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

[pemerton]

On wasted prep - I have my 4e-converted notes on G2, and D2 (The Shrine), which represent probably 3 hours work each, maybe more, and are reasonably likely never to come into play.

Not to mention a whole lot of Fey encounters I worked up 2 years or so ago, for low-paragon PCs, that if they ever do get used will need significant statistical reworking!

In all these cases I had some thoughts about how things might go that ended up not coming true!

 

[S'mon]

Here is Edwards on turtling players:

Ask for actions - he hunkers down and does nothing unless there's a totally unambiguous lead to follow or a foe to fight. His universal responses include "My guy doesn't want to," and, "I say nothing."

This seems like extremely mild Turtling compared to what I was talking about. But like you said, Edwards is one harsh MFer. The guy who says "We fight the orcs" or "We follow the lead" is not what I'm talking about as a Turtle - that's just passive/reactive play. My True Turtle would construct massive smoke & mirrors false worlds as reasons for inaction, that he then trapped all the other players in. He played a high level 3e Wizard, a class which has enormous resources that can be dedicated to avoiding Bangs and preventing any possibility of forced reaction. When successful, he could create a situation where the entire player group sat there for four hours and literally DID NOTHING - the PC group might be in a demiplane specially constructed for the purpose of ensuring that the GM could not impinge upon him in any way.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], I've never experienced that - the one time my group tried to do funky demi-planar stuff (in Rolemaster) was to try to exploit planar time differentials to increase their PP recovery rate relative to their enemies, and hence to get an advantage on the protagonist side. (This led us, in the end, to drop the time differentials - too much of a headache for anyone to manage - and also, for me at least, drove home some of the illusionist features of my GMing at that time.)

With the group you describe, what did they see as the point of turning up? Where was the fun, for them?

 

[S'mon]

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], thanks for the reply. Do you have a view on how (if at all) this fits into the "combat as war"/"combat as sport" dichotomy?...

...Though from your post above this one [EDIT: two above this one], should I really infer that you're a CaS GM? (At least on the encounter building side.)

When I'm running 4e D&D I use CaS and seek to de-emphasise CaW as far as possible. With 4e I use enemy NPC strategy more as a source of Bangs, Hooks, Cool Scenes, I'm not aiming for a "You Lose, Suckers! Ha! Ha!" type denouement, unless the players were to actively Turtle, in which case they get what they deserve.

If I'm running a different edition of D&D I run it much more CaW process-sim, and if the PCs screw up in the CaW against a serious threat then yes, they are gonna get pwned.

Example in my 4e Loudwater game: The PCs are on a trip downriver to Daggerford. They were attacked in the ruins of Zelbross by a Zhentarim strike team led by Vale, their old enemy. Because I'm running it CAS I used the 4e encounter-building rules to create a balanced encounter. The players killed Vale, searching his corpse they discovered coded letters. A '20' on an INT check from a guy with Secret Language and I declared that the code reminded him of Westgate Thieves' Cant. They were able to decipher the code, and it turned out the Zhents were in the Southwood, building a fort around an old Teleport Circle. They were planning eventually to attack Loudwater.
If the PCs had not discovered this info, I don't think I'd have had them all wake up in Loudwater with slit throats and the town burning. Something bad might have happened, eg a friendly NPC disappears in the Southwood, and they could have investigated and found the fort. If they take no prompt action vs the Zhents then something like that will still happen. Only if they actively turtle and ignore the Zhent threat will they eventually have to deal with a major invasion. And if they STILL took no action, then some other bad-but-foreshadowed stuff will happen, as Lady Moonfire, Loudwater's ruler, uses her Dark Pact with the Failed God Karsus in a last ditch attempt to save Loudwater from annhilation... lots of potential for drama, either way.
But along the way, whatever way the PCs go, I'll be running combat CAS and EL-balanced. Even if they use the Zhent Portal to attack Darkhold, they'll be facing fundamentally CaS, more or less EL-balanced, battles when they get there. Likely they'll quickly run out of resources against the hundreds of Zhents there and have to retreat, and indeed they could well be TPK'd - always a risk in my games - but there will be no single "You Lose, Suckers!" type event.

 

[S'mon]

With the group you describe, what did they see as the point of turning up? Where was the fun, for them?

Most of the players were just regular guys & girls who got trapped in the Smoke & Mirrors. Easy when you're playing a 3e non-spellcaster - it's a Wizards' World.
For the Turtle, well he had major 'issues', and I think he was looking to create a world where he had the feeling of control and safety he clearly lacked IRL. Basically the opposite of the risk-taking behaviour that makes for a dramatic narrative.

 

[D'karr]

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.

IME I've usually had quite a mix of players at the table. I would find it highly improbable that a DM would find himself with an entire table of players who don't want to send any signals, or make any thematic or value choices.

