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

[S'mon]

From http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?333362-Fixing-the-Fighter/page45&p=6073774#post6073774

This is an approach to GMing which I got from Pemerton's discussion of how he runs his games. I've used it in my last two 4e campaigns (one ongoing), albeit initially without full awareness of what I was doing. I've been finding that for 4e it seems to work better than the traditional (more gamist-challenge in process-simulated environment) style I use in my other FRPGs such as Pathfinder Beginner Box or Labyrinth Lord.

My idea of GM-led Pemertonian scene-framing:

1)GM sets up scene that derives from prior events but is framed to be interesting - as opposed to process-simulation where scenes are not 'framed' but derive from procedural generation, eg random encounters, d% event tables.
2)Resolution of the scene is left entirely open and up to the players - as opposed to hard railroading where there is a required scene resolution. And
3) Future scenes are largely determined by players' choice/action in past scenes, as opposed to linear AP style play where scenes are pre-written along the set continuum of the adventure. But in looping round to #1 the GM is guided more by what would be a cool/interesting/fun result than by Simulation concerns - though for a D&D world the two may not be hugely different.

The way I've been doing Pemertonian scene-framing it mostly resembles Sandbox play quite closely, with occasional elements of AP style linear play where I'm using a linear adventure (Heathen, Orcs of Stonefang Pass) more or less as written. But I try to open up those adventures for more of a Pemertonian approach, eg I tweaked the dramatic climax of Heathen to create more of a Narrativist style dramatic moment that raised questions of actual moral choice for the PCs, and I inserted a dragon into Stonefang Pass that led to a great dramatic moment when a player 'stepped on up' and talked it down.

One difference between Pemertonian subjective scene-framing I use in 4e and the kind of objective content generation I used in eg my Pathfinder Beginner Box game is that in the scene-framing approach the encounters are subjectively tailored - when my 4e Forgotten Realms Loudwater group met an Ettin, it was because I thought an Ettin would be a good encounter for them (there was foreshadowing of its presence and they could have avoided it, mind you) in all the circumstances. It was a tailored encounter.
Whereas when my PBB group met a Gray Ooze, it was because that was what the system & environment generated - it was a status quo encounter.

IME, the two are often not very different in-play, but over time tailored encounters lead to a much lower lethality level and less of a revolving door of PCs. I still kill PCs in Loudwater - first session TPK, another 2 temporary & 3 perma-deaths in the 32 sessions since - and scenes can be framed as "today is a good day to die", as at the climax of my Southlands campaign where the PCs had repeatedly screwed up and were left making a hopeless last stand at the bridge against a thousand Horde Ghouls and their Necromancer overlord (note that they chose to make the last stand, to give their allies time to evacuate the doomed town). But the general level of random PC death with scene-framing is much lower than with status-quo Simulation, tends to come at moments of dramatic climax*, and so often feels dramatically appropriate when it does occur.

*There was that one time both GM (me) and player screwed up what should have been a low-lethality encounter- I levelled up an encounter with wolves by stupidly making them all Elites; the Wizard player won Init, stepped forward in front of her allies and cast Burning Hands on the whole pack in round 1... *ouch*.

 

[TwoSix]

I applaud the use of "pemerton" as an adjective.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Er.. I don't get it? What you describe doesn't sound particularly unique. In almost any system I can set a scene, presumably with some tasks or challenges to be overcome, leave it up to the players to decide how they do this and taking notes so that I can adapt future scenes accordingly. Is it the explicit 'scene' device, as opposed to continual play? Is it the explicit declaration of overcoming simulation concerns by what is more fun? The outcomes you describe (choosing an encounter non-randomly, lowered lethality) are simply good planning, I fail to see how the scene-framing you describe implicitly results in these outcomes.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm also rather baffled as to what the choice to replace DMing with published adventures and encounter tables has to do with the actual mechanics of the game.
I wouldn't recommend using either of the above regardless of system.

 

[S'mon]

I'm also rather baffled as to what the choice to replace DMing with published adventures and encounter tables has to do with the actual mechanics of the game.
I wouldn't recommend using either of the above regardless of system.

Well, I could have written "Gygaxian Sandboxing: a good approach for 1e AD&D (or Pathfinder Beginner Box)" and talked about how random encounter tables, status-quo environment-based encounters, and process-based play (random wandering monster tables, event tables etc) are good in Exploratory play, creating a robust objective-feeling simulated environment that supports the Gamist challenge. I could have talked about how IME this is the best approach to take with those systems.

As for published adventures, I use those in all my games, 1e or 4e etc - generally works well for me.

 

[S'mon]

Er.. I don't get it? What you describe doesn't sound particularly unique.

I didn't say it was unique. I said (a) it works for me in 4e and (b) it's a big departure from the approach I find works best in other iterations of D&D. Also it's an approach I did not have a handle on previous to reading Pemerton.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The part that's confusing me about calling it Pmertonian is that in my experience not working this way is a distinguishing feature of D&D as against other mainstream RPGs.

