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

[Manbearcat]

And even in @Manbearcat 's example of using a History check in the same sort of way as a BW Wise, it is not being used to frame adversity. It is being used as a resource, in something that functionally resembles buying equipment in standard D&D play. In both cases the player is using one resource (a skill, a gp total) to add another resource (a bit of gameworld backstory, a bit of equipment in the PC's possession). There's no reason for one to pose any more threat to the unfolding of the game than the other. Of course the game will break if players can add unlimited rings of wishes to their PCs' equipment lists - we have both rules and GMing techniques to preclude that. Likewise I'm pretty sure @Manbearcat has rules and techniques that preclude using History to learn that an ancient sage once discovered that all enemies will be destroyed if ony the PC says the magic world in this particular place on this particular occasion.

That is precisely correct (from top to bottom) and an astute observation. Unfortunately I think that portion of my post is what some people focused on (perhaps I shouldn't have included it). I didn't want for "narrative control/authority" to be conflated with "scene-framing mechanics" but it appears that the focus of my post and your post (regarding Orcus) may have lent to that. When I was disputing the narrative control absolutism upthread here, I was responding to @GSHamster tangential statement and @Kamikaze Midget tangential refrain that if players have ANY authority then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down as they effectively have FULL authority; an incorrect absolutism regarding narrative control. KM was definitely using it with context as a vessel to say that if players have ANY narrative authority than their IMMERSION comes undone...but that was secondary to what I wanted to address (but I addressed that as well).

Nonetheless, the two concepts are not one in the same nor must you provide narrative authority to players to perform scene-framing. Scene-framing can be performed by GM at a table with a Process-Simulation, PC-Actor stance creative agenda (albeit with much more difficulty as you are restrained in your application of pressure due to the natural rigidity of outcomes).

In any case my own use of 4e tends to fall into something that varies from simply framing scenes in purely dramatic terms to somewhat more concrete semi-exploratory play (and now and then I like to throw in a bone to pure exploration, like a mini-dungeon or something, the old days were FUN, just not what I want to endlessly re-experience every week).

That's a very good post and I agree with it. It sounds as though our playstyles are pretty similar (not that that is a particularly keen observation, as I suspect many are)

The post I'm responding to made that equation, and I was simply going forward with that statement and following where it lead.

Since you've said that's not the case, there's no real need to pursue that particular thread any farther.

I'm assuming you're referring to my rejoinder regarding narrative control/authority (as above). That was not me conflating narrative control/authority with scene-framing (or even saying the two have anything to do with each other). That was me responding to two tangential posts conflating limited narrative control/authority with absolute narrative control/authority. I just didn't want that erroneous statement to start rolling downhill and get out of the gate without being hemmed in. Perhaps I missed it and you're referring to another post?

 

[Argyle King]

I understand what you mean, but ULTIMATELY it is all the DM and/or the players. In my youth I believed that process sim sandbox style worlds taken to the extreme with an absolute neutral arbiter DM was some sort of monadic ideal. I think that was kind of a pretty commonly held misconception of the mid-late 70's. I've since evolved FAR past that... Its my world, it only exists as far as I bring it to life, and what I haven't brought onto the stage is provisional and advisory. IMHO what a lot of people are trying to insist on is that D&D remain stuck forever in that 70's stage of development of thinking about RPGs. Its arguable that some game should exist in that niche, but I'd be sad to see D&D relegated to that lingering undead state.

I wasn't alive in the 70s, so I have no grounds from which to speak upon what the style was then.

I somewhat disagree that everything is "ultimately the DM." The pieces I mention (assuming my ideal style of running a game) have influences and desires which are not the same as what my own are. I do not give special knowledge to those pieces; they view the game world from their perspective. As DM, my perspective is godlike because I can see things the in-game entities cannot. When taking on the role of an in-game pieces, I also take upon myself the limitations that piece has.

It's also worth mentioning that I'm not always the person controlling those pieces. During times when I've had extra people at a game session, I've asked them to play the parts of characters. In other games, I've also had certain people regularly play a NPC... which I suppose by definition would turn that character into a PC, but that's besides the point. One game in particular which comes to mind is a supers game I ran. During the face-to-face sessions of the game, the heroes were the PCs. One of the main villains (behind the scenes; mastermind type) of campaign had his actions controlled by a friend of mine who was not involved in the game directly.

Between the face-to-face sessions I had with the players who were the heroes, I would talk to the guy controlling the villain to get from him how he wanted his schemes to proceed. I did not give him knowledge that the in-game villain would not be capable of knowing. If he wanted to gather information about something, he'd have to send minions to gather it or find ways to gain the information. Based on what he knew and how he saw the personality of the villain he was playing, he would tell me how he wanted to proceed. Since he was unable to attend the face-to-face game most times, I also asked him to provide me with what basically amounted to default instructions/actions in the event his character would be confronted by the PCs.

That particular example is probably an outlier. I don't imagine most games work that way. Still, even without someone else making the decisions for a character, I do my best to make decisions for in-game pieces based upon what those pieces can know and perceive in-game. One of the reasons I do that and one of the reasons I do what I can to distinguish my role as DM (out of game entity) from that of decisions I make for characters in-game is because it helps to prevent me from becoming too attached to a particular character. I've seen a lot of DMs who develop too much of a fondness for a villain or NPC, and then they start fudging to protect that character or they figure out a way to grant plot protection to them. There still are characters I become fond of; that's a natural thing, but I strive to ensure the players have a level playing field, and I believe part of that is by making sure the in-game pieces I control have the same limitations on what they know and perceive as the the in-game pieces the players control.

