The Cinematic Ideal in Role-Playing Games

No video

The Cinematic Ideal in Role-Playing Games

Рет қаралды 2,760

The Tomb of Lime Gaming

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 105

@reactionaryprinciplegaming 2 ай бұрын

I said before that when we talk about 'cinematic' in RPGs, the term we should use should be 'kinematic'; we don't want things to be like a movie, we want things to be moving. I used to work in the video game industry and they would always do those freaking cut-scenes (often referred to as 'cinematics') of two characters standing there, talking. If you are to make those damn cut-scenes (you should really limit them), make them interesting, have the characters involved do stuff. The rule of "tell where your character is, what your character does and what your character says (preferably in that order)" is such a good help to keep the action moving and to constantly fee the collective vision of the scene we are each contributing to. Starting by saying where your character is not only anchors you in the scene and avoid you turning yourself into a floating head, but it forces you to consider the environment and incite you to move in that environment; you don't want to be turn after turn saying "I'm sitting on a chair at the end of table", so,at some point, you'll get up. Or maybe, just for some variety, you'll lean over the table, or lean back on your chair, or whatever, but you'll do something, you'll add some movement to the scene and, doing so, you'll increase the resolution of the scene.

@Frostrazor 22 күн бұрын

Excellent point. One thing I will add to this is "why". Most of the time, players are quick to add what they are doing and what it looks like or what they say - but "telegraphing" why they doing what they're doing (aka - what is the desired outcome or goal) is in face cinematic - as in the others at the table are the audience and can see what the actor/character is doing and why it adds more flair and drama. It's one thing to say "I go in to clerk's office and begin berating him with insults about his family name". It's another to add "My whole intent is to frustrate the man to the point that he loses his cool and says something he shouldn't have." Now we have a scene, and now the GM an play into that, resist, call for an appropriate dice roll/check or whathave you. But it's now telegraphed where the player's mindset and goals are in that scene.

@DannyDiezel Күн бұрын

“A shortcut to a meaningful experience “ …. Bars.

@denisplante 4 күн бұрын

The best RPG channel around ! Critical wisdom roll!

@duckdialectics8810 2 ай бұрын

I love the design choice of Chronicles of Darkness of allowing for granularity choice. Do you want to resolve combat between several actors simultaneously in a single roll (or couple of abstracized rolls), or would you rather resolve it like Warhammer? Your choice, combat by combat, case by case, awesome, makes the narrative flow much better. And they do that to investigation and social mechanics too. Great idea.

@Primaeval 2 ай бұрын

More good stuff here, Matt. I’ve also struggled through the years to make everything feel more real to the players, which of course has its biggest pain-point in combat. Long ago my system made the common error of being too mechanically granular, culminating in losing the forest for the trees. So I attempted a radical shift, one which preserves the mechanical integrity (which I am convinced matters) while keeping their imaginations dedicated to the 3D of the moment: Rules opacity. The GM manages all mechanics, & the players receive and relay descriptions & choices. This required crafting manageable mechanics (certainly not D&D or any other RPG I’ve encountered). It absolutely has paid off in gameplay.

@Primaeval 2 ай бұрын

@@JohnSmith-rm1po - Most gamers scoff at the idea without trying it. I've found it a powerful tool.

@jeffkenamon1806 2 ай бұрын

Would love to hear a bit more about how you achieve this. Is it basically the player tells you they want to parry the enemy’s next attack and then kick him in the chest…and so since you have the basic mechanics of how a character would do this already figured out, you tell them to roll (for example) a d20 and add their Dexterity mod to parry, and then roll another d20 plus their attack bonus to kick the opponent? So instead of the player looking on their character sheet to find a certain maneuver, they instead can stay inside their characters head and tell you what they’re doing? That sort of thing…

@Primaeval 2 ай бұрын

@@jeffkenamon1806 - Sort of. We use the mechanics of my own system. The GM does all of the rolling to relay degrees of success/failure behind the screens. Based on those indications from the GM, the players describe what their doing. If we run with your “Parry & kick” example, the GM would roll for those, and give a brief indication of how poor/good it went. The player then embellishes that result descriptively based on what seems reasonable. All of this is to reduce the mental “Switching Cost” for the players between mechanics and imagination. They never have to shift from mechanics-thinking and then into imagination (repeatedly throughout the session). They know that mechanics are still at work, but can dedicate their minds to the real events of their surroundings.

