Setting > Situation > Scene?

[pekkok]

I have trouble seeing anything in RPGs as outside of specific points of view.  PoV is sort of the base currency of roleplaying to begin with [my italics - pekkok].  All players around the table will have a different conception of what is in the Setting, the Situation, and the Scene -- one of the functions of playing the game is to bring those differing conceptions into closer alignment.

I generally concur with this - which is probably not altogether surprising (and well said on the part I italicized). Earlier in the SiS-thread, while I was droning about how we rely on personal differences of understanding in order to achieve roleplaying, I might have built the argument on point of view - I was after the same phenomenon, mostly. Still, even if multiple point of views are always present, they have to be explicated, as I tried above - their effect is not homogeneous, and varies quite a lot as regards to Situation and Scene, for example.

One small, but important, disagreement though: I don't think the function of the game is to bring "differing conceptions into closer alignment". Even such tried-and-true cases such as the adversarial- or nemesis-structure rely on maintained, or even increasing distance of points of view, at least in some areas - and this is especially true in rpgs.

This is one of the reasons why I like the concepts such as constellation. To build up, say, a Scene we use a mixture of differences - not only adversarially, but in a much more varied manner: a good Scene might be based on a character who views the situation in terms of concrete value, and another character who sees things emphasizing the spiritual side of the situation. That is we rely not only on points of view, but differences between those points of view to create interest. If those differences are lost, well - we might call it a "happy ending"... but there's a reason why we don't usually continue playing or witnessing the situation: there's no interest left to pursue.

This reliance on differing points of view is much more highlighted, even radicalized, in roleplaying where points of view are dynamic by nature, not directed or pre-scripted. So, a constellation, which does not necessarily grow smaller, but produces an intriguing interplay through its differences: The use and application of points of view in roleplaying would probably be an interesting topic of discussion.

Your exception doesn't need to be excepted if you accept that the Setting can be changed in play according to specific procedures that add and remove elements of the Setting.  Usually these are "the GM makes it up" but other games (Universalis) afford other options.  None of the three sets are preordained -- but most of them are probably pre-loaded with content.  Whether that initial set changes or not is subject to the proclivities of the game being played at the table.

I was thinking of a somewhat different case, and my terse description earlier probably did not explicate it enough: A game that is not based, and does not include, a reservoir such as the Setting - where structures in likeness of the Setting remain as question marks, or non-existent. I've played one such a game, and that was years ago. In that particular game, the structure of the situation was king (situation in that game could be as small as Scene, or larger as long as the connections in it were perceivable), and you could change the elements as long as you adhered to situation structures (adversary to another, as long as the position stayed as an adversary).

It was a very successful game, by the way, kind of an exercise in constantly drifting figural thinking - like dreaming, somewhat, though alert. A bit hard to describe, as you can see; and, like I said, probably exceedingly rare.

I wouldn't, for instance, say that a scene needs to be "wrapped up" -- lots of scenes, in and out of narratives, are not wrapped up, are left on cliffhangers, or simply end or get cut away to another scene.  The base requirements for a scene are a set of fictional elements (characters, sets, props) juxtaposed to some sort of immediacy (physical or otherwise) and a little interaction between those elements.  You can get that out of just about any gaming scenario I can think of, narrative concerns aside.

Oh, I agree - my point was that Scenes have narrative connotations even up to presenting a distinct resolution, not that there is a wrap-up present in every case; but I should have been more clear. Still, I do think that, even in its many forms, Scene carries a lot of narrative baggage - but I'm also willing to entertain the idea that I'm wrong on this issue:

In the end of the earlier post, I compared Scene to a crucible. After posting I came to the conclusion that this comparison really does not fit the traditional view of the Scene (I was wrong on that argument) but would lead to a quite different conception of the Scene, if pursued. So, since I was weighing narrative too much there, I might be weighing it too much generally. We'll see.

Cheers,

[Josh Roby]

Both John and Graham -- I'm not trying to define "Scene" in ways that don't work for you guys; I'm trying to define scene in such a way that the term is flexible enough to cover the range of meanings we attribute to it.  It's a tall order, but I don't think it's impossible.  I'm thinking something along the lines of:

Scene: a sequence of events involving a set of story elements (which may be characters, locations, props, or other fictional content) which addresses the situation.

