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

[Hussar]

This is unsurprising given that you veto any scene that would establish new elements of the setting/story that you're unaware of.

It's not so much a chicken-and-egg problem, it's just that you're violently opposed to the DM having an equal voice at the table.

It would help to actually read the thread before criticizing. I argue in that thread that it is possible for a player to veto new elements, not that a player will veto all scenes.

But, feel free to continue building straw men out of arguments that I am not making.

 

[pemerton]

if players are getting crappy scenes to interact with, in my experience it's occasionally because the players have never bothered to include "hook points" in their character backgrounds, builds, or attitude.

A lot of RPGs try to deal with this by addressing it as part of char gen.
[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has talked about using a "group template". My table (to date, at least) has been less formal, but we workshop PC ideas, connections, etc. And in my current 4e game, I gave two instructions to accompany the mechanical aspects of PC building: (i) there must be something/someone to whom your PC is loyal; (ii) your PC must have a reason to be ready to fight goblins.

It turned out that these instructions - in conjunction with the default 4e mythic history and cosmology, which establishes a lot of conflicts and allegiances while leaving their trajectory and resolution open- were enough to seed a solid game where I've had no trouble framing and pitching good scenes.

the whole reason to have a GM is to have someone there to create a plot, a setting, and a story that allow the players to build their own personal "narratives," both in and out of character. If there's no reason for "story," why not just play a tactical minis game instead?

My view is similar to yours, but perhaps different overall (it can be hard to tell sometimes because all our terminologoy here is a bit up in the air).

I think the reason to have a GM is because the players, turning up to have a fun session, want their PCs to experience challenge/pressure, but the players, in playing their PCs, have a natural reason to try to avoid and minimise pressure. So outside of play, in PC-build or kibitzing between sessions or whatever, the players, the GM etc all talk about what sorts of things would be cool, who the PCs could be friends with, who their enemies are, etc. But then, during play, when the players are playing their PCs and pushing as hard as they can in their PCs' interests, someone else has to do the job of applying the pressure. And that is the GM - who draws on backstory (whether co-created or sole-authored), makes stuff up, follows the players' leads, etc, to frame the pressure-applying situations.

Story, for me, is what results from play. Not that there's a big time delay - we don't have to wait until the end of the sesssion, or the end of the campaign, to learn what the story was, we can see it emerging as we play. But no one set out with an idea of the story in mind. They had particular story elements in mind - these PCs, here and now, being confronted by this thing - but how it would end up (the plot, the resolution), that wasn't in anyone's mind in advance.

 

[Keldryn]

It would help to actually read the thread before criticizing. I argue in that thread that it is possible for a player to veto new elements, not that a player will veto all scenes.

But, feel free to continue building straw men out of arguments that I am not making.

Clearly he's making a "dissociated argument.". ;-)

 

[innerdude]

I think the reason to have a GM is because the players, turning up to have a fun session, want their PCs to experience challenge/pressure, but the players, in playing their PCs, have a natural reason to try to avoid and minimise pressure. So outside of play, in PC-build or kibitzing between sessions or whatever, the players, the GM etc all talk about what sorts of things would be cool, who the PCs could be friends with, who their enemies are, etc. But then, during play, when the players are playing their PCs and pushing as hard as they can in their PCs' interests, someone else has to do the job of applying the pressure. And that is the GM - who draws on backstory (whether co-created or sole-authored), makes stuff up, follows the players' leads, etc, to frame the pressure-applying situations.

Story, for me, is what results from play. Not that there's a big time delay - we don't have to wait until the end of the sesssion, or the end of the campaign, to learn what the story was, we can see it emerging as we play. But no one set out with an idea of the story in mind. They had particular story elements in mind - these PCs, here and now, being confronted by this thing - but how it would end up (the plot, the resolution), that wasn't in anyone's mind in advance.

Since my "conversion" to a more "scene frame" style of GM-ing, what you've described here is almost exactly the same approach I've attempted to use. The whole premise of my games are, "What if we threw the PCs into situation X, and then watched them try to get out?" There's more to it than that obviously, but that's the crux of it. There's ZERO pre-ordained outcome, zero force to have players move one way or the other. The setting, basic plot structure / scene framing, and the characters themselves push "the story." I honestly have no idea from session to session exactly where the party will end up.

Sure, I have some "frames" from which to view the action, but which frames will get played, and what happens before the PCs get to that frame, are entirely in their hands.

I have more to add, but I've already stayed up too late. =)

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION], that seems pretty sensible to me!

There's been some discussion upthread about the GM's "rights" or "fun". For me, the fun of being GM is being the one who gets to work out the details of "Situation X", and adjudicating the mayhem that ensues from it. The "rights" I need to do this is the right to throw hard stuff in front of the PCs (and thereby the players). It's no skin of my nose to take the players' lead in thinking through what would count as "hard stuff". I can think of plenty of hard stuff that fits their PCs and the themes/concerns they've signalled they want to engage with.

Relating this back (just a bit) to the other super-long thread, if the players (and their PCs) are invested in the city, I can do plenty of hard stuff there. I don't need to try and switch the focus of play to the desert in order to come up with hard stuff.

 

[JustinAlexander]

It would help to actually read the thread before criticizing. I argue in that thread that it is possible for a player to veto new elements, not that a player will veto all scenes.

