D&D 4E Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

[Argyle King]

Indeed. I may mock Rolemaster a bit in the same way I mock GURPS (and especially GURPS vehicles) but I'd never argue that either wasn't a competently designed game if that was the experience you were looking for, and I've used both. (I'd argue that using Rolemaster for Middle Earth in MERP was a complete mismatch, but that's a whole different kettle of fish).

I think GURPS 4th Edition did a good job of trimming a few of the things down. In particular, while I understood the concept behind passive defenses in 3rd, I find the changes made in GURPS 4th Edition to be a little smoother in play.

Oddly, in the context of 'framing,' GURPS helps me to illustrate why this conversation is always somewhat alien to me. For me, I find that the way GURPS is built helps me to frame. I feel that way because I don't need to worry about so many metagame concepts. The game world (by default) works pretty much the way I would expect a world (even one with dragons, elves, magic, etc) to work. As such, I can build a scene in my head without needing to bend so much of my vision to what the game says I should do. After I have the scene sketched out, I simply fill in the mechanics later.

Why this conversation is somewhat alien to me when I participate (aside from the concept of scenes not being able to impact each other being strange to me) is because I find that there are parts of 4E; ideals the game is based around which actually make it more difficult for me to create some of the scenes I would want to create. To be fair, I do agree that 4E does an excellent job of giving tools with which to build interesting encounters. That being said, the design of those encounters need to be informed by how 4E says the world should work rather than the design of those encounters feeling natural to me and my way of thinking. In my previous gondola example; if I were to recreate that scene now with the knowledge I have of 4E, I would take into consideration things like skill challenges, the power level of PCs; what DCs should be given a certain level, and various other concepts. In GURPS, I'd simply write up the encounter and be confident that the game was able to handle it in a way which was consistent with what I expected.

As I said elsewhere, for me, some amount of sim helps my desire to have a narrative; I don't feel it gets in the way of it.

 

[Manbearcat]

I've been puzzling in my head over an easier way to explain scene-framed play. Maybe this. Consider each scene its own story; its own One Act. It has a Plot unto itself:

Exposition: Introduction of the stakes, goals, motivation, context.

Conflict: The challenge or adversity to be settled, overcome, resolved; up or down.

Rising Action: The turning point or the big play, decision or moment that can be looked back upon as the fulcrum for the outcome.

Resolution: The ultimate outcome or sum of all of the former parts; up, down, or somewhere in the middle.


I will try to convey what this looks like in play using my upthread example here (which is an actual play example from one of my games).

Two of the three characters are tied to that settlement in question. One had family there (The High Huntsman is a first cousin) and another owed his life to their outriders (saved as a youth from a pack of wildmen). This was the conclusion of the heroic tier of play which would lead into the beginning of paragon tier play. The PCs were in the main hub of settlements of the region in response to a message from a carrier pigeon from the Ranger of the settlement in the upthread post. The message was short and cryptic but its portents and urgency cast dire premonitions within them. When a rider from the settlement sped with all haste into the town proper and burst into the common room of their inn, horse and rider at near exhaustion, the PCs fears were confirmed.

Exposition - The rider came with an urgent plea for the Rangers to rally their various Lodges (each settlement has a High Huntsman and a respective Lodge) and defend the gateway settlement (basically the Thermopylae or the Wall in G Martin's novels). If the settlement occupying the pass falls, the frontier would be open for the wildmen hordes to sack (yes, inspired by Martin's books).

Conflict - The PCs knew the politics of the Lodges and that the majority voting bloc would circle the wagons and wish to protect their own settlements and the main hub. It was extremely unlikely that they would mobilize and venture out to defend the gateway settlement (even if it was the most strategically rational thing to do for their own settlements and the frontier at large).

The players actions throughout the Heroic Tier made them large power players in the region. They would attempt to compel each Ranger to mobilize their respective Lodge to action in defense of the settlement and the frontier at large - Rally the Rangers - a Difficult Social Skill Challenge (6:2). [mechanically - at this, I reiterate the stakes and I place a pair of d6s on the table, one on 6 and one on 2 - representing success and failures, that are the classic metagame props that we use for Skill Challenges.] Before the assembly would meet, the players attempted to meet the two powerful dissenting Rangers and attempt to compel them. Without both of them onboard, it was almost a guarantee that the cause would be lost.

