I have heard this term bandied about in relation to Sorcerer. I have no clue really what it means? Would anyone care to elaborate? Is someone reading a different set of rpg's/books to me?

Thanks in advance

Sean

Hey Sean,

Here's a link to a thread where scene framing is covered. There are a few more you can find by doing a search, but this one should get you up to speed.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=313&highlight=scene+framing

-Chris

C. Edwards wrote: Hey Sean,

Here's a link to a thread where scene framing is covered. There are a few more you can find by doing a search, but this one should get you up to speed.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=313&highlight=scene+framing

-Chris

Hi Sean,

Joe Murphy and I have been doing the PM thang on this subject, I asked his permission to put something up, so here's something that may help you out:

I say:

Ok, I'll try to summarize Scene Framing for you. First I'll start with a comparison of what it isn't:

Traditional play is location based. That is events occur or don't occur based on the location of PCs. This is a holdover from Dungeoncrawling, and the trick becomes either herding PCs to a particular spot or trying to get the interesting stuff to come to them. Players become particularly possessive over the power to control where "my guy goes".

This is not unlike a typical videogame. You end up having to "walk through" areas in order to get from point A to point B. This eats up a god-awful amount of time in play, and represents the "boring" part of play.

So consider this scenario: The PCs want to catch a boat over to another land.

Under location based play, they go down to the docks, have to look around, and ask questions to see who is going where, then they have to waste anywhere from a few hours to a couple of days until the ship takes off, etc.

Now let's jump over to scene framing. Scene Framing works just like movies and tv. You cut, cut, cut out anything that doesn't need to happen.

This is where people get confused. "Need to happen" gets confused with the location (above). So, if the party wants to get on a boat to the other land, by use of scene framing you'll cut to one of the following:

-Negotiation over price of passage(it is assumed they asked around, and now are getting the tickets)
-The boat ride(They handled all that)
-or, the boat arriving at the new harbor, and the PCs hopping off.

What determines where, and what you cut to? Simple: Interest. Whatever is interesting takes priority as to where you cut the scene, and location is pushed to the side. This is also how you set up Bangs in the traditional sense, because you now are setting up the location, the general gist of the scene, instead of trying to herd PCs into it. It requires trust on the parts of players that you will put their characters in interesting scenes, and some hot water, but not hose them.

At first, this will feel like railroading, because suddenly you'll be declaring where their characters are at, a general idea of what they're doing, and setting up a situation that they'll have to react to. But by being hands off about the reactions, that's opening up the door for protagonist play.

So to give the example that introduced me to scene framing, Clinton was running TROS for me and some guys. He opened the game by describing a scene where my character was in confession and another PC was inpersonating the priest(w/o my character's knowledge). And then he said, "Go!"

What he did was scene frame a situation where you just know something interesting is going to happen, but no one knows what the hell it is.

Hey, thanks for posting this kind of stuff. Its a help to my Trollbabe-Demigods game! (I keep having to resist the old location based play)

And that old thread is great to reread now that I've played around with games and scene framing!.

Sorry if this has been asked before, but when you say:

But by being hands off about the reactions, that's opening up the door for protagonist play.

Hi Jason,

No problem. Since I lost the PM to Joe that was my followup, I'll try to hit some of the salient points and help you out...

He brought up his idea of "Scene Trimming" which is the idea of cutting out the boring stuff, which was recommended in Feng Shui, and by a few other folks regarding GM advice in general. My point was that Scene Framing is not just a "trim" but also puts things in motion, so that the players are given some incentive to DO something. From my Ball analogy, its a set up or a hard pass.

To give you a comparative example:

Standard Play

GM-Where do you go?
Player- Batman goes from his cave to the docks to rough up some guys for info
(scenes ensue, info is gathered)
GM-Where do you go?
Player- Batman goes to the warehouse to wait for the shipment.
GM-What do you do?
(etc.)