And it would help if you could actually hold yourself responsible for the things you say. You haven't been able to do that so far, but let's see if you can give it a try: You've already established that you veto scenes on the basis that they include elements of the setting you haven't seen before. Now you're claiming that sometimes you don't do that. What do you use to distinguish between the two?

IOW, what's your actual criteria for vetoing scenes, since we've just established that it's not what you previously claimed it was.

 

[Hussar]

And it would help if you could actually hold yourself responsible for the things you say. You haven't been able to do that so far, but let's see if you can give it a try: You've already established that you veto scenes on the basis that they include elements of the setting you haven't seen before. Now you're claiming that sometimes you don't do that. What do you use to distinguish between the two?

IOW, what's your actual criteria for vetoing scenes, since we've just established that it's not what you previously claimed it was.

Player buy in.

If there is zero player buy in in a given scene, I have no problems with anyone at the table vetoing that scene. Note, having that ability does not mean that that ability will always be exercised. Simply that the option exists and there is no problem with exercising that option. Again, IMO.

The whole "basis that they include elements of the setting you haven't seen before" was never my point. That's entirely on you.

Unfortunately, in that other thread, I used the word "irrelevant" and that has clouded the issue and it took a long time for me to realize what was causing the understanding problems. Scenes that are irrelevant to the players are irrelevant because there is zero player buy-in to the scene. That was probably my bad from the start, using irrelevant that way and not using the phrase, "Player buy in". Probably would have saved a lot of misunderstanding.

 

[innerdude]

Player buy in.

If there is zero player buy in in a given scene, I have no problems with anyone at the table vetoing that scene. Note, having that ability does not mean that that ability will always be exercised. Simply that the option exists and there is no problem with exercising that option. Again, IMO.

And I have zero, zip, nada, no problem with this. And I think, looking back, that I now have a clearer picture of the types of experiences that would have led you to feel that way, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]. 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."

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.

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, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], 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.

 

[Hussar]

I don't know about the long term. To be honest, the kind of DM you're describing is pretty common IME. The GM crafts the scenes and the players are, by and large, expected to go along with that. And, as Pemerton and I were talking about earlier, there are loads of more passive players out there who want this sort of thing. The whole deep immersion thing is all about this. After all, if I am my character, and only my character, then I really don't have any control over where the campaign goes, beyond what my character could reasonably effect.

So, stepping out of character to guide the campaign on a meta level isn't going to give me the experience I want.

Now, I am in no ways a deep immersion player. Nor am I terribly concerned with simulation, so, I'm probably not the right GM for someone who is. Nor am I a good player at that table.

But, I think it is a perfectly viable way of playing.

 

[chaochou]

1. Player 1's character is INTENSELY interested in this kind of thing, and this became his primary focus for the session --- getting the group out to the dig site.
2. The PCs' primary contact within the order was MIA. Player 4 was very concerned about this, and wanted to get the party to explore what was going on.
3. Player 3 belongs to a thieves guild, and was approached by an informant in the city that his guild head had a mission for him in a distant city to the north.

This is cool.

Character 1 wants to go to A, Character 2 wants to go to B, Character 3 wants to go to C.

Did you have a resolution method in mind when you set up this situation? What resources do the characters have to achieve the goal of persuading the others to go where they want?

My slight concern is that if the resolution is 'Players talk until there's a concensus' then whichever Player is willing to hold out the longest wins the argument, irrespective of Character. Or, to put it another way, for as long as a player is willing to say 'no' the game goes nowhere. This is a battle of wills between players: Desire to get what they want vs willingness to stop the action.

I would be tempted to add a very basic social mechanic (like, say, roll a D20 - highest roll under your Cha wins, ties roll off on a D10) so that players can fight their corner while knowing that the characters have a means of resolution. Provided they argue their case, they get a roll, once they roll they abide by the result.

Ultimately, after much deliberation, the group settled on immediately heading out to the wilderness in search of the dig site---without any other considerations. This was primarily driven by Player 1, who tends to have the most "investment" in the fiction, and in his character.

This reads to me that 'Players talk until there's a concensus' was the resolution method, with Player 1 the most forceful. If you feel that may a problem going forward with this group of players I would change the resolution system.

Now, here's the thing---once this decision was made, I immediately "fast forwarded" from their current situation, to them stepping on the beach in an uncharted bay, some 500 miles from their originating port city, in preparation to approach the dig site.

Going straight to the dig site seems entirely reasonable to me.

Should I have attempted to engage Player 3 and Player 4's motivations by introducing "complications" along the way to the dig site? Or should I assume that since both Player 3 and 4 ultimately agreed to the course of action, that the group's decision was as a "united front," even if it wasn't everyone's first choice?

I would suggest that these are not mutually exclusive. You could, for example, have a scene where the Thief is approached near the dig site by an agent of the Thieves from the North, marvelling at how fast he arrived... they've been watching this site for some time and want something very valuable stolen from it. A mysterious relic of unknown origin, etc, etc.

Character 2 overhears the camp guards talking about his missing contact going up into the mountains and not returning...

Maybe this kind of direct conflict between character goals might not suit your game or players. However, I think that with a little flexibility and creative thinking the other players' goals and motives could be linked directly to this dig in interesting ways.

My basic approach would be that they went to the dig site, so now the dig site becomes central to the drama for everyone. It's not the only way, or necessarily the best way for your friends, but I find it an exciting style when I GM for mine.

Best of luck with the game.