I'm probably more harsh on myself when it comes to metagaming than I am on the players. It happens. I know it does, and sometimes it does even in spite of best efforts to keep it from happening. Still, I find it less disruptive to the rpg experience as a whole if a player metagames and gets a minor advantage than if the DM metagames and uses knowledge gained from that to hurt the efforts of the players.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Perhaps I missed it and you're referring to another post?

Yes, I believe it was a post extrapolating from pemerton's example what that might mean in terms of player control of the world (comparing it to Burning Wheel).

KM was definitely using it with context as a vessel to say that if players have ANY narrative authority than their IMMERSION comes undone

I think it might be more precise to say that narrative authority and immersion are two entirely different cognitive exercises, and so can't be done at the same time. It's possible that people can swap between them quickly (within moments!), but they can't both be done at the same time. Pretending to think like an individual means abandoning meta-context, and thinking about meta-context necessarily means not thinking like a person embedded in that context.

Unless your Abed Nadir, I suppose. (especially pointed out at 1:18)

[video=youtube;TYG_-hbuuNk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=TYG_-hbuuNk[/video]

 

[Manbearcat]

Yes, I believe it was a post extrapolating from pemerton's example what that might mean in terms of player control of the world (comparing it to Burning Wheel).

10-4

I think it might be more precise to say that narrative authority and immersion are two entirely different cognitive exercises, and so can't be done at the same time. It's possible that people can swap between them quickly (within moments!), but they can't both be done at the same time. Pretending to think like an individual means abandoning meta-context, and thinking about meta-context necessarily means not thinking like a person embedded in that context.

I should give you xp just for responding with the speed (and having that youtube link handy) with which you did (but I can't xp you). Impressive.

What about reading a book from 3rd person omniscient? I've read tons and tons and tons of books...been completely immersed, although I'm not immersing via 1st person perspective. Also, because sensory information provided is not absolute, I'm creating the geometry and color of the story in my mind while I read. As such, much like a player in a TTRPG, I have limited narrative control of the imaginary space (in TTRPGs this is shared) as I in-fill the missing details using my own extrapolation and perceptions. Further along those lines, what about DMing? Can DMs never be immersed?

Perhaps including the qualifier "1st person" immersion or "actor-stance" immersion would be more precise in expressing your position? However, even when you do that, how do you account for that in-filling due to lack of absolute sensory information? Players concoct their portion of the shared imaginary space via their own subjective perceptions and deductive extrapolations. Is that not limited narrative control/authority?

There is probably something to be said here about eye-witnesses to an event each having their own askew slant to the details of what they saw (sometimes grossly askew) and, as such, even in real life authoring varying accounts (sometimes wildly) from their limited, human vantage points.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Best advice seems to be "Play a PF Paladin instead".

Have you read the Tome of Battle? If not, want to borrow it? It's the 3.X "Powers for fighters" book - Moment of Perfect Mind (a L1 power) lets you at the cost of an immediate action and expending it use a concentration check in place of a will save (and Warblades recover their powers as a swift action, so you can do this two turns running).

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think it might be more precise to say that narrative authority and immersion are two entirely different cognitive exercises, and so can't be done at the same time. It's possible that people can swap between them quickly (within moments!), but they can't both be done at the same time. Pretending to think like an individual means abandoning meta-context, and thinking about meta-context necessarily means not thinking like a person embedded in that context.

Unless your Abed Nadir, I suppose. (especially pointed out at 1:18)

It's a lot wider range than Abed Nadir. In the Tiffany Aching books by Terry Pratchett the concept is referred to when inside Tiffany's head as first thoughts, second thoughts, and third thoughts (the first thoughts being the immediate reactions, the second thoughts being contextual awareness, and the third monitoring the second and being almost meta-awareness). Abed's taking things a little far - but in a game with narrative authority, although I might not be able to immerse (as opposed to storytell and entertain) as Hakka the big dumb fighter, I have no problem at all immersing as Krush the smart half-orc mastermind who pretends to be a big dumb fighter (and is good at it) because he wants everyone to underestimate him and treat him as a big dumb fighter while at the same time knowing that by being a visible dumb and good hearted half orc fighter he is changing the reputation of dumb half-orcs one story at a time.

And fundamentally I find Krush far more interesting for more than a session of comic relief than I do Hakka.

 

[S'mon]

Have you read the Tome of Battle? If not, want to borrow it? It's the 3.X "Powers for fighters" book - Moment of Perfect Mind (a L1 power) lets you at the cost of an immediate action and expending it use a concentration check in place of a will save (and Warblades recover their powers as a swift action, so you can do this two turns running).

Thanks - I haven't read it; I definitely wouldn't mind looking over it, but it almost certainly wouldn't be allowed in any Pathfinder Meetup game I'd likely play in.

 

[S'mon]

I might not be able to immerse (as opposed to storytell and entertain) as Hakka the big dumb fighter

Clearly you act my deNiro-esque acting talents Francis, since I have no trouble immersing myself in the role of an INT 8 drunken Norse dwarf barbarian. Especially once I've had a couple pints.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thanks - I haven't read it; I definitely wouldn't mind looking over it, but it almost certainly wouldn't be allowed in any Pathfinder Meetup game I'd likely play in.

Your Tuesday game's near enough I should be able to drop it off after work. IIRC you also wanted a look at Sharn?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Clearly you act my deNiro-esque acting talents Francis, since I have no trouble immersing myself in the role of an INT 8 drunken Norse dwarf barbarian. Especially once I've had a couple pints.

Doh! Context is king and I wasn't clear enough about the context. I can immerse as Hakka in a game without narrative authority. But for Krush to work I need the sort of system to support him.