D&D 4E Pemertonian Scene Framing and 4e DMing Restarted

Hussar said:

One issue I do see here though is player apathy.

Click to expand...

Nemesis Destiny said:

I think that misreading the cues (and their motivations) can be a potential issue, as has been suggested.

Click to expand...

Both these are issues.

I don't know of any solution to player apathy. The scene-framing approach, at least as I understand it, depends upon players prepared to play their PCs with gusto, and sink their teeth into the content that they've signalled that they want.

That said, I don't know how common player apathy is. I've generally not found it to be an issue; and in some cases, I've found what seemed to be apathetic players are really players who have had their energy beaten out of them by a particular style of GMing, in which GM force makes players choices largely irrelevant (except perhaps for colour and characterisation on the margins).

Mis-signalling can be corrected for, I think, by better communication, and so once a group gets its groove should be less of an issue.

pemerton said:

I don't know of any solution to player apathy. The scene-framing approach, at least as I understand it, depends upon players prepared to play their PCs with gusto, and sink their teeth into the content that they've signalled that they want.

That said, I don't know how common player apathy is. I've generally not found it to be an issue; and in some cases, I've found what seemed to be apathetic players are really players who have had their energy beaten out of them by a particular style of GMing, in which GM force makes players choices largely irrelevant (except perhaps for colour and characterisation on the margins).

Click to expand...

I don't know of any solutions for this either, nor do I know how common it is, but I do have one player in particular that creates this issue in my game (or any game he's in); no matter what style of DMing, what kind of stories, nor how DMs have tried to involve his character, he just doesn't seem to care. We wonder why he keeps showing up. This is probably an extreme example and not something you can likely correct for.

Mis-signalling can be corrected for, I think, by better communication, and so once a group gets its groove should be less of an issue.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. The only snag I've run into here, is occasionally a player that doesn't want to have a say in what happens, and wants to be surprised either by the random chance of the dice or by the whims of the DM.

Nemesis Destiny said:

I do have one player in particular that creates this issue in my game (or any game he's in); no matter what style of DMing, what kind of stories, nor how DMs have tried to involve his character, he just doesn't seem to care. We wonder why he keeps showing up. This is probably an extreme example and not something you can likely correct for.

Click to expand...

Does this player just enjoy the company, and the occasional dice roll? (In 4e DMG terms that would make him a "watcher".) Or is there some other element of the RPG experience that he enjoys?

Back in the days when I was GMing at university and had a fairly open door for group membership, I got a player who seemed to have no interest in the mechanical side of the game, nor the story/thematic aspect of the game, nor really in the human company! He dropped out of the group after a short while, and his PC became an NPC/cohort until killed in an unhappy conflict with an ice troll. (The players, rolling for the NPC, were cheering for me as I rolled for the troll.)

Nemesis Destiny said:

The only snag I've run into here, is occasionally a player that doesn't want to have a say in what happens, and wants to be surprised either by the random chance of the dice or by the whims of the DM.

Click to expand...

I think this can be a subtle matter. [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] has some developed views about it, and may want to join in.

For me, it is about where the surprise/whims come in. I think most people who are even thinking about scene-framing play want surprise as opposed to railroad/metaplot of the 90s Dead Gods or White Wolf style. But scene-framing play isn't surprise all the way down. Many of the basic elements that will make up the conflicts that will drive the game are established fairly overtly in play.

To give easy examples from my own 4e game, two PCs worship the Raven Queen - so Orcus will be a nemesis. One is an invoker on a divinely-sanctioned mission to restore the Sceptre of Law (= the Rod of 7 Parts) - so chaos and the primordials will be nemeses. The same PC worships not only Erathis and Ioun but also Bane (more law vs chaos), The Raven Queen (so anti-Orcus/undead) but also in a limited way Vecna - so there is some tension there with the more straightforward Raven Queen devotees. Another PC is a dwarven fighter-cleric of Moradin who wields a dwarven thrower artefact. A bit like the Raven Queen worshippers, this PC is fairly straightforward (though on different dimensions) - a staunch supporter of law vs chaos, and "civilisation" vs goblins, giants etc. The fifth PC is a drow chaos sorcerer who is part of a secret society of Corellon worshippers dedicated to undoing the sundering of the elves. He hates Lolth and the Abyss, but revels in chaos and the fey. Bluff is his best skill. There is obvious tension here with the dwarf and the invoker, and I think everyone at the table recognises that epic tier - when gods and primordials become more proximate - is going to increase rather than reduce that tension.

Given those PC set ups, no one is surprised when Orcus, Lolth, demons, devils, Kas etc turn up as antagonists and pivotal NPCs. The player flags are clear; the points of pressure are clear to me as GM. How it unfolds will (hopefully) be surprising and entertaining to all of us at the table. But the basic framework of conflict has been estasblished.

If someone really wants to play a game in which they don't want to send any signals, or make any thematic or value choices as a player, and want it all to be delivered by the GM, then I don't think scene-framing play of the sort we were discussing in the other thread is for them. It seems to me that they want to follow the GM's story, perhaps providing a bit of characterisation of their PC as they go along. I would think a well-written adventure path for a system which doesn't give players too many situational-control mechanics (eg in D&D terms, teleports and the like) would suit a group of such players well.

