In this ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19689.0 thread, Chris wrote:

For folks who've really only known D&D, do you -really- want to start them off with Sorcerer?  Does anything like Donjon or octaNe appeal to you? (octaNe had some really awesome sword and sorcery add-on rules, "Blood & Steel" that I've used a couple of times).

I've generally found that people need explicit rules on player input and narration as training wheels to dislodge the GM Fiat and "follow the hooks" play before they can settle comfortably into other games.

But... Maybe I am wrong about all this.... But you know, the older I get, the more training wheels seem like a really bad idea.

You do something by doing it. Not by getting ready to do it. And yes, there's a learning curve -- and you take your time up that curve.

I think it should be effortless. It shouldn't be any more difficult to play an RPG and have fun than to do the same with Poker or Scrabble or Ticket to Ride. You get some likeminded people together and play a game--bam!

It goes back to when I was a kid, playing Let's Pretend and making up stories with my friends. That's what I want from RPGs. That's what I expect.

When I first got into RPGs, I had tons of free time. Making dungeons and subsectors and countries was fun and easy. It was effortless. Now, I just don't have the time to devote to that kind of thing, and it feels too much like homework and not enough like play. It's too much effort. So, I look for RPGs that require less effort but give me the same kind of fun.

Should play itself involve hard choices? Stiff competition? Rough collaboration? I prefer it like that. But I don't think one needs to learn special skills to play RPGs, beyond the skills of behaving like an adult and dreaming like a child.

Hi Chris,

As you might note in the other thread- "Training Wheels" was a terrible choice of words on my part.  I think you shouldn't worry -too much- about it and if you feel that the group understands input and openness of table dialogue, things will work just fine.  If you feel that they are ingrained or fall back into habits, then maybe try something to shake free those old play habits.  You might want to also check out some AP threads of Sorcerer to check for potential trouble areas.  (Prep is important!)

Chris

Hi Chris,

I'm using the term in its broadest, non-judgemental sense. (And thanks for the input, and the follow-up clarification on the other thread.)

Just looking for heads up matters for myself in the players when moving into the world of the Sorcerer rules. (This all became to me when I finally "got" the group conflict resolution rules this week: This game really is so different in so many ways it's scary!)

So, it's just that. Any tips... Less about the rules themselves than social interaction at the table, tips for introducing new concepts through play and such.

Thanks,

Christopher

Hi Chris,

Ok, cool.

I find sometimes giving a completely blank canvas to the players with "What kind of scene do you want?" can sometimes leave people unfamiliar with that kind of play stuck.  You might want to suggest and then ask for input, for example, "I think it would be cool if the Snake Queen comes down to Kozar's cell and tries to cut him a deal, -IF he breaks her binding with the Devil King and takes her as his own demon,  what do you think?"  And, be sure to aim that question at the group as a whole, not just Kozar's player.

Also, Sorcerer-specific, it can help to give suggestions for ways for players to get bonus dice and/or use the roll-over mechanic to their advantage initially.

Chris

That's a good point about addressing the players as a whole...

In another thread, a new Sorcerer GM was talking about the Players bemoaning the lack of PC interaction. The GM assumed that he needed to frame each PC in his or her own scene.

Ron asked the GM (paraphrasing), "Why are you assuming that you can't address the group as a whole? Why not put several PCs in one framed scene?"

I read that response and thought, "Wow. I would have assumed the same thing at that GM!"

So this is a good tip: No party doesn't mean I'm talking to PLAYERS as utter individuals each step of the way! It's obvious now, but...!

Thanks,

Christopher

Good advice from Chris.  I'd say that (and this is not as rulesy a suggestion as it sounds) another important thing to do is to keep the dice on the table, even after you've all narrated the outcome of that round's events.

Keep them there while people are describing their intents for the next round and then have them pick them up.  But not before first looking at the rolls from last time, noting the number of successes for successful actions and thinking about whether the announced action for *this round* flows logically from what happened last time and merits the addition of all those successes as bonus dice to the player's dice pool.

When a player asks, "Why are you handing me four extra dice?" explain how those successes from last round roll over into the dice pool for this round because of the connection between action A and B (provided of course that there is one--don't just make it up).  The look on the player's face will be worth it and everyone will quickly see how important a part of the game this "declaring intent" is.

Cheers,

Eric

Hmmm..I should have added (in case it wasn't obvious) why I think leaving the dice on the table works well. Once the players catch on that you get to add the successes from a previous action (in the form of an equivalent number of bonus dice) to followup actions that flow from or are connected strongly to the first action, they start to stare at those dice and think, "Now how can I narrate a cool followup action that will net me those success dice as bonuses to my dice pool?"

