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

[Nemesis Destiny]

Once we had company in from out of town and did some fairy tale based one shots. One based on Little Red Riding Hood started with Grandmother giving us a shopping list. It was supposed to be a little setting color and motivate us to go to town to start the adventure. After we went to the 3rd shop keeper to haggle for apples the DM told us to drop it and get along with the adventure.

We really thought we were going to use that bag of flour, apples, and jar of sugar for something . . .

PS

Haha, that sounds awesome!

My wife runs games with 'fun' themes like this in them, and I always enjoy them. She has a whole series of themed dungeons that have acquired a favourable reputation for zaniness in our local gaming community.

 

[pemerton]

On the resource management point - I tend to exercise quite a bit of control over the timing of extended rests in my 4e game, so HS loss matters to the players, because it changes the way they engage in combat. (Eg at the moment the invoker has 3 of 7 surges left and so is being more cautious than he might otherwise be).

That said, the PCs can use a ritual to create a Hallowed Temple - thus setting their own extended rest timing - but this requires what is, for them, a significant number of ritual components that then won't be available for other purposes.

But as was mentioned upthread, I'm not sure that mere HS loss is visceral enough for consequences if the consequences are meant to be an important focus. That was why I suggested the "stakes" idea - locate the consequences in the fiction. I think [MENTION=305]Storminator[/MENTION] and [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] are on the same page in this respect.

 

[Libramarian]

I assumed reading that that Dire Flailings was a self-mocking tag, not the name of a column. Because honestly, my reaction to reading that was to want to take away Vanir's D&D books and instead give him a copy of Smallville. System matters - and in Smallville a lack of DM confidence isn't such a great issue. The DM's role is to create an enemy of the week based on the character's relationships and values that will cause them to fight like cats in a sack before they eventually work out how to work together and how far they can trust each other (as it normally beats the alternative). I think that and the oversized relationship map would suit Vanir far better than D&D would - and it would bring the awesome in the group out. (If I was feeling sadistic I'd offer him Monsterhearts instead and think that would do pretty well as well).

System matters. And there are systems to do what Vanir wants and have a compelling game. D&D is not a good example of one of them.

I think system matters, but the advice text in the game is crucial too. The adventure creation section in the 4e DMG with its advice to prep the "beginning, middle and end" of a whole ten encounter adventure is in pretty stark opposition to the scene-framing approach, where you set up an interesting situation that can be resolved in different ways and then follow the story where it goes.

Yes - the scene framing isn't a version of collaborative storytelling, it is an alternative to collaborative storytelling. And it's based around a fairly clear GM/player divide (though not necessarily completely traditional). The players send the signals via PC build, backstory (player control over PC backstory might be one area where there's a bit of departure from tradition), the way they actually play the game, etc; and the GM follows those leads.

If the GM misjudges the players' signals, or the players send signals that it turns out they're not that interested in following up on, then the game will fall flat. Being a good scene-framing GM involves, among other things, an ability to read those signals, respond to them, and adjust flexibly to maintain relevance and avoid falling flat as much as you can.

Cool. Structureless collaborative prep is pretty much the number cause of my story-game wariness. I think the first thing a game has to do in order to count as a successful game is to do something that you can't do just as well sitting around BSing.

 

[S'mon]

I think system matters, but the advice text in the game is crucial too. The adventure creation section in the 4e DMG with its advice to prep the "beginning, middle and end" of a whole ten encounter adventure is in pretty stark opposition to the scene-framing approach, where you set up an interesting situation that can be resolved in different ways and then follow the story where it goes.

I've noticed recently that a lot of official DMing advice seems more suitable for writing adventures for publication, than for running a game with material you created yourself.
With scene-framing I prep individual encounters, but I never prep how they turn out, and much prep is done session-by-session: I only need tonight's encounter(s). Most of what prep work I do with PSF is prepping NPCs, factions, and the plots and plans of those NPCs & factions, which in conjunction with players' own* plots & plans gives me a framework from which to draw scenes.

*In older pre-2e D&D it's assumed that the PCs are the most dynamic element in the setting; Gygax says so in the 1e DMG. Since 2e though a lot of players are very reactive, but while that is bad for sandboxing it doesn't hurt a PSF game. With dramatically framed scenes (scenes with 'Bangs') the players have to react somehow, and short of abject turtling, any reaction is fine.

