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

[Sunseeker]

Sorry to ironically use your post to continue the focus.

Part of the reason I focus on it is because, for me, CaGI encapsulates in a single, discrete power so much of what I enjoy about 4e as a resolution system. I agree that if there's a wedge CaGI is a long way from the thin edge - but I like what it tells me about that wedge!

Sure, I enjoy powers like it for the same reason, it gives the player more power over their end of the table without having to wave a magic wand(quite possibly my most favorite aspect of 4e). 4e mechanically plays out the "fantasy" of a game, all those stupid moments in fantasy when the enemies charge in when they are clearly outmatched. I think it's great.

But I understand why people think it's problematic. As far as problems go, it's minor....unless the inherent issue is that mundane combatants, people with no magical skill, people who don't have the ability to warp reality with their pinky finger, shouldn't have the same player-end control of the game that a magical person does. If that's the inherent issue, then it is a sad day for D&D that people believe that you choice in class should determine how much say you have in the game.

 

[chaochou]

Can pemertonian scene-framing work for challenge-based games?

I originally thought no, but I read something about 10 pages back by @Balesir that made me question my assumption.

So, do you guys think it can work? If it can, are there any differences in how you use it?

Interesting question - and on topic too! Kudos.

I can't speak for Pemertonian scene-framing but only scene framing in general. And my belief is, yes, it can work for certain types of challenge-based play.

However, both I and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] stressed in earlier posts in this thread that a lot of what generates a scene-based style is player understanding and commitment to it.

So, imo, using scenes for challenge requires players to build in the basis for challenge into their character. For example, let's say my character has goals like 'I will win back my estranged wife' and 'I will protect the Lord Regent with my life'. Well, there, you have the basis for thematic scenes.

But if I write 'I will become the best duellist in the kingdom' then clearly I have set myself up for a challenge. Which then makes framing scenes around that challenge that much easier.

What scene-based play doesn't do particularly well is attrition. Gradual depletion of resources. You don't mark off rations per hex, or time spent searching per square, you frame straight to the next destination and say "Okay, you've arrived at the ruins but you're out of rations and your pony is sick."

If resource management is a major component of play that's going to meet with serious objection. Personally I think resource management in rpgs is an illusion in any game where the DM determines the passage of time. But that's probably a whole other topic.

The point is framing from one scene to another skips this attrition. You have to frame into situations where the attrition has happened. Comfort with doing so has to come from the players.

 

[Balesir]

You can WANT your enemy to follow you all you like. You cannot however FORCE him too. All you can do is back up so he has to follow you if he wants to attack at medium or close range. Thats all you can do. In order to force a confrontation you must come to them.

Hmm - I think you may find that that is an example of Henderson's Fallacy...



Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2

 

[JamesonCourage]

If resource management is a major component of play that's going to meet with serious objection. Personally I think resource management in rpgs is an illusion in any game where the DM determines the passage of time. But that's probably a whole other topic.

I'm curious what you mean by this. I want to make clear, that I'm not objecting to it. I might, or I might agree with it. But this struck me as interesting, and I was curious if you could elaborate on it. If you feel that this isn't the right place, is it cool for me to start a new thread with this part of your post, where you can explain it to me there? As always, play what you like

 

[Bedrockgames]

Hmm - I think you may find that that is an example of Henderson's Fallacy...



Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2

Not that we need further derailment by a logical fallacy detour but does this go by another name, because I am drawing a blank on Henderson's Fallacy (is it maybe related to the flying spaghetti monster?).

 

[Balesir]

Several folks have replied helpfully to [MENTION=81242]Lost Soul[/MENTION]'s query about scene framing and "challenge based" play; I'll just add a couple of points:

1) Linked challenges are definitely possible, as is changing encounters based on player prep. I have found Skill Challenges to be an excellent vehicle for this, because (a) it gets away from the "DM likes the idea so it works easily/DM dislikes the idea so it has to jump through hoops" issue with recommended levels/complexity criteria, and (b) it gives a scale of reward; the xp for a success at the skill challenge can be "used" to make the ensuing challenge easier.

2) I think a light (rather than hardcore "professional challenge scorer", which some seem to be calling "Combat as War") "challenge focus" and "theme focus" can work together well. The thematic stuff gives real bite (stakes) to the challenges, and the challenges stir stuff up that lead to enemies and conflicts of interest (hence theme).

