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

[JamesonCourage]

Right; that's what I had in mind.

That situation can also arise from the DM too.
"You defeated the Dark Lord; the next 4 months are going to pass in a more-or-less uneventfully. What does your character do during that time?"
"It is going to take 6 weeks for Bob's leg to fully heal. If you are planning to wait for him to be full strength, what do your character's do during that time?"

I don't use that sort of thing in D&D very often because of the accelerated time scale which D&D campaign arcs and levels tend to operate on, but it is something I've used in other games. I think it's something which can be used in a scene framing game; the "scene" simply becomes larger. Instead of the scene consisting of an encounter, it's a longer length of time. I imagine it being pretty similar to a montage in a movie.

That might work too, yes. In my current game, the PCs started at level 2, and are now level 5, and 3½ years have passed already. I think this could happen either by GM or player control, and still allow for strong scene framing. But I am curious what other people think. As always, play what you like

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@LostSoul , @Manbearcat , good posts.

But I'm not sure about the "winning now gives me advantages next time" dynamic. At least with 4e, I think the game is often more fun when the challenges are harder - so you have to be careful to avoid a dynamic of "win now to have boring combats later".

One approach that might work is if winning now gives you access to bigger encounters later - ie more XP - with enough advantages to make them doable. Whereas losing now gives you access to wimpier encounters, without advantages - so comparable mechanical challenge, but for fewer XP.

Well... In 4e if you have a tough combat and you don't do well, vs a combat where you really click and roll through it then in the next one it will make a HUGE difference (IE going into a fight with my AP and 4 of my 7 HS expended is NOT EASY). Of course you could also, at least sometimes, construe tactical advantage to be operational advantage. Its NO stretch for a DM to say "OK, you steamrollered the guards in 3 rounds with no survivors, that helps you in the next fight".

I'm still a bit cloudy about exactly what LS meant by his question, but it surely seems like even if you are 'framing scenes' as you describe it that there's a big effect on the challenge level. Really you have ultimately more control of that with scene framing than any other way. I think MY question would only be if classic 'challenge play' really normally is built around stepping up like that. It certainly feels like a very specific mode of play, neither Gygaxian nor exactly what I do (hell if I will try to name it, its sort of like what you do I think).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Good question. My approach is challenge-based (Gamist) by default, but use of scene-framing reduces or at least alters that. I think this ties into the "Combat as Sport" idea - if you have a framed scene with open resolution, then players can deploy skill and resources within the scene to seek a successful resolution, as in the sporting arena.
But framed scenes are I think antithetical to the "Combat as War" strategic style, which I think is what most people think of as D&D Gamist/challenge-based play. This is the style where long term issues such as resource management, exploration etc determine the game content, not thematic or story concerns.

So I think scene framing allows for a certain sort of Gamist Combat-as-Sport play, but not so much the long-term strategic Gamism.

To SOME extent at least CAS/CAW is a matter of the granularity of framing. At SOME level everything is just a challenge. The CAW style is just more expansive, framing things at a higher level. Do you see what I mean?

 

[GSHamster]

To SOME extent at least CAS/CAW is a matter of the granularity of framing. At SOME level everything is just a challenge. The CAW style is just more expansive, framing things at a higher level. Do you see what I mean?

The thing is that in CAW you have to obtain the resource before the scene where you use it. Like if you need ten barrels of gunpowder to blow up Parliament, you have to obtain the barrels first. So do you handwave obtaining the gunpowder, and skip right to scene where you are fighting off the Kingsguard to buy time to light the explosives? Or is obtaining the gunpowder a challenge in and of itself and should be its own scene?

CAW is obtaining resources and then using them. Obtaining resources is its own challenge, and if you skip that, you skip a lot of what makes CAW tick. But if you don't skip them, you really aren't framing any scenes, you're just playing everything out like a normal game.

 

[pemerton]

The thing is that in CAW you have to obtain the resource before the scene where you use it. Like if you need ten barrels of gunpowder to blow up Parliament, you have to obtain the barrels first. So do you handwave obtaining the gunpowder, and skip right to scene where you are fighting off the Kingsguard to buy time to light the explosives? Or is obtaining the gunpowder a challenge in and of itself and should be its own scene?

