RPGs are ... Role Playing Games

[Fifth Element]

My one reservation is that I think in both cases, the technique can become 'hard' enough that in fact it does take agency from the players.

My argument is that if it's something that really takes agency away from the players, it should not be called the same thing as something that does not, regardless of qualifying adjectives. I say that because of the importance that such a thing has in playing RPGs.

The difference between the two, as I see it, is that the term "illusionism" (as most people use it) is by default the "hard" version, while I think the opposite is true of "scene framing". I'm not sure what would be an example of "hard" scene framing, but I daresay it would be quite different from what most people mean by the term.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not sure what would be an example of "hard" scene framing, but I daresay it would be quite different from what most people mean by the term.

An example of 'hard' scene framing is the transition being "A3 - Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords" and "A4 - In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords" where the DM essentially says, "Ok, you've been captured. You are now in the dungeons of the Slave Lords and you need to escape. Go!" This technique is rare in AD&D, but is actively encouraged by the sort of game systems that encourage what Forge speakers usually mean by "Scene Framing". The sort of scene framing that goes on in AD&D is usually 'soft' scene framing that Forge speakers don't necessarily recognize as 'Scene Framing' because they are used to talking about the 'hard' kind.

 

[Wolf1066]

I don't know that I would go so far as to say 'no one' regards it as railroading. Probably someone out there is going, "I protest. My character would never hang around in a tavern.", and a negotiation would ensue as to what the realistic place for the player to begin play would actually be according to the player's desires and the approved background of the character. Part of the problem I had with your early reference to 'You all start in a tavern' is that in fact, for 'purist-for-system simulationism' there is this prior to game negotiation over the simulations starting state where the DM and the players negotiate over how the characters will fit into the world at the moment that the game clock begins running and the whole elaborate mechanical clockwork begins to turn. Most true 'purist-for-system simulationist' DMs probably actually do feel that 'You all start in a tavern' is the first step to railroading the players. What if the players would rather start in a rowboat? What about on a pilgrimage? The DM is expected to kick off the game in a game state that represents what realistically would have happened before, where 'before' is something that the player has some input over and 'after' is also something that the player has some input over.

You pre-empted me. I was musing along just those lines.

Also, within the character creation process itself and creating of the backstory and the base premises upon which the adventure rests.

Your player wants to have a backstory which effectively means (s)he's extremely well connected and has lots of reserves upon which to call. The GM decides that this would detract from the overall gaming of the party (other player characters) at large and says no. Player cries "foul".

In my own particular campaign, I've shamelessly "scene framed" hard. I've created the situation in such a that all the players are on a level playing field - equally on the back foot - to ensure they all have to role play (and choose paths) to find their footing.

Where are they? How did they get there? How much do they know of the place? What resources do they have? How did they all meet? Did they know one another prior to the adventure? Why did/would they choose to work together?

I shamelessly took all of this away from the players' decisions in the interests of building a team in an interesting situation so they, the players, could role play.

I've had my fill of players that want their characters to be the favoured offspring of a major gang leader (one previous player actually used the term "Nomad Princess" to describe her character and expected that she'd have a large nomad pack with medics, fighters etc at her beck and call because daddy's the wise and respected leader. Say what?)

You want resources in this game? Find 'em. Make the contacts. Role play getting them.

So, the characters' backstories all account for them having their particular skills, attributes, talents and equipment.

The "scene framing" has them all fairly recently leaving their previous employment. They are all strangers to one another with one contact in common... an employment broker. That broker receives a "laundry list" from a client in Australia and assembles the team based on their skills etc.

They then fly to Australia to meet their new boss. They have no local knowledge of the town they arrive in. They have no contacts there, no networks, no bolt holes, no family/gang/organisation. They have each other because they were thrown together and they are expected to work - whether or not they get along (the players can decide if their character likes the others or not).