The only "non-Pmertonian" games other than D&D I can think of are (a) storygames (and generally GMless), (b) retroclones (like Labyrinth Lord or Pathfinder), or (c) games from the late 70s/early 80s or otherwise incredibly strongly influenced by D&D. (I'm not sure whether Dungeonworld fits category b or c - it's not quite a retroclone but is undoubtedly massively D&D influenced).

 

[Quickleaf]

Most of my online conversations with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] on scene framing have been in the context of skill challenges, where he advocates "strong scene framing" by the GM to convey the overall situation and shift the players into thinking about how to resolve it thru the skill challenge lens.

Seeing it applied to the rest of the game is interesting. I think setting up random tables & good scene framing (GM best judgment as you describe it) as being at odds, however, is inaccurate. Scene framing occurs *after* the random table roll. So, you'd roll up your gray ooze as normal, and if you didn't have another random table for "Circumstances of the Encounter/Monster Activity", you'd think about how you want to use the gray ooze....let's say as a trap (or better yet at the bottom of a pit trap)... and then frame the scene to get the players feeling edgy and claustrophobic/paranoid as they explore a dungeon, with faint foreshadowing of the gray ooze.

 

[Sunseeker]

Pardon me for being confused...but isn't this simply good storytelling? It's not the railraoding conception of storytelling wherein everything is decided in advance and players are playing through a history, but...and maybe this is just because this is how I've always played....so let me see if I can interpret what you're saying.

Instead of saying "You're travling through the woods and a wild wolf pack appears!" You're saying "You're traveling through the woods, it's well known to be the domain of dangerous wolf packs and it's starting to get late, you should consider resting for the night *ominous howl in distance*."

It's just a method for getting player engagement right? This is how I've always run my games. Same goes for tailoring monsters to my players. If I'm going to bother to run a fight at all, I'm going to run a fight that is worth the effort of breaking out the dice for. I agree that tailored encounters are much less likely to lead to player death or TPK, because a tailored encounter has certain expectations about the level of challenge it should hold for players. So I know in advance if a tailored encounter is going to be a highly difficult fight, a moderate fight, or an easy fight. And honestly I think that's a great thing, because then when my players do succeed or if they fail, I can reevaluate if I tailored it properly.

 

[Manbearcat]

Hmmmm...I'll try to my hand at explaining the differences between scene-framing and open world sandboxing gaming. Its really all about geology; pressure and time.

In a scene-framed scenario (session, adventure, campaign), your first order of business is to put genre/trope-relevant pressure and adversity on your players' characters as you zoom in on their protagonism. Everything else is derivative of that function. When you compose and apply that pressure properly, natural player decision-points will be an outgrowth of that pressure. That will in turn exert pressure back upon you and close the feedback loop. This will continue until you have an outcome that is emergent from that process. These are closed systems of DM pressure, player response via decision-points inherent to those pressures, mechanical resolution of that interchange, and a framework whereby the ultimate gradient of success/failure is derived by those things + the narrative context. The next closed system will relate to, or be an outright byproduct of, the former closed system(s). This playstyle primarily stresses granularity and focus of intensity on the pressure spectrum by zooming in on these scenes. The zoom-out on the transition between these scenes causes the temporal resolution to be less granular and intense. That is by design. Pacing is faster and is a product of the resolution of their protagonism which is central to the narrative. Remember the "Skip the guard scene and get to the fun?" Its axiomatic of scene-framed gaming.

Eg; Dungeon Chase Scene > Mechanical resolution equals failure but the context opens it up to either a deadly combat with the chasers...or something...maybe more interesting and sinister - PCs "get away" by barricading themselves into a chamber that is the nesting grounds/hatchery of something like the Alien >

Nest Conflict Scene > Resolution of that scene is a success which leads to a calamity within the structure of the dungeon and PCs escape to wilderness with their claimed prize >

Fast Forward two days to the scene where PCs do reconnaissance on the prospective buyer to find out his trustworthiness/authenticity >

Prospective Buyer Reconnaissance Scene resolves itself with success...context says the PCs find intelligence in his manner house, leading to the discovery that he is a proxy for a demon worshipping cult who needs the relic for a ritual to summon a powerful demon...He is supposed to make the purchase and blow up the ship...slaying the PCs and everyone in it (no witnesses to the transaction). PCs play it cool and decide to use this information to their advantage >

Fast forward to tomorrow evening where PCs meet the proxy buyer in the common room/hold of a sailing ship turned tavern >

Queue Social Conflict; Wooing the Buyer Scene. The PCs use their information to disarm the powder-keg traps placed beforehand (successfully). They go on to reveal that they know the reasoning for the relic purchase and want to give it to him and the cult for a different price than money; they want to be inducted as they worship the same demon! Massive success! They will get a meeting with the Cult Leader (Abyssal Imperator) so he can confirm their veracity/sincerity and induct them at the Summons Scene >

Queue Induction Scene With the Abyssal Imperator > Things go awkwardly. This is a failure. We can go several ways with this one, but perhaps the most fun (and with the most context given the contextual arrangement of the checks/narrative outcomes) is the Grand Demonator successfully ruses them into thinking they have legitimately been inducted. They are dangerous and he doesn't want conflict under these circumstances. Many powerful allies show up at the induction so if the PCs are thinking of an assassination attempt, it will be an extremely difficult encounter. He is going to use them as a sacrifice to the summoned demon tomorrow to earn favor with the entire cult on-hand.