CAW is obtaining resources and then using them. Obtaining resources is its own challenge, and if you skip that, you skip a lot of what makes CAW tick. But if you don't skip them, you really aren't framing any scenes, you're just playing everything out like a normal game.

But a scene-framing game can support this. For instance, in Burning Wheel gear is quite a big deal, and the point of one scene might be to obtain gear that will help you in a future scene. Marvel Heroic Roleplaying is similar (though it treats gear much more abstractly than does BW).

I think I may have mentioned upthread the purple worm encounter I ran fairly recently. The sequence of events went like this:

* PCs are separated, each doing something or other in the duergar hold (actually running this involved cutting from PC to PC) - the drow sorcerer inadvertantly opens a gate to the Abyss.

*PCs are summoned to the duergar leader to explain what the drow was doing wandering the hold - on the way see a number of devils come through the gate and parade to the palace - when they appear before the leader, the devils are there advising him - they make their case to the leader (this is basically free narration up until the making of the case, which is a skill challenge - the players do OK despite some early faux pas).

*The PCs are sent out of the leader's chamber to await his decision. This could have been a simple transition scene (to borrow the Marvel Heroic language) but the PCs decided to use their crystal ball to spy on the leader's chamber - they don't trust the devils. They see one of the devils take possession of the leader when he states that he's persuaded by the PCs' explanation of the drow's behaviour and intends to let them go. (This was interesting - I'd already decided that, if the players had won the skill challenge about the PCs negotating with the leader the devils, who weren't part of the argument, would circumvent the leader's decision via possession - but the players got a heads up on this decision via choosing to scry.)

*The PCs are summoned back into the leader's chamber - they fight the devils, liberate the leader from possession, start to work out together what is going on, when news comes that demons are pouring through the gate.

*A quick narration of the PCs rushing to the gate while the duergar fight various demons already inside the hold - then the big fight (TM) starts, culminating in defeat of an Aspect of Orcus.

*A transition scene - the PCs help the duergar bury their dead, clean up their city, etc. While this is happening, a purple worm attacks the city and swallows an important person and her box holding a fragment of the Rod of Seven Parts. This therefore turns into action, in which the PCs drive the worm out of the hold by rallying the despondent duergar and activating their magically automated ballistae. The worm burrows off.

*A transition scene - preparing to chase the worm! At this point the player of the invoker-wizard rolls Nature for a purple worm knowledge check, and they get the run down on its swallow ability, including 30 acid damage per round (the paladin and defender have around 150 hp each, the strikers a bit over 100, the invoker 90-ish). They decide that, before heading off, they will try and get a sack of something alkaline try and neutralise the acid should anyone be swallowed. One of the players says (and I take his word for it) that lime is used in smithing, and so will be present in the duergar hold. They make a Dungeoneering check (seemed more applicalbe than Streetwise in all the circumstances - it wasn't about persuading someone to give them lime, but rather knowing where to find it in the half-ruined duergar hold), and with a reasonable success I let them have two sacks of it. Later on, when they fight the worm and are swallowed, they drop a sack of lime inside the worm's gullet, reducing the damage from 30 hp per round to 20 hp per round.​

Anyway, that's a long example (and I think also shows the relative looseness of my scene framing compared to [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s "take no prisoners" approach - though that was the closest we've been to "continuous time" for a while). But it shows how consequences, resources etc can flow from scene to scene.

 

[pemerton]

I think what I mentioned there also ties into what I said elsewhere about why I divide my role as DM (out of game entity) and playing the role of NPCs in-game as much as possible. In my ideal style, the BBEG might have control over the situation because of having hostages, but the DM doesn't.'

<snip>

In regards to my previous post, I wasn't saying there was necessarily a social contract which prevented the villain from assaulting the castle of the PCs.

<snip>

The castle itself as a tangible thing offers protection by virtue of being a castle.

my RPG has rules for what happens if you don't eat or get enough sleep. With that in mind, isn't my RPG an example of something that measures resources, as long as I'm not, like, saving the party?

What I mean by that is, if the party takes a rotational sleep schedule without being careful, they might take penalties after a few days for getting inadequate sleep (and thus take penalties), whereas they could avoid this (hire another guy to help keep watch so this doesn't happen). Or if the players say "we walk from X to Y, we have no rations, and we're not gathering food as we go", then we know what will happen: they'll begin to starve, or starve to death if it's far enough. So, on any journey that takes time, wouldn't they be managing their resources to not "starve"?

