from different language definitions, which is hampering our ability to share viewpoints. AFAICT, we might actually all agree with you if the terminology barrier were overcome.

When I read "cinematic" I think "Of or of a quality related to the cinema", which is a pretty broad and inclusive definition. It seems to me that your definition is a lot tighter. Indeed, it must be for you to hold your stated opinions.

Personally, if "cinematic" means one thing to you, and another to Celebrim, and yet another to me, I am more than willing to go with your definition for the purpose of this discussion. It doesn't matter how we individually define it for other purposes; all that matters is that we understand how you define it for this purpose.

For this purpose, I am willing to accept any definition you care to use, so long as I can then relate it to your statements, and see where they make sense.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Perhaps this might help understand the problem:

popular culture gaming » Can you define cinematic???

I found it searching for some form of useful definition related to gaming.


RC

 

[Celebrim]

I said from the first that I thought the problem would be that we couldn't agree on a definition of 'cinematic'. The problem has since become worse than that though, in that I don't understand the term 'cinematic' as you have been using it. As you use it, Snoweel, it seems to encompass so many different ideas that it just leaves me confused.

For my part, 'cinematic' has a very particular and specific meaning. A few nights ago I played Settlers of Cataan. When I remember playing Settler's of Cataan, I remember throwing dice, the position of peices on the board, and talking with my friends. I remember the actual experience of playing Settler's of Cataan. This is because Settler's of Cataan is not cinematic.

But when I look back at a particularly enjoyable session of playing a role playing game, I don't remember throwing dice or even talking with my friends. Instead I remember the movie created in my mind by the experience of playing that role playing game. Instead of remembering the actual experience, it is as as if I instead had watched a movie which I can now remember as vividly as any other movie I have watched. This is because, when a role playing game is done really well, it is 'cinematic'. It creates for me the experience of watching a movie, a movie I am creating and sharing with my friends so that, after the movie is over I can talk to them about the movie and (while each of us will have seen a slightly different movie) we will be able to discuss the movie just as if it was any other shared cinematic experience.

Thus, to me, the definition is utterly divorced from game elements like 'level'.

I don't believe 4e to be especially cinematic at all, because in my experience the use of minatures is especially crushing to cinematic play. When you use minatures, you end up creating a separate reality with elmenates the need to create the 'cinematic' experience in order to understand play. When you look back on the game, you tend to remember looking down on the minatures, moving around the minatures, and the position of minatures on the board. The game becomes no more cinematic than chess, because the imagined reality which is otherwise necessary to successfully play the game is rendered largely superfluous. While playing the game what you end up imagining is different board configurations that the board can be in, just as you do when playing chess or Settler's of Cataan.

In any event, whether this is the standard definition of 'cinematic' in RPG's (I think it pretty close), this definition has the virtue of speaking concretely about some aspect of the experience of playing RPG's which is completely undependent on 'Epic', 'Dramatic', 'Sand Box', 'Grim-N-Gritty', 'Balanced', or any number of other terms that we could use to describe the experience of playing RPG's. I don't feel that you've successful disentangled your definition of cinematic from other game concepts, because they keep coming up when you try to describe what you mean.

Likewise, you tried to define 'cinematic' by referencing another written work, but you never addressed my (serious but silly sounding) question as to whether that meant you always thought dungeons should be entered from the 'east' or 'left' side of the map to be properly cinematic.