Now we have a likely Assassination Attempt Scene that will take place between this last scene and the Demon Summoning Scene. Due to that failure, it will be an extremely difficult challenge with mechanical ramifications and narrative implications that will emerge from its resolution. Assuming that challenge is resolved in a way that doesn't result in the Imperator's death, then we either have another intermediary scene, but more likely a Fast Forward to Demon Summoning Scene >

Demon Summoning Scene is a conflict whereby the PCs "want" to stop the summons before the Ritual is completed and kill the cult leader. Depending on PC decision-points, this is going to likely turn out to be an extremely difficult (lethal) combat encounter with an intertwined challenge to interrupt the ritual.

Conversely, (as everyone knows), in an open world sandbox scenario (session, adventure, campaign), your first order of business is to "build a thriving world external to the PCs" and create hooks/color. You then, in play, invoke the hooks, color and play out the processes of that built world (external to the PCs) and let the PCs experience it at their own anarchic leisure or focused intent; let them see, smell, taste, touch. They may or may not be protagonists but the world is certainly not zoomed in on their protagonism if they are, in fact, the heroes of the "show." Temporal resolution is a granular and intense thing. Pacing is "slower" and the narrative is less (or not at all) "PC-protagonism-centered". They'll be plenty of moments with no pressure at all. In fact, much of each session may be pressure-neutral. They'll talk to plenty of blokes who have nothing to do with any running theme or genre-relevance. Its just to invoke the color of and saturate the players with the texture of "a living world" (specifically external to their protagonism). They'll do plenty of activities that have nothing to do with pressure and adversity and their protagonism will not be expressed. They might get hired for this or that job, see this crying couple in the Ye Ole Tavern, talk to them and find out they were robbed on the road and lost all of their preciouses, etc etc. Nothing is closed. Everything is open and everything is an outgrowth of the PCs "playing around with all of this stuff and seeing what happens" framework. It is not derivative of the function of constant DM themed/genre pressure and adversity and the PC's decision points (and the feedback loop) nor is the narrative and pacing central to the PC's default status as protagonists/heroes/stars of the show. That is by design. Remember the "Skip the guard scene and get to the fun?" Skip the guard scene and get to the fun? WTF? That is anathema to open-world sandbox gaming.

That is each at their extreme along the spectrum. You can have a game in-between (some call it "incoherent"). That probably makes no sense or is tldr but oh well. That's my best, sincere effort.

 

[Manbearcat]

This may hopefully have some explanatory power:

In a totally scene-framed game, you can have an entire dungeon "explored" without any prep, without any map. The composition of the pressure and color imposed by the GM, the players decision-points (and potential co-authorship), the mechanical framework and resolution tool are the conduit for "experiencing/exploring" the dungeon. You move from isolated micro-locale (closed scenes) to isolated micro-locale. Perhaps you map it out as the dungeon emerges from this process. You can do this completely improv and off the cuff. Just DM composing pressure and adversity, PCs responding, fortunes playing out and mechanical framework/narrative context dictating the way forward.

Open world sandbox dungeon exploration? Obviously a completely different ordeal in terms of time/space/pressure.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To back up [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] on the difference, I'm going to copy and paste a couple of paragraphs from the Leverage RPG.

Design Vs. Discovery

Ambitious Fixers may have noticed something about the nature of Complications. If you can use them to introduce characters and problems, and then flesh those out, couldn’t you just make everything a Complication? Yes, yes you could. But it’s a little trickier than it sounds. Doing this requires you to really scramble to fill in details on the fly, but for some Fixers, that’s exactly what they’d like to do. Rather than plan a Job in any detail, you might just sketch a rough outline and then fill in the details and problems based on the Complications that come up. In this approach, the Fixer is just as likely to be surprised about where things go as the players.

