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

[Balesir]

I can't speak for [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION], who I managed to xp for that excellent post (yay!), but my experience was similar to what he describes and I'll comment on that. The main early games that we tried (with very variable levels of success) were Everway and Theatrix. I ran World of Darkness with Theatrix systems, for a while, because the "official" systems I didn't find to be helpful in any way. It was interesting, rather than a roaring success, and it was towards the end of it that I first saw the stuff starting to come out on The Forge.

Theatrix, just FYI, is/was a diceless system where the GM decided all outcomes (a classic example of "if the GM can just get the right system, the game will be awesome!" - yeah, you can guess how well that went!). It did have some very interesting stuff on skills, though, that would serve me well later. Rather than the level of skill determining the proportion of the time you succeeded (since that was entirely up to the GM, for the "story"), it talked about a "locus of control". The best way I have to explain this is by example:

Example: driving on ice. Case 1 - Success

Skilled driver - "OK, as you approach the bend you see the black ice on the nearside, and there's another vehicle coming. You can probably speed up and get around the outside of it before the oncoming vehicle gets here, assuming there's no ice you haven't seen; or you can slow down and let him pass before going around it - what do you want to do?"

Unskilled driver - "OK, you approach the corner; wait, is that - whoa! Eek! That was close - you spotted the ice right at the last minute, and the other guy coming the other way didn't see it at all, but you seem to have managed to miss everything..."

Case 2 - Failure

Skilled driver - "OK, the bend above has black ice on it, and there's another vehicle oncoming. It's too late to stop, too narrow to avoid everything and too slippy to get around the bend safely. You can try to plough into the hedge - at least that might be a soft landing - or you could try to cross the opposite lane and go around on the verge, which will be easy if the guy in the oncoming car doesn't freak out and start weaving. What do you want to do?"

Unskilled driver - "OK, there's a bend in the road and is that - whoa! Crap! Wow - you think you're still in one piece. You're upside down, though, after what was probably a roll. And there was another car, too - you have no idea where he went..."

This sort of thing comes in handy for trying to imagine scenarios for things like Come and Get It...

The other thing it did was give each character a "key expertise role". This could be anything - "Doctor", maybe. If the player of the character with an appropriate role made a statement about something, then in the game being played that statement would be true. So, if I'm "The Doctor" and I say "she has the symptoms of hypercaemia - if we don't get her to a hospital in about an hour she'll probably die!" then that is the way it is - even if some player who is a real-world doctor points out that there is no such condition as "hypercaemia" (and before anyone shouts, there might even be one - I have no idea!).

So - those were pretty flawed and variable games - but they were at least trying things that were genuinely different, and eventually hit on some good formulae.

 

[pemerton]

I came to the Forge a bit later, and my GMing has always been of pretty trad games (Rolemaster for the win!). So I stumbled onto scene-framing, vanilla narrativist play without having any sort of theory of it, nor much design support for it. But The Forge, and GMing advice in games like Burning Wheel, is in my view pretty good advice for other games too!

I especially think that Luke Crane's Adventure Burner is the single best GM's guide I've ever read.

 

[Manbearcat]

Excellent last several posts. My own style and evolution from a technique/mental framework perspective seems to be very similar to the above; wanting genuine player empowerment/rules-sponsered means for dynamic interplay between GM and player at that metagame level. However, the 90's "story-games" advice and rulesets not only didn't remotely accomplish what I was looking for, in a lot of ways, it was a regression (in both philosophy and mechanics). I became more and more deeply dissatisfied with GMing (and the lack of support for the kind of creative agenda and gaming experience I was looking for) at this time period and almost stopped gaming altogether. However, I plugged on and experienced with my own subtle houserules and then slowly moved through most of the games outlined in chaochau's post (reading them and digesting them if not running each of them), finally making my way to the Forge and getting to know Sorcerer, DitV, MG and BW.

