Scene Framing and "Surprising the GM" -- An Innerdudian Case Study

[pemerton]

There's a lot of GMs who, either not knowing any better, or knowing better and doing it anyway, throw out scenes to the party simply because it's A) what they have prepared, B) falls in line with their intended "story," and C) it's "too hard" to change plans on the fly if the players aren't interested. If a player complains, the GM cobbles together some half-baked, lame reason that the scene "totally applies to the party, you HAVE to go do THIS!" In some cases, it's a result of GM malice and jerk-itude. In some cases it's less insidious, it's just that the GM is bad at improvisation and "winging it."

<snip>

4e seems to meet a lot of your needs, since the combat balance, connection of role to theme, and loose-drift narrativism all point to a play experience where the GM is less worried about having to "manage the game," but is more free to "manage the overall experience" happening at the table.

This all seems right to me. It's also related to system, as I think you are recognising in your nod to 4e - some systems make it easier, others harder, to respond to the players in the interests of "managing the overall experience".

I think the issue, as you've raised it, is more an effect of GMs that don't involve players in setting up "the fiction," framing scenes, and creating thematic material.

<snip>

In a perfect world, the need to "skip a scene" would never come up. The GM and players would be in sync, the GM would be actively looking to "hook" the players with the themes and material they've presented, and the players would have the sense and amicability to provide the GM with good hooks to use--character development, background, and other "setting" and "plot" material.

I agree with all this, too.

 

[Libramarian]

I think the issue, as you've raised it, is more an effect of GMs that don't involve players in setting up "the fiction," framing scenes, and creating thematic material. I'd have a very hard time with a GM that wasn't actively asking questions about what the group wanted, the types of scenes they wanted to engage, the kinds of experiences they wanted to have both in- and out-of-character. As a player it would be a sign of disrespect to my time and energy. It also makes sense why 4e seems to meet a lot of your needs, since the combat balance, connection of role to theme, and loose-drift narrativism all point to a play experience where the GM is less worried about having to "manage the game," but is more free to "manage the overall experience" happening at the table.

This is partially one of the reasons I've sort of cut loose from the group I've been playing with the last two years, and formed my own. I liked all the players individually, but after finishing GM-ing our 8-month Pathfinder campaign, the next GM switched to GURPS. At first I thought I just didn't like the mechanics, but I realized that was only partially true, and not nearly as much a factor in my dissatisfaction as I led myself to believe. The problem was that the story, the plotlines, the NPCs, the setting, were good and well planned, but they weren't involving my agenda at all. It wasn't horrible by any stretch, and if it had been my only gaming option I would have stuck with it, but it wasn't really compelling either. I was playing, but I had not "bought in."

In a perfect world, the need to "skip a scene" would never come up. The GM and players would be in sync, the GM would be actively looking to "hook" the players with the themes and material they've presented, and the players would have the sense and amicability to provide the GM with good hooks to use--character development, background, and other "setting" and "plot" material.

I see the OSR playstyle as providing an alternative way to create and maintain a healthy metagame (player buy-in) that doesn't require player-GM dramatic/thematic coordination. It's able to do this because the metagame emotional palette it's going for is simpler (fiero, fear, suspense, creepiness, relief, glee) and more universal, so the game can handle more of the prep on the back-end (random and semi-random content generation) rather than the front end (the GM and players framing scenes relevant to this particular game). So in a sense it's your perfect world scenario...if your perfect world is one in which the PCs are mostly concerned with getting more powerful and not dying, and the world looks like it's been designed to make for a fun game (loaded with adventure areas helpfully divided into different levels of risk+reward).

In the example to start the thread, I mentioned that Player 1 basically asked to skip ahead to the dig, but it in no way was a demand. It wasn't a, "I'm not doing anything other than addressing the dig site, and any attempts to take me elsewhere will be met with opposition and 'shirtyness.'" But I think a smart GM would pay attention to the clues leading up to that moment and divert it. "Hmmm, Player 1, sounds like you're having problems with the current courses of action on the table. What's happening? What are you looking for?" Get an answer, then take a 15-minute pit stop break and let the GM sort it out.

If I as a GM had information planned in the scene that was crucial to future progress, I'd either figure out a way to integrate it into a new, more player-engaged scene, or I'd say, "Listen, I know you're anxious to keep moving forward with X. But I want to let you know that there's several things here that I think will be relevant to your goals, once you understand them. Let me set up this scene for you, and see what you think. If you're REALLY not interested in it, then we'll ask the group to see if they'd like to move on as well." Then if what's presented doesn't seem to warrant player buy-in, the group decides to move on.

That takes a lot of maturity from both GM and players to get to that point, though. The GM has to not be hurt, or insulted, or whatever, that his players didn't want to engage with his or her carefully crafted "scene in the desert." I think, @Hussar , your ultimate point is that a GM who is unwilling to take that approach is probably not going to be effective over the long-term, and I think I agree with you.

Yeah OSR GMing seems almost criminally lazy compared to your description here. Like how you said that a 4e GM doesn't need to "manage the game" so they can focus on "managing the experience"--I want to say an OSR GM doesn't have to do either of those things. And they get complete, unilateral control over the setting (within the bounds of the kind of setting that works well with OSR gameplay). It's pretty cushy GMing: more about knowing what not to do, than what to do (developing a minimalist aesthetic).