There are elements of this in my own 4e GMing - for instance, I'll often mention the level of an encounter either to chide the players for having such a hard time with it, or to let them know that they took on something really hard and won. I think this sort of thing could be fairly easily generalised to be the main point of play. (I think this sort of transparency would be important, I think . The players would need to know that the reason more goblins (say) are turning up is because the GM is amping up the challenge to see how hard s/he can push the players.)

It has just struck me that I think this is primarily what I use experience points for. They are a cipher for "how hard that challenge was" - hence why I like to give them out immediately after each challenge. Cool - thanks for the insight



Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2

 

[Manbearcat]

@pemerton and @S'mon

I certainly understand, and agree with, those interests in having tactical play overwhelm strategic play in the long-term formula for success. That is fundamental I would say. I'll arrange my reply with my thoughts behind my position and a few examples.

- In Story Now gaming, the apex interest is a provacative, narrative experience strung together coherently by thematic underpinnings and genre tropes/conceits. One scene's thematic resolution and consequences lead to the next scene (and reverberate down the line) such that you can regress backwards from the beginning and note a tie that binds the scenes together and facilitates the bridge/transition between scenes.

- In The Right to Dream gaming, the apex interest is fidelity to the causal logic of the world and its relationships (physics, economics, social, etc). The players maneuver and manipulate, exploring their world, under the auspices of that overriding framework. The only necessary tie that binds here is internal consistency (not thematic/genre relevance or tactical/strategic reward) of the economic/social/physics model such that actions reverberate and are the causal mechanisms for the bridge/transition between scenes.

- In Step on Up Gaming, the apex interest is the contrivance of a challenge (or a series of them) such that players can accept and attempt to defeat those challenges by testing their tactical and strategic acumen and show what they're made of. However, defeating those challenges can't be the sole tie that binds because that doesn't tangibly bridge them from one to the next. Chess isn't a scene based game. One game is a scene. If you win that game, you don't get a tangible reward to bind the two games together because it isn't scene-based. However, if you wanted to play a scene-based Chess adventure (not a series of games), you should probably have something minor that ties the two games/scenes together; something such as going first in the next game, or some minor functionality with a pawn (such as a one time move sideways at your discretion). Pickup basketball works this way. When your team wins, you get the ball first in the next game. This can assist and potentially reverberate throughout the entire course of a day's play. However, skill, acumen, chemistry (tactics) swamps out this minor strategic "bump" in the long run but nonetheless, it is felt in that game/episode of the day's play. So, for gamist, scene/episodic play, it seems to be the tie that binds (rather than thematics/genre logic or causal logic and internal consistency) is "showing what you're made of" (defeating the challenges) and reaping the rewards or feeling, and dealing with the consequences of, the sting of defeat.

Regarding amplitude of advantage/disadvantage: I'm not proposing anything that dramatically perturbs the scene-encounter formula such that Combat as Sport is drowned out by the impact of Combat as War. If a total drown out of tactical play by strategic play is a 10 and 1 is basically extremely minor (such that it doesn't perturb the encounter formula but just provides some interesting reward/boon that perhaps diversifies tactical options), then I'm proposing the 1. A minor, interesting, fun reward that bridges that challenge/reward aspect of scenes from one to the next. Or it could go in the opposite direction if the present scene's challenge is lost.

For example:

Negative effect - A challenge of 3 encounters is 1) Navigating and render sentries inert in the courtyard, 2) Accessing the throne room 3) Defeating the head honcho and his guards. Perhaps the PCs ultimately fail in 1. They defeat all of the trip wires but alert a group of sentries, dispatch two of them quickly but one sentry gets away. Now, perhaps 2 has some marginal difficulty for them; one more monster, some sort of negative die or loss of a positive die in their dice pool to smash through the door or a higher DC/target number for the first round of combat or something. Something minor.

Positive effect - When adventuring in either an open world dungeon or a scene-based/episodic dungeon, there is a decent likelihood that you will remain at the same level throughout the challenge (unless it is particularly huge). However, you will likely accrue a resource that spans the duration of the challenge; eg a + 1 sword or some other magical item. Now, that doesn't directly affect encounter budgeting, but it does provide a small, tangible benefit that propogates henceforth throughout the challenge. You could just as easily accrue some sort of minor fortune or utility card that you can play at your leisure for the rest of the challenge; perhaps a positive dice pool adjustment, or a reroll, or some tactical movement, etc.

Hopefully that all makes sense.