Therefore as a whole, I think that scene-framing is still a much more attractive option. Using scene-framing will still get you interesting "scenes" because you'll be feeding them based on the players that are sending signals. At that point the player that is content to be a "watcher" still gets to play and "watch". The other players are still involved. Even a well written AP benefits greatly from scene-framing. I've noticed that players in general have a knack for getting of the rails in AP play. With scene-framing you have a mechanism to do both. Player driven scenes, and GM Story, or AP written scenes. The GM story or AP just feed additional stuff that can be used for scene-framing.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Is there a "Reject" option? What happens if you Offer, but no one wants to Accept? Or is there some kind of Counteroffer option?

Technically... the only "Reject" option is not to say anything. The party walks down a dungeon corridor, the DM says it branches left and right, and none of the players say a darn thing and just stare at the DM in silent apathy. But unless everyone at the table has been chained there to play against their will... I suspect you'll never have a situation where every single player will remain quiet. But you know what? Even if they do... then the DM just takes the next step... which is Offer and Accept with himself!

He tells the players it branches left and right, no one says anything... so he makes another Offer to detail his original left/right offer. The left hand corridor you hear sounds of water dripping... the right hand corridor goes off into darkness, and there's a smell of death. Ball's now in the player's court. But if they STILL refuse to Accept the situation as the DM has detailed it and sit there silently staring at him... then the DM Offers again. From the right hand corridor, the smell of death is the result of a pack of zombies that shuffle out of the darkness to attack the party. And voila! Once again, this "unimportant" scene has now become important because it's a wandering monster attack.

What happens if just one of the players is more aggressive, and Accepts scenes no one else wants to play out? I know I've found myself, as a DM, stuck in a scene only one player is enjoying, and wondering when I should have cut it short (it already being past that point). How does one minimize the "bad scene" problems. I'm talking about scenes that maybe never should have been run, or perhaps a scene that has soured and it's time to get out.

As far as one player making more decisions than other players and being more aggressive, absolutely it can be a problem over time. But at the same time... the "social contract" of improvisation is that you do actively participate in scenes you are in. If a player "sits out" an inordinate amount of scenes... it's up to the DM to figure out whether it's because the player doesn't WANT to be that active (many players just enjoy being "along for the ride" most of the time) or if they don't feel EMPOWERED to make Offers to scenes. If it's the latter... it's really up to that player's "scene partner" (IE the DM) to really Accept and Offer back HARD when that player DOES make an Offer. That way the player sees that what he is Offering to the scene and the game has just as much weight as anyone else's.

This of course warrants a DM who tends to be stronger in improvisation, so that ANYTHING a player says can be construed as an Offer, the DM can Accept it, and then build on it. As mentioned above... if this silent player says that he/she's buying a oddly large supply of rope... that in itself is an Offer. The DM should Accept that the player wanted that much rope for a reason (even if the player didn't intend for it to be actually useful and perhaps did it just because it was funny for him/her at the time), file that info away, and make sure to Offer up a detail later on wherein that supply of rope BECOMES important.

In the best scenes of improvisation... NO detail is unimportant. Everything that gets Offered by the participants will find a way to get used at some point during the scene (or in long-form improvisation, used in a future scene as a call-back to the original Offer). Even the most seeming inconsequential detail someone makes (either intentionally or unintentionally) can get grabbed by the other player and inspire him to turn it into something important. And that could spiral the adventure in a different direction, especially in terms of PFA. If the DM didn't have the dungeon entirely planned out, that Offer made of a huge supply of rope in enough to make the DM Offer later on the of the large cavern wherein the rope becomes a necessity.

And what's great about that, is that it empowers the quieter player. They see that their details have consequences. Nothing is forgotten. And thus they will be more inspired to make additional Offers later on, gaining confidence that the DM will take what they give and make use of it. Which is really all you want as a player. To know that what you are Offering is being heard and being used.

 

[DEFCON 1]

As far as "getting out" of a bad scene... the question that needs to be asked (by the player and the DM) is what is the Goal of the scene? What does the PC want? The easiest way to get out of it is for the DM to give the player what he wants. Reach the Goal of the scene as quickly as possible. If the scene is between the PC and the local sheriff and the player is looking for info about the gang of goblin cutpurses outside of town... if the DM finds that nobody else is Offering anything and the one player just keeps the scene going because the back-and-forth between him and the DM is fun and entertaining for each of them... the DM just has to recognize this and just jump to the Goal. The sheriff tells the PC where the goblin hideout is rumored to be. And this comes back to 'Yes, And'-- YES, give the info the player wants, where the goblins are... AND perhaps offer an additional detail to push the next scene forward-- the sheriff will offer the party a reward if they bring the goblins to justice.