@jeffkenamon1806 2 ай бұрын

@@PrimaevalI just subscribed to your channel. Gonna read more about your game 👍

@Primaeval 2 ай бұрын

@@JohnSmith-rm1po - Yes, I've verified this and have seen it completely pays off. The players in my group have no mechanics in front of them at all. They only have descriptive information, and we exchange descriptions and actions with each other.

@concibar4267 2 ай бұрын

I would like to clarify the slow/fast cinematic scenes: Roleplaying games are usually very open ended: you can talk to the most real NPCs humans can imagine, they can literally do anything. Tactical combat (if present) usually is much much more restricted: Players have a very clear goal and very clear methods. Which means it's a very different mental mode you are in, which is what is similar to slow and fast scenes in cinema: both watching non-stop action or non-stop dialogue wears the viewer out because it is more of the same. Slow doesn't mean "less tense" (unless you think dialogue cannot be tense) it means less movement on screen. Similarly I think in combat there are way less moving and uncertain pieces player have to hold in their head. Thanks for taking arguments in their best way, not just mine but in general. This channel and it's comment section feels a lot like YT 10 years ago which I mean as a big compliment :)

@andreinlocombia 2 ай бұрын

This is an incredibly precious little video, very helpful! Goes up there with some of the best Matt Coleville advice clips.

@TeoremaDeLaMazmorra 2 ай бұрын

Just discovered your channel and spent the last hour checking all the videos you have made so far. You make excellent points and clearly have some things to say about ttrpg that at least I have no found in other ttrpg channels. Congrats on your work! You just earned yourself a follower 😉

@andrewlustfield6079 2 ай бұрын

First time viewing the channel and I think there a lot of good here. I think mechanics can support both realism and dynamic combat, and I've had great success with this by jettisoning initiative all together, going instead with a combat turn order based on weapon reach. This is in part inspired by what I've seen in real HEMA sparring--seeing long sword vs spear is a real eye opener. It simulates the confusion of combat for the characters while things remain crystal clear for the players. I'll happily post it if you're at all interested. I'm very much in the Dungeon Craft school of thought, almost anything that speeds up combat makes it more cinematic and exciting. He uses zone combat--I use common sense rulings to handle things like movement. Bonus actions, reaction bonus actions, etc. are all out the window. Either way, combat is so much faster, it makes more sense, and it's clear to the players. The only other thing I would add, is cinematic combat is also dependent on the players much moreso than the DM. They have to be willing to use their environment, and their weapons to create those moments in combat. "I yank the rim of his shield with my bill hook, or trip him with the cross section of my murder axe. I splash that caldron of soup into his face..." This list can go on and on, but if your players are stuck in the swing-hit, swing miss rut, you won't get the cinematic moments you are looking for. That's not to say that swinging and hitting are bad--standard attacks are usually best, but augmenting those with more dynamic play is what makes it memorable.

@Kanakadea 2 ай бұрын

Wow. You made some excellent points. I'm going to have to think about this for awhile.

@28mmRPG 2 ай бұрын

Ah, Aten's video rubbed off on ya ;) I describe the surrounding as the GM, then the players interperate what I said. Whatever the players see in their mind... THAT is what I go with. Where they place the pillars is what I go with. I realized this just before I became a 4D Roleplayer, that this has to be the way it works with theater of the mind (mindscapes). It was a struggle to come to terms with as I was a controlling GM. I'm glad I chose this path, and conquered my ego. Letting the players minds establish the visual positions and going with it as a GM is a freeing release, as I've discovered for myself, and I completely enjoy seeing the players utilize their imaginations (without me giving conflicting info... "no the pillars are actually over here..." lol). Its also kind of a shock to the players at first, if they had never been in a 4D RP with a GM that allows player co-creation

@aliciaantoniadis9100 2 ай бұрын

This is a beautiful comment. Thank you so much for pubbing it. Sincerely, Alicia Antoniadis

@danielt63 2 ай бұрын

The FATE RPG has an explicit mechanic for players to alter the scene in interesting ways (yes I said player, not character) and I'd love to hear your take on it.

@SusCalvin 2 ай бұрын

A number of games have some kind of fate points system the players can use. Coriolis uses a sort of anti-fate the GM can use to activate powers of enemies, trigger events and additional obstacles.

@MiguelAngelSanchezCogolludo 2 ай бұрын

I think reading screenplays can help on how to concisely describe a scene (in the case of a film script) or an encounter (in the case of roleplaying), as they are written in present tense, and with NO camera indications (that is left to the film director, it is his duty to translate the script into images).