I think this is one place where you get a nice and healthy infusion of gamist-style strategizing entering into the narrativist fun.

Cheers,

Eric

[Aside: I sometimes really hate the fact that there's no editing option anymore.  I know that I should probably just wait to post something until after my brain has thought of all the stuff it wants to say, but who the hell does that in normal life?  So instead of editing in new content to an existing post I wind up posting three times in a row becuase something new occurs to me and, as a result, risk looking like Sparky the fucking hyper-enthusiastic posting monkey! Oh well.]

So another thing that you might want to try to set tone and encourage certain important group behaviors would be this: during character creation--at a point in the process when there is some pretty substantial flesh on the character concept as well as some sense of the kicker etc.--go around the table and have each player present the character as he/she exists at that particular point in the process.

"Now presenting so and so.." each player says and then presents a little pitch for the character and the kicker.  Make it a bit like a pitch for a movie before a group of industry types (only without the meanness and posturing crap).  After a player makes a pitch go around the room and ask each person The Question ("Would you pay $10.00 or whatever it costs in your area to see Joe Schmoe's story played out on the screen?")  Make everyone say something about the character, what interests them about the character, what expectations it raises, etc.

I think it is important that you do this gently with newcomers because you don't want people to be discouraging of a player's first fledgling efforts.  On the other hand, you want a certain amount of honesty to reign so that people will get the idea that they have power to make this character the most interesting motherfucker anyone has ever seen.  You want any honest criticism to act as a spur to the player's imagination--"Okay wiseguy, so you think that idea's a little tired just wait until you get a load of this!  Take that you fuck!"

I put this in deliberately male, posturing, locker-room type trash-talking terms to make the point that a certain amount of competition and desire to "Wow" the group with one's character concept need not be a bad thing.  If you can get to it without all the dick-swinging, however, so much the better.

As I said earlier, though, go easy and be ready to talk up what you like about the character concept if it looks like things are taking a downward turn.  I suggest this for a couple of reasons:

1) It makes it very clear to the group that play involves all of us.  Even when a scene occurs in which Emily's character is the only one present, we are all involved in that story and making some kind of contribution even if it is just reaching out to pat Emily on the back and say, "That idea fucking rocks the house!"  Of course, we can be involved in other ways as well, but the point is that we are never just passively waiting for our turn.

2) Knowing that I (as a player) am interested in Emily's character's story too might activate something inside me in scenes involving my own character.  For example, let's imagine that somehow Emily's character and my character both have some connection to a particular NPC.  Neither of our characters has a good relationship with this NPC, but my guy has a particularly bad relationship to him.  Let's also imagine that at some point in play Emily has introduced this bit of color about her character: she likes to suck down the Jim Beam to try to distance herself from some of the crazy shit she does as a sorcerer.

Now cut to a scene in which my guy is in a violent confrontation in an alley with said NPC.  I say to the GM that my guy reaches into a trash can and comes up with an empty bottle to smash against Mr. Soon to Be Down on the Ground Pulling Glass Shards From His Fucking Skull NPC.  So I use my directorial powers to give my guy a handy weapon and then quickly add that it's an empty bottle of Jim Beam.  Bottle smashes, NPC goes down and I leave him a bloody wreck in the alley.

I introduce this bit of color because I want the GM to have a nice way to move from my scene to a scene involving Emily's character.  The GM can take this in all kinds of ways.  It could be something as simple as the following scene framing description, "You're pouring yourself about four fingers of Jim Beam when your demon shows up grousing that he hasn't had his Need met for a while..." or it could be something more startling like, "Detective Brisco shows up at your door with a broken bottle of Jim Beam in his hands mumbling something about how your known enemy (the NPC) was found in an alley last night with this lying next to what used to be a perfectly intact head."

Anyway, you're a writer you get the idea.  Establishing early on that we are all involved in everybody's story might help to make things like a player's deliberately interweaving of my guy's story and Emily's character's story more likely.

Cheers,

Eric

Hi Eric,

Another excellent point: the need for everyone at the table to be invested with interest in all the characters, and the obligation of the Player to deliver a character worthy of said attention.

I will tweak it however. While I understand the pitch concept, I think that's far more agressive than is needed. At least how I work. I have finely tuned sense of audience involvement -- at script readings or at movie theaters or pitches, I know know how the story is going with the crowd. And there's no mystery here. In the Nar game's I played, you could ALWAYS spot the moment when everyone when, "Oooooh" during character creation. And ws always aware when that hadn't happened yet. (And, of course, that moment of "Oooooh," for the group is a needed feature for these games!)

