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

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is probably a whole other discussion but you could do anything you wanted in 2E and the GM would ad hoc it. Combat could be as dynamic as you wanted. the structure was looser than 3e or 4e. personally i find that a bit easier to work with but just a preference. There were also a pretty extensive list of maneuvers with mechanics in the complete fighter

Yeah, except the rules for HOW you did things in 2e were either very complicated, there were several overlapping rules, or there was just no rule at all, and even 2e didn't clearly state how to handle things the rules didn't cover. I know, I DMed 2e for like 10 years, it was rare for players to do anything outside of the basic combat rules. You never had any idea what the DM would do. Even the basic combat rules were incredibly unclear. Could you just move past an enemy if you didn't want to engage him? Nobody knows even that basic question, the rules don't answer it. Without even basic mechanical structure well-defined there was very little way to handle the more involved stuff.

2e's specific, optional, and situational rules were frankly terrible and unworkable. Why could you knock someone out with a punch, but a 2.5 lb footman's mace up side the head couldn't do the same thing? The grappling rules were slow, complicated, and highly lopsided. Using them was an invitation to disaster. Non-lethal combat was likewise not clearly explained and hard to use. Things like parrying, disarming, etc were indeed in Complete Fighter or something, but they were ALSO in the basic PHB/DMG in different form. Which was the one to use? They often didn't use standard mechanics, which meant it was hard/impossible to apply things like ability modifiers, etc.

In terms of basic generalized "handle anything non-specific with the core rules" 4e is LIGHT YEARS ahead of 2e (and 3.x for that matter). They were decent games and there are aspects of say 2e combat that could be cool and fun, but OTOH it really didn't work well at all when you went outside of what the rules covered. That's my experience. Since I started running 4e instead of 2e PCs pull all sorts of cool stunts and tricks far more often and far more confidently than before.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My experience was the opposite: lack of codefied rules lead to a lot more players doing unusual things in combat. I ran 2E from 89 until about 2001 and just didn't have the experience you are describing. Now the KO chart was problematic. Not my favorite part of that edition (exactly for the reason you site). But for me 2E provided much better play than 4E (which I have a very hard time getting into as player or GM).

4E clearly works better for you and that is cool. For some the clear delineation of martial powers and emphasis on the grid are a major feature, for me I prefer 2Es more open approach that doesn't emphasize the grid over that or 3e (though I think 3E did make some key improvements). For me, I have no problem with the GM applying common sense to a situation and making an ad hoc rules call (though there still are plenty of optional rules in 2E if you need them--particularly when you include stuff from the complete books.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Here's something I was wondering about:

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

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

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

By challenge based you mean something like old-school dungeon crawl where everything is about say figuring out a trap? Hmmmmm. Doesn't seem to me like that matches too well with scene-framing. I think you can have scenes of that type but it would be hard to imagine an entire game where the DM just through nothing but that sort of thing at the players, there'd be very little plot, so you'd be just as well off to play true old-school.

 

[Imaro]

In terms of basic generalized "handle anything non-specific with the core rules" 4e is LIGHT YEARS ahead of 2e (and 3.x for that matter). They were decent games and there are aspects of say 2e combat that could be cool and fun, but OTOH it really didn't work well at all when you went outside of what the rules covered. That's my experience. Since I started running 4e instead of 2e PCs pull all sorts of cool stunts and tricks far more often and far more confidently than before.

Yeah, I still haven't had this experience with the 4e games I have played in or ran. What I've experienced is alot more time spent looking over pages of powers trying to find one (or the best one) to use in a particular situation than any regular usage of off the cuff improvisation or cool stunts and tricks. Another thing that kind of dissuades players is that in the core rules there isn't really anything except DC's and damage... so if players want to perform an action that does something besides damage, there really isn't any greater level of confidence given to them (or the DM) in adjudication than with any other edition, since most of their powers allow them to do damage + (some effect) alot of times a pure damage stunt is going to fall short of a power anyway, so it's ignored in favor of a power... As a personal pet peeve, I find the use of objective DC's for some things and character level-based DC's for other actions to be inconsistent and confusing in which to apply in what circumstance when improvising. All IME of course.

 

[pemerton]

I can't speak for Pemertonian scene-framing

An esoteric technique of my own design!

What scene-based play doesn't do particularly well is attrition. Gradual depletion of resources.

<snip>

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

I agree with this. That's what I meant when I mentioned upthread that you can't do Gygaxian/Pulsipherian play using scene framing; and I think at least part of what [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] had in mind in talking about "combat as sport".

Personally I think resource management in rpgs is an illusion in any game where the DM determines the passage of time. But that's probably a whole other topic.

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

I think this is right. What's interesting is the playstyle that [MENTION=58416]Johnny3D3D[/MENTION] talks about, where control over the passage of time is shared between GM (default situational and pacing authority) and players (limited situational authority via Rope Trick, Teleport etc).

In a sense, even if the players have their PCs teleport back to their castle home base, it's always open to the GM to have an assault take place. But I think social contract understandings can develop where this won't happen - so provided the players deploy the right resource set, and manage their capacity to do so (teleport is a primary example), they can manage the passage of time relative to challenges faced. (This is assuming an otherwise static situation. If the GM is able to decide eg that the bad guys decide to excecute the prisoners right away, then we're back in the case where the GM has control.)

scene-framing, with its fluid use of time, is particularly unsuited to games aimed at testing resource management.

