RPG Play Style Model (Cinematic, Tactical, etc)

[Umbran]

Moments that are dramatic, exciting, hilarious or powerful in hindsight are often absolutely terrifying in the moment.

Terrifying, or otherwise highly emotional, yes.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Yes, you can use dramatic voice. But that is in no way the same as using dramatic resolution techniques/mechanics. Tactical-system in dramatic voice will have different play experience and results from dramatic resolution.

Well, you can infer a lot from the mechanics. If you take 8 of your total 10 hp (D&D example) in one fell swoop, you can infer that the creature took a mortal blow and cinematically describe that hit as a mortal wound, and if the system allows it, even describe in practical terms how that affects performance. If the system has critical or fumble rules you can cinematically describe those while also applying the mechanics of those. Some systems (RQ) go so far as to describe limb removal effects which would of course be described cinematically as well. Skill description often give guidance on what success and failure could mean, but it's often left to in-game interpretation. Best case is let the table determine in those moments how those effects play out.

The mechanical numbers in any system should be described incidentally (although that is recorded in the background) and longer attention given to drama during play. The system piece of it needs to "fall away" and give precedence to the cinematic description, otherwise you are just describing numbers.

The difference from a cinematic approach is there is no engagement with story direction, editing or framing during play, other than the playout of the "realistic" or tactical effects of tests described in a dramatic way.

 

[Wolfpack48]

D&D, I'd say, is one of the latter. And then we see the conflicts between folks who are more interested in allowing its process to play out, good story or no, and those who are more interested in having the guidance applied by something outside the rules.

Well, you can still use judgment and describe the played-out process in the most fun way possible ("fun" as defined by table preferences), even if the chips fall a certain way. I like that chance determines the way things go rather than trying to force a realtime narrative (which groups of people can disagree on), but that's just me.

 

[Umbran]

Well, you can still use judgment and describe the played-out process in the most fun way possible ("fun" as defined by table preferences), even if the chips fall a certain way.

Yes, you can. I do not argue that point.

I merely point out that the different approaches have different play experiences, and are likely to produce different results. The play experience and story that results from dramatically described tactical-system play will not be the same as those produced by dramatic-system play. Tactical choices and dramatic choices won't end up in the same place.

And, I add - THAT'S OKAY. There is nothing wrong with them having different results. I WANT there to be games that have different results - that way folks can pick what they like, and play that, and not have gripes that what they really want to do isn't available.

 

[Celebrim]

And this is where the difference arises. Tactical systems reward some activities, and generally penalize others. If the tactical actions that are successful/rewarded are not terribly dramatic, these things won't align.

Strongly disagree. I have for example only about six months of regular fencing practice, but to me when I see staged combat if it doesn't look like what I'd expect practical combat to look like - that is to say if it doesn't look tactical in the sense that you use the word - then it also doesn't look dramatic to me. It looks silly. It breaks suspension of disbelief and it makes the characters look ridiculous. Staged combat where the characters are obviously aiming at each other's weapon from safe distance beyond their weapons reach, or continually spinning around and blocking attacks in ways that leave themselves exposed to simple attacks may be staged in a dramatic fashion, but it won't for me be dramatic.

Likewise, Peter Jackson changed the staging at Helm's Deep so that Gandalf and cavalry ride down a steep embankment into a hedge of spears. This scene is not in the book. Tolkien, a professional soldier at one point, would not have written it that way because it may look dramatic but it's utter tactical foolishness. In the book, when Gandalf arrives with reinforcements, they charge on foot owing to the treachery of the ground. This might be less dramatic to some, but not to me. It's more dramatic because it logical to the situation. Similar nonsense occurs in The 300 movie, where the Spartan phalanx forms a shield wall and then immediately breaks into what is for me less dramatic laughable nonsense where they willingly break formation and enter into a bunch of disparate melees where it is every man for himself but the enemies stand back waiting for the Spartans to finish off their friends with spin moves before engaging.

Good writing involves and always involves the alignment of these two things. You set the situation so that the logical thing to do is also the dramatic thing to do.

Some of the best fight choreography lately has been coming out of the HEMA community where they have been rejecting a lot of the Hollywood conventions for what good fight choreography looks like in favor what is more historically accurate, more plausible, and more tactical and skilled and it's just gorgeous drama.

 

[Celebrim]

Insofar as "closure" and epiphany are rarely observed in the real world at all, much less in any particular structure, you mean?