 

[Storminator]

I've noticed recently that a lot of official DMing advice seems more suitable for writing adventures for publication, than for running a game with material you created yourself.
With scene-framing I prep individual encounters, but I never prep how they turn out, and much prep is done session-by-session: I only need tonight's encounter(s). Most of what prep work I do with PSF is prepping NPCs, factions, and the plots and plans of those NPCs & factions, which in conjunction with players' own* plots & plans gives me a framework from which to draw scenes.

I base each session on the previous session, and I typically prep 3 scenes. That's usually enough to get me thru a session, and usually any planning past that is wasted. There are exceptions. I did a "raid the rival clan" adventure where I built a dungeon and told the players they were raiding it. In that case I prepped the whole dungeon, and the adventure took 2 sessions. That was a case where the entire adventure was essentially one scene.

PS

 

[Libramarian]

I've noticed recently that a lot of official DMing advice seems more suitable for writing adventures for publication, than for running a game with material you created yourself.
With scene-framing I prep individual encounters, but I never prep how they turn out, and much prep is done session-by-session: I only need tonight's encounter(s). Most of what prep work I do with PSF is prepping NPCs, factions, and the plots and plans of those NPCs & factions, which in conjunction with players' own* plots & plans gives me a framework from which to draw scenes.

*In older pre-2e D&D it's assumed that the PCs are the most dynamic element in the setting; Gygax says so in the 1e DMG. Since 2e though a lot of players are very reactive, but while that is bad for sandboxing it doesn't hurt a PSF game. With dramatically framed scenes (scenes with 'Bangs') the players have to react somehow, and short of abject turtling, any reaction is fine.

That's how I was thinking a scene-framed game is generally prepped. That guy's "My Dwarf Died in Dark Sun" thread was a nice illustration of it I thought.

My players are not super proactive like "let's build a temple!" or "let's start a brewery!" but they know that the game world is designed to be unrealistically dense with interesting stuff, so if they just wander around and talk to people they'll find something fun to do pretty quickly.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

i suspect the differences are not that noticeable. I am not trying to lay out a gaming ideology here or a grand theory of play (I think those tend to be confine people too much) but simply descirbing what is important to me in play. So immersion is important and in character dialogue and point of view are important. Things that distract me seem to work against that, but I am not playing with a universal prohibition against third person or militantly opposed to things that on paper or argumentation would work against them. I am more worried about whether something actually bothers me in practice at the table than whether it should bother me in theory (I think is an important point and one that leads to a lot of self inflicted wounds among gamers).

That said, what my sessions tend to be is a blend of first and third person because there are times when you have to interface with the game through third person for convenience or mechanical neccesity. But the focus, the cream as you put it, is in character dialogue and world interaction---that is where the game is fun for me. Things like me constructiong scenes as a player, adding setting info, taking on typically GM responsibilities tend to frustrate my experience. Also things like flashbacks bother me as do attempts to have causation flow more from narrative needs than causal ones.

In terms of what it looks like, this means i usually speak in first person ("i go to the market", "I try obtain the higher ground and attack the orc with my sword", etc). It also means speaking in character most of time ("Tell me where you put the duke's secret cupcake recipe!" Instead of "I demand the bandit tell me where he put the duke's secret cupcake recipe).

this does mean sessions tend to be longer around the rp than the combat. I dont normally run D&D, normally I run and play my own games, which have a fast combat system. Cmbats at my table take five to fifteen minutes tops (and they can be much faster than that). But going into town and finding where the duke's secret cupcake recipe can take hours. Not because we stop and chat with every vendor we buy fruit from but because we do play out every interaction related directly to tracking the duke's cupcake recipe.

But like I said, you have to deviate from that once in a while. I mean it would be dull to never elapse time or force the players to always describe everything in first person. It is a tendancy more than anything else. A description of how I tend to play the game, what matters to me in play and what tends to trouble me. But i am always hesitant to make hard and fast rules. As I have said, I play dr who and savage worlds which both have story points (in savage world they are bennies). Those are resources my characters cant sense or handle. There is no way to really use a benny without speaking from out of your character'soint of view (unless you are using code words or something).

That's cool

As you say, in practice we're probably not doing anything super different, at least in basic terms. I'll agree with you on the "theory means little" sentiment too. Not to say I don't value listening to and discussing with Pemerton or Lost Soul, etc, but I just don't approach gaming analytically in terms of actual play.

Clearly though we're working towards somewhat opposite agendas when it comes down to it. Making an interesting and elaborate world, peopling it and fleshing it out with a history and playing around with the stories that come out of it interests me more than anything. I couldn't bear doing all that inventing myself. I like to have maximum player input, so things are much more story and environment directed in games I run. Those elements are often elaborated by the players and shaped by their character's agendas and story needs.

