Cut scenes in your RPG

[Celebrim]

Yeah, one of the things I've learned is that by forcing a plot or an answer to your mystery, things can actually go worse. What happens if the PCs miss a clue or something or go off on some random tangent?

Then they fail and have to try again. Losing is not the worst possible result imaginable. Losing is how you know you can win, and what makes winning satisfying.

In a couple of cases this ended up causing the PCs to go places completely unexpected, but by having a more open ended "ending" I was able to turn what they did into actually being helpful and driving the plot rather than going in the opposite direction and ruining everything. Granted, I did have to have a few things prepared, but seeing an expression on the players' faces when they guess something so outrageous that it couldn't be true and then actually having that be true is amazing.

This is the RPG equivalent of throwing a game so that the person you are playing against won't feel bad. It's condescending even to 5 year olds, and its down right insulting to treat an adult that way.

 

[Dog Moon]

1) That's why you have multiple clues.

True, but sometimes even that isn't enough! Sometimes what appears obvious to you apparent isn't as "apparent" to the players.

2) It's okay for the PCs to fail in the adventure. Just make sure you make it clear that they've failed, so they don't then persist in trying to 'win' an unwinnable game.

And sometimes the PCs do lose. It happens. Especially when they fail to notice all of your clues. I remember when I first started DMing this drove me crazy! As I said, I used to sort of force the answer to them if they couldn't find it and sometimes this was unfortunately blunt and quite obvious. But at least I've learned and now I always have a plan for the failure, to determine what might happen next. By doing that, I can make the failure sometimes be even more exciting than their succeeding would have been!

 

[Dog Moon]

This is the RPG equivalent of throwing a game so that the person you are playing against won't feel bad. It's condescending even to 5 year olds, and its down right insulting to treat an adult that way.

I already answered the first part in my previous post, but for this part, I disagree. I wasn't a part of this campaign because it was before I joined this group, but I remember hearing about this "Puzzle" that the PCs had to solve. It was something like "How do you get the water from point A to point B". That kind of puzzle, one where there are potentially multiple solutions, not a specific sequence of letters or numbers or anything that would require an exact number.

The players came up with dozens of ideas, some were very plausible and should have worked, but the DM had this one idea in his head that should have solved the puzzle and because no one else had that one idea, they continuously failed. Their best ideas, all of them denied. By going with something that the players suggested, the DM isn't simply "Throwing the game", they're rewarding the PCs for their cleverness. Now if one said something obviously stupid and the DM agreed, then yeah, maybe that would be considered "Throwing the game". But I think the trick is to judge the players and decide what is right for the moment. Sometimes they come up with something better than what you could have come up with or sometimes their idea brings another idea into your mind that is even better than the first. The idea is to have fun for everyone, adjust things to be challenging as they need be, prepare for losses that come or give them a bone when they seem to need it. The key is to be adaptable and to never overdo one way.

I know my group didn't even realize that their "guess" was something I just went along with. They remembered that better and had more joy out of that than if they had guessed wrong and went with whatever I had gone with. I mean, it might not be the same if you actually TELL them. I wouldn't do that because I consider it not a game either side can win, but a game where we all have fun and I change lots of thing in order to make the game more fun. I consider it more like playing a cooperative game and I decide to give my buddy the better weapon because he would benefit from it more than "Throwing the game".

 

[Celebrim]

I already answered the first part in my previous post, but for this part, I disagree. I wasn't a part of this campaign because it was before I joined this group, but I remember hearing about this "Puzzle" that the PCs had to solve. It was something like "How do you get the water from point A to point B". That kind of puzzle, one where there are potentially multiple solutions, not a specific sequence of letters or numbers or anything that would require an exact number.

The players came up with dozens of ideas, some were very plausible and should have worked, but the DM had this one idea in his head that should have solved the puzzle and because no one else had that one idea, they continuously failed. Their best ideas, all of them denied.

