Cinematic vs gamist...

[weasel2000]

I have an interesting question, mainly brought about by playing the Tombstone Western LARP last weekend. What do people do more...play to the game or play to the cinematic. Reason I ask is that sometimes, within a LARP, it seems like you could game it for your character to survive even when he/she shouldn't as opposed to doing what is cinematic.

Comments

[castalusoria]

My more-cinematic railroad (not a pejorative term, in this case) went off the rails when my supposed True Love ended up paired off with someone else. This bothered me OOC way more than I expected. I thought about how my character ended the movie ("Destry Rides Again," she takes a bullet for Destry and dies, just as they're realizing their feelings for each other), and wondered if there was a way for that to happen IC and have it be at all meaningful-- instead of just unrequited-angsty.

And I pondered it for a good while. It wasn't until late Saturday night that a "small talk" conversation with PapaG's character, the Marshal, while watching the poker game, that I saw an opening. A conversation that started slightly-flirty turned slightly-serious, then turned very serious-- all while we were standing two feet from the poker players-- I don't know if anyone even noticed. It wasn't a long conversation, but it was a pretty deep one, and those kinds of moments, in LARP, often end up being my favorites, or the ones I remember.

It was what shaped what I did, IC and OOC, at the very-tail-end of the game on Sunday (to the surprise of any number of folks, apparently), when The Marshal fell dead, and I was the first person to reach him.

I almost always choose "cinematic" over "winning," game-wise, but that's not really what/how you asked. I ask myself, what will give other players the most satisfying experience? Hopefully, will it also be satisfying for me? If there are spectators, will it be meaningful or enjoyable for them to watch? I have seldom held to a character's back story so rigidly that I opted to stay on the gamist path rather than be willing to diverge as the story unfolded at runtime-- while still staying "true" to the nature of the character's character. That said... I think I've kind of reversed your terms, for which I apologize. What I just described would be more like "playing the game" than "keeping to the cinema."

A really good question, I hope lots of folks respond! I'm interested to know what people think on this.

[flaviarassen]

Wow - you said a good deal of what I did on weasel's FB - (WTTE:) "When in doubt, go cinematic, so everyone enjoys."

I know I tend to angst a lot over what other people consider "details", but it's because I'm trying to be fair to everyone - the GMs, the other players *&* myself, so if I see a contradiction, or a snag, I want it ironed out before the game even starts. But I digress...

I'd say there is no real - or, rather, immutable - answer to the original question: players have to decide what's best under any given circumstance. But I think you & I definitely agree on what's generally best to do.