I can see why you would run your own system too. I think very few existing systems are designed entirely to work at one extreme, and it seems like you and your group like to go to pretty far in one direction. I think honestly D&D has always been at heart a pretty middle-of-the-road kind of system without a strict agenda informing it. The rest of the industry in a sense may have moved out from around D&D's position, so that the original Holmes Basic or 1e core books represent a type of game that isn't so common now, but I think most purists are not going to be D&D fans, it has and will continue to be a fairly neutral system. 4e seems to me honestly to be about the most neutral of all in that you can certainly play it many ways, though you may wish to use it differently or even not use some parts depending.

Anyway, thanks for the answer. It helps keep me straight on exactly where you're coming from.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

On the resource management point - I tend to exercise quite a bit of control over the timing of extended rests in my 4e game, so HS loss matters to the players, because it changes the way they engage in combat. (Eg at the moment the invoker has 3 of 7 surges left and so is being more cautious than he might otherwise be).

That said, the PCs can use a ritual to create a Hallowed Temple - thus setting their own extended rest timing - but this requires what is, for them, a significant number of ritual components that then won't be available for other purposes.

But as was mentioned upthread, I'm not sure that mere HS loss is visceral enough for consequences if the consequences are meant to be an important focus. That was why I suggested the "stakes" idea - locate the consequences in the fiction. I think @Storminator and @D'karr are on the same page in this respect.

Yeah, I find HS are quite material to my players. The cool thing though is if you get the players into the narrative and it is fun and compelling then stuff like that becomes as much a tool for making the story interesting as anything else. If the paladin loses a bunch of surges in an encounter then the players have the PCs grimly press on (and then they can have some fun grimness enhancing fun) or if they blow through something without breaking a sweat then they rush onward rashly, etc. I have good players though, they'll also simultaneously enjoy it in a more classic challenge sense, and RP the perspective of the PCs too. I guess we could focus on one of those aspects of play, but it never seems like just one holds our interest by itself for long. Sometimes I think we're almost playing around with agendas and that's the fun of it, lol. Oddly though nobody has ever whispered a word of any theory of what we're doing. I keep coming back to using D&D as a preferred system just because, like I said in response to [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], D&D is a system that doesn't try to go too deep down any one rabbit hole. It has resources, but isn't super meticulous or works them too deeply into the mechanics. It has plot coupons, but they're fairly limited ones, and some character attributes (alignment, I'd argue 4e skills too, theme, etc). 3.x could be bent pretty many ways too, as could 2e, though I find that mostly 4e caters to each inclination better. I think the only thing 4e really could have BADLY used was an official abstract combat system for people to use who don't want the tactical one.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think the only thing 4e really could have BADLY used was an official abstract combat system for people to use who don't want the tactical one.

Remind me to write my experimental quick combat system up, and my 13th Age hacks.

 

[Manbearcat]

Regarding the Healing Surge ablation as a legitimate source of attrition, I find that to be really and truly playstyle specific. For my small group, it is an acute source of attrition and a tight pacing mechanic. We have:

1) 3 players. Makeup is 1 Legitimate Striker (Rogue), 1 Striker/Controller/Defender Hybrid (Bladesinger), 1 Druid/Shaman Hybrid. That's 6 +, 7 +, 7 + Healing Surges.

2) Two of them use Martial Practices regularly (use of Healing Surges).

3) Damage for all creatures (PCs and NPCs) is upped + 1/2 levels.

4) I regularly run Exploration challenges and failed skills almost always cost 1 Healing Surge.

5) Second Wind is a Minor Action for all. The Rogue and Bladesinger each have the level 10 Healing Sure Skill Power when bloodied. My standard combats are L + 2, going up to L + 5. My players each have a highly groomed tactical acumen and I push them to their limits in almost every combat; I do not pull punches. There is nary a combat when 3-4 healing surges/character is not the average investment to retain maximum, or near it, HP.

Given all of these things, 9-10 Healing surges spent per character/day is pretty routine for them. A wilderness challenge lost, resulting in another of the same (with a healing surge, or its relevant value in HP if you have 0 HS, the cost for a failed check) and/or an associated, ablative disease track tacked onto that is up against, or beyond, their resource threshold...and things can get tense going through a dangerous wilderness exploration with 0 surges and bloodied.