Note that:

• The definition is very flexible, the necessity of which Graham pointed out.
• A character enterring or leaving the physical proximity of the other elements of a scene does not begin or end the scene because the character is still involved (a part of the set of elements) whether he is present or not.  (If the messenger is sent off to the High King, that doesn't end the scene because the other characters may continue discussing matters of import.  If, after the matters of import are discussed, we "cut" to the messenger running down the road, that's probably a new scene.)
• A chase scene still fits the above definition, even if it changes location constantly, because either (a) the location is irrelevant and not a part of the set of elements or (b) the location is defined broadly (the city) instead of specifically (K street) or (c) there's simply more than one location in the set of elements.
• Determining where one scene ends and another begins is scene framing.  I'm not trying to determine the boundaries of a scene definitionally (for instance, when a character enters or leaves -- we all recognize that that's way too restrictive).  I don't see my provisional definition of Scene as being incompatible with the current definition of Scene Framing.  Scene Framing is the technique by which we select the set of involved elements and give them a little shove to make them go.
• I do think Eliot's on to something that a worthwhile scene is one that at least attempts to address the situation.  If you're not doing that, you're just passing time.  Graham, I would call this an interlude or something similar, because it's not participating in the thematic dynamic of the game as a whole.  It's fluff.
• In-character actions that change the set of significance (the Situation) are not affecting the scene or scene framing at all; they are doing something entirely different, either focusing or addressing the premise.

And Graham, yes, this is very much related to Scope and Focus -- I make the connection explicitly at my blog in the article Focusing the Scope.

[Josh Roby]

one of the functions of playing the game is to bring those differing conceptions into closer alignment.

I don't think the function of the game is to bring "differing conceptions into closer alignment". ... That is we rely not only on points of view, but differences between those points of view to create interest. If those differences are lost, well - we might call it a "happy ending"... but there's a reason why we don't usually continue playing or witnessing the situation: there's no interest left to pursue.

That's why I said one of the functions is reconciliation; the other function is developing increasing detail by means of the differences in our individual conceptions.  This is drifting off-topic into the more abstract, but I'd be happy to continue this aspect of the conversation in PM.

[pekkok]

A scene is sequence inside a narrative that changes or adds to the situation.

Yes - but this leaves out a key question: Whose Situation? This might be one of the problems with Shakespearean examples: In traditional plays the concept of Situation sets up fairly differently; if there is a Situation (written) in them, it is usually from the point of view of a "generalized" spectator - the play shows the sides it wants to show to the audience.

But this type of generalization often does not work in rpgs. Sure, you can sometimes meaningfully talk about the Situation of a group of characters if their interests overlap significantly. But you cannot rely on this. If some character is in the midst of a love affair, well, that that is probably a major element of his Situation. If another character is at the same time developing a potion for turning himself blue, the love interest of another might not meaningfully be a part of his Situation - while that cobalt mine in Schwarzwald...

Of course, one could analyse similar differences from traditional plays - but in roleplaying these Situations are real, and have to be respected, not mere coloring.

But while I don't think that you can define the issue so generally, pursuing this issue further might be worthwhile, though. For example, the above case of love affair/potion characters: Both might find the Scenes based on the motivations of the other boring, for understandable reasons: they might enjoy them as spectators, but their interests would not be at play. The issue is there - it simply does not base itself on a Situation of general significance.

If one wants to make the interplay between Scene and Situation such as you describe it, one cannot necessarily approach Situation in general terms; there might be as many meaningful Situations as there are points of view.

Cheers,

[pekkok]

That's why I said one of the functions is reconciliation; the other function is developing increasing detail by means of the differences in our individual conceptions.  This is drifting off-topic into the more abstract, but I'd be happy to continue this aspect of the conversation in PM.

Sorry, a pet peeve of mine - I thought you were emphasizing the importance of closer alignment of points of view since you raised just that one issue. I tend to develop a rash around arguments for similarity in places where I think its over-rated - especially in roleplaying.

But, like I said, points of view in roleplaying might need their own topic, sometime later. While they are essential to structuring a Scene, and as such should be present in this thread, arguing at length on their general nature would eat away from the main topic. So we might discuss this over PM, and/or come up with a topic for them later.


Cheers,

[Adam Dray]

I think a Scene isn't necessarily all in one place but perhaps point of view is a more useful yardstick. A scene is usually "viewed" by a single lens. Imagine a scene in which one character mentally spies on a dozen different places. The scene is from the point of view of the spy.

When multiple characters start a scene together and a couple split off, the GM will cut back and forth between them. The different points of view required to see all the characters creates separate scenes. If the two groups of characters can communicate telepathically, they might be visible through the same lens and thus exist within the same scene.

[Josh Roby]

Yes - but this leaves out a key question: Whose Situation?

Yes, pekkok, that is an important consideration, and a potential issue that would be circumvented with clearer communication between players about what is and is not a part of the situation, as they see it.