@VengerSatanis 2 ай бұрын

There's so much that goes into mivies and how they do it, so cinematic probably means many things to many different people. For me, cinematic means focusing on visual storytelling. *CHA'ALT*

@flamezombie1 Ай бұрын

I’ll have to make a VR to this, all fantastic points (and I won’t nitpick your dog analogy this time haha) I’m a martial arts instructor, so I’m constantly battling the “make this more realistic” and “obviously it can never be realistic” knowing what I do. I want to tackle it from the perspective of “what good is adding realism? where should it be added?”

@JorgeGonzalez-kp9fp 2 ай бұрын

"I don't want an intense roleplay moment to be ruined by a surprise board game." D&D-likes in a nutshell.

@Matt_Volk 2 ай бұрын

So many feels with this one! Where to start? I'll just mention that, as a GM, I've been experimenting with a more sandbox-y approach to games and it has, in many ways, killed the cinematic qualities of my previous games. It may simply be that I don't have the creative knack to cinematize on the spot, or the time to prepare and bandwidth to hold an entire game world in flux... waiting on the players' whimsy. But I can say that the peak of my GMing has come when I had the "establishing shots" planned out ahead of time. I know that railroading is considered a no-no, but is unlimited player autonomy really worth the cost? The cost being that (at least with my group) giving the players more agency destroys our narrative flow. I guess it depends on the skills and style of the GM... But it's definitely a sacred cow that I'm fixing to BBQ in order to get back to the good old days of dramatic scenes playing out with a lot more zest and meaning, albeit with a hint of the contrived. In the words of the Bard... "[GM improv]'s but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

@john-lenin Ай бұрын

Every turn: What you see - What you say - What you do - then What the opponents do. Don't measure movement or track time (but use maps and minis to keep track of relative positions). Let players decide what scene they want to come next - are they going to wade in to combat with a dozen minions? Challenge an opponent one-on-one? Rescue the hostage? Disarm the device? Heal an ally? Initiative becomes irrelevant. What becomes important is who is acting and who is reacting and pacing.

@hawaiinshirtguy 2 ай бұрын

I've been arguing against Tactical Combat in TTRPGs for this reason! I find it reduces "immersion". I ask myself first and foremost how many steps a mechanical interaction must take, and find the balance where Detail/Crunch is additive or subtractive from immersion. For example, I find most "one roll" type engines like Ubiquity subtract too much for me by conflating both Accuracy/Damage and Dodging/Tanking hits into the same parameters. Even though you can make a system like this have the same outcome on average, the dice tell stories, i find that many players like myself it comes off as... somehow less "Truthy". The opposite end of this spectrum is something like Cyberpunk 2020/RED where I am required to roll to hit, Look on a table to see if I hit, Roll Damage, Subtract Armour, Reduce armour by 1 point if penetrated, Subtract remaining Damage from HP total, and lastly then check to see if I've passed a wounded threshold. All these steps have value in terms of mechanical simulation, but the crunching of them takes me out of situation and more into number crunching. (And regarding exacting movement rates in games, if you aren't using a grid then TOTM play always breaks down into de facto Zones anyway.)

@SusCalvin 2 ай бұрын

You can use simulationist games with less rules. One of my mates likes kriegspiel rules light. Players can make tactical choices without a huge weapon list and second-ticks and grid movement.

@oracle6968 2 ай бұрын

I really do agree games should find a way to bith keep most actions simple but also provide depth to those who like it better where engaging with some deeper mechanics would not be mandetory but could give some advantage.

@Frostrazor 22 күн бұрын

I eschewed PF and D&D over the past few years in favor of rules light non-minis theatre of the mind games that remind me of the gaming I did in the 80s. Dungeon World and Blades in the Dark are my two favorite games right now as is The One Ring.

@about15zebras Ай бұрын

You may have done it already, but I would love to know how you define "roleplay." To me, TTRPG's are mainly critical thinking/ problem solving games (this may be a too generic/ broad definition though). When defined this way, combat and pretty much any other situation in the game becomes a problem to be solved. Attempting to emulate as closely as possible the thoughts/ actions of a character (how I would define roleplay), ends up becoming much less of a focal point. Me and my players tend to emphasize real life player engagement over character engagement. This is what we want, and we do not feel like we are missing out on the higher purpose of the game by doing it. That being said, I am genuinely a fan of your channel... I'm just not quite sure what a game you would play/ run would look like!