Rising Action - The PCs listened to the first Ranger's reservations (Insight), a man of reason and guile. and learned the best way of appeal to him. They regaled him with the story of the last age (History), the parallels to this moment in time, and the death toll when the same foolish path was chosen and won his vote - The player made this up off the cuff and it forevermore became a running theme here and a pervasive piece of lore that permeated this part of the game (I also rewarded the player with a thematic Action Point for specific usage, related to that historical battle, in the combat to come - this is a theme houserule for my game). The second Ranger was a stubborn man; a man of action not words. They chose a different tact with him. The Druid Call (ed) the Spirits (Nature) and the candles of the lanterns blazed while the breeze through the windows firmed. The Bladesinger ominously portended a terrifying, magically enhanced - Spook - tale of what would become of this place (and the man's legacy) if the gateway settlement was not defended (Intimidate as Arcana). Unfortunately, this Ranger was made of stuff sterner than magical tricks; steeled in the forge of battle. Their efforts lost on him, he dismissed them from his home. It was all but decided a this point.

Resolution - The PCs (large players in the region due to the events of the heroic tier of play) and the lodges met and the courtier's news was read. The weight of the dissenting Ranger was too much and the Skill Challenge was ultimately lost (2 failures at 5 successes); the Lodges would not unite and defend the settlement. However, the emergent consequences of the narrative framed it as such that the first Rangers Lodge would mobilize - and a platoon of seasoned warriors went with the PCs to the defense of the gateway settlement in the pass.

Now this scene carried through to the next (as described in the post upthread). However, in my game, the PCs didn't attempt the Convince of Exodus Scene - Skill Challenge. They came for battle and immediately the PCs, the settlers, and the first Ranger's Lodge set about Fortifying the Battlements Scene (Skill Challenge to erect blocking terrain, passive traps, and activatable hazards and terrain features). They were successful and turned the small settlement in the pass into a deathtrap and eventually won the day in an enormously difficult mass combat challenge that ended Heroic Tier Play and that arc.


Each of those scenes (Rally the Rangers, Fortify the Battlements, Defend the Pass) were their own (closed) story with their own exposition, conflict, rising action, and (mechanical and narrative) resolution. However, the marriage of the running, emergent, narrative and the mechanical implications of the resolution open each framed scene to each other such that it creates the larger connected (not closed) story.

As an unrelated addendum, I don't do a solely Scene-Framed game. Mine is heavily Scene-Framed but I do have relevant transitions and plenty of extra-scene color. My spectrum is probably 75 % of the way toward the Scene-Framed edge of the Open World Sandbox, Scene Framed continuum.

 

[GSHamster]

Example 1
This example is made up, but is very close to some real play from my 4e game.

The PCs are investigating an old catacomb. One of them is a plading of the Raven Queen. The player of that PC says "I'm looking out for any signs of Orcus infestation, and trying to sense if his evil influence is present".

In a simulationist game, the GM consults his/her notes, or perhaps rolls an encounter check. In a scene-framing game, the default answer to the player's question is "You see a niche with a statute in it. It's of Orcus." Or, perhaps,"Yes, he's here. [Roll d10] Take 5 psychic damage as the sense of evil ovewhelms you!"

What does the statue mean? What is the focus of Orcus's malign presence? That's to be worked out by the GM and players in the course of play: the little narration I described has framed the scene (it's a non-combat one involving the presence of Orcus in the catacomb) and now it's up to the players to engage it via their PCs.

So the PCs are essentially ta'veren?

If I understand you correctly, in a regular game, the world exists, and the PCs interact with it. In a scene-framing game, the PC's actions create the world. Or perhaps a variant of Chekhov's gun. If the PCs choose to interact with something, it is important.

The concern I would have is keeping the story consistent. If the world is made beforehand, it is internally consistent because it is consistent before the PCs entered. In a scene-framing game, how do you ensure that the plot makes logical sense?

 

[Balesir]

For me, I find that the way GURPS is built helps me to frame. I feel that way because I don't need to worry about so many metagame concepts. The game world (by default) works pretty much the way I would expect a world (even one with dragons, elves, magic, etc) to work. As such, I can build a scene in my head without needing to bend so much of my vision to what the game says I should do. After I have the scene sketched out, I simply fill in the mechanics later.

<snippage>

In GURPS, I'd simply write up the encounter and be confident that the game was able to handle it in a way which was consistent with what I expected.

I think this passage is quite revealing and useful as an illustration of "la différence". I know well what you mean, here - and I tend to work that way, too, in GURPS, RQ, HM and similar. I learned early on, though, that it didn't work, for me, with D&D - of any edition. The base assumptions around hit points, armour class, timescales, economy - you name it, really - cut accross my translation of what I pictured as the situation and the situation in the game.

This was a bit of a shame, since the basic idea of a fantasy heroic setting with D&D tropes was quite appealing - which was why I found 4e such a breath of fresh air, since it gave me a real, viable alternative to the "picture the situation, then add systems to model" approach. Further, I was used to alternative models by this time from other game systems - the "build the game from the systems and then envision it in any way it fits for you" is especially useful in Universalis, PrimeTime Adventures, HeroQuest, Everway, Theatrix and similar games.