I'm going to break in right the because what you are trying to argue here is, "Because some DM in another situation was a bad DM that used inappropriate railroading techniques that weren't fun, then I'm justified in using railroading techniques in another situation."

And I can fully agree with you that what you describe is poor DMing, and fully agree with you that Adamantium Wall techniques can be misused to force PC's into that one scene or one solution that you want them to find at the expense of creativity and fun, without agreeing with the conclusion that your story in anyway justifies the sort of campaign defining Schrodinger's Map/Plot techniques you are describing. One doesn't follow from the other.

All your story proves is that if the players come up with a plan that has a reasonable chance of succeeding, you should let them try it and give them a reasonable chance of success.

By going with something that the players suggested, the DM isn't simply "Throwing the game", they're rewarding the PCs for their cleverness.

No, what the DM is doing is called Illusionism. That is to say, the predicate for this technique is almost always deceiving the players. If the DM says, "You know what. You guys are searching in all the wrong areas. But that outrageous speculation sounds like a great idea and it will get the game back on track, so lets just go with that as being the right answer.", then what you describe as "seeing an expression on the players' faces when they guess something so outrageous that it couldn't be true and then actually having that be true is amazing" probably won't happen. That expression on the players' faces is pretty much dependent on the players believing that the creative thought that they've had about what is true was in fact true all along, and that they've figured it out.

If they know that regardless of how they putz around, sooner or later the DM will take up one of their creative ideas and make it true, then this creates a completely different experience. There faces will more like be expressing things like, "I guess the DM thinks I'm too stupid to solve this problem with my own resources.", or "I guess my DM is unable to think of an interesting mystery to solve.", or "Boy wasn't this last six hours a waste of time. All that frustration and there never was a real answer in the first place.", or "All aboard!! Choo! Choo!", or, "You know. If I'm the one with the good ideas and doing all the work here, maybe I should be the DM?" Which is why DMs generally aren't up front with the players about how they plan to run the campaign. As you said, "I know my group didn't even realize that their "guess" was something I just went along with."

The predicate of this technique is deceiving your players. That's a really dangerous thing to get addicted to, and in the case of players that don't deceive easily, that can be a campaign wrecker. I'd never advise deceiving the players, fudging, and illusionism as a first order solution to a DMing or story telling problem. You can occasionally use it in small doses for very specific purposes, but I think it is a very bad idea to get in the habit of your game relying on those techniques in order to work.

I mean, it might not be the same if you actually TELL them.

Yeah, you are bloody well right its not the same. But it would probably be better to actually tell them than to lie to them and have them find out later.

I consider it more like playing a cooperative game and I decide to give my buddy the better weapon because he would benefit from it more than "Throwing the game".

That's not even remotely equivalent. The technique you are talking about is equivalent to other acts of illusionism, fudging, and deceiving the players. They are very powerful techniques that can be used to solve all sorts of problems. But if your whole game or you whole plot or your whole combat depends on some act of illusionism, "The monsters hit points run out always just before the PC's do.", "The solution to the plot is the most creative solution that the players have come up with before the players get bored trying to solve the problem.", "The treasure is always in the last room the players search.", and so forth, then IMO you are misusing your tool chest as a GM. Illusionism should usually be limited to things like, "I'm going to select a magic item the party needs rather than roll randomly for one, because otherwise the puzzle might be unsolvable." or "I'm going to select a wandering monster/choose not to have a wandering monster, to avoid redundant results or keep up the pace of play." In general, if you ever feel uncomfortable sharing with your players that you used Illusionism then you probably should have second thoughts about it.

 

[Celebrim]

I bit on railroading techniques here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?298368-Techniques-for-Railroading

 

[Wednesday Boy]

It's a mental tease. Generally speaking, when you see this happening, it's almost a certain sign that the writer themselves has no clear idea what the mystery is, how they are going to tie things together and as such the payout is almost certain to be unsatisfying.