But this is something on which I'm keen to hear what others think.

The best advice I can think of on this is:

1) Know your apathetic or introverted wallflowers. Learn their narrow windows of opportunity or how to subtly provoke them toward scene proliferation or flat out don't use them as pressure-points for scene advancement.

2) Know your instigators, thinkers, tacticians and the rest. Make sure you're all on the same page concerning (i) genre conceits, (ii) table agenda and the (iii) thematic nuance of their characters and how their deployable resources coincide with that. That will give you the necessary tools to deliver them into scenes that they will attack and attack properly. Further, you'll understand what sort of complications/adversity "makes sense" and is likely to challenge them in a fashion that propels the scene toward its ultimate conclusion.

You don't put Cindy the introverted wallflower who is playing generic fighter001 in a position to disarm the uncomfortable moment at the "curry favor with the Duke feast" when the Duchess throws her glass of wine in his face when he makes an off-color remark.

You do put Bob the wily instigator playing the rugged frontiersman fighter who has spent most of his life as a caravan guard (and thus knows a thing or two) in a position to make the decision to either stop whole and risk being vulnerable, veer wide and risk a wreck with the bad guys and a big ole mess, or play chicken with the band of highwaymen looking to rob his coach...or something else equally Lone Ranger-like.

pemerton said:

Does this player just enjoy the company, and the occasional dice roll? (In 4e DMG terms that would make him a "watcher".) Or is there some other element of the RPG experience that he enjoys?

Click to expand...

I don't even know anymore. This fellow is someone that I introduced to the game 17 years ago, and for a long time, he had been pretty well engaged with the game and his characters.

I think he keeps coming because he's a loner and has "nothing better to do" with his evenings, so I guess you could call that enjoying the company. He often peppers the group with inane anecdotes and distracting off-topic conversation that none of the rest of us really care about, as he has little in common with everyone else.

He enjoys the "chance" element of dice rolling, but constantly curses his "bad luck" and seems to treat anything directed at his Gary Stu PC as catastrophic.

I've been trying to figure out what would make this player happy in game for a long time now, but nothing seems to work anymore. Other players can occasionally prompt him into action, but we've pretty much given up. The only recent games where he seemed to have any fun at all were during a campaign arc where he was playing a firbolg (refluffed dragonborn) storm sorcerer (refluffed lightning dragon sorcerer) in a party of superstitious viking-type characters who constantly held him in contempt.

Back in the days when I was GMing at university and had a fairly open door for group membership, I got a player who seemed to have no interest in the mechanical side of the game, nor the story/thematic aspect of the game, nor really in the human company! He dropped out of the group after a short while, and his PC became an NPC/cohort until killed in an unhappy conflict with an ice troll. (The players, rolling for the NPC, were cheering for me as I rolled for the troll.)

Click to expand...

If this player ever left our group, this is exactly what would probably happen to his "main" character in the story arc. The odd thing is, the PC has so many compelling story and personal hooks that anyone else at the table would *love* to be playing that character, but this dude just seems oblivious!

It may also be worth noting that he hasn't handled edition changes well (2e->3.x->4e), but isn't really invested in the mechanics either, so it remains baffling.

I think this can be a subtle matter. @LostSoul has some developed views about it, and may want to join in.

For me, it is about where the surprise/whims come in. I think most people who are even thinking about scene-framing play want surprise as opposed to railroad/metaplot of the 90s Dead Gods or White Wolf style. But scene-framing play isn't surprise all the way down. Many of the basic elements that will make up the conflicts that will drive the game are established fairly overtly in play.

To give easy examples from my own 4e game, two PCs worship the Raven Queen - so Orcus will be a nemesis. One is an invoker on a divinely-sanctioned mission to restore the Sceptre of Law (= the Rod of 7 Parts) - so chaos and the primordials will be nemeses. The same PC worships not only Erathis and Ioun but also Bane (more law vs chaos), The Raven Queen (so anti-Orcus/undead) but also in a limited way Vecna - so there is some tension there with the more straightforward Raven Queen devotees. Another PC is a dwarven fighter-cleric of Moradin who wields a dwarven thrower artefact. A bit like the Raven Queen worshippers, this PC is fairly straightforward (though on different dimensions) - a staunch supporter of law vs chaos, and "civilisation" vs goblins, giants etc. The fifth PC is a drow chaos sorcerer who is part of a secret society of Corellon worshippers dedicated to undoing the sundering of the elves. He hates Lolth and the Abyss, but revels in chaos and the fey. Bluff is his best skill. There is obvious tension here with the dwarf and the invoker, and I think everyone at the table recognises that epic tier - when gods and primordials become more proximate - is going to increase rather than reduce that tension.

Given those PC set ups, no one is surprised when Orcus, Lolth, demons, devils, Kas etc turn up as antagonists and pivotal NPCs. The player flags are clear; the points of pressure are clear to me as GM. How it unfolds will (hopefully) be surprising and entertaining to all of us at the table. But the basic framework of conflict has been estasblished.