I think it's notable that one frequent criticism of 4e is that it shifts resource management predominantly (though not exclusively) to within the encounter, where the GM does not have unilaterial control over the passage of time.

As for healing surges and dailies, I agree that these are mostly about regulating tension. One way they do this is by distributing risk and capability within the group. For instance, an encounter in which one PC is out of dailies, or has not healing surges left, has a distinct tactical feel (as well as a potential story/thematic feel) that is different from an encounter where all PCs are at more-or-less full strength.

 

[Argyle King]

An esoteric technique of my own design!

I think this is right. What's interesting is the playstyle that @Johnny3D3D talks about, where control over the passage of time is shared between GM (default situational and pacing authority) and players (limited situational authority via Rope Trick, Teleport etc).

In a sense, even if the players have their PCs teleport back to their castle home base, it's always open to the GM to have an assault take place. But I think social contract understandings can develop where this won't happen - so provided the players deploy the right resource set, and manage their capacity to do so (teleport is a primary example), they can manage the passage of time relative to challenges faced. (This is assuming an otherwise static situation. If the GM is able to decide eg that the bad guys decide to excecute the prisoners right away, then we're back in the case where the GM has control.)

yes and no
That is a style I've seen done, but I wouldn't say it matches up with mine. The differences may be minor, but they are ones which are important to me.

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. To a lot of people, that sounds like a very small or non-existent difference. To me, I think it's an important one.

I'm not suggesting that's the only style I game in. It's simply a baseline ideal that I have. I often compromise that ideal due to the ideals of the system I happen to be playing at the time and due to the ideals of the other people I game with. Overall, if I had to take a stab at defining my ideal, I'd say it's a balance between Sim and Narrative, but that seems to fit poorly into how other people define parts of a rpg.

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. (Though, as mentioned above, I have played/run games like that because I was running a style which suited a group; not just me.) The castle itself as a tangible thing offers protection by virtue of being a castle. It's worth mentioning that I feel I need to deviate from this ideal when playing D&D in general; not just 4th Edition.

 

[Garthanos]

and character level-based DC's for other actions .

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.

 

[Libramarian]

Here's something I was wondering about:

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

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

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

Well I think that for the players challenge-based play is more rational in character than emotional, so the experience is naturally more tolerant of slow/inconsistent pacing. You don't need to keep the fires hot, as it were. I've noticed that in a story-based game, the players tend to get bored before the DM, while in a challenge-based game, the DM tends to get bored before the players do. I think that's significant. And then big, open problems with lots of potential solutions tend to be more fun (other aspects being equal), so why not go more "what do you do?" sandboxy.

 

[JamesonCourage]

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

Effort appreciated, and caveat understood.

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

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

I think have a mental grasp on what you're saying, but I think I might have an objection depending on where this is going.

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

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

Oh, I see what you mean in regards to strong scene framing. The GM is much more proactive in cranking up the tension, so he may do that whether or not you're spending that 16 power. Which might mean more stressful situations when you have 16 power (anything that might take up 4-16 power, say), or less stressful when you're at 4 power (enough to make you sweat, but not as big a threat as you could handle at 16).

This isn't necessarily always the case in gaming, of course. I think I'll go into that later.

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

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

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

I hope that makes some sense.

I 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"?

Now, I know what you mean by "managing against what?" in that there's often an unknown quantity of time. I guess my reply to that is "all of time", in a sense. They're managing resources like food so that they can go as long as they can without starving. And, I know what you mean in regards to strong scene framing making this less prevalent, since a lot of the time it's about purposefully cranking up the tension, which often means not letting the PCs unceremoniously die from starvation if they didn't bring enough food (you might wait until they're weak, and then give them a situation where they might have to resort to banditry to survive, or have them find food carried by some evil orcs, or whatever).

But, if a game isn't based around that kind of strong scene framing, where you can unceremoniously die from not eating, isn't keeping track of food a form of resource management (since you know when the penalties for not eating will kick in)? Just curious on your thoughts on that (and a question below, too). As always, play what you like

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

This is similar to what I'm talking about. The same goes for food to a greater extent (when the game has rules for not eating, for example). The party can have a firm grip on the passage of time, barring interruptions (which will happen in a strong scene framing style more often, I'd imagine). The PCs in my current game keep letting months go by, while they lead a unit in war (though interruptions happen occasionally along the way). They essentially can say "I want to wait [X amount of time], doing the same stuff. I want to try to get A, B, and C done along the way."

Of course, this can still happen in strong scene framing games, too. But this does give the players some pretty strong control over the passage of time. 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? As always, play what you like

 

[Argyle King]

Effort appreciated, and caveat understood.


This is similar to what I'm talking about. The same goes for food to a greater extent (when the game has rules for not eating, for example). The party can have a firm grip on the passage of time, barring interruptions (which will happen in a strong scene framing style more often, I'd imagine). The PCs in my current game keep letting months go by, while they lead a unit in war (though interruptions happen occasionally along the way). They essentially can say "I want to wait [X amount of time], doing the same stuff. I want to try to get A, B, and C done along the way."

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.