 

[Balesir]

I see the OSR playstyle as providing an alternative way to create and maintain a healthy metagame (player buy-in) that doesn't require player-GM dramatic/thematic coordination. It's able to do this because the metagame emotional palette it's going for is simpler (fiero, fear, suspense, creepiness, relief, glee) and more universal, so the game can handle more of the prep on the back-end (random and semi-random content generation) rather than the front end (the GM and players framing scenes relevant to this particular game). So in a sense it's your perfect world scenario...if your perfect world is one in which the PCs are mostly concerned with getting more powerful and not dying, and the world looks like it's been designed to make for a fun game (loaded with adventure areas helpfully divided into different levels of risk+reward).

I just wrote a reply in the original "surprising the DM" thread about the 'scheme of stories' given in Robert McKee's book "Story" - it's interesting how this account relates to that.

What you seem to suggest, here, is that OSR gaming is 'story' gaming starting with a given, common "dramatic need" for all characters (stay alive and get powerful), coupled with a given way to achieve that (go down the dungeon/into the wilderness) and given ways for the GM to erect barriers to success (monsters, tricks, traps).

I guess my question would then be, if all that is given, what do the players add? And what if Story (capital 'S') happens? Do you deliberately avoid it (give the characters (part of) what they need)? Or do you embrace it, thus, it seems to me, shifting out of this mode of play (the characters have departed their given dramatic need for some other - the classic 'plot twist')?

 

[Nagol]

I just wrote a reply in the original "surprising the DM" thread about the 'scheme of stories' given in Robert McKee's book "Story" - it's interesting how this account relates to that.

What you seem to suggest, here, is that OSR gaming is 'story' gaming starting with a given, common "dramatic need" for all characters (stay alive and get powerful), coupled with a given way to achieve that (go down the dungeon/into the wilderness) and given ways for the GM to erect barriers to success (monsters, tricks, traps).

I guess my question would then be, if all that is given, what do the players add? And what if Story (capital 'S') happens? Do you deliberately avoid it (give the characters (part of) what they need)? Or do you embrace it, thus, it seems to me, shifting out of this mode of play (the characters have departed their given dramatic need for some other - the classic 'plot twist')?

Story (with the capital) only happens if the players engage it. That's one of the things the players add -- the initial engagement (or not), how to engage, and the complications that arise out of the consequence.

To use your example from the other thread, if the PC looking for a smoke finds the open back door and dead shopkeeper, Story doesn't happen if there is an immediate retreat and the authorities are contacted (or even worse, the character walks back to the front of the shop and down the street to the next shop deciding on complete avoidance).

All a GM can offer is potential story. That offer should come with a promise of moving the characters forward toward their dramatic need.

This is one of the main reasons I've always been dissatisfied with many classic Traveler campaigns where the PCs operate a merchant vessel. Rather than offering a promise of moving toward fulfilling the dramatic need (make money to afford the mortgage payments and gain wealth), Story offers threat to that fulfilment (damaged ship, seized vessel for non-payment) in excess of any reward. There, the rational PC response to Story appearing is to Jump out of the system to protect themselves and their ship.

 

[Hussar]

I just got a mental image of a Borg Story Ship appearing.

 

[Ryujin]

Sometimes you just want to get to the job at hand, without the messy "getting there" stuff. Unless you have a specific reason to do the travel story, and it seemed that you didn't because the group had decided on the route they wanted to take, I see no pressing reason to throw in additional distractions.

"You're on a boat. It's day one. What do you do?......... You're still on a boat. It's day 15. What do you do?....."

That gets tired, fast. Allow downtime and if the players want to accomplish something that takes an extended period of time, let them. I used to use such times in-game to manufacture bows and arrows, do wood carving, or make magic items at higher levels.

 

[tuxgeo]

I can't XP you Celebrim, but this is a FANTASTIC analysis of the situation as I'm seeing it develop at the table, particularly this part: < snip >

XP for Celebrim covered, 15 days late.
(Nobody else said they did in the intervening 2 weeks, so I thought I would.)

 

[Balesir]

Story (with the capital) only happens if the players engage it. That's one of the things the players add -- the initial engagement (or not), how to engage, and the complications that arise out of the consequence.

To use your example from the other thread, if the PC looking for a smoke finds the open back door and dead shopkeeper, Story doesn't happen if there is an immediate retreat and the authorities are contacted (or even worse, the character walks back to the front of the shop and down the street to the next shop deciding on complete avoidance).

Well, it's called "dramatic need", not "dramatic slight-hankering-unless-something-better-comes-along"

The point is that, if the characters relentlessly pursue their need, some sort of story will happen. If they run off without reporting the situation, they just became suspect. If they grab a packet of cigs and run they just became criminal. Something has to happen, unless they just abandon the presence of a dramatic need altogether - which is the point of the technique.

All a GM can offer is potential story. That offer should come with a promise of moving the characters forward toward their dramatic need.

I don't think I agree, here. It's up to the players to move towards their characters' dramatic need, not the GM. The responsibility of the GM is to make the hurdles, encounters and challenges presented relate to the dramatic need; encounters (in the widest sense of the word) that are attempts to distract or sidetrack the characters are generally unwelcome.

This is one of the main reasons I've always been dissatisfied with many classic Traveler campaigns where the PCs operate a merchant vessel. Rather than offering a promise of moving toward fulfilling the dramatic need (make money to afford the mortgage payments and gain wealth), Story offers threat to that fulfilment (damaged ship, seized vessel for non-payment) in excess of any reward. There, the rational PC response to Story appearing is to Jump out of the system to protect themselves and their ship.

Yeah, Traveller was always somewhat more designed for "dreaming" play than "narrativist". As a dramatic need, "make enough money to pay off the lien" is pretty weak, in itself. Story in Traveller works better if you generate more compelling needs - Pocket Empires was particularly inspiring from this respect, at least for me.