If someone really wants to play a game in which they don't want to send any signals, or make any thematic or value choices as a player, and want it all to be delivered by the GM, then I don't think scene-framing play of the sort we were discussing in the other thread is for them. It seems to me that they want to follow the GM's story, perhaps providing a bit of characterisation of their PC as they go along. I would think a well-written adventure path for a system which doesn't give players too many situational-control mechanics (eg in D&D terms, teleports and the like) would suit a group of such players well.

But this is something on which I'm keen to hear what others think.

Click to expand...

I love reading examples from your games! Sounds like a lot of fun

In my case, the player I refer to has a character in my wife's game who is a priest of the goddess of fate, and as such, takes a really passive role in the narrative of the game, viewing his character as a vessel for the goddess' wisdom (i.e. the hand of the DM). This presents a natural opportunity, but it can be very hard work constantly supplying his character with prophecy, then trying to subtly manipulate events to bring them about, especially if we are trying to run a game where the end result should not be predetermined.

Manbearcat said:

The best advice I can think of on this is:

1) Know your apathetic or introverted wallflowers. Learn their narrow windows of opportunity or how to subtly provoke them toward scene proliferation or flat out don't use them as pressure-points for scene advancement.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is something that we quickly figured out. The player I mention is simply not to be involved in anything requiring his input to thrust the game forward. Unfortunately, his PC became involved in a pretty serious plot point before the player became seemingly disinterested, which makes continuing with it problematic at times.

2) Know your instigators, thinkers, tacticians and the rest. Make sure you're all on the same page concerning (i) genre conceits, (ii) table agenda and the (iii) thematic nuance of their characters and how their deployable resources coincide with that. That will give you the necessary tools to deliver them into scenes that they will attack and attack properly. Further, you'll understand what sort of complications/adversity "makes sense" and is likely to challenge them in a fashion that propels the scene toward its ultimate conclusion.

Click to expand...

This is something we probably need to work on more, in my group.

You don't put Cindy the introverted wallflower who is playing generic fighter001 in a position to disarm the uncomfortable moment at the "curry favor with the Duke feast" when the Duchess throws her glass of wine in his face when he makes an off-color remark.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this is a good point. We've tried that in a vain attempt to get the player interested and the result was... not good.

[MENTION=305]Storminator[/MENTION]: Think of it like an option-based choice. Present an offer? Someone may take it, they may add to it, they may deny it. What if there are two, three different options?

It's a good idea to be prepared for multiple possibilities at any time. A plot tree could be helpful, with a rough outline of what may work, then see where it takes you.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

Nemesis Destiny said:

This is something we probably need to work on more, in my group.

Yeah, this is a good point. We've tried that in a vain attempt to get the player interested and the result was... not good.

Click to expand...

Yup. If there are two things that have been cultivated in me as a GM (serves just as well in other areas of life), they are:

1) Be ruthlessly overt and honest. Opacity when interviewing new potential group candidates, when discussing issues post-play, or even at the table during play is a recipe for passive-aggressive disaster. Give no quarter and ask for none.

2) Sort the wheat from the chaff and do it as soon as the delineation is clear.

Manbearcat said:

Yup. If there are two things that have been cultivated in me as a GM (serves just as well in other areas of life), they are:

1) Be ruthlessly overt and honest. Opacity when interviewing new potential group candidates, when discussing issues post-play, or even at the table during play is a recipe for passive-aggressive disaster. Give no quarter and ask for none.

Click to expand...

This is something that I try very hard to do, but I find that most of the time, criticism is not forthcoming when I ask for it; either I am generally doing a very good job, or my players don't want to complain. I like to hope it's the former, but fear that sometimes it is the latter.

The few times that I have received criticism, I've done my best to acknowledge and act upon it, with generally positive results.

That said, referring to the "problematic" wallflower player, getting anything out of him feedback-wise is an act of heroics in and of itself.

2) Sort the wheat from the chaff and do it as soon as the delineation is clear.

Click to expand...

Do you mean removing players from the group, or merely identifying their player archetype and treating them accordingly?

@Nemesis Destiny I meant the former but it could equally apply to the latter.

Just from reading your posts, you appear very thoughtful, have keen observation, communication and comprehension skills. Those are all paramount for good GMing. My guess would be that you're a good GM and your players don't have much bad to say about your sessions.

Manbearcat said:

@Nemesis Destiny I meant the former but it could equally apply to the latter.

Click to expand...

The former is good advice in the general sense when vetting a new player, but with a longer-term player who was friend first, gamer buddy second, it's harder. Even after the friendship has eroded over time.

Just from reading your posts, you appear very thoughtful, have keen observation, communication and comprehension skills. Those are all paramount for good GMing. My guess would be that you're a good GM and your players don't have much bad to say about your sessions.

Click to expand...

Thank you for saying so; I appreciate it very much!

I glean a great deal of wisdom from your posts; well-reasoned and delivered in a neutral tone that I sometimes have difficulty with. My inner edition warrior sometimes bubbles to the surface.