[contracycle]

Both John and Graham -- I'm not trying to define "Scene" in ways that don't work for you guys; I'm trying to define scene in such a way that the term is flexible enough to cover the range of meanings we attribute to it.  It's a tall order, but I don't think it's impossible.

I'm not sure thats feasible, and I definitely don't think thats a good idea - its far too likely to entrench any misunderstandings into a new terminology.

To most of this discussion I say "bah".  The "cut" definition is more than adequate - if, for whatever reason, the director decides that, for the progress of the story, the spotlight has to shift, then a scene changes.  It's true to say its not necessarily linked to location - it is merely that travel is dull, and unlikely to contributre to the narrative.  But, even in Shakespear, where two scenes are set in exactly the same place, this is usually punctuated by significant off-screen time, such as the first was in the morning and the next in the dead of night.

And, we must remember, whatever Shakespear DID he did becuase of the technical limitaitons of his day, not becuase he was sticking to some definition of "scene".  I'm sure he would have leaped at the chance to work with modern CGI, and to be able to do more scene changes than he was actually able to at the Globe.

The only interesting question is how RPG should use scene changes.  That is unclear.

[pekkok]

And, we must remember, whatever Shakespear DID he did becuase of the technical limitaitons of his day, not becuase he was sticking to some definition of "scene".  I'm sure he would have leaped at the chance to work with modern CGI, and to be able to do more scene changes than he was actually able to at the Globe.

Well, many think that he cared more for his Sonnets than his plays, and his Sonnets are hardly brimming with CGI potential - so I'm not sure about the leaping. Also, I think that his plays seem less effect-oriented than some of the others at the time (effects are not a modern day phenomenon - by many accounts even ancient Greeks used effects, even massive ones). And while he seemed to have his peeves with some parts of drama theory (his plays are full of jokes and puns on the normative classifications such as comedy and tragedy, and do not fit these classifications), he did write quite formal scenes, throughout his career. This was by no means a technical necessity: One can write continous plays, other structures, without resorting to special effects.

The "cut" definition is more than adequate - if, for whatever reason, the director decides that, for the progress of the story, the spotlight has to shift, then a scene changes.

Hmm, even Phantom Menace has interleaved scenes, where things rotate between two, or three scenes of action. I would not be ready to call Phantom Menace and overtly theoretical work, applying story structures of mostly academical interest.

Now, given that rpgs in general have such things as scenes, it would be much more misleading to place the term Scene where you would not expect it to be. It is also misleading to loan things from film theory, yet place them differently for no practical, explicated reason: cut is a cut, scene is a scene - these things are different. You can find similar structures in rpgs and they do not overlap either.

Also, given that the glossary makes heavy use of the term scene, it would be confusing not to define it: (Situation: Dynamic interaction between specific characters and small-scale setting elements; Situations are divided into scenes... Cross: The Technique of introducing effects from previous scenes into current scenes, although the scenes do not contain the same player-characters... Roads to Rome: A technique of scenario preparation in which the GM has prepared a climactic scene and maneuvers or otherwise determines that character activity leads to this scene.)

There are several other instances, but it's unnecessary to stress my point by quoting a mile of text. Certainly Roads to Rome definition seems to refer to a traditional concept of the scene, not a cut - it would be absurd to say that the climactic scene has to end if a cut occurs. (For example: during a climactic battle in the Sproinggg Temple somebody has an idea that he should fetch something from the carriage outside to help in the fighting. To call this and end of the Scene, when action continues without a hitch for other players, would be fairly confusing.)


Cheers,

[contracycle]

Hmmm.  I tend to disagree - some of your argument I take as overly reliant on definitions.  Lets remember definitions can be local - both film and theatre use scenes, but only film uses cut.  Does that suggest ythat a cut and a scene are inherently distinct, and that a cut can never be a scene change?

I'd agree that neither apply strictly to RPG but we will only be able to discuss their usages in general before we can make a definitional statement.

You mention interleaved "scenes"... let me suggest we call that a complex scene rather than asserting that merely because there is a cut, per the glossary, there must also be a scene change.  As I mentioned, film has different opportunities than stage performance - on the stage, changing the scene means changing the scenery - and that means bringing the lights down and breaking the action while you shift physical props.  Whereas, a film editor can splice two bits of footage with no interruption between the two.  IMO, though, such cutaways and interleavings are still the same scene, because the subject of action has not changed.  When the subject of action is resolved, its likely the next scene will be located somewhere other than wither of those two locales, and probably with time having moved significantly onward.  I don't think the nature of "scene" has changed merely becuase new techniques and technologies change some of the old constraints.  We have still witnessed only a single event, albeit from perspectives that would not have been technically possible until recently.