Scene Framing

GM- 4 hours, 3 contusions, and one cracked rib later, you find yourself damn well freezing crouched upon a rafter in a seedy warehouse. Down below, you see the weapons shipment is a bit more heavy powered than you anticipated...must be the Army's new android soldiers...What do you do?
Player- (See response examples below)

Notice that if we're talking the typical Illusionist/Sim sort of play, the point of the GM asking, "What do you do?" is pretty pointless because there's really only a couple of "right" answers that will get the PC to the next event in game. With Scene Framing, there's not need to "lead" Batman to the action, you just throw him right in.

What exactly are you meaning? What/Whose reactions are you referring to? I think I get what protagonist play is.. play whereby the PCs are the movers/shakers/decision makers, in the sense of the storyline that is...

Sorry, I'm now confused. I would have thought that with scene framing, the question "Where do you go?" would be valid, but intended not as "Do you go to the right place or not?" but as "Where would you like the next scene to take place?" Am I totally lost here?

Hi Chris,

Apparently I've made myself unclear-

Yes, giving the player input as to "What kind of scene happens next" is one option(see Trollbabe for an explicit example), but is not necessary.

What I was doing was comparing traditional Illusionist/Sim play to Protagonist play based Scene Framing. With the former, you are herding the characters along an event path. With the latter, you do not.

What I am saying is that if you're going to put the character in Situation X, no matter what, why ask the question? (in Sim/Illusionist play). If the character is going to go to Situation Y, afterwards, no matter what they do, or because you "force" their hand via railroading tricks, why ask the question?

Now, if you ask the question, and leave it completely in the players' hands to answer it whatever they will, and roll with it, you have no idea what Situation will come up. Give them Point A, let them choose Point B-Z as they will, and then put them there, and let them choose another point.

Am I still being unclear?

Chris

Bankuei,

Thank you for your explantion. I found it quite clear. I think I actually do a little Scene framing without realising it.

Scene framing and Bangs. Are these similar, are they the same?. With bangs you are supposed to be getting to the point - to the action, framing a scene so that the players have to react?

Thanks again.

I can see one "revolutionary" thing that will eventuate from me putting these techniques into practice. I'll either have very short game sessions, or normal length sessions with more action than normal. With all the time cleaved with "and then you travel over the Plains of Azura-kesh till you get to Kanda...what do you do now?" kind of things I'll have to come up with a lot more to keep the players active it seems. This can only be a good thing I'm thinking.

One thing that comes to mind however, sometimes the bits in between the action or scenes have provided the most interesting roleplaying we've had, and unexpected revelations like "that npc is actually really interesting and might be cool put into the story more deeply" etc... my GMing style is mostly "on the fly" with R-Maps done in my head or on paper (rarely)...
More precisely...How does exposition and character development work in the context of Scene Framing, Bangs etc? Does character development come out in these scenes that are tailored specifically by the GM? Does the fact that the protagonist angle is now clearly at the forefront provide the player with enough opportunity to develop his character, or am I mixing my apples and oranges and thinking Sim instead of Narr?

Jason (loving these boards)

Jason--

I can see one "revolutionary" thing that will eventuate from me putting these techniques into practice. I'll either have very short game sessions, or normal length sessions with more action than normal.

With all the time cleaved with "and then you travel over the Plains of Azura-kesh till you get to Kanda...what do you do now?" kind of things I'll have to come up with a lot more to keep the players active it seems. This can only be a good thing I'm thinking.

You can see some of the same ideas behind Scene Framing in how action movies have changed over the past couple of decades.

Take a typical Dirty Harry movie. Clint discovers the identity of some body he needs to question. We watch Clint walk out of the stationhouse. We watch him get in the car. We watch the car drive down the street. We get a cut to the interior where we can watch Clint get all squinty. More shots of driving down the street. A red light. Losing a hubcap going around a corner. We watch Clint get out of the car. He shuts the car door. He walks up to the house. He rings the doorbell. We watch Clint wait for the door to be answered...etc.