 

[Umbran]

We know this. I am getting pretty tired of your constant repetition of why you don't like 4e. I know it already. If you don't have anything constructive to say please stop posting in this thread.

S'mon, you should know by now that the OP does not "own" the thread, and you have no right to tell people when and where and what to post. If you don't like what he has to say, we have an ignore list.

And how would you take it if someone told you "we know why you like 4e, so if you dont have something negative to say about it why dont you get out of the thread? "

Tim, you should know by now that just because we generally allow folks to speak what they will, doesn't mean you should always do so. The right comes with a responsibility to treat others and their discussions with respect, and you are now failing in that responsibility. How about you allow others the chance to have a discussion about their preferred game without stomping on it? Go find a thread in which you can talk about things you *do* like, or otherwise find a way to be constructive, please.

If there's any further issues, I expect to see reported posts, not further personal head-butting. Is that clear enough for you? If not, PM or e-mail the mod of your choice to discuss the matter.

 

[chaochou]

I'm curious what you mean by this. I want to make clear, that I'm not objecting to it. I might, or I might agree with it. But this struck me as interesting, and I was curious if you could elaborate on it. If you feel that this isn't the right place, is it cool for me to start a new thread with this part of your post, where you can explain it to me there? As always, play what you like

The flow of in-game time seems like a relevant part of scene-framing to me, so I'm happy to keep that discussion here. A quick caveat - I'm not sure how well I'm going to explain this. And, of course, it is simply my opinion...

So, if you play a boardgame and you can take 5 actions a turn that represents a resource. What constitutes managing that resource is an understanding of what represents a turn. All the players know what a turn is, when it starts and when it ends.

But what if you don't know what constitutes a turn? I have finite resources, 5 actions, but I no longer have any idea of what I might be asked to accomplish with them. At that point I'm not managing. If my opponents can make whatever moves they like, and allow me my five moves when they like, the appearance of having five actions is an irrelevance.

So in Runequest I have 16 power. That means I start with 16 power points to spend on casting spells. I get back 4 points every 6 hours. How long is 6 hours? It's whenever the GM decides. In other words I don't get to 'manage' my points. I get to spend them while the GM uses them as a cue to manage the tension in the situation. They can relieve the tension by giving me points back or ramp up the tension by presenting a new threat.

I think a lot of what passes as 'resource management' in RPGs is similar to the RQ example. It may appear I'm making a meaningful decision about expending resources or keeping them in reserve, but in reality I do not have the information on future threats, or control over the passage of in-game time before I face those threats, required to do so. How and where I expend my resources are actually a tension and pacing mechanic for the GM. This is what I meant by resource management being an illusion if the GM controls the passage of time.

That isn't to say resource management play isn't possible. For example, I think if you play an AD&D dungeoncrawl and the group both knows and is scrupulous about using the rules - it takes x minutes to move along y feet of corridor, it takes x minutes to search z area - then players have access to the information required to manage resources. But I think in this example you couldn't say the GM is in control of time because a player searching an 10' by 10' room or moving down a 50' corridor can say how long it takes without reference to the GM. The whole group is abiding by known rules, so time is under collective authority.

I remember from the DMG that Gygax was an advocate of meticulous adherence to the tracking of time. I think it's because doing so is a fundamental requirement for resource management be meaningful.

In the interests of keeping this vaguely on topic I'll add that scene-framing, with its fluid use of time, is particularly unsuited to games aimed at testing resource management.

I hope that makes some sense.

 

[Argyle King]

The flow of in-game time seems like a relevant part of scene-framing to me, so I'm happy to keep that discussion here. A quick caveat - I'm not sure how well I'm going to explain this. And, of course, it is simply my opinion...

So, if you play a boardgame and you can take 5 actions a turn that represents a resource. What constitutes managing that resource is an understanding of what represents a turn. All the players know what a turn is, when it starts and when it ends.

But what if you don't know what constitutes a turn? I have finite resources, 5 actions, but I no longer have any idea of what I might be asked to accomplish with them. At that point I'm not managing. If my opponents can make whatever moves they like, and allow me my five moves when they like, the appearance of having five actions is an irrelevance.

So in Runequest I have 16 power. That means I start with 16 power points to spend on casting spells. I get back 4 points every 6 hours. How long is 6 hours? It's whenever the GM decides. In other words I don't get to 'manage' my points. I get to spend them while the GM uses them as a cue to manage the tension in the situation. They can relieve the tension by giving me points back or ramp up the tension by presenting a new threat.

