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

[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.