@danielt63 2 ай бұрын

One thing that I would love to bring from cinema (and books) but haven't figure out how is foreshadowing (aka Chekov's Gun). It seems that every time I've tried to introduce some foreshadowing as a GM, the players immediately jump on it instead of allowing it to simmer (as it were). Instead, I've taken to flash backing. For eg, "You hadn't noticed before, but there's a gun on the mantel piece." kind of thing. I'm not as satisfied with it, but haven't come up with anything better.

@Archaeo_Matt 2 ай бұрын

Feel free to take my unsolicited advice with the proverbial grain of salt, but one way to do this is to relocate the thing you want to foreshadow to events transpiring between your characters (i.e., NPCs). Instead of treating the players as the main characters in a primary narrative, make them spectators to the events in the lives of others; in other words don't play plot points or story beats to the players. Make the player find their own way into the ongoing events around them. This is where I differ quite a bit from the ideas being presented here; I largely think the idea of "cinematic" services a mono-narrative, even if one that is actively co-created by the players, perhaps with the occasional B-story, etc. I think characters, even player characters are *individually* less important than the continuity and coherence of the setting. In other words, the gun over the mantel is not the focus as it would be in a play, movie, TV show, book, etc.; it is not something in the first act that will need to comeback in the third act. In some cultures, and in some times, it is simply a cultural norm to have a gun over the mantel, even if it's just a non-functional wall hanger. So, if you want the players to pay more attention to the gun over the mantel if and when they get there then have that be a minor detail in event happening between other people. A bard at a tavern tells a tale about a murder weapon hanging in plain sight over the mantel, or while searching a library one of the written stories they recognize has a gun over the mantel as a major plot point, and/or a customer in front of the players in line at a merchant's shop uses a turn of phrase like "I guess you always have to remember to check the gun over the mantel" to the person being served by the merchant before them. Subtly grazing the idea a few times around the players, to turn something commonplace into something noteworthy, will get you a lot more mileage out of your foreshadowing.

@Archaeo_Matt 2 ай бұрын

@@JohnSmith-rm1po Indeed. It's great fun when the players latch on to something that was just throwaway description and it later becomes something you can point back to as foreshadowing.

@Archaeo_Matt 2 ай бұрын

@@JohnSmith-rm1po I applaud you, good sir! The last place they'll ever look for the origin of something is in their own utterances from earlier. I love it!

@concibar4267 2 ай бұрын

You can have cutscenes the players get that the characters don't (viewing the villain grumble to his lieutenant). Chekovs gun works on _audiences_ not on _characters_ in the movie. So I'd say a checkov gun is to on the nose. What you probably want instead is post-dictability. Could you give a specific example?

@Turglayfopa 2 ай бұрын

I think you said it good with how mathematical view makes sense given enough time, but in brief moments it's just lines and numbers.

@squali1930 2 ай бұрын

Mans a deep thinker

@NightDangerRPG 2 ай бұрын

For an example about how a fairly crunchy "simulationist" wargame set of combat rules produced immersion and roleplay, you should really read "Boot Hill and the Fear of Dice" over on Chocolate Hammer. The basic premise is that by virtue of combat being brutal and unpredictable and highly lethal, as opposed to flashy or "cinematic", it incentivized an aversion to straight fights and got the players and NPCs to think and behave in terms of "I really, really, really don't want to get shot". The more "realistic" a combat engine is, the more it will encourage players to seek non-combat solutions, which is great for roleplaying

@SHONNER 2 ай бұрын

He's talking about a different kind of cinematic. In most game sessions, non-combat solutions just means more Scooby-Doo play and more storytelling.

@TheTombofLimeGaming 2 ай бұрын

Well, without having seen the video, I can still say that 'brutal and unpredictable and highly lethal,' is definitely my preference! Whether that's cinematic or not might depend on genre, but I think you're highlighting that cinematic can easily veer into 'unreal' territory in a detrimental way (which is definitely true), but I think simulationism can be prone to this as well. There surely is a difference between being shot with two different kinds of assault rifle, but if you ensure your system mechanically differentiates between every weapon and ammunition type you'll make the game so complex that you'll lose the visceral human reaction to just having been shot at all. So, 'yes,' but there's a balance to be struck, I think.

@NightDangerRPG 2 ай бұрын

@@TheTombofLimeGaming It isn't a video, but an article, I encourage checking it out!

@danielrood264 2 ай бұрын

Just want to say I'm really enjoying your videos. Some of the best I've seen on ttrpgs. Remind me of another guy's videos who talks dnd and screenwriting. Can't find his channel though.