I think a lot of what passes as 'resource management' in RPGs is similar to the RQ example. It may appear I'm making a meaningful decision about expending resources or keeping them in reserve, but in reality I do not have the information on future threats, or control over the passage of in-game time before I face those threats, required to do so. How and where I expend my resources are actually a tension and pacing mechanic for the GM. This is what I meant by resource management being an illusion if the GM controls the passage of time.

That isn't to say resource management play isn't possible. For example, I think if you play an AD&D dungeoncrawl and the group both knows and is scrupulous about using the rules - it takes x minutes to move along y feet of corridor, it takes x minutes to search z area - then players have access to the information required to manage resources. But I think in this example you couldn't say the GM is in control of time because a player searching an 10' by 10' room or moving down a 50' corridor can say how long it takes without reference to the GM. The whole group is abiding by known rules, so time is under collective authority.

I remember from the DMG that Gygax was an advocate of meticulous adherence to the tracking of time. I think it's because doing so is a fundamental requirement for resource management be meaningful.

In the interests of keeping this vaguely on topic I'll add that scene-framing, with its fluid use of time, is particularly unsuited to games aimed at testing resource management.

I hope that makes some sense.

I partially agree.

However, I also disagree, and I believe players can make a meaningful decision about resources, can also gain information about future threats, and can -to some extent- dictate the passage of time.

How?

Decisions about resources are just that -decisions. Do I use this now or do I use this later? I'm planning a two week trip into Undermountain. Do I bring less than two weeks of food and hope I can find something while there; do I buy two weeks of food and feel confident in keeping my schedule, or do I buy a little extra just in case I get stuck?

Gaining information about future threats is possible by simply engaging the game world. Talk to NPCs to gather information. Use some of your knowledge skills. The style of game and style of DM is going to determine how exactly this part works. Personally, when I'm running a game, it's usually possible to gain information. It may not be guaranteed, but it's possible. Even something like languages known can help with this, and I've run encounters in which the PCs had some clue about what the enemy was planning to do because one of the PCs understood the language that the orders were being given in.

Dictating the passage of time is a bit more difficult, and dictate is probably a poor word choice for what I mean, but I do believe it is possible for an in-game character to attempt to dictate the flow of things. I believe it is possible for the PCs to frame and to some extent dictate the terms of a scene. I can tell the DM that I plan to rest for X amount of time. I should probably take precautions to do that if I plan to be successful, but I can attempt it even if I don't. By precautions I mean I can do things like set up defensive spells (4E has Magic Circle and various other things; 3rd Edition has Rope Trick and various other things.) I can also take more mundane measures such as hiring NPCs to adventure with me; perhaps purchase a guard dog, or even just ask my fellow PCs to stand watch as I rest. If I'm a more wealthy PC, I can purchase a more secure home such as a castle with safeguards against intruders. This is also something which is going to vary depending on the playstyle, and I think it works better in a lot of other rpgs than it does in modern D&D. Still, you did mention other rpgs, so I'm responding with other ones in mind. All things considered, the DM could simply say all of those things fail and just railroad you into following his timeline anyway without any possible chance of doing anything differently, and that certainly is a valid playstyle, but it's not one I would prefer. There may be times when it's virtually impossible to change the flow of the scene (i.e. trying to peacefully rest while on a layer of hell,) but that's ok because that is something the PCs can observe and information which can be given to them by the DM. That is different than the DM simply saying "these are the scenes as I wrote them, and that's how the game will flow no matter what you try."

What I have in mind when making this comment and holding this position is simply the way battlefield strategy and tactics can work in our world. I may not be able to say with 100% certainty what the enemy is going to do, but I can try to gain knowledge about them, and I can also attempt to dictate the flow of a battle or a war. I can also take precautions to protect myself and my allies when we stop to make camp and rest.

I don't think it's really all that difficult to track out of game time. If the PCs say they intend to do something for a certain amount of time, that's how much time passes if they aren't interrupted. If they stand around in a room bickering about what to do next for more than a few seconds, that's a time when I believe the DM should take control and simply say "ok, this amount of time passed as the party was arguing over what to do."


I will agree that scene framing in the context of 4E might not mix well with what style I have in mind as I've been writing this. I feel that way because the 'encounter' as a measuring unit for the game tends to mean things the PCs can do are tied pretty heavily to encounters.