Why is 'cinematic' good but…

[Guest Not In Sample]

'like a video game' is bad?

RPGs are not movies. They are not video games either. But they are probably closer to video games than movies. What with being real time interactive and all.

--

Is 'ludic' the equivalent word to 'cinematic'?

[GM Chris 192]

AluminiumWolf said:

'like a video game' is bad?

RPGs are not movies. They are not video games either. But they are probably closer to video games than movies. What with being real time interactive and all.

--

Is 'ludic' the equivalent word to 'cinematic'?

That's a very good question - and one personal to each player, and the experiences/memories that lead them to want to play in a specific RPG or setting.  You can't say "RPGs" in a lump group.  In my experience, people want different things from different ones.

For example, when I RP fantasy, I want an experience that tickles my mind the way it was when I first read Lord of the Rings as a kid.  :-). I want be Frodo or Aragorn in the books… So that's the feeling/flavor I want in a fantasy RPG.  I want to be a character in a novel.

For most SW gamers (including me), the primary frame of reference is the films.  There's a ton of EU in other forms of media… But it's those films that first wormed their way into my mind and made me fall in love with Star Wars.  When I RP Star Wars, I envision my character as if they're in a film.  Shouldnt be that surprising.  :-)

Accordingly, I want my SW RPGs to be "cinematic" and narrative in the style of cinema.

 

For D&D, I'm fine RPing "the journey from Helmhold to Parth Galen", in all it's 2 weeks of time. In fact… I expect it.  But with Star Wars… That would drive me insane.  Just give me the "Lucas Screen Wipe" - and take me there.  ;-)

[BrashFink 218]

I am afraid I have to disagree with you Wolf. I attempt to make all my games like a movie. I have always gone with the idea of… "Your characters are the stuff of legends and do crazy stuff". I have never been into the more realistic type systems like GURPS.

I would say it really depends on what you are your players are into. If you really like simulation style gameplay then a cinematic system is not for you.

[GM Chris 192]

BrashFink said:

I am afraid I have to disagree. I attempt to make all my games like a movie. I have always gone with the idea of… "Your characters are the stuff of legends and do crazy stuff". I have never been into the more realistic type systems like GURPS.

I would say it really depends on what you are your players are into. If you really like simulation style gameplay then a cinematic system is not for you.

Exactly!!!

Thats my point.    Everyone has their own expectations and wants…!  It's personal to each player and each group.  There is no right or wrong… Just what you love.

[BrashFink 218]

Sorry Chris… your post was not there when I said reply… haha. Timing.

Hey, postcast was great BTW. Really coalesced all the rules for me. Anyone wanting to get a real grip on the rules should checkout that podcast.

[Kallabecca 983]

'Cinematic' and 'like a video game' aren't really the same thing. 'Cinematic' means that lots can happen off-screen like healing or travel when they have no effect on the narrative (time just needs to pass). 'Like a video game' implies things like the finding of healing power ups or gear that gives weird boosts or 'special maneuvers' that one can use like building up weird combos. Seeing things like players wanting to find the cloaks that provide rapid healing… in STAR WARS… because something like that exists in one of the computer games… blech…

[I. J. Thompson 770]

 For me, it's about emotional involvement - watching my character grow in the way it reacts to adversity and relates to his/her comrades and enemies. There are video games that try to simulate this, but it never seems to quite happen. Speaking specifically about Star Wars here, you're either in a game like KotOR, where there's certainly a lot of emotional arc to the story… but it's been scripted by somebody else, or you're in something like Galaxies, where you can roleplay your heart out and the other guy is just like, "shut up and buff me".

So, a 'cinematic' style rpg, with like-minded players, gets the win for me. 

[BrashFink 218]

Kallabecca said:

'Cinematic' means that lots can happen off-screen like healing or travel when they have no effect on the narrative (time just needs to pass).

I disagree here with you. I feel the "Scene jumping" should be done in all games… why waste time on someone doing their laundry or something?

However, to me Cinematic means High Action and thrilling things happening, quick and fast. As opposed to a bunch of neckbeards sitting around and crunching numbers for 10 minutes after each attach to see what happens. If you enjoy this 'Simulation' gameplay, more power to you. Me, I want to tell an exciting story, not do a math problem.

[Guest Not In Sample]

I. J. Thompson said:

Speaking specifically about Star Wars here, you're either in a game like KotOR, where there's certainly a lot of emotional arc to the story… but it's been scripted by somebody else, or you're in something like Galaxies, where you can roleplay your heart out and the other guy is just like, "shut up and buff me".