Consider, for a moment, how Sterling is introduced in the TV show. When we first meet him, we don’t know much about him, but over the course of the episode and subsequent episodes, we get a fuller picture. Now, imagine this in a game from the Fixers perspective; this might be because he had already written up Sterling and he reveals him over time—that’s certainly the normal assumption. But what if, when he started, the Fixer didn’t know any more about Sterling than the players did? He’s just Insurance Investigator d6 at the outset, but the Crew decides to mess with him, gains a Complication, and suddenly he picks up Evil Nate d8 as a Trait. Over the course of play, he picks up other Traits, like Bastard d8 and Opportunist d8 (and maybe gets Bastard bumped up to d10, just to be thorough) and after a few sessions, Sterling is a well fleshed out character, created entirely through play. This is just one example, but a Fixer who enjoys flying by the seat of his pants can build almost anything this way.
​

Sandbox/Dungeon = Stat everyone on the stage out. They are doing what they are doing until the PCs come to stop or help them.
"pmertonian" play = Stat out the things around the PCs in the same way you'd write the backstories for TV supporting characters by their relationship to the protagonists. You're writing backstory half a session ahead of the PCs.
Full Improv = Stat almost nothing. You know the name of the bad guy, a couple of traits, and the PCs motivations. Everything else? Is a mix of you and the players improvising like mad - and the players are often setting large parts of the scenes.

 

[pemerton]

in my experience not working this way is a distinguishing feature of D&D as against other mainstream RPGs.

The only "non-Pmertonian" games other than D&D I can think of are (a) storygames (and generally GMless), (b) retroclones (like Labyrinth Lord or Pathfinder), or (c) games from the late 70s/early 80s or otherwise incredibly strongly influenced by D&D.

Your category (c) covers a lot of games, though - Runequest, Traveller, GURPS, HERO (at least some ways of playing it), Traveller etc. Call of Cthulhu is different, but isn't based on scene framing (and is GM-led, not player-led).

My knowledge of the range of RPGs is a long way from complete, but one of the earlier discussions I know which expressly talks about setting up situations so as to be interesting and engaging by reference to story concerns, rather than by reference to world simulation, is Jonathan Tweet in Over the Edge (1992).

Instead of saying "You're travling through the woods and a wild wolf pack appears!" You're saying "You're traveling through the woods, it's well known to be the domain of dangerous wolf packs and it's starting to get late, you should consider resting for the night *ominous howl in distance*."

What you describe here seems to be more about flavour/atmosphere.

For me, at least, the key idea of a scene-framing approach is (i) a situation that hooks onto the players' interests as expressed through their PCs, and (ii) the resolution of the situation isn't known in advance.

Given this thread is named after me, I'm going to indulge myself and quote Paul Czege:

There are two points to a scene - Point A, where the PCs start the scene, and Point B, where they end up. Most games let the players control some aspect of Point A, and then railroad the PCs to point B. Good narrativism will reverse that by letting the GM create a compelling Point A, and let the players dictate what Point B is (ie, there is no Point B prior to the scene beginning).​

I think it very effectively exposes, as Ron points out above, that although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.

"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. Tim asked if scene transitions were delicate. They aren't. Delicacy is a trait I'd attach to "scene extrapolation," the idea being to make scene initiation seem an outgrowth of prior events, objective, unintentional, non-threatening, but not to the way I've come to frame scenes in games I've run recently. . .

[W]hen I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. . . I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And like Scott's "Point A to Point B" model says, the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.​

Now obviously Czege is running a thematically heavy, serious game, whereas my 4e game is much lighter and more traditional in tone. But putting the content to one side and focusing on techniques, I do my best to follow what he describes: intentionally setting up situations to make them interesting to me and the players, keeping the pressure up to the PCs, and keeping the backstory flexible and manipuating it in my mind to serve the metagame purposes of interest and adversity.

When I read the "wolves in the forest" description, I'm not seeing the interst or adversity - not saying it's not there, but until I'm told something about the PCs in this game, what the stakes are, etc, I can't tell whether or not it's a scene-framing approach of the sort that I use.

Sandbox/Dungeon = Stat everyone on the stage out. They are doing what they are doing until the PCs come to stop or help them.
"pmertonian" play = Stat out the things around the PCs in the same way you'd write the backstories for TV supporting characters by their relationship to the protagonists. You're writing backstory half a session ahead of the PCs.
Full Improv = Stat almost nothing. You know the name of the bad guy, a couple of traits, and the PCs motivations. Everything else? Is a mix of you and the players improvising like mad - and the players are often setting large parts of the scenes.

My approach mixes your "pmertonian play" and your "full improv" - which in RPG I think of as "no myth". Some backstory is prepared in advance. A lot is worked out in the course of resolution, along the lines I've quoted from Paul Czege above.

I've never tried a fully no myth game. In my current game, for instance, I use a lot of the 4e/D&D cosmological backstory, though details of history and personality are often worked out on the fly as needed.

 

[S'mon]

The part that's confusing me about calling it Pmertonian is that in my experience not working this way is a distinguishing feature of D&D as against other mainstream RPGs.

The only "non-Pmertonian" games other than D&D I can think of are (a) storygames (and generally GMless), (b) retroclones (like Labyrinth Lord or Pathfinder), or (c) games from the late 70s/early 80s or otherwise incredibly strongly influenced by D&D. (I'm not sure whether Dungeonworld fits category b or c - it's not quite a retroclone but is undoubtedly massively D&D influenced).

Hm, all the '80s games I know are non-Pemertonian, as are process-sim early-'90s games like Traveller: The New Era. Or Paranoia(!), at least that was the impression they all gave me. All are process-sim.