The lack of player choice is rampant in the initial set up - the players know it and I've explained why. They all seem quite happy with the fact that there's a ready-made reason why their characters are as "lost" in the environment as they, the players, are and that they can role play finding things out without stepping out of character - don't know how to get to the Qwik-E Mart on Lustbader St or what they sell out the back door? That's fine, you're new in town. They are happy with the fact that no one is at an advantage over the others, and they are enjoying the added challenge of finding their feet and choosing a network from amongst the NPCs I've provided (quite a large number already and I keep coming up with new ones).

They did not meet in a tavern and "decide" for some inexplicable reason that they are going to trust one another and go adventuring. They were hired and have to work together - "trust" is something they are going to have to role play at building.

Celebrim's point is bang on the mark. "Player choice" is often lost long before the game commences.

I'd argue that it's not always a Bad Thing. Not if the aim is to curb powergamers or munchkins and ensure the players are on an equal footing and/or to ensure there's better opportunity to role play in the session.

The game is for them all to enjoy - it's not the Joe Bloggs Show with the other players there to provide sidekicks and comic relief for one munchkin.

I've made the set up in such a way as to give all the players the same opportunity for even more choices in game. Want to be affiliated with a major gang? Sure, take your pick - there's around 30 to choose from - make your moves and get connected. Want to have the CEO of a major corp in your pocket? You work out how to do it and it's yours. Want a couple of close friends you can rely on to watch your back? There's plenty to choose from.

Want some adventures/extra money outside work? There's plenty of that going, too, if you're up for it. Rather sit at the pub? Irish Tavern, Dinkum Aussie Boozer or ersatz Biergarten?

I've spent ages coming up with NPCs with their own stories and goals and personalities, news threads, ongoing mysteries and plots - plenty of scope for the players to bury themselves as deep as they like and take whatever side roads take their fancy.

And I've built in scope for the players to choose how they execute the jobs their employer gives them - they are "expected to have a degree of autonomy and work things out for themselves", so while the broad strokes might be "pick up parcel from here and deliver to there" the actual picture is up to them.

 

[Celebrim]

Your player wants to have a backstory which effectively means (s)he's extremely well connected and has lots of reserves upon which to call. The GM decides that this would detract from the overall gaming of the party (other player characters) at large and says no. Player cries "foul".

I handle all these requests via an advantage/disadvantage system.

I've had my fill of players that want their characters to be the favoured offspring of a major gang leader (one previous player actually used the term "Nomad Princess" to describe her character and expected that she'd have a large nomad pack with medics, fighters etc at her beck and call because daddy's the wise and respected leader. Say what?)

I generally don't allow 'leadership' type feats/advantages because they tend to spotlight the player that has them too much at the expense of the other players. However, I'm perfectly fine with a character with a concept that makes them 'someone important' provided that they buy whatever tangible benefits that they want as advantages. So, if you want to be a 'Nomad Princess' then you can buy advantages like Wealthy, Patron, Noble Rank, and so forth. Then you just got to figure out what disadvantages you want to start with as well. Generally speaking, this discourages too much attempt at writing backgrounds to gain advantages that could otherwise be acquired in play without restricting the player from an unusual background if they really want it. If someone really wants it, they could be the King's son, but they'd pay for this right to start with unusual authority by trading something away of equal or greater value.

 

[Wolf1066]

So, if you want to be a 'Nomad Princess' then you can buy advantages like Wealthy, Patron, Noble Rank, and so forth. Then you just got to figure out what disadvantages you want to start with as well.

I do take your point. Depending on the gaming system, that could wind up accrueing lots of disadvantages and/or costing lots of character points.

Even under Ocelot's modified Cyberpunk Character Generation rules, and taking a lot of really major disadvantages, in order to build up the character to the level of "Nomad Princess" for a decent-sized gang with reasonable resources, you'd have no Skill Points left for actual skills.

The "Brotherhood" advantage exists but gangs are "costly" in terms of SP.

If someone really wants it, they could be the King's son, but they'd pay for this right to start with unusual authority by trading something away of equal or greater value.

Ugly, uncouth, lame, can't actually do anything and smells terrible - but he's the King's son...