I think that, from [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s perspective, these are examples of GM control over pacing/tension:

The GM decides if the BBEG kills the hostages, by deciding (i) what his/her personality is, and (ii) how that personality leads to some particular action in these particular circumstances.

The GM decides whether or not a force strong enough to take the castle decides to lay siege to it.

The GM decides what happens in the days in which the PCs are penalised for lack of sleep, or decides whether or not, on their way from X to Y, they happen to discover an abandoned wagon stocked with food that will prevent them from starving. (Or, if they decide to forage en route, the GM decides whether or not their other NPCs or animals have passed through sufficinetly recently to strip the area of food.)​

Gygaxian play has particular techniques to limit GM control over these matters: random encounters, other random events tables, reaction rolls, morale rolls, etc. Plus detailed mapping of terrain, and random features tables to use to fill in the details when the mapping-in-advance is not detailed enough to answer some question posed in play (as well as maps, there could be stuff like "the BBEG will sacrifice the hostages on the next full moon", which the players can find out eg via ESP or Commune). I would add, for the random techniques to work from the gamist point of view the players need to know what the parameters are: how often does the GM roll for wandering monsters, for instance, and what are the odds of them turning up? If the GM's random tables are all a black box, and s/he is free to set odds and frequencies as s/he sees fit, then the players can't know the constraints under which they're working, and hence can't meaningfully plan. And of course the non-random stuff has to be fixed in advance of play so that the players can learn it (the maps, the minds of the NPCs etc) by undertaking the appropriate sorts of exploration (trekking, scrying, etc).

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think that, from chaochou's perspective, these are examples of GM control over pacing/tension:

The GM decides if the BBEG kills the hostages, by deciding (i) what his/her personality is, and (ii) how that personality leads to some particular action in these particular circumstances.

The GM decides whether or not a force strong enough to take the castle decides to lay siege to it.

The GM decides what happens in the days in which the PCs are penalised for lack of sleep, or decides whether or not, on their way from X to Y, they happen to discover an abandoned wagon stocked with food that will prevent them from starving. (Or, if they decide to forage en route, the GM decides whether or not their other NPCs or animals have passed through sufficinetly recently to strip the area of food.)​

Okay, this is essentially how to use strong scene framing in such a situation, right? That's what you're talking about here?

Gygaxian play has particular techniques to limit GM control over these matters: random encounters, other random events tables, reaction rolls, morale rolls, etc.

I use similar things. I roll for random personality traits for NPCs, what drives them, what inhibits them, etc. If I do this, does this mean that it's hard or impossible to meaningfully manage resources when encountering new NPCs, in your opinion?

If the GM's random tables are all a black box, and s/he is free to set odds and frequencies as s/he sees fit, then the players can't know the constraints under which they're working, and hence can't meaningfully plan.

I'm kind of curious about things that are known, but where the players don't know when they'll come into play. Take, for example, my RPG, where there are rules for dying of hunger or thirst. The players know when those penalties will start to kick in, since there are hard rules for it. But, while they know to eat food, they don't know when they might get put into a situation where they'll run low on food (unless they put themselves in such a situation). Isn't purchasing rations and gathering food a form of meaningful resource management, since they know the mechanical penalties if they don't eat? And if it's not meaningful resource management, why not?

And of course the non-random stuff has to be fixed in advance of play so that the players can learn it (the maps, the minds of the NPCs etc) by undertaking the appropriate sorts of exploration (trekking, scrying, etc).

So, essentially, is the view that you can't meaningfully plan for the unexpected, or have meaningful resource management in a game with strong scene framing? That doesn't seem to be what you're saying, but I didn't pull anything else out of it. Can you correct me (since I think I'm probably wrong)? As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I think it is hard to have meaningful resource management when the players don't know what the challenges are in relation to which they're planning.

For instance, how can you meaningfully choose whether or not to spend a player resource (gp, spell slots, whatever) on food if you don't know the odds of (i) successful foraging in general, and (ii) of animals or NPCs having recently been through the area cleaining out all the food, and (iii) finding an abandoned food wagon, and . . . etc etc.