Even better, with 4e I have found that the players can, when you are all used to the idiom, envision the action in different ways that work for them each individually, if that helps - precisely because the system states clearly what happens in system terms and everyone signs on to that as a "ground rule". If I picture hit point loss as just fatigue and balance until bloodied, but Bob envisions scrapes and bruises that "magically" fade when healing cuts in, that works fine - as long as we both sign up to what that means in rules/systems terms. For me, this works for heroic high fantasy in a way that no other approach has.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If I understand you correctly, in a regular game, the world exists, and the PCs interact with it. In a scene-framing game, the PC's actions create the world.

If that's true, then it's pretty clear why this doesn't work for a lot of players: it subverts the "game" element of an RPG pretty hard, and it also might ping on the "RP" element.

Part of the nature of a game is that it provides criteria for success and failure within rules that are imposed equally on all. If Orcus only shows up because I ask about it -- if he has no objective existence, but is rather a sort of Shrodinger's Cat -- that element of gameplay is severely weakened, because there's no objective challenge with regards to that question. It's not a matter of success and failure or skill and chance, it's a matter of asking the right questions. The element of fiero is greatly diminished there. There's also limited exploratory fun to be had: there's not a strong sense of discovery, and instead it's a sense of invention.

Part of the nature of performing a role is a belief in the reality of the world you're performing in for the character you're performing as. If Orcus only shows up because I ask about it -- if his existence only depends on my play -- then the world asserts its artificiality at every turn and the performance ends up being awkwardly self-aware and meta. It's impossible to have flow and be aware of having flow at the same time, because one of the criteria for flow is to lose that sense of psychological self-examination and contextualization.

It seems like it trades these things for directorial authority and storytelling strength and the power of the narrative arc, but I guess I've always felt that if I want a story, I'll read a book or watch a movie, and if I want a game about pretending to be another being, I'll play an RPG. Still, I imagine for many players, it's a trade-off very worth making.

 

[Manbearcat]

So the PCs are essentially ta'veren?

If I understand you correctly, in a regular game, the world exists, and the PCs interact with it. In a scene-framing game, the PC's actions create the world. Or perhaps a variant of Chekhov's gun. If the PCs choose to interact with something, it is important.

Trade create for co-create or may fascilitate creation of. Having some (minority) authority does not exclude the GM (and other players) from having the rest of it.

If Orcus only shows up because I ask about it

Trade only shows for may show. Having some (minority) authority does not exclude the GM (and other players) from having the rest of it.

It seems like it trades things things for directorial authority and storytelling strength and the power of the narrative arc, but I guess I've always felt that if I want a story, I'll read a book or watch a movie, and if I want a game about pretending to be another being, I'll play an RPG. Still, I imagine for many players, it's a trade-off very worth making.

I presume that you're referring to immersion here. That depends on the player. For some players, co-authorship and directorial authority lends to a more immersive experience. That may seem anathema to folks who are absolutists concerning stance, but its quite true I assure you. For some folks, having the authority to invent chronological history and continuity (and having it affect the moment and affect the future) with a History check within a Skill Challenge, rather than asking the GM to author the history or throwing it together and then asking the GM to vet it, is very liberating. The character succeeding at a History check should know those things so its fun having that authority (and watch it potentially reverberate), fun to have the GM respond (retroactively if need be) and its expedient from a handling time perspective as well (which helps keep you in the game rather than pulling you out of it as GM invents it for you or the vetting/bargaining process takes place).

 

[Balesir]

Part of the nature of a game is that it provides criteria for success and failure within rules that are imposed equally on all.

This whole post was quite helpful in revealing what your issue might be, but this sentence especially leaped out. Dude - check out the Universalis and PrimeTime Adventures systems. Each is only a small, paperback book, digest sized. Both games have rules - and I mean honest-to-goodness rules, not wishy-washy "guidelines" or such like - and yet both involve the play group literally making up the world and everything in it as they play.

You may very well not much like the style of play they engender, but unless you at least understand how it works your education (in terms of roleplaying games) is decidedly lacking.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For some folks, having the authority to invent chronological history and continuity (and having it affect the moment and affect the future) with a History check within a Skill Challenge, rather than asking the GM to author the history or throwing it together and then asking the GM to vet it, is very liberating.

I imagine it can be, in the same way that writing a collaborative story might be: you make something, you riff off your friends, and you present it to an audience (your table) for their shared delight. Collaborative storytelling can be a massively entertaining exercise.

I'm not sure I'd call it "immersive," because it is kind of precisely the exact opposite (it uses different cognitive abilities; immersion is about losing a sense of self, and composition like this is about asserting what the thing being defined is), but I certainly buy that it's a lot of fun.