So the issue won't be putting the player on the spot to dig it out, but to keep pulling stuff from the player to make it clear to the other people why he or she thinks the PC is cool. Because people make what they think is cool. The training is in how to communicate it so that coolness is clear to others. (Of course, some styles of play discourage sharing coolness: PC coolness is sometimes the one area where the Player actually gets to "play" the game he wants without someone trying to control it -- even if that part of the game s in his own head and no one else at the table knows what's going on!)

I'm pretty good at getting writers to divulge the story they have but don't know how to say. So I expect I'll be pretty good at this too. No need to get all confrontational about it -- though that might be your style.

One thing I'm learning about pitching -- and those goes to what I said about how in the past I felt a need to WOW people as a GM -- is that sincere passion, excitement and enthusiasm, even if it's sometimes calm and clearly delivered, will often carry the day.

I was just talking about this with my executive producer a short while ago, so it's definitely on my mind. We went in to pitch a project to a studio last week, and apparently I did a great job pitching the project. (Me, I have no idea.) But I wasn't showy. I was wired -- god yes -- three trips to the bathroom before we started, the whole thing... I ended up sitting on the conference table to display off our graphic presentation as I went through the details. As far as I can tell, I was focused, clear, plain and strong in a they-kept-looking-at-me-kind-of-way.

In particular, I don't (for my game) want to get everyone wound up. I think of Jay's hyperkinetic Sim game and think, "I know he's having fun, but that's not my style." I'm content with the image of the Inkling's reading each other's tales to each other in a pub, passionate, perceptive and critical yes... But with a touch of decorum that let's the passion of the fiction stand out even more clearly.

Again, this is no swipe at how you like to play. Just me offering another option on how to conduct play.

Christopher

Christopher,

Jeez, what can I say except that I hope my post didn't seem like it was directed at you (i.e. I hope you didn't read it as "Well you know, Christopher, you need to develop this particular skill...")  Christ, that would be...well, it would be a really stupid, condescending thing to do. 

I was rather trying to say that with people new to the ideas that Sorcerer throws into their laps--in other words, players who are accustomed to the idea that their involvement in the creation of the group fun is fairly limited, that the GM isn't really going to give them the power that they wish they had to create the cool character they really want and so forth, players who perhaps aren't quite fully prepared that they have considerable power over and responsibility for what happens in play--sometimes they need to be pushed a bit to see that they really do have a lot of power, that they really can create the cool character they have always wanted to play but felt they never could and that embracing this power is going to make play that much more fun for everyone around the table.

I know that you know all this. I just want to be clear that I didn't imagine that post as being aimed at telling *you* something you didn't already know.  Call it rather, talking out loud about something that players (especially players with possibly bad past rpg experience) might need to be reminded of.

And you're right of course that this is just one possible approach (and an admittedly somewhat confrontational one).  Generally my approach is much more variable and group-dependent.  Call it a Machiavellian, Iago-like conformity of the self to the demands of the group, but I generally trim my approach to take advantage of the prevailing winds I sense blowing from the group.  In the previous post I was imagining how I would handle things with a group of guys I have known since I was a kid.  These guys have a rather intense competitive streak that, when we were kids, used to manifest itself in all sort of horrible ways and create serious dysfunction in the group.  One of these guys is today one of the most successful bond traders in the U.S. but when we were kids I can recall him literally overturning a table because he lost a game of Monopoly.

Anyway, knowing this about them, I would use that competitive element but try to steer it in a way that would be more likely to produce something healthy, collaborative and fun.  So, I might spring the "would you pay $10.00 to see this guy's story on screen" to the rest of the group in the hope that it would make everyone that much more committed to creating cool characters with compelling kickers and so forth. 

It would work for these guys but I wouldn't use it with everyone.

Anyway, I hope that post of mine didn't seem like it was trying to teach you stuff you already know.  If so, I deeply apologize.  And for the record, I completely agree that people generally  "make what they think is cool" but I have to end with a story that I hope you'll find amusing, even if tangential.  It is the exception that perhaps proves the rule.

While I was a grad student at Boston University and working at the Writing Center, a colleague came to me one day and told me the following story: A young student in the school of Communications who was interested in writing for film came into the Writing Center wanting some feedback on part of a script.  Specifically, she wanted some feedback on the plot.  So she starts pitching the idea to him.  The story involves a girl about the writer's age (19 or so) who has always wanted to go to Disney World.  For reasons of finances or something, her parents have never been able to take her.  Fortunately, she gets the chance to go when a beloved aunt leaves the family some money.

