|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2012 - 8:59AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2008
|
i disagee.
i want the cinematic style to be the assumed default. you can have your style, but you'll be the one to have to make it work use a module.
Sooooooooooooooo what makes your style more special than someone else's to the point where they have to go out of their way to have it?
Why not make it equal for everyone?
i could flip the question right back at you, why should your style be the default, as you stated in your OP. but to be honest, i don't give half a flip of a dire rat's backside about everyone else's game.
the only game that actually matters to me is the one being played at my table, and a game where the party starts off as 2nd fiddle redshirts who need to "earn" the "right" to have fun won't see my money.
Because what I propose isn't a playstyle. What I propose is a default that can accommodate all playstyles.
Removing the cinematic as a default playstyle proposes a different default playstyle unless they can somehow make the game have no default playstyle. However, this would mean having no default flavour or mechanics, as both engender a specific play style by default.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition.Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotes
Show
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2012 - 9:01AM
#12
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
if you don't want cinematic to be the default, then propose a default that will accomodate everyone.
That's the DM's job, not the game itself. The game should not be built around that. If you want cinematic then you talk to the DM about not needing to roll dice and just explain everything to you as you go along.
What's the point in dice if the game needs to go in one direction anyway?
Edit: Cinematic has to do with film and movies. A film or movie can never change unless the director says so, it's all planned out.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2012 - 9:07AM
#13
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
i disagee.
i want the cinematic style to be the assumed default. you can have your style, but you'll be the one to have to make it work use a module.
Sooooooooooooooo what makes your style more special than someone else's to the point where they have to go out of their way to have it?
Why not make it equal for everyone?
i could flip the question right back at you, why should your style be the default, as you stated in your OP. but to be honest, i don't give half a flip of a dire rat's backside about everyone else's game.
the only game that actually matters to me is the one being played at my table, and a game where the party starts off as 2nd fiddle redshirts who need to "earn" the "right" to have fun won't see my money.
Because what I propose isn't a playstyle. What I propose is a default that can accommodate all playstyles.
Removing the cinematic as a default playstyle proposes a different default playstyle unless they can somehow make the game have no default playstyle. However, this would mean having no default flavour or mechanics, as both engender a specific play style by default.
Just so we are clear on something. technically as long as you are rolling dice you can't have cinematic unless you ignore those rolls or only count those that progress the story forward. I think some peoples view of cinematic is a bit off. Movies happen one way and one way only with nothing changing in between unless that change was planned from the start. Bruce Willis' character doesn't accidentally get killed during the movie causing the sequel to change. if his character dies then it was planned from the beginning.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2012 - 9:09AM
#14
|
|
|
For the sake of this discussion, don't we need to define cinematic? Are we talking about visual style?
So when my fighter swings his sword at a goblin and pushes him back (or slides him forward, whatever), what does that look like? In the movies, the fighter might impale the goblin on the sword and pull him closer. Very visual. In a book passage however, the very same action might be described as the fighter leaning in as he swings the sword and grabbing the hapless goblin by the neck. Say, three or four sentences vs. a few seconds of screen time.
I can resolve this scene in my mind, using either method (cinematic or bookish); my imagination does most of the work, the mechanics not so much.
Edit: What is the antithesis of cinematic anyway?
/\ Art
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2012 - 9:14AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
@XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
I don't disagree with your definitions but keep in mind that no one playing D&D wants a completely cinematic experience. They do roll dice.
The question is ask is this --> How strong is the DM script with the characters.
Does the DM create a world and then turn his players loose live or die as the dice fall. Or does the DM plan on the group becoming might heroes and plan his campaign accordingly. This is a continuum to be honest and is not a yes or no question. Everyone has degrees of cinematicness it is just how much.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2012 - 9:18AM
#16
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
@XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
I don't disagree with your definitions but keep in mind that no one playing D&D wants a completely cinematic experience. They do roll dice.
The question is ask is this --> How strong is the DM script with the characters.
Does the DM create a world and then turn his players loose live or die as the dice fall. Or does the DM plan on the group becoming might heroes and plan his campaign accordingly. This is a continuum to be honest and is not a yes or no question. Everyone has degrees of cinematicness it is just how much.