For me personally, the goals are different. I've got a small background in writing and performing. When I'm engaged in a creative enterprise, I have that liberating feeling of inventiveness and the promise of a willing audience. But that is distinct from the experience of playing an RPG for me. I don't want to do that when I'm playing an RPG. If I wanted to do that, I wouldn't be playing an RPG. My needs from an RPG are much more of the fiero/discovery/flow variety. I want my game to be a structured experience, because I want it to be a game that I can flow through without thinking about the structure of it. For me, demanding that I make structure kills the fun of an RPG.

My experience is just mine, but for me, playing an RPG is a lot closer to playing other games than it is to writing. My goal when playing an RPG isn't to delight people with my creativity (though that happens, too, it's not really something I try hard to accomplish), it is to guide an avatar into overcoming an objective challenge by manipulating the tools at that avatar's disposal. If the tools and the goals aren't objective and present, then the point is moot. I might as well drop the facade and just write a story with these people. That's fun, too, but it's not the fun I'm looking for when I play an RPG.

Universalis and PrimeTime Adventures

From what I've seen, these feel way too meta for me. I'm not interested in creating a TV show or defining traits (FATE and even FIASCO feels similarly). I want to be a character, not define one.

I've got a few articles on this topic, too.

There is this self-conscious, self-aware, definition-heavy, meta-game, leftward trend in a whole slew of indie games (and in D&D4e) that absolutely murders the fun I personally look for in RPGs. There's a lot of useful things that kind of perspective can add, but thinking like the character is weakened by them.

Not that you need to do that to make a fun game, o'course.

 

[Argyle King]

I think this passage is quite revealing and useful as an illustration of "la différence". I know well what you mean, here - and I tend to work that way, too, in GURPS, RQ, HM and similar. I learned early on, though, that it didn't work, for me, with D&D - of any edition. The base assumptions around hit points, armour class, timescales, economy - you name it, really - cut accross my translation of what I pictured as the situation and the situation in the game.

This was a bit of a shame, since the basic idea of a fantasy heroic setting with D&D tropes was quite appealing - which was why I found 4e such a breath of fresh air, since it gave me a real, viable alternative to the "picture the situation, then add systems to model" approach. Further, I was used to alternative models by this time from other game systems - the "build the game from the systems and then envision it in any way it fits for you" is especially useful in Universalis, PrimeTime Adventures, HeroQuest, Everway, Theatrix and similar games.

Even better, with 4e I have found that the players can, when you are all used to the idiom, envision the action in different ways that work for them each individually, if that helps - precisely because the system states clearly what happens in system terms and everyone signs on to that as a "ground rule". If I picture hit point loss as just fatigue and balance until bloodied, but Bob envisions scrapes and bruises that "magically" fade when healing cuts in, that works fine - as long as we both sign up to what that means in rules/systems terms. For me, this works for heroic high fantasy in a way that no other approach has.

As I said elsewhere, I don't hate 4E. I want to make it clear that I do actually enjoy the game. It just took me a really long time to feel comfortable with the DM side of things. I will honestly say there was a time period in which I probably did hate 4E, but a lot of that stemmed from having the game advertised to me in a certain way; attempting to use it as advertised, and finding that it didn't do what I thought it was supposed to do.

One area in which 4E does an excellent job of giving me a good game experience is that I have options which are reactions and interrupts. A lot of people decry such things as being too complicated, but I found them rather enjoyable. It was refreshing to know that I didn't always just have to stand there and get hit while the enemy was attacking me. If I chose the right options, I could respond with a counter-attack; riposte, or any number of other things. That's actually an area in which I feel 4E and GURPS have something in common, but the two games perform a similar idea in very different ways. In 4E, I might have an interrupt or some sort of power which allows me to move out of the way. In GURPS, I have the option to parry, block, or dodge; depending on my skills and the situation, I might also be able to do things like attempt an acrobatic dodge or dive onto the ground to get out of the way of bullets. I prefer games in which the defender is able to respond to an attack.

 

[Libramarian]

Even better, with 4e I have found that the players can, when you are all used to the idiom, envision the action in different ways that work for them each individually, if that helps - precisely because the system states clearly what happens in system terms and everyone signs on to that as a "ground rule". If I picture hit point loss as just fatigue and balance until bloodied, but Bob envisions scrapes and bruises that "magically" fade when healing cuts in, that works fine - as long as we both sign up to what that means in rules/systems terms. For me, this works for heroic high fantasy in a way that no other approach has.

I think minor differences between the participants' imagination of the scene occur all the time, so it's not a terrible thing, but it never occurred to me that anyone would consider this a good thing that rules should actually be designed to accomodate. I have to say that agreeing to imagine things differently, rather than these differences occurring accidentally and allowed only for the sake of expediency, feels like stepping outside the bounds of what RPGing is, IMO. I can't see how that technique would support any of the creative agendas of which I am aware.

(The rest of the thread made sense to me and I understand scene-framing better now).