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

[pemerton]

I think the way in which scene-framing is supposed to give some structure to story-based play and keep it from turning into the sort of confused DM self-flagellation that I see in this and other Critical Hits posts, is it makes it clear to the DM how far they're supposed to go in their prep and how much they're supposed to leave open.

Yes. The metaphor would be "narrow entry, wide exit", but that's very generic and abstract.

I don't know if you saw my response upthread, but to get the "PC dies" thing out of scene framing play, you need some action resolution mechanic that lets the player trigger PC death, or raise the "death flag", or whatever - so the player spends his/her PC's life as a resource.

Otherwise, you can't die if the action resolution doesn't take you there! (Like [MENTION=98255]Nemesis Destiny[/MENTION]'s post upthread.)

 

[D'karr]

Reported:

onlinedentatm

Posts
1

 

[S'mon]

the sort of confused DM self-flagellation that I see in this and other Critical Hits posts...

"I try so hard... I prepare so thoroughly... I had everything planned out... I try so much to give my players whatever they want.. Why does my DMing suck/Why did my campaign fail/Why is everyone bored?"

Like I said, I do find Vanir, Chatty DM, Id DM, and the whole Critical Hits crowd useful for counter-pointers on what NOT to do as a DM, but it can get sad and depressing reading the constant litany of failure, and they never seem to learn.
It's a bit as if they're stuck in a Twilight Zone episode where the '90s never ended, with the endless Greenbriar Chasm style campaign preplotting that inevitably derails and/or bores everyone. But more than that, unlike the classic '90s World of Darkness Viking Hat Railroader GM, they are trying to be good, they are trying so hard to cater to their players' own whims and desire for empowerment, and yet it's consistently such a trainwreck. If only they would read Pemerton.

 

[Storminator]

Yeah, I'm liking how that change has affected the game.

I allow characters to recharge basically any power as a free action, at the cost of a varying number of healing surges. Encounter powers, regardless of level cost 2. Daily attack powers are 4 for your highest level one, minus one for the next-highest, and so on. Daily utilities and item Dailies always recharge every day, even without an extended rest.

PCs can cash in APs for healing surges if they are otherwise out. APs are persistent, but do not refresh to 1 after an extended rest. I allow them to burn more than 1 per encounter, but when they're gone, they're gone. They are accumulated in the usual way, and whenever they gain a level, and sometimes as ad-hoc rewards. I sometimes give out healing surges as ad hoc rewards as well.

Though not relevant to this particular party, I have also switched the cost of all ritual use to healing surges instead of money, and this has done wonders to increase their use.

There's more, but I don't want to get too longwinded on the details.

If you wouldn't mind making a new thread, I'm pretty interested in the details.

PS

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

If you wouldn't mind making a new thread, I'm pretty interested in the details.

PS

Will do

 

[D'karr]

"I try so hard... I prepare so thoroughly... I had everything planned out... I try so much to give my players whatever they want.. Why does my DMing suck/Why did my campaign fail/Why is everyone bored?"

It is sad because the issue usually boils down to two things - wasted time in preparation and different expectations at the table.

I know that if I "spent hours preparing, trying so hard, and planning everything out", I'd be pretty bummed if my players we not interested. But my first thought should have been what are my expectations, and do they match my players expectations?

Many times DMs spend a lot of time putting together a game that nobody had any interest in playing from the get-go. It's like selling a refrigerator to an eskimo. They don't want it or need it.

This is all due to poor communication between the players and the DM. I might be the best DM at putting together a political intrigue campaign, but if my players were not even remotely interested in it the game will suck. My expectations and theirs are different.

they are trying to be good, they are trying so hard to cater to their players' own whims and desire for empowerment, and yet it's consistently such a trainwreck. If only they would read Pemerton.

I disagree with this only in the sense that if the DM doesn't communicate better with his players and actually listens nothing is going to make the game less of a trainwreck.