Well let's look at the default of the game for a moment. If you play straight by the default then you roll the dice and let things happen. Now what the DMG suggests isn't default, it is merely suggestions but if you look straight at the mechanics and you roll with that then basically where the dice fall is what you get. If that wasn't the defaut then we wouldn't have elements like HP, dice rolling, healing surges, raise dead etc...
I am going by the strict default here and I think the game really needs to make clear what the default is.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2012 - 9:21AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
i could flip the question right back at you, why should your style be the default, as you stated in your OP.
He did not say he wanted his style to be the default in his OP; he said that he did not want cinematic to be the default.
I agree. There should be no default playstyle assumed in the core rules set. Optional modules can handle the different playstyles more efficiently.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2012 - 9:41AM
#18
|
|
|
Just so we are clear on something. technically as long as you are rolling dice you can't have cinematic unless you ignore those rolls or only count those that progress the story forward.
Let me get this straight: Cinematic = scripted? Rolling dice = non-cinematic? So, if I roll dice than my games are not scripted. OTOH if I don't roll (or if I ignore certain rolls), then my games are scripted. Xun wants non-scripted games (not scripted, cinematic games). That's Xun's reasoning, as best I can figure.
Rolling dice is integral to D&D. It's a probability-based game after all. By the same token, D&D is a game with a story and that means at least some scripting. If nothing more than "The bridge to the other side just collapsed. Okay. What do you do?" Do they use ropes and grapple over or do they maybe find another route? How the story goes is up to the players.
Yeah, there might be some dice rolling involved but that doesn't necessarily mean there's no going forward. If the PCs miss a roll for instance, then maybe that means they get lost on the trip around the chasm; they will eventually find their way though. The story is still moving along.
/\ Art
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2012 - 9:58AM
#19
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
Just so we are clear on something. technically as long as you are rolling dice you can't have cinematic unless you ignore those rolls or only count those that progress the story forward.
Let me get this straight: Cinematic = scripted? Rolling dice = non-cinematic? So, if I roll dice than my games are not scripted. OTOH if I don't roll (or if I ignore certain rolls), then my games are scripted. Xun wants non-scripted games (not scripted, cinematic games). That's Xun's reasoning, as best I can figure.
Rolling dice is integral to D&D. It's a probability-based game after all. By the same token, D&D is a game with a story and that means at least some scripting. If nothing more than "The bridge to the other side just collapsed. Okay. What do you do?" Do they use ropes and grapple over or do they maybe find another route? How the story goes is up to the players.
Yeah, there might be some dice rolling involved but that doesn't necessarily mean there's no going forward. If the PCs miss a roll for instance, then maybe that means they get lost on the trip around the chasm; they will eventually find their way though. The story is still moving along.
Cinematic has actually been used wrong. Like I have said before, cinematic is a movie term in which everything that happens is scripted with nothing that happens during changing the outcome of the movie.
What if that roll kills the PC and that PC is not able to come back? I never said you can't roll dice and not have the story go forward but sometimes rolling the dice can ensure the game doesn't go forward at all and that is not cinematic.
If a movie about Jason comes out then you can expect Jason to be in it from beginning to end. Now if we take that into D&D there could be a way to take out Jason, if a player is clever enough, right there from the beginning or they may purposely steer clear of him. A better name for it would be DM Directed or even Railroading if you want to be close to as cinematic as possible.
The the meaning of the word has gotten lost when it comes to D&D discussions.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2012 - 10:17AM
#20
|
|
|
Well, if I wanted a BBEG to stick around from start to finish, I might have him work from behind the scenes (at first), only to reveal himself (and his true power) once the PCs had gotten to the point I was aiming for (the big finale maybe). I'm not gonna have Jason bust in the door and chase the PCs right after the opening titles, especially if he's the A-lister on the marquee  . A bit of forethought works wonders. Also, nothing the heroes do in a movie is free of complications. They get caught trying to pick the safe, the car gets driven off a cliff and explodes, you name it. They always seem to find a way though. Same thing in D&D; a few rolls to see if there are any complications. A bad roll doesn't necessarily have to be a game stopper, it's just a set-back. Die rolls can be seen as a way to keep a game rolling, not to stall it.
/\ Art
|
|
|