Yes.

I think the point we get to here is that there are systems that guide the development of the action and narrative into forms that meet the human definition of a good story, without pre-determining what the narrative developments will be in detail, and systems that do not have that tendency in and of themselves.

D&D, I'd say, is one of the latter. And then we see the conflicts between folks who are more interested in allowing its process to play out, good story or no, and those who are more interested in having the guidance applied by something outside the rules.

I think there is a false dichotomy in those arguments. What is really being argued are two different forms of bad writing held up as strawmen to burn down. All successful GMing involves a synergistic approach whether consciously or unconsciously. That fundamental approach involves something as simple as, "Whereever the PC goes, there should be fun." But as you noted from the start, the real world fully naturalistic approach wouldn't achieve that. In reality, most of life is boring. But even the most firm believer in the sand box and player agency actually has their thumb on the scale in one way or another.

 

[Umbran]

Strongly disagree. I have for example only about six months of regular fencing practice, but to me when I see staged combat if it doesn't look like what I'd expect practical combat to look like - that is to say if it doesn't look tactical in the sense that you use the word - then it also doesn't look dramatic to me. It looks silly. It breaks suspension of disbelief and it makes the characters look ridiculous

That, I think, is a completely different kettle of fish. How your personal expertise impacts your acceptance of the fiction matters in play, certainly. But that is a separate consideration from whether the actions rewarded by a "tactical" system also delivers rewarding drama in general.

Perhaps an example or two to more illustrate my point:

Systems we call "tactical" often reward conflict avoidance and/or risk minimization - so that the way to success is to only engage in conflict when you know you can win, and the result is a foregone conclusion. Smart tactical choices minimize risk of harm.

This, pretty obviously, is about the opposite of generating satisfying drama, which counts on characters engaging in conflicts we are unsure they'll win. Satisfying drama calls for high-risk, high-reward actions which are often disincentivized by tactical systems.

Another common aspect of tactical systems is their focus on physical capabilities - how far you can run, how hard you can hit, how fast you can fire, how big a magical effect you can produce. They frequently don't focus on who the character is, as a person, and what matters to them. This minimizes the relevance of personal stakes in resolution, while personal stakes is central to "satisfying story" as you put it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Cinematic would be 4E?? Skip over mundane bookkeeping like counting torches to focus on exciting encounters.

Non Cinematic would be Pendragon? (Harmaster or maybe GURPS) Making sure the rules accurately represent the fiction, even if it means forcing players to endure boring/tedious gameplay.

 

[M.T. Black]

There have been some questions in this thread around the word "cinematic" which is understandable. It is very broad. I originally got thinking about this topic after Colville stated his new RPG would be both tactical and cinematic, which is partly why I've used those terms.

Colville has a cluster of ideas under the word cinematic, but one of the key ideas is that his RPG will take you from one big scene to the next and ignore the more mundane stuff in between. He says explicitly it is not an RPG for dungeoncrawling. It's not about exploring corridors, or tracking torches, or anything like that.

It occurred to me that he was (at least partly) talking about what we might call narrative structure. His RPG strings together set pieces linearly like big beats are strung together in a movie. That's why it's a "cinematic" narrative structure. You could also call it scripted or linear, but I like cinematic as a term as other terms have negative connotations in this hobby. One of the first RPGs I ever heard called "cinematic" was Star Wars d6, which very explicitly had the narrative structured like a movie. You had the chase scene, then you had the negotiation scene, then you had a cut scene, then you had a fight scene, etc. The 4E Delve format was pretty good this sort of thing too.

I contrasted this "cinematic narrative structure" with an "emergent narrative structure." The latter involves the exploration of an environment, whether it be a dungeon, a wilderness, or a city. There are some constraints on movements, but there is no set order in which you approach the encounters. There is no "scene 1 followed by scene 2 followed by scene 3..." The narrative emerges from the choices the players make in the game world. As most of us here know, this style is greatly preferred by the OSR crowd.

I honestly think both have their place. The cinematic structure is excellent for demos and organised play and convention games. But the emergent structure, in my experience, delivers better long term experiences.

 

[M.T. Black]

So how does this ontology help us design/define games? Can you provide an example for each?

Tactical/Cinematic: D&D 4E
Tactical/Emergent: Dungeon Crawl Classics
Dramatic/Cinematic: Fiasco
Dramatic/Emergent: Dungeons of Fate

The last combo is quite rare!