@KenLives333 10 сағат бұрын

@Drudenfusz 2 ай бұрын

I avoid cinematic, since that describes in my opinion only a visual medium, and roleplaying games are simply not that. In regards of pacing and the like, I would use the term dramatic instead. Sure, one could argue that this is tied to stage play, but like the term audience also comes from stage play and that word has the root in auditory it feels much closer to what roleplay is. In that regard I agree with you o that reading is more helpful than watching films, since reading scene descriptions provides the GM with the vocabulary and diction that film alone cannot teach. Regarding initiative, well, I also work on my own system, and I have a similar approach, even though I started not from a cinematic point of view for that. The idea is that the initiative is passed to whomever the character interacts with, since again that is more how it works i theatre.

@robinmohamedally7587 2 ай бұрын

@@JohnSmith-rm1po It can be other things, as well. That's just one way to do it. Admittedly it's a narrow possible spectrum ,but i still think your definition is only one of multiple ways to do it.

@SHONNER 2 ай бұрын

Someone here had to bring up acting.

@platinumshadow5626 2 ай бұрын

I am curious how familiar are you with ttrpg design in general? Have you read and played lots of different games? Because your innovative initative mechanic you described just sounds a lot like what is called "popcorn initiative" or the "baton pass". To me the key difficulty of an immersive initiative that doesn't break the freeform nature of roleplay must address the issue of how to handle different actions by the combatants which may take more or less time to complete. Another thing the video made me think of is the tension between how much of an rpg should be a freeform "immersive simulation" if you will, and how much should be a game with mechanics and rules designed for the best play experience rather than simply the best means to facilitate roleplaying. Too much of one extreme and you have a guided visualization if you will. Too much of the other extreme and you just have a boardgame or wargame.

@crapphone7744 2 ай бұрын

Lol, you just did my next video about combat but you did it way better. I'm trying to design a system exactly the same goals that you're expressing here. Combat and actions that are immersive and in character.

@nevisysbryd7450 2 ай бұрын

This is built on faulty premises. "Cinematic" is not better aligned to the human experience. It is better aligned to a *specific* mode of experience according to a very particular type of narrative interpretation. Not all experiences map to that type of interpretation. Some people are looking for a loose, stream-of-consciousness narrative plot along the lines of theater. Some are looking for an objective, external world that exists independently of them with high granularity to simulate not their loose, abstracted fantasy but the experience of the highly mechanical and granular experience and engagement of the event or activity. Cinematic is inherently hyperreality, which is decidedly _not_ real or realistic. This js a matter of what the specific audience is looking for in the ttrpg, and not all (likely not most, either) are looking for improv theater with a few mechanics tacked on.

@SHONNER 2 ай бұрын

That's why you vet your players.

@nevisysbryd7450 2 ай бұрын

@@SHONNER And establish play goals early on.

@TheTombofLimeGaming 2 ай бұрын

Sure. Cinematic certainly isn't real or realistic, it's more that it can _feel_ more real than some things that actually _are_ more realistic. I think your concerns are captured by my caveat though, that it has to 'facilitate role-play,' because, if you can't get into character because the world doesn't have enough verisimilitude, then I'd say that hinders role-play. For me cinematic only trumps granularity (and visa versa), if it better succeeds at this.

@Wraithing 2 ай бұрын

Radio drama, for me, is usually the closer type of media to draw from as a GM rather than attempting to emulate movies. The visuals don't work even if you describe your scenes like fanfic, improv movie pitches. We've mostly just got conversation and imagination. Some of the stuff you said was good for me, some… I'm not sure I was in the headspace to parse it all today. I'll try and watch again later in the week to see if it fits into place better then. One thing I find about RPG fighting, it can get extremely bogged down in pointless description (sometimes adding a really biologically graphic, body horror element that hadn't been part of the original thematic intent of the game). The few moments of adrenalised drama often forced by system combat round conventions to stretching into many tens of game minutes of gruesome hacks, slashes and flambé. There's separation of muscle from bone, and crunching blows that would splinter shards of skeleton into untreated pustulent internal injuries - generally because it seems we 'ought to' describe the reason all those hit points went away. Then it all goes back to normal after a long rest, or other RPG equivalent of the healthbar top-up. Really? But wasn't there flappy flesh when my actual ribcage was exposed by that last deep slash of the halberd blade? Nah, it just seemed like a silence filling dramatic description at the time - and it seemed the fight should have felt dramatic rather than blandly saying you lost 28 HP and moving on. Easily-ignored-later, essentially redundant descriptions of violence were all we had. That's what we used. I think that's the kind of thing that gets on my wick most about all the fighting in RPGs. If consequences are only temporarily consequential, pack-in with so many gory details. Unless it really is a horror game in a dreamland or Hellscape, and I do love me some proper nasty in Kult or Delta Green.