[pekkok]

Hmmm.  I tend to disagree - some of your argument I take as overly reliant on definitions.  Lets remember definitions can be local - both film and theatre use scenes, but only film uses cut.  Does that suggest ythat a cut and a scene are inherently distinct, and that a cut can never be a scene change?

Well, a cut can change a scene, of course - but it certainly does not have to. If you look at basic film theory, or even practical advice on filming, a shot (established by cuts) and a scene are two different things. Thus you have terms like "establishing shot" which means a shot opening and setting up the basic elements of the scene: For example, in a western movie, a far-away shot showing persons walking towards each other for a duel scene. From here you could cut to show close-ups of each persons face (shot-countershot) etc - in this way you use multiple shots to construct a scene in film.

To give a couple of examples of scenes in film (spoiler alert, btw): in Frankenstein (1931),  where the "monster" (or Adam) meets a blind girl, and eventually throws her into a lake (the highlight of the movie for me - in early versions this scene was censored, reputedly at the request of Karloff). It comprises of many shots, cuts, but it is a single, coherent scene.

Or in Blade Runner: Harrison Ford clinging to the edge of the building, Rutger Hauer saves him at the last second, has his monologue, dies - that's also one scene, with many shots.

To form a scene (whether theater, film) is to establish interplay between characters, their situations, environment, other elements. Thus you do not merely have: "A meeting between two lovers." Instead, you may have: "A chance meeting between two lovers, Girl and a Boy, on a precarious bridge, overlooking the city with its comings and goings; the towering monument of one of their families looming in the background. Also present is the older Mentor of the Boy, who has a secret lover of his own."

Scene is a complex, a construction of meaning - as a concept, it encourages one to think of a unity of representation as if a diamond, where each facet is placed in relation to each other - not as a vague vessel where to mix stuff in.

In roleplaying, one of course cannot construct a scene as in film or drama, especially as to their development. But you often can set a scene, bring in the elements, think about the potentialities of their interplay. And, personally, I find this both interesting and crucial area of roleplaying: You set up an interplay, a balance of forces... and see what happens.

Additionally, cuts, or shots, could be useful terms in roleplaying, I think, mainly because of the many points of view, and the necessity frequent changes between them, often for pragmatic reasons (changing which character is the focus of the action etc.).

But the concept of the scene is simply not made for the same issue as cut; and because the traditional concept of the scene is present in roleplaying, meaningfully and importantly, it would be silly to place the concept somewhere else, without a rhyme or reason. It's a powerful unit of meaning - there's no need to spoil it.

***

Finally, a general comment on the relationships of these discussions to the provisional glossary (since many have commented on the issue): For what it's worth, I personally have liked the theoretical approach in this thread, even though I have not agreed with all the details. Joshua presented a premise, a certain way of looking at Setting-Situation-Scene triad, which has then served as a starting point of discussion. Many of the posts seem to have the tone of "I'm still ruminating on this" or "this is still on an idea level" - which is as it should be, if something is to develop.

Now, in order to have a healthy theoretical debate, the possible concurrency with the glossary has to come afterwards - curtailing everything to the glossary from the beginning will deviate the debate, and make it more dogmatic by nature. This is really basic stuff for any theoretical debate: If you constantly pull the reins of newer developments, even discussions, back to an earlier model (kill the hypothetic elements, so to speak) you don't get much real progress.



P.S. Here's a description of the above mentioned Frankenstein scene from the filmsite.org. The interplay of the scene is not only between the monster and the girl - it includes the flowers, the lake, the childish playing... and also more conceptual things like unawareness and innocence, unawareness and cruelty etc. A complex of meaning, then:

"Another of the film's most powerful, poignant, and horrifying scenes: The Monster attempts to make friends with Maria (Marilyn Harris), a young girl who plays by the bank of a lake - she is not repelled by his hideous appearance and invites him to play. She takes his hand and leads him to the side of the lake. With child-like innocence, he smells a daisy flower she has given him and a smile lights his face. After they kneel next to the water, Maria hands him some flowers to join her in a delightful game of throwing them into the pond. One by one, they toss flowers onto the surface of the lake, watching the petals float. When the Monster's few flower blossoms are gone, he puzzles for a moment at his empty hands, and then innocently and ignorantly picks up a screaming Maria. He enthusiastically throws her in the water - expecting that she, too, will float like the flower petals. She flounders and splashes in the water and quickly sinks and drowns. As he staggers away from the lake, the Monster seems to express some confusion and remorse, shaking and wringing his hands and possibly perceiving the horrible thing he has done."