But with a movie all you do is sit there and watch it…

And, er, I don't think games like Call of Duty are exactly short on High Action and thrilling stuff happening.

[ItsUncertainWho 3]

BrashFink said:

However, to me Cinematic means High Action and thrilling things happening, quick and fast. As opposed to a bunch of neckbeards sitting around and crunching numbers for 10 minutes after each attach to see what happens. If you enjoy this 'Simulation' gameplay, more power to you. Me, I want to tell an exciting story, not do a math problem.

Some of us would rather jab screw drivers into our ears than listen to some smooth faced dandy prattle on for 10 minutes about how awesome he is as he runs across the room hurtling crates and flipping over pits to stab someone with his glow stick. I have an imagination that takes care of the visuals for me. Saying "I move and attack" is all some of us need and want.

AluminiumWolf said:

And, er, I don't think games like Call of Duty are exactly short on High Action and thrilling stuff happening.

I wouldn't call being on a rail while pre-scripted events happen around you, while the camera shakes, watching a cut scene and being forced to randomly push a button within a time limit to continue "High Action" or "Thrilling". It's watching a barely interactive movie where you are annoyed by stupid crap someone thought was "Thrilling". Yeah, I also think Uncharted is a crap game. Good story, crap game.

[BrashFink 218]

AluminiumWolf said:

 

But with a movie all you do is sit there and watch it…

Well.. cinematic does not mean the GM performs a one man performance art piece for everyone. lol

Cinematic universally means a "dynamic, dramatic or exciting look". For example, in comics a cinematic sequence might have very little words and a lot of action… or literally "Movle-like" look. Since most movies have a "hyper-real" sensibility, this usually translates to "larger than life" action… like a Star Wars film.

Think of your average shot you can imagine of Spiderman punching. It is in no way shape or form realistic, it is over-exended, crazy amount of wasted energy… but looks cool and looks action packed. That is cinematic in a nutshell.

 

[BrashFink 218]

ItsUncertainWho said:

Some of us would rather jab screw drivers into our ears than listen to some smooth faced dandy prattle on for 10 minutes about how awesome he is as he runs across the room hurtling crates and flipping over pits to stab someone with his glow stick. I have an imagination that takes care of the visuals for me. Saying "I move and attack" is all some of us need and want.

I think you have been playied with the wrong people.

Cinematic is fast gameplay. NOTHING should go on for 10 minutes… not number crunch, not flowery speeches.

[New Zombie 128]

AluminiumWolf said:

But with a movie all you do is sit there and watch it…

? with a video game all you do is click a mouse button and a few keys on a keyboard or wiggle your thumbs on a controller.

neither of those statements are true. if the movie and game are good enough you become immersed and invested in them. back to the topic… as others have said neither are bad or good. it is personal taste. the designers make a choice that appeals to them. this design is narrative, earlier versions have been closer to gamist. personally i'm wrapped, being a fan of WFRP3 and the SW movies i see this as the perfect product for me.

[Guest Not In Sample]

BrashFink said:

Cinematic universally means a "dynamic, dramatic or exciting look". For example, in comics a cinematic sequence might have very little words and a lot of action… or literally "Movle-like" look. Since most movies have a "hyper-real" sensibility, this usually translates to "larger than life" action… like a Star Wars film.

 

Think of your average shot you can imagine of Spiderman punching. It is in no way shape or form realistic, it is over-exended, crazy amount of wasted energy… but looks cool and looks action packed. That is cinematic in a nutshell.

 

Oh aye, but what I am getting at is why do people tend to react positively to saying something is 'cinematic', but act like you have run over their dog if you suggest you are looking at video games for your inspiration.

Especially since a lot of what video games do is try to give a 'cinematic' sort of experience in a real time interactive format.

(In particular in particular, I think most people would agree that if you want a 'cinematic' experience you shouldn't pick a hardcore simulation video game.)

Now, I don't think there is much to be gained from copying stuff like the preprogrammed levels and plots, or to design systems that rely on a computer being able to perform millions of calculations per second, but as you say we don't want to copy the total non-interactivity of movies either.

But things like regenerating health, sticky cover, co-op mechanics, reduced downtime, lack of permadeath or rewinding or use of checkpoints and whatnot could all be powerful weapons in making a cool RPG.

Hell, even the Holy Trinity in MMOs has the advantage of ensuring that a team of players have to work together to succeed.

Also, er, what Robin Laws calls the Iconic Hero* may be dead in literature, but I think in video games he/she has been practically weaponised in to new heights of Iconic Awesomeness.

Maybe that is what I am getting at. The coolest Iconic Heroes these days are to be found in video games, and the format is well suited to them. On the grounds that as you play the game, you get better at changing the world by expressing you core self. Usually by driving really fast or shooting stuff until it dies. Then you do it all again in the sequel.

