jburneko wrote:

As I've been watching various TV Shows and Movies I've noticed something that whole exists in those mediums and does not exist in [role-playing games]. That element is that the audience is often let in on what the antagonists of the story are up to.

You know, this is what I thought the whole ‘Audience Stance’ thing was going to lead to. Strangely, the aftereffects of that argument seem to answer some of these questions.

Now the reason this element does not exist in role-playing is obvious. But I ask if it is an element that cannot be used at all?

Is it that obvious? (Okay sue me:) I personally don’t know the reason. Care to share?

If you are referring to anything that is not known to the player characters, then sure, we do this all the time. It would have to include every little detail that is considered Out-of-Character knowledge. These details can really color play positively; it would be hard to draw the line between just details and ‘cut scenes’ though.

Personally, when feeling particularly ambitious, I will use terribly brief ‘cut scenes’ that frame the upcoming action and give it more meaning. In more sophisticated cinema I have seen these called ‘establishing shots.’ They carry no action, move no plot, and frequently do not include anything that is used in the following scenes.

Now if you’re referring to whole scenes that ‘move the story forward,’ you’ve got a lot of issues to sort out before you put them into role-playing games.

So how about it? Anyone have any experience with "cut-scenes" in RPGs?

Of several of the many experiments I have run, I had a few where I threw in traditional ‘cut scenes’ (where is this term from?) in an attempt to better capture a ‘cinematic’ tone for the game.

They were total failures.

I learned something else I had been doing for years worked, but did not, at first, appear to be ‘cut scenes.’ As part of our usual after-session ‘cool down’ period, we discuss what happened in the game to give it more of a sense of continuity and relevance. (We call these little non-gaming interludes denouements for no really good reason.) They were started to create a form of closure and help people who were deeply into it ‘get back into their real world characters.’

Let me take a moment to describe some of the work we did in our early playtests regarding ‘split party’ moments. Our consensus, and the one we discuss in Scattershot, is one should work to make the ‘action’ occurring in the ‘spotlight’ interesting enough to keep the ‘off stage’ players engaged. (Over time we concluded that no matter how quickly the gamemaster shifts between party fragments, sooner or later some of the players will ‘disengage’ and need to be ‘reengaged’ when their turn comes. This presents a great deal of work at times.) It is not easy but we found ways to promote this practice.

(Many people have reacted badly to some of these sections because of their opinions regarding keeping Out-of-Character player knowledge out of play, something impossible in this thread, I think.)

The funny thing is when I use these ‘engagement’ techniques during a denouement (and I’m using that term highly incorrectly), I found that because many things which give ‘retroactive’ relevance to a game require Out-of-Character scenes and information, and it becomes virtually the type of ‘cut scene’ you seem to be asking for.

There are two solutions I've come up with. Let the PCs be both the antagonists and the protagonists. I don't mean each player has two characters I mean that some players are playing the heroes and some are playing the villains.

This is a traditional take on what you’re asking for. I believe there is a discussion either here or at an egroup I sometimes participate in, about a game system where players are divided into two conflicting groups (like heroes and villains) that each take turns gamemastering each other. (I really liked this idea for being able to play in Blake Edwards’ The Great Race starring Jack Lemmon, Peter Faulk, Natalie Wood, and et cetera, but haven’t had the chance.)

In trying this, we discovered that it really does revolve around issues of keeping the ‘off stage’ players engaged; if you fail that, you might as well be running to concurrent games separately.

But the second option would be the use of "Cut-Scenes", sections of the game where the GM takes a moment to Narrate the [goings on] of other characters. This obviously wouldn't appeal to everyone because of the overflowing amount of out of character information but to those who don't mind out of character information and in fact use it to great effect have you ever tried this? I've heard of people trying this but I've never heard any of the results?

This is why I was watching the Audience Stance stuff so closely. Unfortunately that discussion never went this route. Of late, in related following discussions, (I can’t remember who it was, possibly Ron) someone said that without both involved action-eliciting characters and relevant circumstance, gaming does not occur.

I think that pretty much sums up the potential pitfalls of this suggestion. If the players do not see the relevance of a scene they are not in, they are just listening to a story, not gaming (granted their paying attention anyway). (And of course characters in a vacuum is also hardly gaming.) It might make for a really great movie, but if the people operating the principal characters learn all about the mystery they are caught up in, it will deflate the suspense and tension that usually drives a role-playing game.

Personally, I see this mostly as an issue of maintaining engagement while adding value to the sequence of in-game events using a solo (meaning traditionally just the gamemaster) play device. Engagement can be lost by boring the participants; it can also be destroyed by removing the tension caused by certain types of lack of knowledge. The list of what defeats engagement goes on, but is left to the student as an exercise.

I guess I now regard ‘cut scenes’ as a form of ‘split party’ play that takes on a soloist aspect. To borrow Ron’s band metaphor, when the garage band is playing for their own pleasure, a good solo can be appropriate and pleasurable, but it has to exist within the piece being shared or it suffers from all the problems of the prima donnas.

Fang Langford