So my friend is sitting there listening to this with mounting exasperation.  Finally he says, "Okay, okay so what happens?  I mean what? Does she go to Disney World and Mickey Mouse feels her up or something?"

The expression on this girl's face, my friend told me, was one of utter horror.  No, she stammers, no she goes to Disney World and its everything she ever expected.  its completely magical.  The end.

I kid you not, this was the script (such as it was).

So I agree (generally) that people know how to make "what they think is cool."  Except this kid.  This kid, for reasons I can only guess at, somehow found herself forever outside the charmed circle of what is cool or, at the very least, of knowing what makes a good story.  I'm pretty sure that my Aunt Margaret, good Christian woman though she was, would rise liche-like from her grave to crucify this kid's cat if forced to watch this saccharine monstrosity.

'Night,

Eric

Hi Eric,

First, ummmmm, no I didn't take anything you said as any sort of swipe at me. No one bit. Really. I just have a different strategy to reach the same end you (rightly) suggested I go for, and thought I'd share it.

As for the poor girl... Listen, her craft skills were for shit. No doubt.

Please note: I have little interest in the matter of talent these days. Everything I've read about artistic success suggests too me two things:

a) ability is based on doing (practice, rehearsal, whatever -- not slavish, spartan like disicpline, but, the studies suggest, how much goddam time you put into something)
b) desperate fucking desire (you can have all the knack in the world, but if you don't care, you won't do much with it)

Did she have somethig cool? Sure. Cool to her. A girl wants to go to Disney World. And yeah, she gets there and it's all good. That's the end of the movie.

What your friend blipped over is the part about financial hardship. I'm telling you as god is my witness, the meat of the story is there. What would that girl do to get to Disney World. Sure, she'd tell me about the Aunt, and I'd say, "Sorry, this is a story, no Aunt. So, if the girl had to do the work, how far would she go."

Because the Aunt bit is a clear dodge to me. I see it all the time in new writers. They love their characters, they want their characters to be safe. They alway paper over the harshest part of the material, and my job is to go find out what's underneath.

What's happening at home? Where' s the money? Where's dad, mom? The siblings? Where the money being spent? Is she willing to run away from Boston the Florida? Come up with a crazy scheme to get the cash.

I tell you this, the gilr would have ideas... She has to be prodded, yes. But every writer I've ever coached had more material in their cool idea than they knew. And I don't think saying, "Would you pay $10 to see this girl in a movie?" is going to help, because obviously the answer is, "Yes"! It's her girl for gosh sake.

Now, let me be clear. I know you told me this story with the best of intentions to illustrate a point. But right now I'm REALLY pissed at your friend. Because a novice writer showed up with her ill-formed tale and missed all the clues. And what's the point of going to school? To LEARN what you DON'T know how to do. Of course her tale is ill-formed. That's the point of paying the tuition.

So, to wrap it back around to my Sorcerer game. When I say I will tease the coolness out for all to see, I'm saying it's the group's job to keep asking for more and digging deeper until the coolness reaches a point of "Oooooooh" around the table.

Not everybody has to get this all off the bat. We have to work it out together. And that's fine.

My point is, I have great faith in the imaginitive powers of humans to tell stories. We're natural story tellers. But sometimes (in my observation) we skip over the scary/sad/reavealing parts for fear of being mocked or embarassed (not that usually happens -- those scary/revealing/sad parts are the parts that connect us.) Your friend just wanted more plot. I'd want to know more about the GIRL.

And in that we'd find a terrific character. Trust me, that girl in that office had more to share about "the girl" she brought into the office. Everyone does. You just keep asking questions. The secrets of the heart are waiting to be revealed. We all got 'em -- hearts -- and all of 'em have secrets.

I trust people on this front. That's why I want to play a game like Sorcerer. In fact, I want to play it even more now. As some sort of affirmation of my faith in my fellow man.

Which ties into this thread: I'm not looking to assume the worst about people's abilities. But I am seeking out clues to as to how to best bring out those abilities.

Christopher

PS. Eric, I fear you'll rush in now to defend your friend. All I can say is, there's nothing to defend. I think he blew it. I work in the same scenario you described regularly with my clients. I handle things differently than he does, and I don't like how he handled it. I'm sure he's a great guy; I'm sure he's helped lots of people in other ways. Nonetheless, this time around, he wasn't on the ball.