* http://robin-d-laws.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/new-hero-brief-what-makes-iconic-hero.html

 

+++++The New Hero is an anthology of original fiction featuring new iconic heroes, edited by Robin D. Laws and published by Pelgrane Press.

It will consist of 14 stories, each 4500-7500 words long.

Each story features an iconic hero of the author’s creation, in any genre. The hero is presented with a problem, faces various entertaining complications as he or she engages with the problem, and solves the problem, bringing the story to a satisfying conclusion. The reader is thus left hungering for more stories starring your newly introduced iconic character.

What Makes a Hero Iconic

While a dramatic hero follows a character arc in which he is changed by his experience of the world (examples: Orpheus, King Lear, Ben Braddock), an iconic hero undertakes tasks (often serially) and changes the world, restoring order to it, by remaining true to his essential self.

Prevailing creative writing wisdom favors the changeable dramatic character over his serially unchanging iconic counterpart, but examples of the latter remain enduring tentpoles of popular culture. It’s the clear, simple, elemental iconic heroes who keep getting reinvented every generation. Each such classic character spoke to the era of its invention, while also evoking an eternal quality granting it a continuing resonance. We are going to create a new set of heroes who speak to the contemporary world while evoking the inescapable power of the iconic model.

An iconic hero re-imposes order on the world by reasserting his essential selfhood. The nature of his radical individuality can be summed up with a statement of his iconic ethos. It is the ethos that grants higher meaning to the hero’s actions, and a clue to his creator’s intentions. An iconic hero’s ethos motivates and empowers him.

• Sherlock Holmes solves mysteries using rigorous deductive logic.

• Miss Marple solves mysteries with a sharp mind, hidden behind a deceptively doddering demeanor.

• Conan uses his barbaric superiority to overturn the false order of corrupt civilization.

• Carnacki the Ghost Finder conquers fear with scientific methodology and technology.

• Dr. Gregory House caustically tramples social decencies to solve medical mysteries, temporarily assuaging his self-loathing.

• Batman brings justice to cowardly and superstitious wrongdoers, doing for others what he could not do for his murdered parents.

• Storm overcomes the enemies of human- and mutantkind by wielding nature’s untamed power.

• James Bond dispatches Britain's enemies with cold suavity and violence.

• Tarzan upholds the noble values of the jungle against the predatory outsiders who would despoil it.

• Philip Marlowe goes down mean streets, without himself becoming mean.

An iconic ethos implies both action and motivation. Each adventure featuring the hero is a satisfyingly ritualistic recapitulation of the character’s core action. By engaging in this recapitulation the hero restores the sense of order which was disrupted by the problem presented at the narrative’s outset.

This anthology provides your chance to create your Bond, your Batman, your Philip Marlowe.

Next: What we wanted to see in submitted stories—and what we didn’t.+++++

 

[cparadis10 105]

 Interesting question Wolf.  I have to agree with other posters that a lot of this is personal preference. One other point is that when some people complain that something is video game-like they are complaining about a lack of options or choice, or that you are only allowed to make certain choices. Video games currently cannot offer the freedom of choice a pen and paper RPG can. In the end, some people think being like a video game is good and some people don't. No real mystery just personal preference. 

[Slaunyeh 110]

AluminiumWolf said:

 

'like a video game' is bad?

RPGs are not movies. They are not video games either. But they are probably closer to video games than movies. What with being real time interactive and all.

--

Is 'ludic' the equivalent word to 'cinematic'?

 

 

Because 'cinematic' doesn't mean 'like a movie', but 'like a video game' does mean 'like a video game'. And, let's be honest, if you want to your RPGs to be as much like video games as possible, you might as well just play the video game? I'll guarantee you that the video game will do what you want better.

But to answer the question, 'cinematic' is about how you present a story (which, incidentally, could include the story in a video game) whereas 'like a video game' doesn't really mean anything. Like a video game how? Hold down W to move forward? Explore caves full of conveniently placed medpacks? Scipted circular conversation with NPCs? There is no uniform way video games do things. If you say you want a RPG to be more 'like a video game', you haven't told us anything about what you actually want.

Also, I think why some people have a somewhat harsh reaction to a term like 'like a video game', is that there are certain mechanical conveniences that we've trained ourselves to ignore in video games because they make the game better, but you'd probably have to explain in a RPG session. That could be, say, Lara Croft exploring a tomb that has been undisturbed for two thousand years, yet somehow is littered with ammunition and health packs. Or being unable to climb over (or move) that stack of barrels over there, barring you from exploring the rest of the city. We accept these things as mechanical limitations of video games, but you really shouldn't think too hard about it. RPGs (in general) require a sense of credibility to the setting. Video games are not held to the same standard, because we accept the limitations of the medium as a storytelling device, and we're prepared to ignore some, if not all, of what that entails.

