Shopping for scene frames.

[James K.]

As I put together a concept for a new game (more info on that forthcoming), I've begun thinking about this thing called "scene framing." I'd like to try and discuss the idea here without crawling too far up the subject's arse, though.

Pardon me while I lay out how I see scene framing.  The theory seems to be completely at odds with the method of play I've used during my gaming career. Instead of encouraging a sort of you are there feeling, games utilizing scene framing stop and start like a film undergoing editing. The action is focused on specific moments, and excises anything that might be considered extraneous.

I'll use my last Tales From Fish-End game as an example of the polar opposite of scene framing. In that game, there was a lot of wandering through the city, checking in different places for information, and basic time-wasting. The pace seemed pretty slack. Both the players and I wanted to get to the "good stuff." Eventually we did, but there was a lot of not-so-good stuff in the meanwhile.

Roleplaying, through most of my experience, has seemed to emphasize flow. The players are supposed to integrate themselves into their characters' lives, and experience by proxy the reality of the game. Scene framing takes a big step away from that and treats roleplay like another form of storytelling, complete with cuts, time jumps, and more.

Scene framing seems to be a more effective way of gaming. I say seems because I've never actually tried it before. The action stops while we set the next scene, and we jump right to it. No more wandering through the streets, going door to door, for half an hour of play-time, but a quick gloss on what happens between major events.

But how well does such a thing work in practice? Are certain games/genres better suited for this technique than others? Am I completely off-base on the whole scene framing thing?

[Matt Wilson]

James:

Welcome to the Forge!

I consider scene framing to be conditionally great. Sometimes I want lots of it, sometimes a bit, sometimes none. Usually leaning towards lots of it.

Hasn't felt jarring to me yet in play, but then I'm not extra big on "staying in character."

I look at it like this: wandering around the city is boring, but wandering around the city providing significant insight into character is awesome.

If the players like the inter-character banter, and they can provide a little exposition in the non-plot moments, then I'm all set to go "whoa" when the big decisions are made.

If there's no insight and it's just "let's choose the door on the right," bail on that scene.

[James K.]

I've heard of some folks actually pausing between scenes to construct the next one.  Unless, of course, there's some pressing thing that must be resolved by the upcoming scene.  Has anyone done this?  Sort of said, "Okay, what should the next scene entail?" and worked from there?

[clehrich]

You might want to check out the now-defunct Memento Mori forum, old Forge home of InSpecters.  Also (of course) check out the game, which is wonderful.  When you see scene-framing in-game put that simply and clearly, you'll see what they're all talking about.

Chris Lehrich

[Matt Wilson]

Has anyone done this? Sort of said, "Okay, what should the next scene entail?" and worked from there?

Yes. For it to work you have to be clear with everyone about who has what degree of input, and who has the final say.

In the game Trollbabe, you as player can say, "can we have a scene where my guy confronts the strange old troll shaman?" and the GM has final say on whether that scene should happen (almost always yes), and how it should start.

One of the groups I play in regularly takes a pretty democratic approach to playing. It's chock full of book and movie buffs, so they like imagining the game in terms of scenes and camera shots and so on. What'll happen is I'll say "so, you want to talk to the folks who live out of town. Why dont' we start as you arrive," and they'll either agree or say something like "actually, I have a reason why the scene should start earlier/later than that."

It doesn't take too long to do once it's routine, and it gets easier to jump back and forth between "writer" and "actor." My experience is that you get a lot of energy out of players who realize that they can do cool stuff like "the camera does a close-up of my guy's face, and you can see him doing a Clint Eastwood-style grimace, then rack focus to a shot behind him where you see..."

[Loki]

I've played in some games with a GM that use scene framing and I find it very invigorating to cut out all the aimless wandering and other incidental activities and cut to the good stuff.

However, the scene framing was always initiated by the GM. In a game like Trollbabe where the players initiate a scene, what happens when a player asks for a scene where he does something that would break a typical storyline.

E.g. A detective-style game that begins with a mysterious stranger escaping after a grisly murder. The player asks for a scene confronting the mysterious stranger... in other words, fast-forwarding through all the investigation, noir scenes, femme fatales, etc.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think I need to clarify something.

Given that most of the imaginative circumstances of a role-playing session are defined by scenes ...

... given that scenes having starting and ending points ...

... then all role-playing has scene-framing in it.

What you guys are discussing, it seems to me, is how people reach any kind of shared agreement about when and how scenes start and stop.

1. What kinds of events, in-game, signal a desirable stopping point?

2. What kinds of verbal and visual cues do people give to one another to signal that stopping point, and to honor it?

3. What kind of information and suggestions occur, if any, before the next scene starts?

4. How centralized is the authority over #1-3, in whatever combination? How is that authority acknowledged?

I suggest that this issue as well as a couple of others like character creation and IIEE are fundamental to role-playing as a medium. I also suggest that the typical absence of anything clear or procedural about them in most RPG texts is a central problem in the hobby.

Best,
Ron

[James K.]

I think I need to clarify something.

Given that most of the imaginative circumstances of a role-playing session are defined by scenes ...

... given that scenes having starting and ending points ...

... then all role-playing has scene-framing in it.

What you guys are discussing, it seems to me, is how people reach any kind of shared agreement about when and how scenes start and stop.

This is kind of what I meant by having the discussion climb up its own arse.  We all know what we're talking about here.

[James K.]

One of the groups I play in regularly takes a pretty democratic approach to playing. It's chock full of book and movie buffs, so they like imagining the game in terms of scenes and camera shots and so on. What'll happen is I'll say "so, you want to talk to the folks who live out of town. Why dont' we start as you arrive," and they'll either agree or say something like "actually, I have a reason why the scene should start earlier/later than that."

How difficult was it to make the transition from traditional, GM-driven narrative to this shared function?  What sort of game did you use to make the transition?  Was it a specific system, genre, or what?

[Alan]

1. What kinds of events, in-game, signal a desirable stopping point?

2. What kinds of verbal and visual cues do people give to one another to signal that stopping point, and to honor it?

3. What kind of information and suggestions occur, if any, before the next scene starts?

4. How centralized is the authority over #1-3, in whatever combination? How is that authority acknowledged?

In our recent Burning Wheel game (Tarshish), we have three characters often doing different things so we tend to go round table: your scene, my scene, his scene.  Wilhelm (Rafial) the GM uses the scene framing protocol he and I learned from Trollbabe: if it isn't already suggested from the previous scene, he usually asks the player if they want a particular scene.   The player will shrug and say no if he doesn't or say "I'm going to my ship."  Of the three players, I think I'm the one most likely to add my agenda: "I'm going to the palace to work my court connections and find out what's going on."  Then Wil frames the scene and off we go.

(Trollbabe Scene Framing: anyone can suggest a scene; GM has final authority; GM sets the scene; anyone can suggest a scene end - but the players involved must agree.)

I've noticed that scenes get played through the resolution of one task.  The task may require a single dice roll, several, or none and they vary in length from a few minutes to ten or so.  For example, Darius went to court and talked to several people of increasing importance until we decide he should make a skill roll - the success led to getting some of the info he wanted - and then Wil announced we were all invited to a feast.  At this point I actually said "This is a good place to end the scene."

Another example with more rolls: "Diving down to the wreck of the Obal Heap" continues through several perception and skill rolls until a significant failure indicates nothing was found.  Capt Jessup returns to the surface and the scene ends.  I don't recall the exchange that lead to that decision though.

In our play, anyone can suggest a scene end.  The GM will end the scene either in the task resolved situation above, or when a player hesitates, looks down, shows signs of needing to think.  The player can always speak up and continue the the scene if he wants.  When a scene ends, the player may make a comment like "I'm going to the ship next" - but often it's obvious from the content of play where  the next scene will be and nothing is said.  Also, if the player doesn't have any strong idea for a next scene, nothing is said.

When I was GMing Sorcerer: Charnel Gods, I found it very effective to actually cut the scene just after someone made a major dice roll, but _before_ describing the result.  I tried that with Riddle of Steel skill rolls too and it worked.

[Matt Wilson]

How difficult was it to make the transition from traditional, GM-driven narrative to this shared function? What sort of game did you use to make the transition? Was it a specific system, genre, or what?

As a player, not too bad. As a GM, hard. Other folks can jump in with yay or nay as to their experiences, but I had this nagging voice of "but if they have all that control, they'll ruin everything" in my head. It's a little tough to let go, and harder still to coordinate a new way of playing with a new way of being prepared as a GM.

Most significant to me is that a GM can't stash away surprises as easily.  If you have all sorts of neat dungeon-crawl traps, let's say, but the players want to just skip ahead to confronting the wizard, you have to play the card and see if they're interested: "hey, I had some cool Indiana Jones-ish traps planned out. Does that sound any fun?"

[clehrich]

How difficult was it to make the transition from traditional, GM-driven narrative to this shared function? What sort of game did you use to make the transition? Was it a specific system, genre, or what?

As a player, not too bad. As a GM, hard. Other folks can jump in with yay or nay as to their experiences, but I had this nagging voice of "but if they have all that control, they'll ruin everything" in my head. It's a little tough to let go, and harder still to coordinate a new way of playing with a new way of being prepared as a GM.

I don't think this is necessarily true, but it certainly comes up an awful lot.  If you've GM'ed in a "traditional" mode a lot, it can be very difficult to let go.  There was a nice discussion of how to let go some time back, at this thread, split from this thread.

Here I think Ron's point that "the typical absence of anything clear or procedural about them in most RPG texts is a central problem in the hobby" is important.  A good way to make the transition smoothly, especially for players and GM's who are used to a more "traditional" style, is to have formal structures written into the rules.  I've mentioned InSpecters, which is a great example; I also long ago wrote up a thing on soap operas that proposes some formal framing in the rules.  The point is that if the rules say you have to shift scenes by some sort of explicit means, and define who does this and how, then I think it's easier to shift over by simply falling back on the rules.

Chris Lehrich

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

James, you have just stepped over the most important line of this entire forum. Never respond to another poster in a disparaging way again - don't imply it, don't suggest it, and don't do it at all. This is a moderator post to you, and I suggest that you attend to it.

Regarding the topic, I suggest that people do not "all know" what you are talking about in this thread. I think you ought to clarify that in detail, and politely.

No one is to post to this thread again until James has done so.

Best,
Ron

[James K.]

James, you have just stepped over the most important line of this entire forum. Never respond to another poster in a disparaging way again - don't imply it, don't suggest it, and don't do it at all. This is a moderator post to you, and I suggest that you attend to it.

The overriding line seems more accurately to be: "Don't tell Ron Edwards when he's threatening to cause a pointless digression."  Your post had little or nothing to do with the thread's topic, and your reaction to my very restrained response only proves that the person with the problem here is you.

Doubtless you'll ban me, and/or delete this message, but we all know what's going on here.  Next time, let others have the discussion they're having, and don't intrude with your navel-gazing nonsense.

[Ron Edwards]

This thread is closed.

Posts are never deleted and no one is banned at the Forge.

Best,
Ron