In classic D&D, the players do know: they know the turn cycle, they know the GM rolls for wandering monsters every turn with a 1-in-6 chance, etc. Out of the dungeon it's all a bit fuzzier, but there's a reason Gygaxian gamist D&D is focused on the dungeon!

 

[chaochou]

Very interesting discussion. I certainly appreciate thoughtful threads like this, with good points coming from all directions.

I think it does, yes. Though, for example, my RPG has rules for what happens if you don't eat or get enough sleep. With that in mind, isn't my RPG an example of something that measures resources, as long as I'm not, like, saving the party?

What I mean by that is, if the party takes a rotational sleep schedule without being careful, they might take penalties after a few days for getting inadequate sleep (and thus take penalties), whereas they could avoid this (hire another guy to help keep watch so this doesn't happen). Or if the players say "we walk from X to Y, we have no rations, and we're not gathering food as we go", then we know what will happen: they'll begin to starve, or starve to death if it's far enough. So, on any journey that takes time, wouldn't they be managing their resources to not "starve"?

I find the difficulty of replying to both this, and an earlier post by [MENTION=58416]Johnny3D3D[/MENTION], is that I can't speak for other people's games. I can only know what is happening at a table that I'm at. I'll try and illustrate:

A 1st level party are stood at the entrance to a deep, dark cave. And one player says to the GM "Do we have any idea what's in here?"
And the GM says "Well, now you mention it, you overheard the innkeeper last night talking about a vicious troll that lives in these parts."

Now just writing that down we have no idea what the GM is doing. But at 2 extremes they could be:

a) sticking fastidiously to notes and maps and giving truthful intel about a troll.
b) lying through their teeth simply to create tension, uncertainty and fear about the grim fate lying in the darkness

I would say that (a) allows resource management. We can, as a party, leave in a hurry and re-prepare to attempt to battle a troll.
I would say that (b) means little to nothing in terms of managing resources. It's tension and pacing dressed up as information.

For example, the party pushes on and are attacked by stirges in the cave entrance. If the players know the troll is true they can start to make a judgement about what resources are expendable on the stirges. However, if the troll warning could be a wind-up, it has next to no value in resource management. What is does is create fear which ramps up the tension with the stirges. Both can be enjoyable - but one is about players managing resources and one is about the GM managing tension.

However, knowing at any instance whether we are playing (a) or (b) requires either running it, or playing in it with a well understood social contract. And the game may switch between them at various points. So, interesting as your starvation question is I'm simply unable to tell you what's happening at your table. In my opinion, only you and your group can ever truly know.

My experience is that rpgs feature significantly more (b) than (a). However, I know people that GM, very consciously and consistently, in style (a). If the table is such that information given by the GM is done with integrity and in good faith and that the passage of time is collectively understood then resource management play works fine. I tried to illustrate this earlier with the classic dungeoncrawl example.

Though, in that type of game, if you have resources that replenish or diminish based on time (money, food, spells, abilities, magic item uses, etc.), then giving the players more control time might mean you have to set up scenes in a more uniform way (setting up scenes when they're at full power more often if they take their time, or where they're at low resources if they're the type to truck on quickly even if low on resources). But I think it's possible to tailor these scenes, even with strong player control of time (most of the time). So, chaochou, pemerton, what do you think?

In general terms, my view is that tailoring a scene to PC resources means they are not managing resources. The GM is using PC resources as a yardstick or cue. In other words, if the challenge I face is the same whether I have full HP or half HP, I really don't need to concern myself with HP loss. I can push on knowing I'll face an appropriate threat for my resources and enjoy the excitement.

However, if a GM sticks to their tables, or prep, or information given to the players irrespective of what I have left in the tank, then they can say it's my own damn fault I got beaten to a pulp, I should have prepared and managed my stuff better.

I don't think I'm explaining this well, but I hope it's as thought provoking as I've found other posts in the thread.

 

[Imaro]

Not sure I under stand what you mean there are either explicitly defined ones or challenge level based DCs... if an explicitly defined level is under the range of reasonable challenge level ones I suggest you just narrate they blast through the obstacle.

Hmm,this isn't exactly what I meant... as a simple example...

If I am running a skill challenge off the cuff, and the choices of the PC's lead them to have to pick a lock during said skill challenge, do you use the static lock DC's or do you go with the appropriate DC for their level? This is of course a relatively simple example but I think it illustrates the point I was trying to make.