RPGs are ... Role Playing Games

[Wolf1066]

I've heard the term "Agressive Scene Framing" thrown around on occassion. I think that might describe things better than "hard". Celebrim is right in that pretty much any "encounter" (by pretty much any definition of the term) is a framed scene. You have an initial set up, and the scenario begins.

Agressive Scene Framing allows the GM to simply dictate most or all of the initial elements of the scenario. Imagine a dungeon crawl, but, instead of searching doors and corridors for traps, every bit between each encounter was simply narrated by the GM. That would be agressive scene framing.

It can work in certain kinds of campaigns. The one I'm doing now relies pretty heavily on agressive scene framing - the PC's are members of a very powerful organization that sends them on very specific missions - their first one was to find and observe an individual in a city and then ensure that that individual safely traveled from that city to another city.

Now, the individual in question turned out to be a terrorist, murdered dozens of people and the PC's wound up fighting the authorities in order to prevent her capture. But, the initial set up was pretty much entirely framed by me. The equipment they had, and most of the details were mine as the GM.

The advantage of this is speed. The scenario rockets on roller skates. There's no down time at all. The disadvantage is that it strips away a LOT of player power. Certainly not something I'm going to do every scenario in this campaign. In fact, looking at it, this will likely be the only time. But, it can work.

I occasionally will do that to set up an initial scenario - such as much of the preamble to getting the characters to Australia then their boss's office then esconced in their new lodgings (provided for them by their employer). Along the way, there were opportunities for the players to do things but for the most part it was scripted and did run on "rollerskates" as they were whisked along by circumstance, then it eased up and the players were cut free to move as they desire.

Rather than giving them a lengthier back story that included them being hired and sent to Australia and having the adventure/gaming sessions start off with their first day on the job, they had a session in which the players went through the stages of the shift - starting at their first meeting at the employment broker's office (where they were inexplicably measured up by tailors) to travelling by plane to Adelaide then by Maglev to Streaky Bay, spending their first night in town in a "Coffin Hotel" and meeting their boss. The players were able to participate in the learning about the place - I didn't just give them screeds of info, I let them roll awareness etc and fed them what they observed based on the results etc - but for the most part it was a train trip to walk the players through the set up.

In the process, I fed them a few references to things that may or may not pique their interest for later investigation and made part of their back story a bit more memorable and visual than a few paragraphs to the effect of "you were selected for a team and sent to Australia, where you are now staying in an apartment provided by your boss."

They got to size up their boss, role play interacting with him, listen to his pitch and, most importantly, formulate their own opinions as to what he's like, rather being told.

Now that it's over, I don't see any need for that level of "scene framing" ever again. The characters are now in place to wander around and interact with the environment and other characters and find out about the bits that interest them. They have a smattering of local knowledge, having gone through the steps of arriving in town and travelling around it, and hopefully have an idea of what they personally want to learn more about.

For the most part, I want to keep the stuff that they don't have a lot of control over whether they do it or not - like turning up at work, making pick-ups or drop-offs and such - as open to player interpretation as possible ("this is where you need to start and finish, this is what's in the way - now make it happen") and I want to leave their out-of-work hours as player-driven as possible.

Sure, I'll throw out or dangle plot hooks and enticements, throw in curveballs and interesting NPCs, obstacles and unexpected tragedies etc - but how the players react to them and decide to progress should now be the game play. I certainly don't feel the need to go down the "OK, you have to take this package from XYZ Corp so you ride there on your bikes, pick it up, ride into town, run across a gang..." route from here on in.

I want the game to have its surprising twists and turns at the hands of the players - like when Mike took the incident with the juvenile mugger (which I would have bet money would have finished up with the mugger handed over to the authorities and Juvie Court at the very best) and twisted it into his own fiendish plot.

The "scene" (in the context of the location/era/zeitgeist in which the action occurs) is now set and framed as scenes usually are, the characters are in their situation as people tend to be, things are going on around them as things often do - now the players can get on with running their characters' lives in accordance with what their goals are.

They have a world to explore and a means of earning the income to do so. They have their skills, attributes, talents, weaknesses and basic equipment - including some motorbikes. Whatever else they decide they want, they'll have to go out and get it.

They are currently in Sewth Ostrylia, but for all I know, they might want to wander off and buy some fesh 'n' cheps in Sedny - or feesh 'n' cheeps in Breesbin...

 

[Hussar]

vitiating

Y'know, this is the first time I've ever seen this word. Cool, I learned a new word today. Can't posrep you for it, must spread around et al.

 

[Argyle King]

Personally, I do feel it's important to speak to the players about what their characters were doing before the 'official' start of the game. There are many players who won't care where you start them, but there are just as many players (myself included) who would feel somewhat cheated if my character joined the campaign via some sort of circumstance which is at odds with my character's story and personality. Usually, for me as a GM, this goes one of two ways.


The first way is that I as a GM have a starting point in mind. In this instance, I would speak to the players pre-game and give them a brief idea about where they are, what's going on in the campaign world, and what things a typical character would know. I then might say that they will all be starting in the tavern. Going this route, the players already know where I plan to start, and they will create characters they want to create, but characters who also fit into what I've already established.


The second way typically occurs when I don't have a starting point in mind. In this instance, I only give the players their mechanical character creation guidelines - level of character and such. I usually also encourage the players to detail where they are from and their background, and I allow them to create some of the campaign world by doing so. Going this route, I know where the players plan to start, and I will create something around what they have established.


In practice I usually do some amount of each, but these are two different styles which I've noticed that I seem to perform. In either case, I feel it's important for a GM to speak to the group about what they want. It's also important for the players to understand what the GM wants; many people forget that the game is supposed to be fun for the GM too. A lot of problems I've seen occur in games tend to be a result of either a lack of communication or a miscommunication.