In the end, it's up to the individual player what they are really looking for in a game, but a RPG designed 'like a video game' would not be something I was personally interested in. I have video games for that. Now, ironically, I do enjoy video games that are 'like an RPG'.

 

[Slaunyeh 110]

AluminiumWolf said:

Hell, even the Holy Trinity in MMOs has the advantage of ensuring that a team of players have to work together to succeed.

To be fair, it'd be more accurate to refer to the "Holy Trinity" as 'like D&D' than 'like video games'. Also, the grief a lot of people have with the holy trinity is the opinion that this is/should be the only team composition that has a chance for success. In a RPG where "thinking outside the box" to overcome problems is much more likely than in a video game, the 'holy trinity' is like the antithesis to creative thinking and "good roleplay". But I digress, I dislike the notion of the 'holy trinity' (as a required mechanic) as much in video games as I do in RPGs.

[Guest Not In Sample]

Slaunyeh said:

Because 'cinematic' doesn't mean 'like a movie'

Definition of cinematic

adjective

• relating to the cinema:cinematic output
• having qualities characteristic of films:the cinematic feel of their video

:0)

[Slaunyeh 110]

AluminiumWolf said:

Slaunyeh said:

Because 'cinematic' doesn't mean 'like a movie'

 

 

Definition of cinematic

adjective

• relating to the cinema:cinematic output
• having qualities characteristic of films:the cinematic feel of their video

 

:0)

 

Definition of CINEMATIC
1
: of, relating to, suggestive of, or suitable for motion pictures or the filming of motion pictures <cinematic principles and techniques>
2
: filmed and presented as a motion picture <cinematic fantasies>

 

I'm sure no one will stop you from video recording your RPG sessions (except maybe your players), but that's generally not what we are referring to when talking about a cinematic style. The 'cinematic style' refers to techniques regarding telling a story through a visual medium, and "cinematic RPGs" tries to invoke some of that feel. "Like a video game" is not a storytelling technique.

But I'm sure you already knew this, and are just copy-pasting half definitions to be an ass and not bother with the rest of the argument.

I'm done here.

[Guest Not In Sample]

I find it difficult to see that 'cinematic' in this case is not using the 'suggestive of motion pictures' definition.

And there is no one way of doing movies, and movies have a lot of conventions we accept as part of the format etc.

I guess in the end though, I look at stuff like

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t25yOx7pTeQ

and think that that is where it is at these days.

Even Star Wars is getting on for being more

 (1313)

for me.

[Jegergryte 1,980]

Yes, a dictionary definition always encapsulate the whole meaning and use of a word.

Strictly speaking cinematic has to do with film making and the theatre where these motion pictures are shown, likewise "democracy" is derived from "demos" which means something along the lines of "the people" … but democracy does not - today - mean that the people is in control (only a fool believes that), another examples is "idiot" which in old greece means something along the lines of an "a-political" person… today and for a long time, it has meant something else.

My point is that you have read many posts of different ways of using and interpreting the term "cinematic" - but either your reading skills are subnormal or … I don't know.

Either way, the definition you have added does not dispute Slaunyeh's statement. It does not mean its LIKE a movie, although it can bring about the same sort of feeling - which I would argue is something else - it is a different thing to watch grand drama and action sequences unfold, if it is on a large or small scale, than what you seem to prefer: mechanics that makes player character immortal, check points, save points, thumb twiddling dice mechanics so that it feel a bit more like Starkiller falling - again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again - when you retry that intro scene on Kamino (its like you don't enjoy good computer games, only ego-stroking colour mashups with sound and crappy imperialist propaganda stories).

Your other statement, that "people" react negatively to using video games as inspiration I don't recognise or understand, in fact I find it faulty.

Video games have many good stories that could be useful in creating my own stories and campaigns. Although I look to neither films nor video games to look for mechanics; I'm just not keen on the idea of save points, "sticky covers", re-spawn points, two or three choices for what to let my players say to an NPC. Mechanically video games are - in most if not all ways - sub-standard compared to the interactivity of an rpg. Of course movies don't offer any interactivity, but neither do they lie about this, they do not try to create the illusion that me (or you) - the player - has some say in the outcome of the game - it is predetermined and linear - both films and video games. Movies create experiences, wow-factor, entertainment, memorable moments of action and drama, intimacy. Few games has this depth - I have a comprehensive game collection for both pc, xbox and ps3 so I don't consider myself uneducated in this area.