Actually, that sounds like a pretty interesting (if potentially short-lived) character...

 

[Fifth Element]

This technique is rare in AD&D, but is actively encouraged by the sort of game systems that encourage what Forge speakers usually mean by "Scene Framing". The sort of scene framing that goes on in AD&D is usually 'soft' scene framing that Forge speakers don't necessarily recognize as 'Scene Framing' because they are used to talking about the 'hard' kind.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think most people use the term to mean the hard version. The 'Forge speakers' not being in the majority. I could be wrong though.

 

[Hussar]

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.

 

[pemerton]

@Celebrim

I don't think there's any need for a line-by-line response to your post because I think I agree with most of what you have to say. My "you all start in a tavern" was intended as a generic placeholder for a fairly typical fantasy RPG - it's my general experience that the GM rather than the players has a bigger say in the starting situation (ie most mainstream fantasy RPGs don't use a Sorcerer-like "kicker" mechanic), but I agree that this is obviously up for negotiation with the players.

I agree with your reading of 2nd ed play as presenting someone else's game experience as material for play - and I think that is pretty consistent with the Forge reading. I still think that a lot of people like it, though. For example, Planescape seems to receive a lot of love around here, although for my money it's a classic example of presenting the author's epic story as material for someone else's play. (I started the Glorantha-fication thread because I think the 4e authors have worked this out and started to present D&D mythology in a way that makes it more useful for play.)

I'm still not entirely sold on the utility of the notion of "soft illusionism" - I think other notions like "situational authority", "scene framing" etc can be more profitably used to analyse what's going on here. But I'm not wanting to be excessively precious about terminology.

I don't fully agree with your comments about railroad burnout - I think I'm closer to the Forge line than you are, in seeing it as a product of the inability of the 2nd ed AD&D rules, as written and presented in the rulebooks, to deliver an epic story, and the resultant encouragement to GMs to use a lot of force, both overt (railroading) and covert (illusionism). This encouragement is found both in rulebooks (dont' let the rules spoil the game, WW's golden rule) and also arises out of play - the GM is sitting at the table with a TPK about to derail the game and decides to ignore or reroll a dice roll in order to keep the story that everyone is enjoying on track.

I also think there are peculiar elements of AD&D (both editions), many of which also made the transition to 3E, that encourage the GM to exercise force - alignment is the main one, but paladin's codes of honour, racial preference charts, the general lack of a discussion in the rules about how to build a coherent party (not mechanically coherent, but motivationally coherent). Also notions like the use of ingame techniques (rust monsters, ear seekers etc) to resolve issues that are fundamentally social contract problems (Monty Haul, excessive and annoying caution by players, etc). (To an extent, these couple of paragraphs are consistent, I think, with Ron Edwards notorious brain damage comments, although I'm focussing more on AD&D, especially 2nd ed, than on WoD/Storyteller.)

In my view, all of the above lead to the loss of trust - both with individual GMs, and with the game system as a whole - that leads to the hostility to any sort of GM activity or storybuilding that you have described in your post. Obviously, in the absence of anything like a scientific survey, the view that I have described here is influenced by my own experiences as a player and GM, as well as my best attempt to make sense of experiences that others have reported. It's natural that others with different experiences might see the causal mechanisms as being different - and, in particular, might lay less blame at the foot of particular AD&D mechanics. But if I've understood you rightly (and I'm trying here to take account not only of your post, but eg of your comments in another recent thread on the lack of memorable 2nd ed modules) we agree about the problems with trust of GMs, even if we don't agree entirely on its cause.

A final paragraph in our duelling walls of text! - it's polite, generous even, of you to suggest that my game is coherent, for which I thank you - I try to make it so, although I suspect in Forge terms there is an element of incoherence with respect to creative agenda, which is compensated for by a lot of mutual enjoyment of particular techniques (especially 4e combat and the colour and theme that accompany it - my group has definitely not encountered any grind issues) and socialisation at the game table. I think there is a tendency at the Forge to disregard the degree to which a small amount of incoherence, and hence technical dysfunctionality, need not be any sort of ultimate problem in a social passtime among friends. I differ from you, though, in finding the analysis in terms of ideal types helpful even if they're rarely realised in the actual world (I'm also a fan of Weber's historical sociology).