I think that's a very fair critique of Lost. However, just because they did it poorly doesn't mean that it has to be done poorly. Plot threads that these GMs put in their cutscenes always had a payout in-game. There were threads that didn't have in-game payouts because the campaigns came to premature closes but the GMs did wrap up sessions and presented the direction for the dangling threads. The cutscenes weren't smoke and mirrors with no real direction that were used to gain more viewership. They were glimpses into events and plots happening in the game world that our characters were not present for.

Moreover, the real technique you are engaging in here is hooking the players at the level of metagame. By showing them a cutscene of what their players couldn't know, you are creating player motivation to be involved in the story, but not character motivation to be involved in the story.

That's absolutely true. It doesn't change what the characters know, it's purely for the players. It was a way to increase players' interest in the game and the game world in addition to interest players had from playing in the game.

By showing them a cutscene of something more interesting than the game itself, you are counting on your players to metagame to go find that interesting thing.

Nah, we have no trouble not acting on stuff that we as players know but our characters don't. Plus the cutscenes might be as interesting as the game itself but they're not more interesting.

Perhaps it would help my understanding and encourage my sympathy if I had more concrete examples.

Oof. It's been a while but I'll try. Part of the backstory of the world is that the old king was killed and in the assault on the castle the king's infant son (Racine) was spirited away along with the royal sword and was never heard from again. One of the players asked if he could be Racine and have the royal sword and the GM said sure. The prelude starts in media res with the current king and queen hiring a bountyhunter to recover the royal sword because they just learned the one they have is a fake. The bountyhunter's payment for recovering the sword is a map to where the elves first landed on this continent. As a second part to the prelude, in a different part of the world, bandits attack a village and are defeated by a skilled fighter. The fighter vows to hunt down the bandits unless they join his army or turn over a new leaf. When the bandits join him, they ask his name and he tells them it's Racine.

Through the cutscene we learn a little bit about the history of the world. Through the NPCs' dialogue we get a sense of the personalities of the king, queen, bountyhunter, and the Racine imposter and how people react to them. We get a glimpse into conflicts that are on the rise. We learn tidbits like the map of where the elves first landed must be worth a lot if that's the bounty for the royal sword but we have no idea what makes it so special. Now our GM has players who are not only excited to play their character's story but players who are excited about his world and the potential stories that are happening in it.

 

[The Human Target]

I have tried them and want to add them in more next campaign.

Keeping them short is good advice, as is adding in the players as actors in the scene if it's going to be longer (and you have some actor type players.)

Trying to make my game more cinematic in different ways has usually only made it better.

 

[Celebrim]

I think that's a very fair critique of Lost. However, just because they did it poorly doesn't mean that it has to be done poorly.

Ok, so we've actually forked out in this thread several related ideas.

a) Cutscene as a narrative hook to engage your audience
b) Scene Framing techniques which are being called cutscenes, even when it isn't technically a cut scene.
c) Cutscene as railroading technique to achieve a story goal
d) Illusionism as railroading technique to achieve a story goal or even set your story goals in the first place.
e) Dramatic pacing issues generally, whether or not they are related to cut scenes.

Let's stick with where you and I started, which is the use of cut scenes to introduce your audience to a mystery in order to get them engaged.

So the first thing I would say is that while you can do this as a cut scene, there is no requirement to do it as a cut scene. You can frame the scene as a participatory scene and simply show the players the scene, and you can use various other techniques besides cut scenes and hand waves to ensure the scene is plausible and works out according to your plot point. Those can be various acts of GM force ("railroading"), clever set ups ("moat between players and action"), or literary techniques ("deus ex machina", etc.). While doing it as a cut scene is very tempting, because its easy and nothing can go wrong, it's a less skillful technique than doing a participatory hook that engages both character and player.