'90s games of the White Wolf style (eg Vampire, Dream Pod 9's Heavy Gear, or even Call of Cthulu*, arguably) are different, but seem to lack the open scene resolution that determines the next scene; they focus on leading the PCs through a pre-written story - pre-mapped scenes.

I have a lot of games, but the only one that largely meets my OP definition in its description of how to play is Ron Edwards' Sorceror and Sword. It differs though in that the three-stage scene-framing system it describes is couched within heavy 'Dramatic Premise' Narrativism. Pemerton showed me it could be used in a much lighter, non-Narrativist play style.

I guess maybe I'm not explaining well what I find important about what Pemerton describes, how it's different from what I did before, or how it's different from what most GMing advice advocates doing. I know there is a difference, I know it has affected my games - and made my recent 4e games much more enjoyable - but it must be fairly subtle.

*Yes I know CoC did not originate in the '90s.

 

[S'mon]

One thought from Manbearcat's mentioning Protagonism: some '80s games and many '90s games talk about the GM as 'Director' of a 'movie'. But they don't really tell the GM how to do that. The process I'm talking about actually does have a movie-creation feel to it, and I think that is because it is centred around the PCs as Protagonists in the fiction - and it is not centred around their role as inhabitants of the fantasy world. It's Dramatist, not Simulationist.

 

[S'mon]

Sandbox/Dungeon = Stat everyone on the stage out. They are doing what they are doing until the PCs come to stop or help them.
"pmertonian" play = Stat out the things around the PCs in the same way you'd write the backstories for TV supporting characters by their relationship to the protagonists. You're writing backstory half a session ahead of the PCs.

That seeems to describe a feature the two concepts I'm getting at.

It may well be that Pemertonian scene framing is actually a completely routine mode of play in the sort of games talked about in the RPGnet General forum - 21st century games like the FATE ones (Spirit of the Century, Starblazers) though, I think, not '90s style games like Exalted. If so it's just that I have never read a decent description of the process prior to reading Mr P. I certainly did not read a decent description of the process in the 4e rulebooks, or in those of any other RPG I own, other than Edwards in S&S. And Edwards had so much baggage in there with it (actually harmful baggage, IME) that it would never have occurred to me from reading Edwards that this was a technique to use in D&D.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hm, all the '80s games I know are non-Pemertonian, as are process-sim early-'90s games like Traveller: The New Era. Or Paranoia(!), at least that was the impression they all gave me. All are process-sim.

Traveller was first published in 1977 with the explicit goal of being "D&D In Space", and Paranoia 1984 with the typical D&D adventuring party being one of the things it was sending up. As games very seldom change basic design philosophy when they have a new edition (D&D has drifted much more than most) I consider both to fit under my category. For what it's worth, I've called process sim "Toolbox Games" as part of a series on my blog. (Next up in the series is the drafted but unwritten section on Character Driven games - starting with Vampire).

'90s games of the White Wolf style (eg Vampire, Dream Pod 9's Heavy Gear, or even Call of Cthulu*, arguably) are different, but seem to lack the open scene resolution that determines the next scene; they focus on leading the PCs through a pre-written story - pre-mapped scenes.

I see what you mean. I'd run them as more open - but I like running open.

I have a lot of games, but the only one that largely meets my OP definition in its description of how to play is Ron Edwards' Sorceror and Sword. It differs though in that the three-stage scene-framing system it describes is couched within heavy 'Dramatic Premise' Narrativism. Pemerton showed me it could be used in a much lighter, non-Narrativist play style.

I guess maybe I'm not explaining well what I find important about what Pemerton describes, how it's different from what I did before, or how it's different from what most GMing advice advocates doing. I know there is a difference, I know it has affected my games - and made my recent 4e games much more enjoyable - but it must be fairly subtle.

*Yes I know CoC did not originate in the '90s.

Once more I'm going to extensively quote from the Leverage RPG. This is from, believe it or not, the chapter on Character Creation. And I think Leverage takes things as far away from scene-pipelines as any game I know that's not an out and out Fiasco-style GMless game.

What’s The Plan?

The Job is going to be pretty simple to pull off. Like we said, the goal here is to show what the Crewmembers
are really good at, and get them to know one another a bit better. The exact details of the Job aren’t as vital,
and if the scenes you play through don’t fit together like pieces from a jigsaw puzzle, that’s okay.

The main elements of the Job will be Spotlight Scenes and Establishment Flashbacks.

Spotlight Scenes are scenes within the Job that feature a Crewmember filling some important aspect of
their Role. In doing so, they serve two purposes. First, they allow one Crewmember to really shine, thereby not
only showing off their crazy skills to one another, but also defining a mechanical Talent (see page 34). Second,
if another Crewmember is present, it allows him to define one of his unassigned Role dice. Sometimes, a Specialty can be defined in a Spotlight Scene. Spotlight Scenes are discussed in detail below.