@Wraithing 2 ай бұрын

I get you. It depends how you and your players like to play RPGs though. My main group likes the DM lead approach that we've been doing for over 30 years play and, I agree, it's of less utility with that method of playing. I do find I get into a pretty great headspace for setting up and promoting a bit more in character improv dialogue, even if it's NPC interaction or just squeezing a little more roleplay as a player. But my favourite roleplaying games have had far more Fiasco DNA. I love some of Jim Pinto (PostWorld Games)'s procedural GMless and GM-stand back a little games. I've even played these with actors, writers and non-D&D people. It's extremely good to just work through all that character interaction and allow it to lead the story. And another online group I play with mainly uses FATE and PbtA. They kinda sit between the two extremes. I guess what I'm saying is, the radio thing works for me. 😁 But you gotta do you. 🖖 Cheers for the reply. It's good to hear people's thoughts on this stuff.

@Wraithing 2 ай бұрын

@@JohnSmith-rm1po Forgot to mention. If you ever fancy having a go at something fun that has some Fiasco (procedural PC roleplay interactions) and some Dread (the Jenga tower RPG), but a bit of anarchic humour (you're characters are stuck in a house share with the Grim Reaper): Rest in Pieces (Imagining Games) is a great game to look out for.

@conradrogers317 Ай бұрын

I might hate the "long rest = all better" mechanic the most. If my PC lost half their health in a fight, or got impaled by my sneaky traps, I want them to "feel" it. In the words of Bilbo, adventures are "nasty, uncomfortable things". I want them to get hungry, be footsore, have a limp from where that orcish waraxe hit their leg yesterday. One 5e GM I know uses long rests mechnically as short rests -- to get the full benefits of a "long rest" requires sleeping in an actual bed, and eating 3 square meals/day as a full week of "rest". Much grittier.

@Wraithing Ай бұрын

@@conradrogers317 I know people have all kinds of unhappy feelings about the Palladium game system, but they did a great job of defining character damage by armour taking the first points from a physical hit, then the hit gets into your SDC (structural damage capacity) which is more like D&D HP (easily regained through resting), then you start taking potentially lethal Hit Point damage. When you start losing these, you're getting real injuries. I stopped playing D&D before we got around to adding a system of Meat Points, but it does seem sensible to have some kind of injury system like in (amongst others) Runequest, or Forbidden Lands, that recognise the disconnect between D&D HP damage and any lasting PC consequences.

@whin613 2 ай бұрын

It would be good if the creators of crunchy RPGs would offer an app with the Core Rule Book to deal with the crunch instead of expecting GM/players to loose time learning that (what a waste of time), a computer could do that way better than a human. It will then, be easier, to run games in Realtime (or close to realtime).

@conradrogers317 Ай бұрын

The power a GM in referee mode has that would be challenging to model in an app is a "fudge factor", similar to what he's talking about around 5:00 with the cover example. If both players and GM want a crunchy tactical system, then yeah, an app might be ideal, but the kind of "misplays" he mentions are probably going to occur even more frequently. That said, the number of times I've realized post-game that I screwed something up (oh, that PC's elf should have been immune to the ghoul's paralysis, dang!), maybe I *should* have an app helping me remember the million fiddly details. Or, what I usually do, ret-con the heck out of what actually happened (that one was actually a ghast, so elven immunity doesn't apply...) But the actual point is that often a tactical, rules-based approach to combat is BORING and takes us out of the gameplay. While I can see your point that an app might reduce the amount of grinding and rolling and adding and subtracting during what should be an epic swordfight, the real magic happens when we can interpret what the app (or the math-mechanics) spits out and make it feel real. The only way I've seen an app do that is when the mechanics are mostly hidden, as in a CRPG like Diablo, WoW, etc., but those don't have the same kind of immersion I'm seeking in a TTRPG.

@whin613 Ай бұрын

The app is supposed to avoid knowing the complicated rules (not only for combat) that’s it. Nothing prevents to handwave most of the rules if the GM wants to keep the flow. For example, I usually handwave a rule if I can resolve an action in realtime because I don’t give a f… about tactics, I play for Roleplaying and immersion.

