Matt Quinton Hm. As I say, I've successfully employed both, but find emulation (as I define it in my own personal lexicon) more difficult to achieve and maintain, as it requires so much detail.
Cinematic (again, as I define it), I find to move faster, more fluidly, only concentrates on what is vital to the action, drama, and story.
You loose granular detail, of course, but if my aim isn't to experience that level of detail (like it was in my D&D Hexcrawl), then I didn't miss it (such as with Monsterhearts, where the focus is on the drama, interpersonal relationships, social dynamics, and so on).
Think of it as the difference between shooting a documentary where you have to follow the subject around 24 hours a day. vs. filming scenes in a movie.
You get more detail in the first, but it takes a lot more effort and time, vs framing and shooting only the parts that are interesting, exciting, and advance the story. You don't get all the minute details of the subject, but since that is not the focus, then you don't miss it.
Immersion was hard to do in my sessions as well. As soon as I stepped into the role of the character and made a decision, I would have to jump out to interpret the GM side of the engine.
Perhaps character creation was the deepest immersive part, much like writing a story, when creating unique characters requires entering into their minds, finding their traits and flaws.
Recounting the story after it was already finished also helped deepen the character connection rather than during the gameplay.
Although the granular detail is indeed limited, sometimes when things go really wrong, twisted, or become challenging, it helps fill in some of the missing or lost backstory. Those missing details left blank weren't missed either.
Personally I find the emulation style fits more with solo, and a directed cinematic format fits the group play style more
ReplyDeleteMatt Quinton Hm. As I say, I've successfully employed both, but find emulation (as I define it in my own personal lexicon) more difficult to achieve and maintain, as it requires so much detail.
ReplyDeleteCinematic (again, as I define it), I find to move faster, more fluidly, only concentrates on what is vital to the action, drama, and story.
You loose granular detail, of course, but if my aim isn't to experience that level of detail (like it was in my D&D Hexcrawl), then I didn't miss it (such as with Monsterhearts, where the focus is on the drama, interpersonal relationships, social dynamics, and so on).
Think of it as the difference between shooting a documentary where you have to follow the subject around 24 hours a day. vs. filming scenes in a movie.
You get more detail in the first, but it takes a lot more effort and time, vs framing and shooting only the parts that are interesting, exciting, and advance the story. You don't get all the minute details of the subject, but since that is not the focus, then you don't miss it.
My take on it anyway. :)
Immersion was hard to do in my sessions as well. As soon as I stepped into the role of the character and made a decision, I would have to jump out to interpret the GM side of the engine.
ReplyDeletePerhaps character creation was the deepest immersive part, much like writing a story, when creating unique characters requires entering into their minds, finding their traits and flaws.
Recounting the story after it was already finished also helped deepen the character connection rather than during the gameplay.
Although the granular detail is indeed limited, sometimes when things go really wrong, twisted, or become challenging, it helps fill in some of the missing or lost backstory. Those missing details left blank weren't missed either.