Bridging to 5e, at this point I see a return to the 90's aversion to the metagame (rather than acceptance and leveraging of it) as a core design tenant. I'm hoping for a fully functional metagame module with outcome-based challenges, player-empowering (at the metagame level) resources and scene-friendly mechanics that fit coherently with the over-arcing design of the system. However, I have concerns that the two together may birth a dissonant, mish-mashed collage of creative agenda.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Bridging to 5e, at this point I see a return to the 90's aversion to the metagame (rather than acceptance and leveraging of it) as a core design tenant. I'm hoping for a fully functional metagame module with outcome-based challenges, player-empowering (at the metagame level) resources and scene-friendly mechanics that fit coherently with the over-arcing design of the system. However, I have concerns that the two together may birth a dissonant, mish-mashed collage of creative agenda.

This is basically where I'm at as well with respect to my position on Next. If I don't see such a module, then I am unlikely to invest in the system as a whole, and even if they *do* produce said module, I share your concerns that it will be a hodge-podge and, ultimately, unsatisfactory.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I keep forgetting how extreme "turtling" is in your usage/experience - I've still got the Edwards "won't do anything beyond follow basic cues" picture in mind.

On pawn stance, I'm sure @Storminator has identified one possible causal pathway. What I had in mind was something like this - a player in a game with strong GM force won't tend build a PC who is open to and engaged with the gameworld, because that space has been crowded out by, and is dictated by, the GM. So instead you get PCs whose character is all about colour - their style in boots, their quips, their obsession with haggling with shopkeepers, etc - rather than about situation and action; or you get PCs where that stuff is irrelevant because the player works on the mechanical stuff that the GM can't control.

When I write it down like that it's not quite pawn stance - at least the first of the two approaches I describe isn't pawn stance - but it's something short of full-blooded play, at least in my view. It's not a player using their PC to seize the ingame situation by the horns, which is what I tend to think of RPGs as being about.

I realise I'm generalising a lot here, and probably drawing too heavily on my own personal combination of experiences (especially in the 90s) and subsequent use of The Forge to analyse and interpret those experiences (which prior to The Forge were for me just "bad GMs" and "irritating players", with little understanding or analysis). But I'm going to compound that anyway and draw another tenuous link: I find it quite common to read (on these boards, and in other RPG commentary) about player-initiated (or sometimes framed as PC-initiated) "side quests", in which the PC's personal story gets told against the backdrop of the "real" story, which is the campaign story. And I think that way of thinking is linked to the same sort of GM force, non-full-blooded playing outlook.

Whereas I much prefer a game where the campaign story is the PCs' personal story. This is what I see a scene-framing approach helping with. I also think it fits with @chaochou 's remarks on the earlier thread that scene-framing is first and foremost about character, with the time-management aspect being a secondary technique deployed in pursuit of that character-oriented play. And it also reminds me of a conversation on some other thread in the past 6 months or so beteen @Manbearcat and me, where I mentioned Marvel-style team superhero comics - and especially Claremon'ts X-Men - as an influence on my GMing approach. Because what is gonzo fantasy scene-framing RPGing, but a team of superheroes whose personal stories get told as part and parcel of telling the story of the fate of the very omniverse!

Yeah, I played for many years with a DM who was very fun to play with, but who mercilessly railroaded the overall plot of the campaign. Oddly we would do pretty much anything we wanted if it wasn't part of whatever he'd concocted for the master plan or didn't impinge on certain 'pet' NPCs. We had great fun and it was amusing to undermine his campaign as much as possible, but mostly we had a lot of fun with PCs that created their own little stories. He had other fun qualities so it was a good game, but sidequests and instigation were the main things that went on.

 

[Kurtomatic]

So glad to see this topic continue to survive. /congrats

A few questions I've been saving...