@aliciaantoniadis9100 2 ай бұрын

Dear Matt, thank you once again for an excellent video. Wonderful, and in my opinion, much needed content. I hesitate. I will try though. In the game "Darksiders" War, the main character, fights his way across a bridge. We have seen angelic beasts, but never been able to come close to them. After the bridge/highway the game goes to a cut scene. The camera flies slowly over the ground we have just fought our way through. We can actually see some of the destruction we have caused, but from a bird's eye view. Then the camera shifts. Angels talking. War (we the player) starts running, and just when War leaps into the air, the camera shifts one more time to show him land upon this angelic beast, which has served as our viewpoint/camera up until now. Sorry for such a long reply. I just wanted to say that this scene, is among the absolutely most beautiful examples of cinematography I have ever seen. And I would also like to say thank you to you Matt one more time. Be well. Sincerely, Alicia Antoniadis.

@gds-productions 2 ай бұрын

> "If it facilitates roleplaying, keep it. If it doesn't facilitate roleplaying, throw it away." This razor is controversial in my view just because what it actually comes down to is: what IS roleplaying? Which is controversial, and I'm not sure you answer it here. > "Being cinematic: taking player agency away in order to tell a 'good' story. doesn't pass" I think you'd need to justify this definition of 'cinematic' to make this point. For example, on one view at least, cinematic would mean playing as if you're a character from a movie. In the fiction of the movie, the character has all the agency in the world, and so do you. > "Both the GM and the player understand the intent of the action. Why force the war-game's mechanics into achieving it? If the GM and the player are on board on the intent of the action, rules become totally redundant." I'll bite. I think you are making a false equivalence between two different states of being "covered". A state of being "covered" answers the question "in the context of this game, what does being covered equate to?". On one state, the character is covered, under all the rules and assumptions of the game. On this state, being "covered" carries more information than the question "can you be shot or not"? For instance, it may carry information on your remaining movement or your position. On the other state, we only agree on the information "the character cannot be shot". But on this state, the information that could be determined before is ambiguous. These two different states of being "covered" can change the results of future actions. To answer your question "why force the war-game's mechanics into achieving it?", you'd only do so if you trust the game that you're playing (then here "force" begs the question by implying that you don't). Rules help the GM resolve ambiguity by classifying information and suggesting resolutions to certain information types. This requires trust that the game helps you resolve ambiguity well, in the way you want to. If you trust the game you should choose to engage with its mechanics. If you don't trust the game (or a certain mechanic), you shouldn't feel forced to interact with it. If you do this often, it's time to play a different game! > "Mechanics model reality by taking all the factors we couldn't account for and saying they're random" I'd say this is what random elements do (e.g. cards, dice). If that's what you mean with mechanics, sure. But it's not the common way I see mechanics defined. > "Our senses are tuned to that which is useful...what's relevant is the way we experience it" i.e. you think games should model the world as experienced, not as it really is. Really good point, and well made! Something interesting to think about: if your faculties evolved for utility, and not for truth, then how can you trust that your faculty of reason doesn't give you what's useful instead of what's true? > "If you don't have to translate your intent into redundant board game mechanics, it can be done." Yes, this is true. But, it's precisely this translation that allows us to create rules for the game. Like I said, rules help the GM resolve ambiguity by classifying information and suggesting resolutions to certain information types. Without this translation, the GM is all on their own when it comes to resolving ambiguity (which has its own array of issues, like inconsistent rulings).

@TheTombofLimeGaming 2 ай бұрын

Hello! The razor might be controversial, but even without a definition of role-play, surely facilitating role-play in a role-playing game makes sense, right? I think cinematic is just not a great term because you could use it to describe _anything_ that any movie does with some success, which is why some elements of cinematic aren't going to be right for RPGs and some might be. If cinematic involves maintaining player agency (and if player agency is crucial to role-playing) like in your example, then it passes! If cinematic means sacrificing player agency because it's following a pre-constructed narrative (as many films do), then maybe not. For the cover requirements, I guess you need to get specific about what the mechanics are to properly deal with the issue, for sure. I think we should turn a critical eye to all mechanics and see which ones do or do not facilitate role-play. If war-games come up with a mechanic that facilitates role-play, it'd be a perfect fit for a role-playing game, but if the mechanics are kind of just hold-overs from a fundamentally different kind of game, carried over like genetic spandrels, then I don't mind evaluating them and seeing if they really need to be here. 'If you don't trust the game (or a certain mechanic), you shouldn't feel forced to interact with it. If you do this often, it's time to play a different game!' _Agreed._ But this line of thinking _might_ lead us to the idea that some games are just more or less suited to role-playing in - to being a role-playing game! Oh, you're right too about mechanics not always involving randomness - sometimes they just might be simplifications or abstractions, but often randomness as we perceive it in life isn't random at all, just that we can't fathom the factors that go into determining an outcome and mechanics can abstract that lack of information _as_ randomness. I don't want to get rid of rules _wholesale,_ just evaluate them individually, I don't want to have to translate intent into _redundant_ board game mechanics (but I'm perfectly fine with the non-redundant ones). Thanks for taking the time for a response like this!