Christopher,

No fears of that.  At the time he told me the story I asked him if in fact the real story had to do with the financial hardships and he just harrumphed.

I think he said he found my suggestion trite at the time, but this was probably due to the fact that he was under the sway of his then-God Quentin Tarantino and thought all stories should have some "fucked-up" angle--hence his suggestion that Mickey Mouse feel-up this young naif.

I like the stuff you say about having faith in your fellow human beings to tell stories, and I know that with that kind of enthusiasm, commitment, and (obviously) with your skills for eliciting the creativity of people this game is going to be great.

To get back to your original post--I don't really know why you've gotten such a strong feeling of hesitancy about running Sorcerer from folks.  It isn't that hard (rules-wise) to grasp, at least nothing that some brief demonstrations won't clear up. 

I hope you get some more feedback from folks about suggestions for how to bring out these abilities in your players.  Good luck with the game.

Cheers,

Eric

Ahhh, just thought of one other thing, although you've probably already got this in mind.

Make sure they read the section on Stances in Chapter Seven--"The Anatomy of Authored Role-playing" in Sorcerer & Sword.  That way you'll be almost certain that they'll understand the wide range of things that they can exert influence/power over in the SIS.  You might even then set them each a goal--"alright, I'd really like it if you all used your directorial powers at least once in this session to contribute something really cool to a scene."

So, I showed Sorcerer and S&Sword books to the D&D player this afternoon. Let him flip through for a few hours, then came back and started explaining some stuff: the die mechanics, how Humanity and Lore are defined by the group for each game.

I showed him the simplicity of the PC character sheet. "See how clean that is?"

"Yeah," he said, sounding almost relieved.

"And see this, this is the Kicker. This is where you decide a moment that Kicks off the whole adventure for your PC... something like, 'My mother tells me on her death bed I'm the heir to the throne.'"

He keeps staring at that empty space waiting for the Kicker. "We decide the Kicker?" The sentence is flat; not sounding like a question at all. It's like he turning over a stone in his hand, examining it because there's something about it that fascinates him but he doesn't know what that might be.

"That's right. You guys decide your own Kickers. Because that's your chance to tell me and everyone at the table what you care about, what sort of story you want to pursue with your PC. What you care about. I couldn't make up your Kicker. How would I know what's going to be the thing you care about."

Nodding his head, still looking at the blank space waiting for the Kicker, he says, "We make up the Kicker."

Yeah. I think this is going to work just fine.

Christopher

Yay!  That's what every Sorcerer GM wants to hear!  Congrats, Christopher.

I keep coming back to something I remember Ron once posting here at the Forge (don't ask me for which thread it's in cuz I couldn't tell ya).  It went something like this: "Sorcerer is actually a lot easier for new players to grasp than it is for tried and true roleplayers."  In the post, I recall him saying that this statement applied especially to himself, that in fact the game taught him how to be a better narrativist GM or some such thing.

Your players look like they are on the brink of proving the point that perhaps the best "audience" for Sorcerer is the relative neophyte because (s)he doesn't have so much stuff to unlearn.

Eric

Well, remember the guy I showed the books to was the guy who wanted that ol' time D&D.

Here's how I'm looking at it: it's less about "training" new habits or "unlearning" new habits, and more about me making sure to present, clearly, the opportunities available to the players. My hunch is they'll jump at the opprotunities.

Oddly, you touched on the matter I'm most focused on: I have to unlearn my old habits. If anyone is going to lay out those opportunities for the players, it's me. And that means reading through the books, threads and really allowing a sifting of the Sorcerer material before I run it. I won't nail it the first time out -- but something in my head seems to be clicking better than before.

Looking forward to it.

So, besides things I need to be on the lookout for my players, what, as GMs, has anyone bumped into on their path to "getting" the game.

Thanks,

Christopher

Hi all,

I'm adding some notes from another thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19697.0 to my list of things to keep in mind as I re-frame my thinking for S&Sword.

Eric wrote:
A few months back I'd acquired a mint condition copy of the ol' Red Box edition of D&D.  After reading through it again for the first time in what must have been at least fifteen years I decided that I had to play it again....

We'd decided to play as close as possible to the core rules, making only the few changes we thought were important to circumvent obvious no-fun situations.  These are the four rules-changes we set up before play:
...