I've been playing with one of my gaming groups for almost 15 years. I know these players very well. Even then, before I go creating a new campaign or adventure arc, I put out a survey that let's me gauge what they want to see in the game. I view my role as DM almost as an entertainer. And I need to know my audience to be able to provide an entertaining event. A lot of DMs look at their role solely as "world creators & rules adjudicators." They forget that everyone at the table is getting together around the table to have a fun time. And that a great amount of that fun rests on the DM's shoulders.

Several years ago, when I first moved to this area, I was looking for a game group. I played with 4 different game groups before finding one that I really enjoyed, and eventually became good friends with the guys. There was one particularly horrible game group in that bunch, and the "horribleness" was solely due to the DM. It was obvious he had put a lot of effort in his campaign world, every nation had an org chart showing the political structure. Each nationality had their own language and accent. He had several house-rules to mold the game better to his vision of realism - but it was solely a self-satisfying experiment.

Everything we were 'allowed' to do was horribly railroaded. There were all kinds of "punishments" if the PCs deviated from the tracks. All that "preparation" was also for naught, we couldn't interact with anything within the "power structures" he had set in his org charts. I played with this group for exactly 3 sessions. The worst part is that this was the only group in which the DM had actually asked me what kind of game I wanted. He even mentioned that his campaign was "almost exactly like that."

So actually listening to your players is probably the most important trait to successful DMing.

 

[Libramarian]

Yes. The metaphor would be "narrow entry, wide exit", but that's very generic and abstract.

I don't know if you saw my response upthread, but to get the "PC dies" thing out of scene framing play, you need some action resolution mechanic that lets the player trigger PC death, or raise the "death flag", or whatever - so the player spends his/her PC's life as a resource.

Otherwise, you can't die if the action resolution doesn't take you there! (Like @Nemesis Destiny 's post upthread.)

By the "PC dies thing" you mean the player planning for their PC to die? If so, what you say here and in the earlier post makes sense to me.

"I try so hard... I prepare so thoroughly... I had everything planned out... I try so much to give my players whatever they want.. Why does my DMing suck/Why did my campaign fail/Why is everyone bored?"

Like I said, I do find Vanir, Chatty DM, Id DM, and the whole Critical Hits crowd useful for counter-pointers on what NOT to do as a DM, but it can get sad and depressing reading the constant litany of failure, and they never seem to learn.
It's a bit as if they're stuck in a Twilight Zone episode where the '90s never ended, with the endless Greenbriar Chasm style campaign preplotting that inevitably derails and/or bores everyone. But more than that, unlike the classic '90s World of Darkness Viking Hat Railroader GM, they are trying to be good, they are trying so hard to cater to their players' own whims and desire for empowerment, and yet it's consistently such a trainwreck. If only they would read Pemerton.

Haha yeah, I think if a DM is trying to use those psychographic profiles to categorize their players and actually designing their adventures to include a scene for each player type that's definitely a sign that they're trying too hard to please the players, instead of just contributing what they think would be cool to the game. Have those profiles ever actually been useful for anybody? My players don't even like me to talk to them about what I have planned; they want it to be a surprise as much as possible. We don't talk between sessions and preplan an upcoming scene at all, ever.

I can see why they're struggling though. It's hard to do dramatic story-based gaming where everybody contributes while maintaining the DM/player divide. That's basically how I see the problem of story-based gaming -- how to do it where the players can just show up and play their characters without the game breaking down into structureless brainstorming like "well, what do you want to happen next?". That seems like where scene-framing comes into the picture.

edit:
I do talk lots with my players about what they liked after the game/campaign. But I never give out surveys or have group planning sessions pre-campaign.

 

[pemerton]

By the "PC dies thing" you mean the player planning for their PC to die? If so, what you say here and in the earlier post makes sense to me.

Yes, and good.

My players don't even like me to talk to them about what I have planned; they want it to be a surprise as much as possible. We don't talk between sessions and preplan an upcoming scene at all, ever.

