Framing & Bangs
John Adams:
Ron: "a Bang and Framing man" sounds like something from film Noir ...
Reithan:
For scene framing, I hadn't thought of this, but how important is it that all scene framing take place up front?
Is it usually desirable to get most, if not all, of the scene framing out of the way before "playing through" a scene, or should the scene be open for additions and modifications while playing through?
What are the pros &/or cons of either approach?
oliof:
in my experience, having a scene open to additions and permutations is fine as long as you don't turn things upside down in the middle of one.
WildElf:
Quote from: Reithan on January 31, 2008, 06:46:58 AM
For scene framing, I hadn't thought of this, but how important is it that all scene framing take place up front?
Is it usually desirable to get most, if not all, of the scene framing out of the way before "playing through" a scene, or should the scene be open for additions and modifications while playing through?
What kind of additions and modifications are you thinking of? Scene framing is really the bare bones: where are we, what's going on. Anything not important for that (which includes hidden things that might not be obvious) are not really a part of the framing process.
Like oliof is getting at, you don't want to completely change the intention of previous actions. So if somone lights a torch, it's not very cool to go "That's not a torch, it's the map you've been searching for! But it's all burned up now."
But anything not yet established that doesn't go against the general vibe of the group is great. Common things I like to do all the time (as a GM or player) is to ad in props, even if they are to my advantage (like a chandelier to swing on, or a glass of wine to make a toast), other characters who might be there, or even the time of day or year if that's not already established. If it doesn't make sense (like a chandelier in a run down cottage in the swamp) someone else will point it out, but usually it's fine. These elements aren't really important to framing the scene. There's really only pros. The only cons if people get silly with it, but that's easy enough to correct in play. And once players get good at introducing implied elements, it really adds to the game.
Ron Edwards:
Hi there,
Quote
For scene framing, I hadn't thought of this, but how important is it that all scene framing take place up front?
Is it usually desirable to get most, if not all, of the scene framing out of the way before "playing through" a scene, or should the scene be open for additions and modifications while playing through?
What are the pros &/or cons of either approach?
I posted a reply to this question on January 31, the screen went all screwy and the post was lost, and I screamed like a really pissed-off Nazgûl. You probably heard me. I finally got the time to reconstruct it.
First
The technique of Framing can be divided into two independent parts: the scene’s content and the scene’s purpose. Your question applies to each one separately.
Content means the SIS itself: where, who’s there, what’s going on at the moment when interactive play begins with this scene, what characters can see, and all that. My point is that a full range exists, from totally up-front and even fixed in place, to prepped but graduated in terms of players receiving the information, to very sketchy to start but easily and frequently filled in as play proceeds. The thing to avoid is confusion about the content and how it’s added to, and its evil outcome, cacophony such that the sharing stops or never gets going (the current Mother-May-I thread is all about this).
Purpose needs a little pre-answer discussion. What that term actually means can vary a lot: in some games, it’s about how the scene will end or what information must be found; in others, it only pertains to the set-up and what happens is left totally fluid. But given that range, now we can turn toward what you’re asking – the degree of purpose relative to the start vs. the continuance of the scene. And again, my answer is that there’s a full range: either everyone knows it to start, or the GM reveals it slowly or in the middle anyway, or it actually develops out of practically nothing through play.
All of this adds up to tremendous functional variety, and that’s just cool.
Second
An important side to this whole issue concerns the explicit rules of the game, too. Sometimes the game text doesn’t say a damned thing about any of it, which is a major part of what I’m talking about with the term “murk.” So many games are written as refinements and imitations of existing games, that the authors pretty much figure that anyone buying it has already enjoyed those games anyway, so you do it like them. Of course, none of them really explained it well either, so you get a problem, or at best a coping mechanism which isn’t reliable.
Sometimes the game text is clear about some of it, and lets the rest take care of itself as a flexible thing or as a necessary corollary to what is explained. That works pretty well.
Sometimes the game text is rock-solid instructional about how to do it, every single time. This works only if the rest of the game is somehow tuned to this rigidity, allowing flexibility in other things. Without that, the game takes on a clockwork quality, which is something I’m seeing a bit too much of in recent designs.
Well, that’s pretty much what got lost. Let me know if it’s helpful or interesting.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page