I know that tends to run counter to how a lot of DMs instinctually react-- their normal instinct is to make players "earn" their victories, otherwise there's no glory in it... but done too often, scenes just get bogged down as you say. And those victories are for scenes that didn't necessarily require that much hard-fought wins. Forward momentum is always gained by 'Yes, And'. And all negation does (either by denying the existence that someone Offers, or just not reaching Goals of scenes) is slow things down. If there's an obvious Goal... just get there. Because once that Goal of the scene is reached, a new Offer of where the next scene should go gets made that much sooner, and can thus push the story forward.

 

[Bedrockgames]

A related question - for those who value immersion, and hence a leery of overt discussion of or mechanical regulation of the GM's role, how do you at one and the same time (i) avoid GM force that deprotagonises players while (ii) regulate the GMs application of pressure so as to provoke action without just running right over the top of the PCs?

I am not 100% sure I m clear on the question but will try to answer. Are you essentially asking how to we not be too heavy handed with things like hooks and how do we avoid railroading players while kerping things exciting and active?

for me, the way i do it is concentrate on maximizing payer freedom and try not to fall too in love with my own vision. I also treat any adventure more like a setting more than a plot, connected encounters or scenes. I worry more about creating reactive and believable situations than having a beginning, middle and end (or worrying about having a big climax).

So, if I have an investigative adventure planned, I begin with to assumptions that for me are quite liberating: the players have the right not to go on the adventure and the players have the right to "wreck" the adventure should they engage it. For example, if they figure out a way to solve the investigation in the first two minutes (either clever use of a spell or finding a path i hadnt thought of) then I let them. I wont throw up more challenges to keep the adventure going. My view is to reward them if they figure it out (because i as a player hate it when the GM does this).

Usually i have enough interesting components in any adventure, because i build them like settings, that things just kind of stay interesting no matter what. If the players go off track or down some peculiar rabbit hole, i feed off what they are doing and there are plenty of reactions within the environment. So in one pf my latest Roman murder mysteries, the party ot sidetracked dealing with a crime lord in the subbura. They got entangled in a conflict with him and the focus of the action, rather than bing on solving the murder, was this mini-war in the city between them and the crime lord.

I think one important feature of any game I run, which helps get around passive players, is I always coordinate a premise for the party being together before the game starts. So in my roman game, the players were part of a secret order working for the emperor (which was the premise of the game rules, not just my campaign). In the magic heavy fantasy game I am developing, my latest group was together as a bunch of merchants and scoundrels trying to find wealth opportunities in a region recently conquered by an orc empire. I the one beore that they belonged to a society of wizards engaged in political intrigue.

Nt sure if this answers your question.

 

[Manbearcat]

Regarding theme cues:

Like much in life and gaming, I find that more overt, the less implicit, the better. Thematically robust PC build rules are great at facilitating this transparency. This is one of the primary reasons why 4e is very suitable for this style of play. However, there are certain cases where PC build rules, while strong, serve as proxies for even more profoundly important details (Beliefs and Instincts a la BW). Like boreholes and tree rings in dendroclimatology, proxies can sometimes have poor resolution, or even outright noise, with regards to the signal you are looking for.

As such, I have my players outlined 3 Beliefs and Instincts that work as 1st order functions and confirm those PC build proxies (2nd order functions) are thematically coherent with the "internal stuff" that underwrites a character. In concert with the PC build tools, they serve the following purposes:

- The Beliefs serve as the ethos for the character to guide (i) what scenes to frame around them and (ii) how to frame those scenes. This sill ensure that we are on the same page and the content I provide will be provacative such that they will proactively engage.

- The Instincts serve as insurance which tells me SPECIFICALLY what I am FORBIDDEN to do when I wrest minor "agency" from a PC in establishing the initial Bang to get a scene started. I put them in a situation and it cannot violate those player-wrought dictates; eg I can't frame perceptive characters as aloof or selfless characters as selfish.

With regards to the aloof, the passive introvert, the apathetic, the wallflower:

I find that the above is of great concern with them as they are either not very invested in the coherency of the above or have little to no comprehension/care regarding their dynamics in play and our contract. If I have to create your PC build for you and I have to derive your Beliefs/Instincts, in all likelihood, you are not invested mentally and there will be too much dissonance with regards to your comprehension of the scenes framed that challenge your thematic interests. If your Beliefs/ethos are opaque, or so much rot, to you then I cannot challenge it and expect you to respond in kind. If you violate your own Instincts/Insurance, then what difference does it make if I do the same? You can get generic responses from these types of players, for sure, but generic, thematically coherent responses are the death-knell of a quality, dynamic scene. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink and all of that.

All told, I don't think the table agenda is built for these folks; to be honest, I'm not sure anything more than a beer and pretzels game (or a boardgame) is built for folks like that. You have to engage mentally, at least minimally, in a TTRPG. If you are not willing to do so (especially in a game that seeks some measure of thematic coherency or depth), you might want to get out Monopoly or Risk.