Establishment Flashbacks accomplish goals similar to Spotlight Scenes, but in a different way. These miniscenes
not only establish background and motivation, but also showcase interesting skills and personality Traits. They can establish Specialties and Distinctions. They do so by running through flashbacks—the Crewmember’s memories of an event that was important or formative in their past. Could be from childhood, could be from last week. Either one works, as long as it gives insight into what makes them tick.

Spotlight Scenes

Spotlight Scenes are scenes in The Recruitment Job specifically designed for a particular Crewmember to prove just how competent he is. This is his chance to show off, hog the spotlight, and prove that he belongs on a Leverage Crew.

By this time the Fixer has figured out who the Mark is, what rotten, dastardly, and evil thing he’s done to the Client, and what the Crew has to do to make things right. Next the Crew creates a roadmap to get there— this roadmap is made up of Spotlight Scenes.

Creating Spotlight Scenes

Creating five scenes? More, if you have more Crewmembers? Ugh, you’re thinking. You’re thinking, we’re running this seat-of-the-pants, I don’t want to grind things to a halt to create five entire scenes from scratch.

Don’t sweat it; there’s good news for the Fixer, and better news for the Fixer. Here’s the good news: the general outline of what needs to happen should be fairly obvious, and remember that the details don’t matter here so much as giving each Crewmember a stage for rocking out and some scenery to chew on. If the narrative details don’t all flow into one another, that’s okay for The Recruitment Job. This is, as has been observed, seat-of-the-pants.

Here’s the better news: the Fixer doesn’t have to do a damned thing. Here’s how it works: let each Crewmember design their own scene. They just put their heads together and come up with five (or however many) scenes that
feel like they’d generally lead from one scene to the next, and give each of them an opportunity to take the spotlight.

It’s the Fixer’s role in The Recruitment Job to make sure that (barring outright failure by the Crew) the Mark acts like the Crew expects him to. Remember the goal here. The Fixer shouldn’t get cute and throw a huge wrench in the works, he shouldn’t exploit holes in the Crew’s plan, and he shouldn’t twist the plot beyond recognition. (Unless he really wants to—more on that later.)

The Crewmembers should feel free to make all sorts of declarations and assumptions about how things will work, as long as they’re reasonable and make a good Job. Need some papers to be in the desk drawer? There they are. Need the Mark to have an estranged son willing to dish some dirt about him? There he is.

Example [In sidebar]

Let’s say the Mark is a corrupt city councilman who accepted a truly staggering bribe to change the zoning designation of a neighborhood and condemned the Client’s house, seizing it through eminent domain. It’s a done deal, the house has been bulldozed and the block of expensive condos is under construction. The Client just wants the Mark’s corruption exposed and, if possible, some monetary compensation.

Hacker: “I’ll locate his bank records and learn that he just bought a house in the Hamptons. On a city councilman’s salary? Riiiight.”

Thief: “House? I’ll break in and plant a bug. To transmit what he says to you.” (Points at Hacker) “He’ll be visiting there, right?”

Grifter: “I can make sure he does. I’ll meet with him in his city office and convince him that…I don’t know, someone wants to meet him there?”

Mastermind: “That’d be me. I’m president of the homeowner’s association, and we’re interested in talking to him, as a new and obviously wealthy resident, about a real estate investment in the area. I’ll get him to spill everything with the bug right there.”

Hitter: “That leaves me. Hm… What if you—” (points to Grifter) “—get jumped by a couple of mob thugs when you’re leaving the initial meeting and I help you fight them off?”

Grifter: “Mob thugs? Where’d the mob come from?”

Hitter: “Muggers, then. Doesn’t matter.”

Fixer: “Right, the important thing is a fight, and we can make that work. So the scenes are: a bank computer hack for the Hacker, a house break & enter for the Thief, a persuasion scene for the Grifter, a fight for the Hitter, and another persuasion scene for the Mastermind. Right? OK, let’s do it.”
​

That's the sort of GMing advice I've been picking up from modern games. Of course after the character creation job they aren't quite that open. But not too far off (up to and including the players having the power to create flashback scenes) - and they need to be to run a con game.

That said, if I want to look at a pipeline game, I'll look at The Esoterrorists or the rest of Robin Laws' Gumshoe line at least as much as anything older - Gumshoe is about detective stories, and picking up clues is hardcoded into the rules.

 

[GSHamster]

I feel that this thread would strongly benefit from a very simple example illustrating the two systems.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And more DMing advice, this time from FATE Core which is currently being kickstarted. So for that matter is a Hackers' Guide for Cortex Plus (the Leverage, Smallville, and Marvel Heroic Roleplaying System).

AN INCREDIBLY POWERFUL NINJA GM TRICK

Asking the players to contribute something to the beginning of your first scene is a great way to help get them invested in what’s going on right off the bat. If there’s anything that’s flexible about your opening prompt, ask your players to fill in the blanks for you when you start the scene. Clever players may try to use it as an opportunity
to push for a compel and get extra fate points right off the bat—we like to call this sort of play “awesome.”