Secondly, if you must dangle your twist or the existence of the twist early, then the skillful writer is doing so as misdirection because they have an even better twist that they want to misdirect the audience from ever even thinking about. The writer assumes that his audience is very savvy and very genera savvy and will know that you have a twist and will be looking for it. The writer knows his payoff is bigger if the audience doesn't figure out the twist until right before the writer is ready to reveal it, so to misdirect the audience the author dangles a lesser twist in order to suppress the audiences keen narrative sense. They'll smugly think that they have the twist figured out early on, and then bang, you hit them with the double twist at the right moment.

There are some good examples of this. If you've seen Sixth Sense, you know that the author pulls a double twist to hide a literary twist that is otherwise very obvious and does so to good effect. More relevant to RPGs, if you've read James S.A. Corey's RPG inspired novel, "Leviathan Wakes", you'll know that the plot actually contains about six twists, and has as a trope the PC continually thinking he's found the right answer, trumpeting out to the universe, "This is the plot"... and continually being wrong. Not only is it a great contrast to an RPG plot being whatever cool thing the PC picks is what the answer is, but layered twists help keep the reader distracted from some of the twists that if the reader figured them out early would diminish the story. This sets up in my opinion a Shining Moment of Awesome.

That's absolutely true. It doesn't change what the characters know, it's purely for the players. It was a way to increase players' interest in the game and the game world in addition to interest players had from playing in the game.

And again, I'm not saying that that is badwrongfun. I am saying that hooking the players but not the characters (or more rarely, the characters but not the players) is an example of lesser skill than doing both at the same time. And as a matter of best practice in our GMing, we ought to be shooting for the moon and not merely what we can get away with.

And the results of the temptation of going the easier route is one everyone in the community ought to be familiar with. We've all had the experience, either of a DM directly or second hand through a published module we've been asked to play by a DM, of a story teller that wants to tell great stories, relying on the well known easy techniques of literary story telling with the result of finding that instead of having been invited to play a game, we've been invited to listen to a budding novelist narrate the story to us.

Nah, we have no trouble not acting on stuff that we as players know but our characters don't.

Lets just save that discussion for a later time.

Part of the backstory of the world is that the old king was killed and in the assault on the castle the king's infant son (Racine) was spirited away along with the royal sword and was never heard from again. One of the players asked if he could be Racine and have the royal sword and the GM said sure. The prelude starts in media res with the current king and queen hiring a bountyhunter to recover the royal sword because they just learned the one they have is a fake. The bountyhunter's payment for recovering the sword is a map to where the elves first landed on this continent.

As a second part to the prelude, in a different part of the world, bandits attack a village and are defeated by a skilled fighter. The fighter vows to hunt down the bandits unless they join his army or turn over a new leaf. When the bandits join him, they ask his name and he tells them it's Racine.

Through the cutscene we learn a little bit about the history of the world. Through the NPCs' dialogue we get a sense of the personalities of the king, queen, bountyhunter, and the Racine imposter and how people react to them. We get a glimpse into conflicts that are on the rise. We learn tidbits like the map of where the elves first landed must be worth a lot if that's the bounty for the royal sword but we have no idea what makes it so special. Now our GM has players who are not only excited to play their character's story but players who are excited about his world and the potential stories that are happening in it.

None of that is necessarily bad, but I think all the plot points you describe can be given to the players through participatory play. The only real advantages to the cut scene technique you describe is that its fast - I can layout plot points in a hurry if you are just sitting there listening to them, and it's easy. That is, it's really easy to create cutscenes compared to creating participatory scenes that develop the story well.

Compare the introduction of a video game like Mass Effect, Half-Life, or Skyrim where the opening of the game invites the player to participate in the game's backstory and games that just show the backstory as a cut scene and then have the player get down to killing rats in the basement. Showing the story as a cut scene is easier. Less is likely to go wrong. Non-interactive story telling techniques are well established. But our goal as designers isn't simply to invent and further the art of literature or movies, but to invent and further the art of gaming. We want to use techniques that can only be done in gaming, because when we do them right, the payoff is so huge. We want to go beyond either showing or telling, into participating.