Cheers,

[Josh Roby]

Well put, pekkok, and better put than I could have put it.

In roleplaying, one of course cannot construct a scene as in film or drama, especially as to their development. But you often can set a scene, bring in the elements, think about the potentialities of their interplay. And, personally, I find this both interesting and crucial area of roleplaying: You set up an interplay, a balance of forces... and see what happens.

Yes, and: scenes are not strictly delimited from their inceptions.  It's quite possible to introduce new elements of the scene, remove some elements, or change some elements, and it is this process which is presently fascinating to me, because in most games, the resolution system is the only thing that performs this function (poorly), and the GM can just toss stuff in at will.  I think we'd find some very intriguing play come out of a rule set that governs how to reformulate the scene as it's happening.

[contracycle]

But the concept of the scene is simply not made for the same issue as cut; and because the traditional concept of the scene is present in roleplaying, meaningfully and importantly, it would be silly to place the concept somewhere else, without a rhyme or reason. It's a powerful unit of meaning - there's no need to spoil it.

Fair point well made, I concede in all respects.

Additionally, cuts, or shots, could be useful terms in roleplaying, I think, mainly because of the many points of view, and the necessity frequent changes between them, often for pragmatic reasons (changing which character is the focus of the action etc.).

Ok then - how SHOULD they be used?

To the best of my knowledge, there has not been any contributions on the topic from people with expertise or training in the field.  So, based on what you know, how do you think scenes should or could be suitably constructed for RPG?  And perhaps more importantly, how do we discuss these things in a constructuve manner?  With our internal-causality based approach, there is very little discussion as yet about what might be considered the production or directorial roles in building actual play events.

[Josh Roby]

Ok then - how SHOULD they be used?

The 'should' question always has the same answer: something 'should' be used in such a way to support your design goals, whatever those goals may be.  There will be lots of answers.  If you want to discuss those options, please split off a new thread. :)

[pekkok]

Apologies for everyone in want of them for my sluggish responses - I'm being savagely mugged by this thing called work...

Yes, and: scenes are not strictly delimited from their inceptions.  It's quite possible to introduce new elements of the scene, remove some elements, or change some elements, and it is this process which is presently fascinating to me, because in most games, the resolution system is the only thing that performs this function (poorly), and the GM can just toss stuff in at will.  I think we'd find some very intriguing play come out of a rule set that governs how to reformulate the scene as it's happening.

I concur, good point - better control of the elements of a running Scene would be highly desirable in roleplaying.

I'll outline one the main reasons for my concurrence with this :

In traditional theater, and especially in film, things are authored dominantly before representation - in theater, the actors of course have a certain level of authorship in the midst of representation, true - but the structure is still worked out beforehand, as the script.

In roleplaying, the balance is crucially different: While there's usually preparation work beforehand, the most dominant, essential time of authorship is concurrent with the representation - we "write" the "stuff of dreams" as we go along.

Thus, we need primarily tools that can take "part in the discussion", be "conversationalist", so to speak: add elements as reactions to something, introduce modifications on the fly etc. And this is no different in the case of Scene, and its application to roleplaying.

So, based on what you know, how do you think scenes should or could be suitably constructed for RPG?

Based on what I commented for Joshua above, I see only one way to approach this (might well be because of my current poverty of vision): The type of interplay inherent to the Scene should be analysed down to elements that create the basic tensions establishing that interplay.

To concretize, here's a quick sketch of the direction this could take us, if pursued:

Looking at a game situation from a Scenic viewpoint, you would not merely have character called John, character called Jane, so forth: you would also define them with "roles" that make up the Scene, as "forces" in play. Thus, John could be defined as the "Adversary of Jane", a "Humorous Distraction", or perhaps a "Figure of Repentance" etc. (These terms are just depictive phrases to sketch the idea I'm after, not well-honed terms of Scenic roles.)

This way you could superimpose the definitions of the Scene on the ongoing play - to make a sort of Scenic lens, if you will.

Naturally these terms would not be limited to characters - in the earlier description of Frankenstein I quoted, flowers are clearly intentional part of the Scene - perhaps one could describe them as "Supporting Figures for the Concept of Innocence", or something to that effect. Likewise architectural elements, such as a chasm between two meeting groups, often have clear Scenic roles - and so on. These definitions should also change from time to time, to reflect changes in action and relationships.

PCs could perhaps disregard their Scenic roles - to them, roles could be merely descriptions to aid the comprehension of the Scene. For NPCs, architecture etc, though, they could work as guiding themes for their presence or action, thus strengthening the appearance of Scenic interplay.


Something to that effect,