Regarding scene-framing and protaganism: there's an old adventure design hack where some predetermined encounter (or scene) occurs because the PCs cross some (usually narrative) state threshold, and the DM springs the scene in a way that might be variously be described as It Just So Happens, By Some Coincidence, or Look Who Got Here First. We've been jacking around in the dungeon privy for the last 5 hours dissecting otyughs for loot, but as soon as we set foot in the lizard shrine, Stuff Happens. In a video game, this might be called a 'scripted event'. Paizo's APs, for example, make generous use of scripted events. They can be especially useful as icebreakers; Paizo's AP formula shamelessly leverages opening scripted events to inject the PCs directly into the main storyline (Carrion Crown's opening is particularly brilliant). However, most of the time these things are obvious, often arbitrary, story constructs foisted on the party because they crossed an invisible line somewhere (or said the magic word or whatever). I have found that players are pretty accepting of these 'offers you can't refuse' (see what I did there), mostly due to the social contract at the table. In fact, my experience as a player is by the time you've slogged your way into the 5th book of an AP, you're quite happy to see these triggers take over, because that means you are Finally Getting Somewhere.

Now, I recognize that this isn't scene-framing, but scripted events do express an element of protaganism; that's what they're there for, a kind of primitive proto-scene framing device to bring the PCs into the action. I think this also meets the description of pressure, right? The problem is, in addition to being procedural pre-scripted story elements without much player input, they're usually just a bit too obvious. They stick out like a mic boom caught in the frame. Is there a trap you can find yourself in with scene-framing, where strong protaganism has led you to one coincidence too many? Is there a risk of being a bit too Dramatically Correct? No-myth play in particular seems like it would be pretty unrelenting in this regard.

One outcome of procedural play is the occasional non sequitur that reminds players there are Other Things going on besides their story. Which is explicitly anti-protagonist, of course, but when fans of procedural play refer to immersion, I think this is one of the of outcomes they're looking for, whether it was actually randomly generated or not. If you're scene-framing from player-offered button pressing all the time, is there a risk of predictability that needs to be managed? Can (or how would) you integrate an externally-generated scene into an A<B framing style game to provide pressure without telegraphing the script authoritah.

Thanks for any thoughts or opinions.., I have some other topics I'll save for a bit, but while this is fresh, I have another question...

I especially think that Luke Crane's Adventure Burner is the single best GM's guide I've ever read.

My understanding is AB is dreadfully difficult to source, isn't available in PDF (not even the scurvy scallywags seem to have this one), and only partially refactored into the Gold edition. Do you (or anyone else) know if the GM advice in AB is included in Gold, or if there is valuable GM guidance unique to AB that can't be found currently in print?

Mercy Buckets!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I definitely think the superhero team is a good model for 4e, and I've noticed my Loudwater campaign developing in that direction. A lot of the 4e PC design stuff seems intended to evoke superhero style tropes, and of course 4e boils in team play that's reminiscent of Fantastic Four, X-Men et al (do the X-Men have a Defender, though? They seem to be all Strikers & Controllers!) I seem to recall 'fantasy superheroes' was used as an attack on 4e, but I think it's pretty accurate, and brings out one way that 4e design differs from pre-4e, and how Ze Game Iz Not Ze Same; you wouldn't use X-Men rules to run Tour of Duty without a high likelihood of disappointment. So I've learned to use 4e for what it's good at, and other versions of D&D like 1e AD&D, Labyrinth Lord, and Pathfinder (esp Beginner Box) for the different sorts of games that they are good at.

Of course not all superhero comics focus on the personal stories of the heroes; more commonly that is just one element - see my proactive NPC factions thread for another possibility. Personally I fear that too much emphasis on characters' personal story can be detrimental to action and adventure. You can risk ending up with something like the modern feminised SyFy Channel tv shows, where basically soap opera storytelling has been given an sf or fantasy patina, but it's no longer really an action show, it's a soap with action trappings.

Absolutely, 4e is basically a very nice supers game with a level-based setup that makes it a pretty good D&D. I'd say run any plot you find in decent comics, they'll all just about work.

There is another type of play that can be highly framed and which is in line with this, which is episodic. The "Stargate" type campaign is the idealized form. You have a lot of fairly disconnected missions where the PCs constantly return to a base/patron/whatever, then do a short story arc, where plenty of framing can happen, or not, and then back home. There is obviously usually a higher level plot too, and you can frame that at higher level but also toss in key scenes to support it anywhere and let the players drag that baby all over the place however they want. The great thing is you can have a more scripted set of adventures this way.

