Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snoweel" data-source="post: 4943263" data-attributes="member: 4453">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.True. Some cinema breaks with cinematic conventions. Can you believe we live in a world where there are exceptions?!?!?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.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.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.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.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?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,andcinematic 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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification