As someone who does a lot of scene-framing, I'll start by saying this: it concerns things like intent and game procedure and these are things which are a lot easier to do, or see in action, than to write about. Because the 'what' of how the game appears on the page may superficially look similar to another playstyle even if the 'how' - the interactions producing the fiction - are different.
In my view, the fundamental cornerstone of scene-framing is character. I don't mean character sheet. Not stats, skills or resources. I mean things that talk directly about personality, goals, flaws, relationships, dependencies, desires, problems. In this sense Str 15, Dex 12 are not character. Character is this: 'Pursued by bounty hunters for dumping Jabba's spice cargo'.
You can not frame a scene if all you know about a character is that they have Str 15, Dex 12. You can frame a scene knowing nothing except that a character is being pursued by bounty hunters for dumping Jabba's spice cargo. If you think about that scene from Star Wars... it doesn't start with Han Solo arriving in the bar, buying a drink, small talking with the barman, trying to chat up some local floozy and then sitting down. It cuts right into the action. The scene is framed: Han is talking with Ledo, a bounty hunter looking to collect Jabba's money.
To do that in an RPG requires some certainties - player understanding of what the scene is and why it's happening, player investment in how this scene could affect their future. As GMs we need the player to provide these things or scene-framing is dead before it has started.
We all know how Star Wars goes. However, for the purposes of an attempt at explanation, let's assume that we're GMing for hunted pilot Han Solo in a sci-fi campaign and nothing has been pre-determined.
We frame straight into our scene with Ledo. Ledo wants the bounty, so he wants to kill or capture Solo. During the scene Han Solo says that all he wants is time to get this easy job done and then he'll have Jabba's money. That's our GM cue right there - the player has told us Han intends to pay if he can get the cash together. Ledo still tries to kill or capture Han - that's his goal - but the cue gives us a cool idea for the next scene if Han escapes.
Unless there are other characters in the game, or other important themes to play with at this point, the next scene we jump to is the rocky remains of Aldeberan floating in space (our cool idea). No messing about. We cut from the bar and say 'Okay, you've jumped your passengers into the system, but there's just this unexplained asteroid field and no planet.'
Why? Because we know Han's motive is to do the job to get paid. He told us in the bar scene, so we know we've got player buy-in. As GM we're introducing a new complication into getting paid. He can't land the passengers on the planet because the planet has been blown up. That's scene-framing. Using the motives and goals the players bring to the table - based on what they say and do in game - to create the next scene.
That's an illustration, so here's a few points from my experience. Written down it looks easy. At the table it is not. If you play a FATE game, where 5 players each have 10 Aspects, you may have 50 goals and flaws and problems competing for time and if you've got 2 ideas for each of those then you've got 100 possible scenes before play even begins. Then people start interacting with each other and NPCs and before you know it you've got thousands of potential directions to take play.
At which point feeling out the players becomes necessary. So if someone threatens an NPC like this - 'Drop the gun or I'll burn your damn house down' you might say 'That would be a cool scene...'. If you get a good vibe back from the table, well if it's still appropriate by the end of this scene then as the spotlight comes back to that player you could say 'Okay, so you're outside Jed's ranch with torches and oil somewhere just after midnight. You're starting forward when suddenly you hear the tail of the rattler as it rears up right in front of you'. Previously stated goal - burn house down. New complication - rattlesnake.
It looks easy on the page. But try it and you'll get players going 'But, but, I was going to town to buy a new gun' or 'No, I would have scouted before so I didn't stumble into a rattlesnake'. That's because a lot of players are used to a continuous flow of time. And, to be frank, an awful lot are not used to their character's goals, flaws and problems being focused on so aggressively.
And that's even assuming they care. I've met a lot of player who don't give two hoots about relationships and goals and character - they just want to succeed at whatever is put in front of them. To show off how competent they are. Scene-framing is not a vehicle for that. When I cut into Jed's ranch and a rattlesnake, I'm not asking 'Are you good enough to deal with a rattlesnake?' I'm asking 'How much are you willing to risk in order to make good on your threat?' The scene is not there to process the outcome of success or failure, it is there to reveal more character to be used for future scenes.
This is why games written to this style (Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World and it's spin offs like Dungeon World and Monsterhearts, FATE to some extent, Dogs in the Vineyard for sure) don't tend to penalise failure particularly hard. Failure simply imforms the next scene. Jason Morningstar games like Fiasco and Shab Al-Hiri Roach don't penalise failure at all. Compare with D&D, RQ, Traveller, where failure is usually measured by limb loss and bodycount.
Finally, one tell-tale sign for this style is to watch your own GM-ing. Starting scenes is easy. But how are you ending them? And how are you moving on to something else? If you say 'What do you do now?' you are not playing using scene-framing. If you cut to a place where nothing is happening right now you are not playing using scene-framing. Scene-framing in the most aggressive sense means going 'bang!' - straight into the conflict, straight into the action. And again. And again. When it hums like this, as each scene unfolds everyone at the table is alive with ideas as to what the next scene will be be.
In my view, the fundamental cornerstone of scene-framing is character. I don't mean character sheet. Not stats, skills or resources. I mean things that talk directly about personality, goals, flaws, relationships, dependencies, desires, problems. In this sense Str 15, Dex 12 are not character. Character is this: 'Pursued by bounty hunters for dumping Jabba's spice cargo'.
You can not frame a scene if all you know about a character is that they have Str 15, Dex 12. You can frame a scene knowing nothing except that a character is being pursued by bounty hunters for dumping Jabba's spice cargo. If you think about that scene from Star Wars... it doesn't start with Han Solo arriving in the bar, buying a drink, small talking with the barman, trying to chat up some local floozy and then sitting down. It cuts right into the action. The scene is framed: Han is talking with Ledo, a bounty hunter looking to collect Jabba's money.
To do that in an RPG requires some certainties - player understanding of what the scene is and why it's happening, player investment in how this scene could affect their future. As GMs we need the player to provide these things or scene-framing is dead before it has started.
We all know how Star Wars goes. However, for the purposes of an attempt at explanation, let's assume that we're GMing for hunted pilot Han Solo in a sci-fi campaign and nothing has been pre-determined.
We frame straight into our scene with Ledo. Ledo wants the bounty, so he wants to kill or capture Solo. During the scene Han Solo says that all he wants is time to get this easy job done and then he'll have Jabba's money. That's our GM cue right there - the player has told us Han intends to pay if he can get the cash together. Ledo still tries to kill or capture Han - that's his goal - but the cue gives us a cool idea for the next scene if Han escapes.
Unless there are other characters in the game, or other important themes to play with at this point, the next scene we jump to is the rocky remains of Aldeberan floating in space (our cool idea). No messing about. We cut from the bar and say 'Okay, you've jumped your passengers into the system, but there's just this unexplained asteroid field and no planet.'
Why? Because we know Han's motive is to do the job to get paid. He told us in the bar scene, so we know we've got player buy-in. As GM we're introducing a new complication into getting paid. He can't land the passengers on the planet because the planet has been blown up. That's scene-framing. Using the motives and goals the players bring to the table - based on what they say and do in game - to create the next scene.
That's an illustration, so here's a few points from my experience. Written down it looks easy. At the table it is not. If you play a FATE game, where 5 players each have 10 Aspects, you may have 50 goals and flaws and problems competing for time and if you've got 2 ideas for each of those then you've got 100 possible scenes before play even begins. Then people start interacting with each other and NPCs and before you know it you've got thousands of potential directions to take play.
At which point feeling out the players becomes necessary. So if someone threatens an NPC like this - 'Drop the gun or I'll burn your damn house down' you might say 'That would be a cool scene...'. If you get a good vibe back from the table, well if it's still appropriate by the end of this scene then as the spotlight comes back to that player you could say 'Okay, so you're outside Jed's ranch with torches and oil somewhere just after midnight. You're starting forward when suddenly you hear the tail of the rattler as it rears up right in front of you'. Previously stated goal - burn house down. New complication - rattlesnake.
It looks easy on the page. But try it and you'll get players going 'But, but, I was going to town to buy a new gun' or 'No, I would have scouted before so I didn't stumble into a rattlesnake'. That's because a lot of players are used to a continuous flow of time. And, to be frank, an awful lot are not used to their character's goals, flaws and problems being focused on so aggressively.
And that's even assuming they care. I've met a lot of player who don't give two hoots about relationships and goals and character - they just want to succeed at whatever is put in front of them. To show off how competent they are. Scene-framing is not a vehicle for that. When I cut into Jed's ranch and a rattlesnake, I'm not asking 'Are you good enough to deal with a rattlesnake?' I'm asking 'How much are you willing to risk in order to make good on your threat?' The scene is not there to process the outcome of success or failure, it is there to reveal more character to be used for future scenes.
This is why games written to this style (Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World and it's spin offs like Dungeon World and Monsterhearts, FATE to some extent, Dogs in the Vineyard for sure) don't tend to penalise failure particularly hard. Failure simply imforms the next scene. Jason Morningstar games like Fiasco and Shab Al-Hiri Roach don't penalise failure at all. Compare with D&D, RQ, Traveller, where failure is usually measured by limb loss and bodycount.
Finally, one tell-tale sign for this style is to watch your own GM-ing. Starting scenes is easy. But how are you ending them? And how are you moving on to something else? If you say 'What do you do now?' you are not playing using scene-framing. If you cut to a place where nothing is happening right now you are not playing using scene-framing. Scene-framing in the most aggressive sense means going 'bang!' - straight into the conflict, straight into the action. And again. And again. When it hums like this, as each scene unfolds everyone at the table is alive with ideas as to what the next scene will be be.
Last edited:
