Scene Framing and octaNe

[contracycle]

Something bugged me about this last night and so I cracked out Maelstrom for a refresher course on scene framing.  And what I conclude is this: Thor, your scene disasters are bangs, backwards.

This is one of those structural distinctions between liner media and RPG.  Lets take the scene framing advice discussed above; this presumes a very proactive GM.  In closing the scene, the GM is being even more proactive, in that they are to some extent specifying an outcome.  I think this arises from taking advice designed for linear media too literally; the purpose of such advice is aimed exclusively at maintaining the SoD of non-involved participants.

In linear media, such as a film, you might structure a scene in which the protagonist is capture by the Men In Black and taken away in an unmarked van.  In the next scene, we open on a dingy cellar, a bright light, and a figure strapped to a chair.  All well and good in linear media.

However, it is possible that this would be a Very Bad Thing from the perspective of the players; I can just imagine players flying of the handle becuase we just effectivley cut one of their most directly visceral scenes.  Furthermore, some players will want to do (silly) things like counting how many time they turn left and right and straining to hear the sea (sometimes, linear media does portray these scenes and thus establishes defaults).  

In actual fact the linear media has greater freedom by controlling the information available to the audience; the time between the capture and the interrogation is implied rather than displayed.  Therefore, the liner media does not lose tension in the transition from one scene to the next - so rapid and well-realised.  In fact, it might have lost tension had it stayed in real time.  RPG does not have this freedom; although framing the scene is an issue and we are discussing it, our concerns are rather different.  Suspending a players experience of the character has different ramifications for us.

Thus, in an RPG, I think you would not cut AFTER the MIB and their van arrive; you would cut TO the van arriving and MIB getting out.  The purpose of this scene is to terrify the player(s); by taking away control, by subjectiung them to other characters power, whatever.  Hey, it was an off-the-cuff.  But structurally I think we are opening where linear media is closing, becuase we are interested in the players experience of the character, rather than the audiences experience of the characters in the third person.  

Thus, what would be a scene ending disaster, becomes a bang intended to present the players with an immediate problem.  In both cases, the function of the disaster is to impel the characters to further action.

[Thor Olavsrud]

Something bugged me about this last night and so I cracked out Maelstrom for a refresher course on scene framing.  And what I conclude is this: Thor, your scene disasters are bangs, backwards.

That's an extremely good point and I think you might have something here, but I'm going to keep arguing just to see if we can get something out of this. ;)

My contention is that the disasters are not bangs in and of themselves, but rather a resolution of the question that started the scene in the first place. That question could be a bang, but it could also be something else, as I explain below.

This is one of those structural distinctions between liner media and RPG.  Lets take the scene framing advice discussed above; this presumes a very proactive GM.  In closing the scene, the GM is being even more proactive, in that they are to some extent specifying an outcome.  I think this arises from taking advice designed for linear media too literally; the purpose of such advice is aimed exclusively at maintaining the SoD of non-involved participants.

I disagree that the GM is specifying an outcome using this technique. I suggested this because Moose said he was having trouble determining when to end a scene. I suggested that each scene, as a discrete "chunk" of a story, poses its own question -- one that can be answered in a yes or no. I further suggested that you "know" the scene is over when that question has been answered definitively.

Examples of questions might be: Can Tom disarm the bomb in time? Can Jim outdrive the police? Can Jimbo con his way past the receptionist and into Mr. Big's office?

The GM doesn't supply the answers to these questions -- the players do. I would even go so far as to say that in most cases, the players posed the question in the first place! However, the point remains that recognizing what the questions are enables the GM to understand when the scene is resolved. This holds true whether the GM initiated the scene or the players did.

In linear media, such as a film, you might structure a scene in which the protagonist is capture by the Men In Black and taken away in an unmarked van.  In the next scene, we open on a dingy cellar, a bright light, and a figure strapped to a chair.  All well and good in linear media.

However, it is possible that this would be a Very Bad Thing from the perspective of the players; I can just imagine players flying of the handle becuase we just effectivley cut one of their most directly visceral scenes.  Furthermore, some players will want to do (silly) things like counting how many time they turn left and right and straining to hear the sea (sometimes, linear media does portray these scenes and thus establishes defaults).

I think this is answered simply by making any scene frame a proposal rather than a dictate. If the GM frames into the cellar, he just asks, "Is that okay?" If the player prefers to frame into the van instead, the GM should just go with the flow.

Thus, in an RPG, I think you would not cut AFTER the MIB and their van arrive; you would cut TO the van arriving and MIB getting out.  The purpose of this scene is to terrify the player(s); by taking away control, by subjectiung them to other characters power, whatever.  Hey, it was an off-the-cuff.  But structurally I think we are opening where linear media is closing, becuase we are interested in the players experience of the character, rather than the audiences experience of the characters in the third person.  

Thus, what would be a scene ending disaster, becomes a bang intended to present the players with an immediate problem.  In both cases, the function of the disaster is to impel the characters to further action.

Hmmm. Maybe we can take this apart in another way. If I contradict what I've argued earlier, please excuse me. These thoughts are very much a work in progress.

In your example, a bang (a character is kidnapped) begins a story arc. However, once that bang takes place, it's time for the players to start making decisions for their characters. These decisions are actually what initiate the scenes in most cases.

So let's go with your proposal that the character wants to attempt to figure out where he's being taken by counting turns and keeping track of time. That is a decision of action which initiates a scene by posing the question: Can the character roughly determine where he's being taken?

This is a yes or no question. For dramatic purposes, I suggest that there are three possible outcomes:

1. No, the character cannot determine where he's being taken.

2. No, the character cannot determine where's he's being taken, and furthermore his attempts to do so are noticed by his kidnappers who make his situation worse (knocking him out, wounding him in some way, etc.), or he learns something that causes him to understand that his situation was even more dire than he originally thought (his girlfriend has also been kidnapped).

3. Yes, he determines that he's being taken to a warehouse district near the docks, but he also realizes that his situation is more dire than he previously thought (the kidnappers have also snatched his girlfriend, the kidnappers are part of the local mob boss's murder crew, etc.)

Once one of these three outcomes has taken place, the GM knows the scene is over because the character has answered the question he initiated at the beginning of the scene.

However, note that the bang itself (the character was kidnapped) has not been resolved! Thus, the scene ending disaster is not a bang in and of itself, but a complication that has been imposed between the character and the resolution of the bang.

To return to your example, once the character has resolved the question of where he's being taken, the player may propose another scene...in the very same setting as the previous one!

"My guy attempts to escape!"

Now you've got another scene question: Can the character escape his captors?