I can see why they're struggling though. It's hard to do dramatic story-based gaming where everybody contributes while maintaining the DM/player divide. That's basically how I see the problem of story-based gaming -- how to do it where the players can just show up and play their characters without the game breaking down into structureless brainstorming like "well, what do you want to happen next?". That seems like where scene-framing comes into the picture.

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.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@Nemesis Destiny , @Manbearcat has good ideas on how to run chase/travel skill challenges, using the disease track to help with exhaustion.

My only observation on this sort of stuff is that I think WotC's advice - if they fail the challenge, make the combat harder - is generally bad advice, for two reasons: (i) if the harder combat ends up being more exciting, then you reward for succeeding at the challenge is a more boring follow-up encounter; (ii) if the harder/extra combat ends up being just a grind/speedbump, then the penatly for failing at the challenge is a more tedious/pointless play experience.

I think it's better to use success/failure to modulate the stakes rather than modulate the actual fun of play. So if they fail in their bid to get to the demon tower on time, the stakes might be (say) rescuing the ally from imminent sacrifice; whereas if they succeed, then the stakes might be (say) infiltration, or even an easy/auto-rescue (depending how exactly you want to set it up) followed by additional intelligence gathering/surgical striking.

Not at all trying to prescribe anything here or disrupt your planning - just some thoughts!

I think the concept of reward/punishment is meaningless. Everyone is there to play and have fun, so the DM is ALWAYS aiming to have things be fun. The only measures left are narrative control and moving the story forward. Success by the PCs should move things forward in a direction the players desire, failure should 'thwart' the characters in some way and perhaps give the DM more say in the advancement of the story (however player/DM control of the plot is more subject to the desires of the participants than to what happens in-game).

IMHO games always DO work to some extent in this fashion. Again, even the most simulationist DM is constantly inventing the world according to SOME sort of agenda. Even the most sandbox game has some criteria by which the elements of the sandbox are selected and arranged. Beyond that we all bend our descriptions, present plot hooks, 'customize' rolls on tables, etc in ways that move the game in a certain direction. If a DM makes up some awesome adventure or buys some new module they're certainly going to lay in all the plot hooks and bend all their efforts towards getting the PCs there.

I'm still having trouble understanding what [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] absolute immersionist play is. Do you guys literally sit at a table talking only in 1st person for 3-4 hours solid without ever breaking character? How can combat in any edition of D&D work that way? Surely you have to explain to the DM in 3rd person what your character is doing, roll dice, etc. I guess what I'm saying is we're all playing an RPG. How big actually is the difference between our group where we act out some purely RP scenes roughly in 1st person and use 1st person in-character talk when its interesting to do so otherwise and whatever you're doing? I suspect if we compared our actual play there'd be relatively small differences, if any. I think the question is more about which parts of the game are the cream filling and which are the cookie part.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

IMX, if the PCs don't notice the healing surge loss.

Chipping away at the healing surges invokes the resource management play that doesn't really mesh with PSF. How differently will they engage your encounter if they are light a few surges? My guess would be they would fight your monsters/NPCs tooth and nail either way, and then the skill challenge result determines if they need an extended rest. So the consequences of your skill challenge are pushed off an entire scene, and it will feel disconnected.

You should try to tie the consequences of the skill challenge into the framing of the next scene - like pemerton's stake raising suggestion. The opening of the next scene should flow out of the last scene.

PS

True, but I'm not sure you should run a campaign on the basis of everything JUST feeding into the next scene. I don't know what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has to say about it, but to me STRATEGIC consequences are more interesting than tactical ones, but both have their place and I think players understand and play the resource game, so they're not exactly disconnected from resource loss. OTOH it is an abstract consequence, so it may not always be visceral enough. You could add in something, like a disability of some kind on top of it in some situations. The Despair Deck for instance could be used that way, or you could just do as suggested above and have a penalty. You could use the disease track too.