 

[chaochou]

Is there a trap you can find yourself in with scene-framing, where strong protaganism has led you to one coincidence too many? Is there a risk of being a bit too Dramatically Correct? No-myth play in particular seems like it would be pretty unrelenting in this regard.

My experience has been the reverse - you let five creative people (roleplayers) sit round and start inventing stuff and you can generate new material, new threats, new NPCs, new ideas far, far quicker than you can resolve anything.

I think it's also worth bearing in mind that strong protaganism is the key for a lot of people. No-one says that when you look back what happened can't seem far-fetched, cheesy or wierd. Scene-framing, as a technique, can help facilitate the protaganism. It doesn't control the aesthetics.

One outcome of procedural play is the occasional non sequitur that reminds players there are Other Things going on besides their story. Which is explicitly anti-protagonist, of course, but when fans of procedural play refer to immersion, I think this is one of the of outcomes they're looking for, whether it was actually randomly generated or not. If you're scene-framing from player-offered button pressing all the time, is there a risk of predictability that needs to be managed? Can (or how would) you integrate an externally-generated scene into an A<B framing style game to provide pressure without telegraphing the script authoritah.

I see what you're saying in theory, but I don't find it happens in practise. When you have to GM in the moment, there at the table, you'll say some pretty crazy stuff. Whoa! What just happened? You'll get non-sequiturs, strange moments or wierd scenes that just don't play out how anyone could have envisaged. And the game still has dice. They have a habit of not doing the predictable thing. Of killing off NPCs and breaking spaceships.

What I try and take to the table is two ideas for 'starting scenes' for each character - two bangs which will kick off some new crisis or situation if things lag or dead-end. Often I only need a few for a session - hell, on good days I only need one to get stuff rolling - but the GM can always shake things up by framing into something new. And I find it reassuring to know I can give any player some time in focus if they're not getting into the action. Whether this answers your question about 'externally generated scenes' I don't know.

I'm wary of allowing any one playstyle to lay claim to immersion. I've seen a tendency by some people to want to stake it out as some sort of territory. I think it comes with a playstyle which suits you, not with a playstyle.

My understanding is AB is dreadfully difficult to source, isn't available in PDF (not even the scurvy scallywags seem to have this one), and only partially refactored into the Gold edition. Do you (or anyone else) know if the GM advice in AB is included in Gold, or if there is valuable GM guidance unique to AB that can't be found currently in print?

I haven't checked carefully, but BW Gold doesn't appear to have anything much from the Adventure Burner in it.

 

[S'mon]

Is there a trap you can find yourself in with scene-framing, where strong protaganism has led you to one coincidence too many? Is there a risk of being a bit too Dramatically Correct?

That seems like a valid concern to me. I think the 'one coincidence' rule (which I might have mentioned earlier) helps here: it's ok to have the villain turn out to be the Tiefling PC's mother, as happened last session in my Punjar campaign, but it wouldn't be ok to have a second improbable dramatic coincidence in the same session, or really even in the same adventure (typically ca 4-6 3-hour sessions for me). Foreshadowing helps a lot though - a foreshadowed development is 'pre-greased', it doesn't risk the same sort of friction in acceptance that an out-of-the-blue coincidence might.

 

[Storminator]

I'm wary of allowing any one playstyle to lay claim to immersion. I've seen a tendency by some people to want to stake it out as some sort of territory. I think it comes with a playstyle which suits you, not with a playstyle.

I find this to be true as well. What bumps you out of immersion is whatever you are uncomfortable with. If it clashes with what you want from the game, you're going to spend a moment thinking about why it bothers you, and you're out of the game. Frex, my game never suffers from 4e's martial encounter/daily powers nor structured skill challenges. Those things don't bother my table, so we just keep rolling. Other tables screech to a halt right there.

PS