And a post-final paragraph - I don't entirely accept the description of my TPK-avoidance as "fudging". I see it as applying the rules of the game after talking to my players about how they wanted things to go. It's just that (at least as I read them) the rules of the game at that point give a lot of latitude, because they suspend the standard action resolution mechanics. But this is probably another case of "what's in a name" - but if it's fudging, it's not illusionist fudging because there is no illusion.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think most people use the term to mean the hard version. The 'Forge speakers' not being in the majority. I could be wrong though.

I don't know about general useage, but I agree with what Celebrim has said about scene framing and the Forge discussions about (examples of which are found in the links I posted upthread).

At the Forge they call hard scene framing "participationism" when the players consent, and "railroading" when they don't. So whether the A3>A4 transition is railroading or not would depend on player consent. I think that, in practice, this is likely to come back to trust in the GM. In my experience, players used to playing maintream fantasy RPGs (D&D, Rolemaster, Runequest, HERO etc) are wary of (hard) scene framing because they suspect that the GM is trying to rob them of the opportunity to do stuff that would increase their chances of success. One upshot of allowing these concerns to push towards "continuos play"/soft scene framing can be the sort of listening-at-doors, 10' pole play that Gygax characterises as skillful play but that many players and GMs (myself included, I must admit) prefer to avoid. This is the sort of play I was trying to capture with my phrase "austere gamism".

I think the A3>A4 example is interesting in reflecting on this because it shows that heavily gamist play (which is at least what I see A4 as supporting) can still involve (hard) scene framing rather than "continous play"/soft scene framing. But it does require some departure from skillful play/austere gamism. This, in turn, requires an increse in trust of the GM not to deprotagonise the PCs.

I think that 4e is at least mildly incoherent on this particular issue. The skill challenge mechanics work best (it seems to me, from reading them, from comparing them to what I regard as similar mechanics, and from experience GMing them) in combination with hard scene framing - once the players have explained what they're doing and made their rolls it's done, the scene resolves itself, we move on. But 4e still has a lot of fiddly stuff in the equipment list - lengths of rope, thieving tools, and more (I gather) from Dragon magazines - that encourage attempts by the players to keep the scene open, to try to respond to failed die rolls with "But what about our 10' pole, and our ear-trumpet with wire lattice" etc. It doesn't surprise me that games that rely more heavily on hard scene framing do away with these sort of minutiae, or frontload them into the character's attributes (so they've already been taken account of in the skill roll), rather than leave them in the game. This also helps resolve the GM trust issue (the players only have to trust the GM to abide by the dice rolls, and not also to be fair in giving them opportunities to use their 10' pole).

Writing this post has made me curious about the opposit - if fiddly minutiae and the sort of GM-trust issues they can give rise to create a push away from hard scene framing and towards soft scene framing/continuous play, what about the reverse? Are there any sandbox players out there who do away with the minutiae while (I assume) sticking to soft rather than hard scene framing (given that the latter seems a bit antithetical to sandboxing)?

 

[pemerton]

@Hussar - Basic D&D relies on the sort of scene framing you describe, because there are no rules for handling the trips back and forth between town and dungeon. I imagine at least some Tunnels and Trolls play is also similar to this.

I also find it interesting that both you and Wolf1066 are using an ingame rationale (PC membership of particular organisations) to help justify your scene framing. What I'm trying to do in my approach to GMing - in order to reduce the boring bits, but hopefully without vitiating my players' choices - is to use more of this hard/aggressive scene framing without bothering about any ingame rationale - just like Basic D&D and T&T. I think some of my players have somewhat ingrained simulationist sensibilities that might be a little offended by this, but I'm hoping that the simulationism is "by habit" rather than "by desire", so that if it's clear that they're not being robbed of XPs or the ability to do interesting stuff, they'll be more ready to let it go.