No think of how that scene could go with more aggressive scene framing.

Clint discoveres the identity of somebody he needs to question.
Cut to scene in interrogation room.
Woman says "why have you brought me here, I don't know nothin"

or
Cut to scene at front door
Woman says "what do you want, I already talked to the police"

or
Cut to scene at front door
Something doesn't feel right, theres a smell of gas in the air
BOOM.


Its amazing going back and watching some of those older movies, how much STUFF is in there that we rarely see in movies any more. It really boils down to a question of pacing.

In RPGs its both a question of pacing and a question of getting to the points where the PCs actually matter and the player's decisions actually make a difference.

Good points, Ralph. Along similar lines, I use the example of Law & Order, the TV show. They use aggressive scene framing and they're unusually overt about it, with the distinctive two-beat sound effect and where-and-when screen titles marking each scene jump. Once a character announces an intention to pursue any course of action or inquiry, the scene changes within a sentence or two later. And when we already know what question is going to be asked or request made, we jump into mid-conversation so that we don't have to listen to the part we already know is going to happen.

"I think we should have a chat with this Clinton guy. Where does he live?"

[Bump-Bum][Screen title: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 9:30 AM]

"I tell you, I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

That's how they manage to portray a whole investigation (with at least one false lead or wrong suspect or major complication) and the ensuing trial (with at least one surprise legal maneuver or major twist) into one forty-minute "hour."

- Walt

Hi Delta,

Scene framing and Bangs. Are these similar, are they the same?. With bangs you are supposed to be getting to the point - to the action, framing a scene so that the players have to react?

One thing that comes to mind however, sometimes the bits in between the action or scenes have provided the most interesting roleplaying we've had, and unexpected revelations like "that npc is actually really interesting and might be cool put into the story more deeply" etc... my GMing style is mostly "on the fly" with R-Maps done in my head or on paper (rarely)...

More precisely...How does exposition and character development work in the context of Scene Framing, Bangs etc? Does character development come out in these scenes that are tailored specifically by the GM? Does the fact that the protagonist angle is now clearly at the forefront provide the player with enough opportunity to develop his character, or am I mixing my apples and oranges and thinking Sim instead of Narr?

Something Jason wrote struck a chord with me, so I'm just going to try emphasising it and seeing if I'm getting him right.

Allowing players time to talk among themselves provides you as the GM with a lot of cues for what they want to happen next - i.e. it's very useful for a GMing style where you're responding to the players desires for the game. Discussions about 'where do we go next' or 'what does this all mean' are hugely useful for providing those cues.

Jason - is that what you were asking: where do these types of conversations go with aggressive scene framing?

There's a writer's book called Scene and Structure (I can't remember the author or the Forge person who originally suggested it) that uses the model of Scene and Sequel.

A Scene is where actions happen. A Sequl follows a scene and is the time when the character ruminates about events and comes to a new decision which leads to the next scene.

In the game I'm writing, I include a formal Sequel period where players can discuss, get clarifications, and make decisions. I think it fits well.

Ian,

You're right, absolutely right... I have been lucky enough to have a group where their interactions sometimes put the wise-cracking, character driven dialogue of contemporary cinema to shame. They provide me with so much more than my own ideas and I usually abandon plans for storyline, detail and setting information because their assumptions, guesses and cues are a lot more interesting. Also, after you've developed a single world since 1996 pretty much continuously, sometimes players pickup on inconsistencies much more easily than you, as a GM can. These become patches, fixes or clean-slate changes to my world. Without the knowledge that they've been involved in an overt Narrative game, I guess our group has been playing this way for a while. The players get a much greater degree of satisfaction when they discover that their "hunch" about something was dead on the spot, even without realising that they've been driving the Narrative all along. I'm not sure how this fits into the GNS theory, but I like it. Its not really Illusionism because I haven't placed them on an invisible railroad that leads to MY planned end-point...They've kind of bumped the train-driver and derailed the train, if I can stretch the analogy a little too far ;)