Let’s look at our example scenes above. The prompts don’t specify where the PCs are when they get confronted with
their first choices. So, Amanda might start the session by asking Ryan, “Where exactly is Zird when the brute squad
from the Collegia comes looking for him?”

Now, even if Ryan just replies with “in his sanctuary,” you’ve solicited his participation and helped him set the scene. But Ryan is awesome, so what he says instead is, “Oh, probably at the public baths, soaking after a long day of research.”

“Perfect!” says Amanda, and holds out a fate point. “So, it’d make sense that your Rivals in the Collegia Arcana would have divined precisely the right time to catch you away from all your magical implements and gear, right?”

Ryan grins and takes the fate point. “Yeah, that sounds about right.”
​

And

Starting Scenes

When you’re starting a scene, establish the following two things as clearly as you can:

• What’s the purpose of the scene?
• What interesting thing is just about to happen?

Answering the first question is super-important, because the more specificyour scene’s purpose, the easier it is to know when the scene’s over. A good scene revolves around resolving a specific conflict or achieving a specific goal—once the PCs have succeeded or failed at doing whatever they are trying to do, the scene’s over. If your scene doesn’t have a clear purpose, you run the risk of letting it drag on longer than you intended and slow the pace of your session down.

Most of the time, the players are going to tell you what the purpose of the scene is, because they’re always going to be telling you what they want to do next as a matter of course. So if they say, “Well, we’re going to the thief ’s safehouse to see if we can get some dirt on him,” then you know the purpose of the scene—it’s over when the PCs either get the dirt, or get into a situation where it’s impossible to get the dirt.


Sometimes, though, they’re going to be pretty vague about it. If you don’t have an intuitive understanding of their goals in context, ask questions until they state things directly. So if a player says, “Okay, I’m going to the tavern to meet with my contact,” that might be a little vague—you know there’s a meeting, but you don’t know what it’s for. You might ask, “What are you interested in finding out? Have you negotiated a price for the information yet?” or another question that’ll help get the player to nail down what he’s after.

Also, sometimes you’ll have to come up with a scene’s purpose all on your own, such as the beginning of a new scenario, or the next scene following a cliffhanger. Whenever you have to do that, try going back to the story questions you came up with earlier and introducing a situation that’s going to directly contribute to answering them. That way, whenever it’s your job to start a scene, you’re always moving the story along.
​

Even more importantly

THE SCENARIO IN PLAY

So, now you should be ready to begin: you have a problem that can’t be ignored, a variety of story questions that will lead to resolving that problem one way or another, a core group of NPCs and their motivations, and a really dynamic first scene that will get things cooking. Everything should be smooth sailing from here, right? You present the questions, the players gradually answer them, and your story rolls into a nice, neat conclusion.

Yeah... trust us, it’ll never happen that way.

The most important thing to remember when you actually get the scenario off the ground is this: whatever happens will always be different from what you expect. The PCs will hate an NPC you intended them to befriend, have wild successes that give away a bad guy’s secrets very early, suffer unexpected setbacks that change the course of their actions, or any one of another hundred different things that just don’t end up the way you think they should.

Notice that we don’t recommend predetermining what scenes and locations are going to be involved in your scenario—that’s because we find that most of the time, you’re going to throw out most of that material anyway, in the face of a dynamic group of players and their choices. Not all is lost, however—the stuff you have prepared should help you tremendously when players do something unexpected. Your story questions are vague enough that there are going to be multiple ways to answer each one, and you can very quickly axe one that isn’t going to be relevant and
replace it with something else on the fly without having to toss the rest of your work.

Amanda had expected that the scene with Landon, Cynere, and Anna would result in a briefly violent reaction, thanks to Landon, followed by the PCs explaining that they’re not with the Cult of Tranquility and everyone realizing that they’re all on the same side.

Right? No.

The first swing of Landon’s sword fells Anna where she stands, killing what would’ve been their first contact with the Sun and Moon Society, an important secret organization opposing thecult. Plus, Anna’s companions are now convinced that he and Cynere are indeed cultists.

So... slight detour. Amanda sees a few ways to go from here:
• The warriors throw caution to the wind, cry “Revenge!” and fight to the death.
• One of the warriors assumes Anna’s role in the scene and continues the conversation.
• The warriors flee (making a concession) and report the killing to their superiors in the secret society, leaving Anna’s body behind.

She decides to go with the third option. These two may be good guys, but they’re not heroes, and neither one of them is up for taking on Landon after that opener. And the odds of them wanting to have a little chat with Anna’s corpse at their feet are, at best, slim.

Plus, Amanda figures Lily and Lenny will want to search the body, which would present a good opportunity to feed them information about the Sun and Moon Society. It’s also a way to bring Zird in on the action—maybe he knows something about the Sun and Moon Society already, and can make contact with them.