4. I know you want to check for hidden things, so you don't need to ask.  Instead of trying to keep some silly connection between player and PC knowlege, I would declare things like; "Ok, roll a d6 to see if you noticed the Secret Door you just walked by.  Combined with an assurance that there would not be any essential secret doors, this rule was immediately declared awesome.
...
[And then a cool example of this:]
Later on, after severeral hirelings had bitten the dust from over-powered monsters, there was a room where the party fights a giant lizard.  The thing just charges at them when they open the door and they all fight in the hall outside.  It was a pretty tough battle, and was pretty close to killing off a lackey or two.  Well, after they'd dispached the thing, both players decided that it was time to get into that room and pry open the old chest that was there.  After a bit of comedy and a couple failed rolls to notice the second lizard that was hanging from the ceiling, ("Roll to see if you notice that lizard hanging from the ceiling") we went into the second fight for a single Turn.  Which meant that all the injured lackeys were in real danger of being eaten, having not regained their HP from the last battle.  Mark's danger of loosing a whole host of Dwarven clansmen to the sneaky gecko kept the tension high and all the dice rolls interesting.

And this, from Old Scratch, on a thread over on RPG.net...

He takes scene framing, which is a concept I get but still feel uncertain about. He makes it seem like the easiest thing to do in the world and -- importantly -- the best gift I could give to the players. Reading his post it no longer seems like something I'm going to screw up or that deserves a lot of pressure. Just something that naturally seems like the right thing to do -- like breathing or being polite.

[QUOTE=Old Scratch]I agree with Paka, but I take [scene framing] a bit more aggressive...

I create a scene with a conflict or something to be explored (in conjunction with the player) and move from significant moment to significant moment. The minute an event is resolved or it's a cool moment for a cliffhanger I immediately change the scenes.

When I'm in this sort of approach, there's very little wandering about or chatting with innkeeps unless this is something that the players and I have worked out.

The scene normally must do one of the following:

Address or resolve a central conflict to the character

Hit on one  of the themes of the game

Be player requested

Create a connection between the player and the world.

Examples of each:

Address or resolve a central conflict to the character

Kurtzmann the German diplomat has been captured by a rival spy and is aboard the Steam Vessel Henry VIII. There's no "Where am I? Is the door locked? How high are the windows? Can I hide in the latrine and jump out and surprise the guard?" because the player and I both feel that this is a scene that should focus on his encounter with his distant cousin and rival spy master. The player *knows* that this scene is not a puzzle or a trick on the player, but an opportunity for that player to put his character into a tense scene and learn something about the character.

So we immediately cut to a scene where his rival has set up a table for three and is eating and Kurtzmann is escorted across. We both know that the action is going to happen here, not in some dorky dice rolling convention of hiding in a latrine and ambushing guards and reducing the drama to a series of dice rolls: instead this is going to be a battle of the minds, a play on words and blackmail and cunning between the two.

Hit on one  of the themes of the game

Kurtzmann is a Bavarian lord of his castle, a man who climbed the heights and murdered his family members to become lord of his little province. The theme is about the price of power. Kurtzmann then has a scene with a penniless lord who has become a vagrant, hated and reviled and thrown from power. This gives the player (and his character) a chance to reflect upon the price and potential future of the character.

Aggressive frame scene:

"It's winter. The halls are cold and the wind bursts in as your guards tramp forward, throwing a beggar to the floor of the hall." Straight to the scene. The minute the scene is resolved cut to the next scene, which could be any of these other elements.

Be player requested

The player: "Kurtzmann the Mercenary has been fighting in these bushwars for over a year now, I'd like him to have a connection with a family member."

Cut: Straight to a Parisian street where Kurtzmann is on vacation. He hears a voice between him, tenative yet hopeful: "...daddy...?"

Create a connection between the player and the world.

This is where world building comes in, in the service of the players. I usually tie this to conflict or any of the others as well...

Scene cut: "There is a racket out door, rousing you from your sleep. You fling open the shutters and shout out in an imperious voice, only to see a dozen monks of the Lone Goat gathering in your courtyard, shouting out dire pronouncements if their god is not appeased."

The Monks of the Lone Goat suddenly appear, maybe a few facts are thrown about, but they serve only to engage the character in the world.

Yes, many people do cut aggressively, but a lot more sort of let the story meander.

"You're in town... What do you do?" "Now you're at the blacksmiths. He has everything in stock... what do you want". "You can go to the Inn of Six Candles, or Mother Marsh's Boarding House..." "The servant leads you up the hallway... this is your room, this is hers.... bath will be ready in the morning and supper is six pfennigs". That is not aggressive scene-framing, but it does have its place and I still use it.