This kind of inter-character conjecturing is something I'd hate to lose and I'm worried that if I try and fit in a more aggressive Scene Framing technique (it should be noted that I really like the idea of Scene Framing and really think it would add to the game), I might lose some of this. As Bankuei said, I could interject these exposition/conjecture scenes between the Bangs or aggressive Scene Framed elements. Also, if anything, perhaps these techniques will give me a more clear-cut transition and allow a more dynamic player-controlled, if not overtly Directorial Stance (i think thats the right term - please don't shoot ;) ) game.

Anyway, have people noticed a loss in this sort of game element when they aggressively Scene Frame? Are these sort of character exploration/development segments a more Sim related thing? Obviously its a pacing-related issue, interjecting more slowly paced character jibber-jabber between exciting Bangs etc, but do others find the swap jarring?

cheers

Jase :)

Hi Jase,

have people noticed a loss in this sort of game element when they aggressively Scene Frame? Are these sort of character exploration/development segments a more Sim related thing? Obviously its a pacing-related issue, interjecting more slowly paced character jibber-jabber between exciting Bangs etc, but do others find the swap jarring?

It's funny, but in all my years of Illusionist play, when I asked "What do you do?" basically I was asking a less jarring version of the question, "What scene do you want to have before we get to the next plot scene?" This was to allow for the feel of openendedness.

The problem, of course, is twofold. One, players using the "what would my character do" logic, often don't have a scene in mind, and so respond, "Uh, I get some food." They aren't moving to a Conflict, so much as just doing something everyday. Which is usually not exciting enough to make for fun play. The other problem is that, I had to then inject the information into these scenes, to get to "my" scenes, so players got the feeling that they weren't in control, anyhow. No matter what they did, it wouldn't lead to anything but my scenes anyhow.

So, whatever mode you're promoting, if you want players to have an input into what a scene will ential, make sure that they know that it's some sort of conflict that you're asking for, or other sort of protagonization, and that they'll be allowed to complete the scene in principle. Once they know that, they become very enthusiastic and proactive.

Mike

Jase

Remember that you can use aggressive scene framing and allow as much time for discussion without any formal "you're in the motel room" framing device for the discussion.

When discussions are going on I chair them, for want of a better word. I try to ensure they keep moving forward, that group decisions get made that everyone's happy with and that no one's sitting around getting bored. When I think the discussion's done I'll ask if everyone's happy moving to a scene. If we come to the end of a scene and I don't think there's any desire at the table to talk about stuff I just get permission for the next scene.

As to the aggressiveness of the scene framing compare these: assume I've asked if everyone's happy moving to the scene with the prince, and everyone is.

"OK, you take the boat across the river and talk to the guard, he says..."

&

"The prince is sitting brooding in his chambers when you arrive, a bottle..."

Notice that the aggresiveness of the scene framing is not related to how much inter-scene gabbing has gone on.

Also note that I tend not to use the word scene at a gaming table. The word is OK as a metaphor but let's not pretend scenes are going on at the table, any more that there are chapters of a role playing session. I'll ask "what do people want to do?" and I'll use what they say to determine scenes. It's actually this question that tends to spark the useful discussions. When it seems like the groups headed for a scene I'll ask something like "Is there anything people want to do before going to see the prince" And then I'll cut to the scene with the prince.

Aggresive scene framing is a technique independent of the amount of talk time a group has, is my main point.

Alan wrote: There's a writer's book called Scene and Structure (I can't remember the author or the Forge person who originally suggested it) that uses the model of Scene and Sequel.

A Scene is where actions happen. A Sequl follows a scene and is the time when the character ruminates about events and comes to a new decision which leads to the next scene.

In the game I'm writing, I include a formal Sequel period where players can discuss, get clarifications, and make decisions. I think it fits well.