Also, knowing your NPCs’ motivations and goals allows you to adjust their behavior more easily than if you’d just placed them in a static scene waiting for the PCs to show up. When the players throw you a curveball, make the NPCs as dynamic and reactive as they are, by having them take sudden, surprising action in pursuit of their goals.
Amanda’s still stuck on Anna’s unexpected demise. She’d planned on making her an entry point for a whole story arc—maybe not a powerful NPC, but a pretty important one nonetheless. So if Anna’s not going to be around anymore, Amanda at least wants to make something out of her death.

She decides that, while the death of a member of the Sun and Moon Society would go unnoticed by most of Riverton, a guy like Hugo the Charitable would certainly hear about it. He’d already taken notice of Landon after he fought off a few Scar Triad goons. And now this. This newcomer is clearly dangerous, potentially a threat. Worst, he doesn’t seem to be working for anyone.

Given Hugo’s high concept aspect of Everyone in Riverton Fears Me, he sees Landon as a potential asset for the Scar Triad. If you can’t beat ‘em, recruit ‘em.
​

 

[Manbearcat]

I feel that this thread would strongly benefit from a very simple example illustrating the two systems.

I tried to give a bit of a Scene-Framing adventure example in my initial post there. Maybe you could read that right quick and ask a clarifying question about some aspect of it? I'll try me best attempt at a Feynman Diagram version but first; Are you talking about "design-side" or an actual short "play example"? Here are a couple of bolded, orange statements. Maybe that is the "simple" you're looking for. The rest is tldr context that you can ignore if you like.

Open World Sandboxing is straight-forward. I believe S'mon uses the "You are here. What do you do?" way of conveying it. This could be in the market, in a dungeon, in a tavern, etc. This would be followed up by more color, introduction of hooks, and arcs and more PC exploration of the nooks and crannies of the built world. The DMs job is not to set adversity or pressure against the PCs. It is to set the scene, the color and play the relevant parts and adjudicate outcomes as the PCs explore. The PCs job is to explore, not to respond to the DM pressure in-kind as is their role as protagonists in the story. They may do that and the PCs may ultimately be protagonists. But that isn't the first order of business. It may just be a happenstance or an off-shoot.

The Framed-Scene analog might be something like "This thematic, genre-specific by-product of past scenes and their narrative implications is in your face right now forcing you to do one of a few things. Here are the stakes and here is pressure to focus your options. You have to resolve this conflict/scene now."

For instance: "You arrive from your day long sprint, exhausted and sore, the courtiers message from the High Huntsman stained with your sweat. His stark tone advised the that the barbarians were on the march and would be arriving tomorrow morning. His plea to the Lodge for all the Rangers of the North fell on deaf ears. You've come to talk him into exodus, but the grim face of the High Huntsman says that he won't budge and the unified faces of the settlers behind him appear to confirm your suspicions. It seems likely he has convinced his people that the only honorable path for them is to die a warrior's death tomorrow morning when the barbarian raiders strike at dawn, defending their well-earned home below the oak boughs. Reinforcing the place and turning it into a deathtrap may give a fighting chance...or at least the opportunity to claim enough raiders' lives to die satisfied. You could leave right now...no doubt, dooming them to their choice, their chosen fate. Children are at play in the background...oblivious to the finality of these moments. The High Huntsmen looks at you squarely; 'I knew they wouldn't heed my call. Well, they will see the fires of the wildmen on their own borders soon enough.' He looks at his men-at-arms manning the gate and says 'Open it, they have a short time to leave before the horde encloses us. This is not their cause to die for.'

The stakes have been made clear and they would have further context within preceding events of the game and possibly thematic ties to one or more of the characters. Do the PCs enter into a Social Conflict Scene to convince the High Huntsman of exodus? Do they commit to a Scene of Preparing the Battlements of the small settlement in effort to repel the horde? They may try both. They may try the "Convince of Exodus" scene in attempt to resolve the conflict (which success would then result in another scene - "Exodus" - with new pressures). What if "Convince of Exodus" results in failure? If so, it will have narrative and mechanical consequences for going the route of "Preparing the Battlements." Perhaps something immediate happens like a load of pitch somehow catches fire and starts a conflagration that must be handled immediately (leading to another scene). Perhaps more benign, they now have less time to Prepare the Battlements which would mean a more difficult challenge from possible multiple vectors (DCs, less failures required to lose, potential limited outcome, etc) when engaging that scene. Failure on Prepare the Battlements might trigger an early raid (for example), before Dawn, when the settlers are even less prepared (which would have mechanical consequences alongside the narrative implications; eg worse stats for the defenders, less or worse activatable battlement features available to trigger for the upcoming Mass Combat Against the Horde Combat Encounter). Each scene's resolution will have intra-scene mechanical and narrative consequences and then the ultimate success or failure of the scene (and its narrative context) will have consequences to for the next Scene(s).

The game would progress like this always; move from scene to soft transition to scene, etc. Each a direct byproduct of the last or a byproduct of the aggregate narrative.