So while I'm ok with cut scenes, I wonder how much more powerful the game's hook might have been if they were in the village during the bandit attack and were saved by 'Racine', and just how this twist might have hit them at that point. Lots more could go wrong, but I think that plays out as a better scene when it goes right. Likewise, we could have the PC's learn that the King and Queen have announced that the royal sword has been stolen, and that a large bounty has been placed on the head of the thief! Again, that plays out very differently I think if the character is participating in that scene, knowing the sword is on his hip. And so forth. We don't have to do any of these reveals as cut scenes, and by not doing them as cut scenes what we are doing is not only engaging the player interest, but encouraging and validating the player to role play out a response to his character's knowledge.

 

[Celebrim]

Keeping them short is good advice, as is adding in the players as actors in the scene if it's going to be longer (and you have some actor type players.)

I think some definitions are in order. By definition, if you add the players as actors into the scene, it's no longer a cut scene.

A traditional cut scene is when you cut away from the story of the protagonists (the PC's in RPG terms), and tell the story of some other characters. A cut scene in gaming refers to this and also to situations when the game takes control of the player's avatar and makes choices on the player's behalf and shows things happening to the character without the player's input.

So if the PC's are in the scene and are able to control their characters, then in my opinion we shouldn't call that a cut scene.

When a DM reads a lengthy piece of text describing something that the PC's have become aware of, that's what's called 'Color Text' or 'Scene Framing' (depending on how it is being used). That really falls into what you'd call 'Expository Narration', where you are giving the players enough details to understand what is happening to their characters. A cutscene is used instead to either give the players information that their characters don't have - something happening elsewhere or elsewhen - or to temporarily take control of the characters in order to avoid some troublesome hard to simulate aspect of play. I guess you could consider that 'Expository Narration' as well, but its a different sort of narration than 'Scene Framing'. Everyone uses some sort of scene framing. Not everyone uses cut scenes.

cRPGs often heavily rely on cut scenes for pacing reasons and to deal with the limitations of their interface. Mass Effect for example blends cut scenes with participatory play in absolutely brilliant ways. But IMO, PnP RPGs can be - and should be - far less reliant on cut scenes. For example, it's less compelling in a PnP RPG for the DM to tell you what you say, as opposed to letting players choose their own words for their characters. In a game like Mass Effect, obviously that can't work, leading to situations where you direct your character only to hear them say things that you would have never chosen for them to say, and leading to very few options regarding how you'd respond to any conversational overture.

Trying to make my game more cinematic in different ways has usually only made it better.

Agreed. RPGs in large part are played by people who have the desire to be inside their favorite stories, or favorite sorts of stories. So while 'cinematic' as it pertains to RPGs has been defined in different ways, in the sense you mean it, it's usually all to the good to make your game cinematic.

 

[iserith]

Perhaps it would help my understanding and encourage my sympathy if I had more concrete examples.

In my Summer at the Lake campaign, one of the players missed a session and we agreed that it made sense that his character, a cleric of Pelor (Casei Vax), was at the local church assisting with services while the other PCs were looking into some murders. I ended that session with the following:

"Meanwhile, somewhere else in town, the dawn ceremony has concluded at the Temple of Pelor. Worshipers emerge from the doors to start the day's commerce. A long-haired man in splint armor stands in the middle of an intersection of streets, looking at the passersby. As Casei Vax exits the temple, he notices the man acting strangely - pacing back and forth, slapping the side of his own head with a mailed fist. 'No, no,' he says. 'These aren't orcs. It's not time for revenge!' Moments later, he draws his blade and his eyes fall upon a young boy and girl innocently playing in the street."

This was a cut scene for the players at the session and a cliffhanger for everyone (including those reading the transcripts of the campaign).