That said, the mechanics you speak of can certainly exist in board games, perhaps even an rpg for the creatively and imaginary challenged who need a pat on the back, and instead of playing the game, they'd rather play the system.

But hyperbole aside, it is a false dichotomy that you have erected here. Video games can certainly be cinematic, often they actually take both stories and the story telling technique from films - they are not something vastly different from films at all. Except films tell a story, video games let you participate under the illusion of interactivity.

[Guest Not In Sample]

Jegergryte said:

Your other statement, that "people" react negatively to using video games as inspiration I don't recognise or understand, in fact I find it faulty.

Isn't… that whole post reacting negatively to using video games as inspiration?

[Jegergryte 1,980]

Simply put: No.

If you mean that video game mechanics (ie the system, gameplay and the UI) is what defines and constitute the video game genre and what "like video games" means, you might be interpret it that way, but I do not. Inspiration for rpgs I take from books, comics, films, tv-series and video games alike. The stories, the plots, the twists and imagined visual experience. Not the fact that if my character is 5 or 10 or 15 feet from potential cover and I click X  I gain cover and my health auto-regenerate.

[Guest Not In Sample]

Jegergryte said:

(its like you don't enjoy good computer games, only ego-stroking colour mashups with sound and crappy imperialist propaganda stories).

 

Of course movies don't offer any interactivity, but neither do they lie about this, they do not try to create the illusion that me (or you) - the player - has some say in the outcome of the game - it is predetermined and linear - both films and video games. Movies create experiences, wow-factor, entertainment, memorable moments of action and drama, intimacy. Few games has this depth

perhaps even an rpg for the creatively and imaginary challenged who need a pat on the back, and instead of playing the game, they'd rather play the system.

Except films tell a story, video games let you participate under the illusion of interactivity.

 

I dunno. It is hard for me to read things like this and not get the impression that people are being a bit harsh. It isn't like Star Wars isn't wish fulfilment with a side order of pro american propaganda (only at the time the RUSSIANS were 'The Empire'), and I'd argue that even Call of Duty games can play out differently as you go through them (on the which chest high wall you take cover behind, did you miss a particular shot level but still more interactivity than a movie), and frankly only video games have anything like the game mechanics that underly an RPG. In books and movies whether a shot is missed or an argument takes is solely down to author fiat.

I guess… why are people so willing to cut 'cinematic' slack? It isn't like people mean that in a 'cinematic' rpg the GM gives you a script and your just read your lines over many takes until you get one you like. Why should a 'video game' rpg mean you can't jump over a small box?

[Jegergryte 1,980]

Its not being harsh, its simply the way things are, or can be seen. Video games are great, yet what works in them, might not (some would say will not) work in a table top rpg. Especially notions from the FPS genre would be difficult to implement in a balanced and enjoyable way (at least to my requirements - I cannot speak of yours or anybody else's).

A computer game gives the illusion of interactivity, you can shoot, or not shoot, you can say A or B (and sometimes even C) - although the actual impact and difference of saying either can be irrelevant on the final outcome of the game (some key points usually - these days - have at least a minor effect on this if its a large enough game). It is "more" interactive than a film, but the film or book is not trying to fool you into believing that you have an impact on the story. They tell a story to entertain, impress, or otherwise make an impact on the reader/watcher. And granted tons of films are crap this way, yet even less computer games have good and impressive stories - historically.

Computer games have similar mechanics yes, in that any game needs rules from Ludo to Monopoly to Solitaire to Chess. The Gears of war board game or the Doom board game should supply you with what you want though, mechanics wise at least.

If you equate inspiration from computer games with making a rpgs LIKE computer games in regards to interactivity and gameplay, your games are going to be linear, players have little to no impact (ie being led by the nose) and no one ever dies - there is no suspense, no tension, no fear of loosing to the bad guys. Makes for boring rpgs in my eyes - yet its fun to play on the big screen tv. With this kind of system, anything is down to GM fiat and the limitations of the systems, which we all know is severely limited in computer games - you cannot do what you want, you can only act within the small confines of a predetermined story and/or landscape.

Lots of video games have applied rpg systems into their inner workings, the Baldurs Gate series for example. Works fine that way (more or less), of course you could make your own version the other way, I'd like to see the results, although I am not enthused by the notion of a video-game on the table top with dice. Video games do poorly in making rpgs - I think they are great games but none of them can offer what a table top rpg can - and likewise do I think that the table top rpg will poorly reproduce video game logic and mechanics.