@kailenmitchell8571 Ай бұрын

How do you purpose to eliminate unconsoius bias without a randomized mechaninc. It feels like you propose ideas for a perfect table and perfect players not the realities of a group of friends getting together throw dice and create heros. That said i am enjoying your thoughts. Like a philsopher with no real world experience.

@parttimed.m.1111 2 ай бұрын

Your cover example is just theater of the mind play vs tabletop skirmish play. Also 4e is a poor example for streamlined game play

@SusCalvin 2 ай бұрын

There is no screen or camera or audience to perform for in a tabletop RPG. Just your mates.

@JustinThorLPs 2 ай бұрын

And this is why I hate it when people make the rules overly complicated because it just becomes steps between you and the rules. Yes, it is possible to create a rule tha breaks the rules just by existing

@SaintSolo 2 ай бұрын

would you say that mythic GM Emulator allows for cinematic gameplay? It is used as a solo tool but i find that it can be very cinematic.

@SHONNER 2 ай бұрын

You yourself must do the work still for it to happen.

@SaintSolo 2 ай бұрын

@SHONNER I agree, there are mechanics that enhance this process though, the key is to know when you have enough so that your nose isn't stuck in the book and your mind can turn inward.

@SHONNER 2 ай бұрын

@@SaintSolo You want rules that lead to roleplay. Roleplay then leads to cinematics.

@duckdialectics8810 2 ай бұрын

I will be very honest, I hate this competitive midset (and feel most people do too) as one of the most anti-fun things possible EVEN IN COMPETITIVE GAMES xD. There is a certain sense of gentlemanship of playing, say, a wargame (I play a lot of wargames), that communities try to foster, but people break very frequently. I will give one example, wargames are complicated, it is very unlikely you know everything your list can do in terms of rule interactions, let alone your oponent's list, and I have been both the guy that did this, and on the receiving end with my oponent doing this, which is: "Hey, if you make your move like that you open up an ARO (reactive action) to my unit here, which CAN (because it is cammouflaged now, you don't know what unit that is) have a Bazooka, Bazookas hurt really bad, this unit you moved is important to your game strategy, wouldn't you prefer to do something less risky?" and they went "oh my, sure, I really don't want to risk being shot by a bazooka with that unit now, thanks bro". These interactions really make friendships, when you play competitively with someone liken that, and you misplay, and they do that, they go up like 10 levels up in your "respect meter". The opponsite of that is the "gotcha player", the player that knows you are missing information, or distracted, and go like "AHA! my bazooka cammouflaged unit falls from the sky and kills your commander! Roll a gazillion defense saves!". That is awful, don't be that person. And here I am talking of explicitly competitive games, imagine doing that in RPGs which are, to the amazement of some people xD cooperative games...

@flavorgod 2 ай бұрын

Someone plays Infinity

@duckdialectics8810 2 ай бұрын

@@flavorgod Oh yeah, the one and only. I play Ariadna. I either avoid being the "Gotcha Player", or I lose all my friends

@flavorgod 2 ай бұрын

@@duckdialectics8810 Combined Army Player

@SusCalvin 2 ай бұрын

I like the simplicity of for example old Necromunda.

@leonelegender 2 ай бұрын

Rpgs are not movies, they don't need to be cinematic, and worst, forcing scenes take out immersion and player agency. A great show to watch on podcast makes for a poor game. The narrative is not set, it comes out from the players actions and your response to it.

@SHONNER 2 ай бұрын

@leonelegender doesn't get it. Did you even watch the video?

@SusCalvin 2 ай бұрын

I only get annoyed when some DM prompts me to be cinematic. "But tell me how it looks on screen when you shoot the gnolls."

@SHONNER 2 ай бұрын

@@SusCalvin Yes. That is annoying. We don't talk out of character in our games.

@SusCalvin 2 ай бұрын

@@SHONNER I talk out of character a lot. "Hey, how long is that wall?" or "Guys, we need three horses to pull all this crap" or "Is this good danish embassy background music?" Playing out every interaction in character can get old fast.

@SHONNER 2 ай бұрын

@@SusCalvin Yes. Most players hate roleplaying in roleplaying games.