Cutscenes in RPGs

>>53245895
This is bait. Very weak bait too. I give it a 3/10, enjoy the (You).

>>53245905
What? What makes you say that, I will take responsibility of having created a shit thread or if my question is posed poorly. No really, I don't know what's wrong here. Maybe pic related is too kitshy, I wasn't entirely happy with that either.

Look, maybe to clarify, I was imagining running an adventure, using SW. Then say, I need an argument between NPCs escalate up to a murder in front of the PCs, but I definitely NEED it to happen, and I can't have a wall of bulletproof glass separate the PCs from the scene.

Ignore the thread if I somehow managed to write this all on a shit newfag tier, but I'm not baiting, and surprised at the suggestion.

>>53245895
Listen, OP. You get exactly one cutscene, and that's at the start of the campaign. You're free to describe the actions of players up until that point. If you want to have a murder take place in front of them do it there, then start the game proper. Afterwards, you should just not write plot that NEEDS them to stand by idly while the action takes place, because they won't.

If you must have a murder take place, do it while they are just walking through the door rather than standing next to it.

>>53245895
>I want to have a character dramatically murdered in front of the PCs
>In front of the PCs
There are multiple issues with this.

First, ask yourself exactly why you need that last part. What's the point? Why can't you have the murder happen offscreen?
Personally, the only point I can see in killing off a NPC onscreen is to create feelings of powerlessness in your players' mind, to make them think "we were so close, we could have prevented this, but we couldn't, if only we'd had better anti-murder abilities!".
And if they couldn't have, and they KNOW they couldn't have, then what was the point? There are many other ways to achieve that reaction offscreen (or barely onscreen), you know.

Second, you can't exactly tell your players "please don't move" or "no, uh, you can't, uh, there was an invisible wall, and it's unbreakable, and-". Well, if you're a new GM your players will probably forgive you for it, but they'll still be a bit miffed.

Now, though, the illusion of choice...
>Whichever corridor the PCs take leads to ogres
>Whichever NPC they spare turns traitor
>The dice rolls to save the NPC can't actually succeed, but your players don't know the DCs
>You roll behind the screen and say it'll determine the result, but it's a lie, the result is already set in stone
This is a part of your GMing toolbox. It's immensely useful, but also immensely dangerous. You must conceal it well, and use it sparingly.
The more you use it, the higher the odds of your players noticing something. And when your players notice, you lose your players.

RPGs are about choice. If you deny an action, you better need a good reason ("you can't ERP at my table", "that'd make you evil, and I don't allow evil characters", "you can't ignore the agreed-upon premise of the campaign", etc.). If the player's choices don't matter once, you need a REAL FUCKING GOOD reason. If they don't matter on the regular, you are telling a story, not playing RPGs. Full stop.

>>53245895
>but I might run risk of them trying to intervene in unforeseen ways that might botch up the scene.

You have to accept that players are sometimes going to have their characters intervene in unforeseen ways and roll with it. If a character is involved with it, it's expected that the character can interact with it.

You know what the characters are capable of, and you've (hopefully) got an idea of how your players are likely to react to particular situations, plan around that accordingly.

>>53245895
Whole idea of having cutscenes in your game is horrible. You want to kill someone in front of PCs? Do it. Make killer sneaky enough to pass PCs awareness instead of "it's assasination, roll for initiative". Let killer be smart enough to see that his victim is standing next to group of people and try to lure them away or distract them. Let his attack be lethal instead of "he does x damage". And let players mess with every scene, if they will be able to do so. They want to play and have influence on situation you know. Cutscenes belongs to videogames.

You CAN have events that the PCs are powerless to interfere with. Its called "the other guys turn".

You want a murder to happen in front of the PCs? Call it a surprise round. By the time they get their chance to act, the deed is done.

But you should expect said murderer to get murderhobod pretty much immediatley unless he can take the party singlehandedly.

>>53246345
gents, it has been a pleasure
/thread

>>53245895
>how do i make sure the players dont play
Just write a book.

I always hate it when players shit up a GM thread. OP calling about 30 seconds of time a cutscene is fine, all GMs say things like "when you walk into a room you spot a statue of a foreign deity and it fills you with dread" which is a pause in the action to say something happened without the player freaking out about a loss of agency. You can also say they find a man dressed in obvious villainous clothes order some henchmen around without the party interrupting it even if it doesn't realistically happen in an instant.

You can have a dramatic murder happen in front of your party without them immediately doing some stupid bullshit, and if your group requires you to create several layers of protections just to have a conversation then they are shitty players.

>>53247419
>You can also say they find a man dressed in obvious villainous clothes order some henchmen around without the party interrupting it even if it doesn't realistically happen in an instant.
>You can have a dramatic murder happen in front of your party without them immediately doing some stupid bullshit
No you can't, asshole. If you're not letting the players play, you're a bad GM.

>>53247419
Write a book fag.

>>53247452
>players shouldn't be expected to sit still for three sentences of dialog because of "muh agency"
>GMs expected to patiently wait as players try to figure out what action to take in an instant or time
>Players should be able to have dialogue in a fight and hatch plans mid-chaos of a scene
I'm pretty sure you are just an obnoxious player.

>>53247769
>if a player wants to do something in my game, he's obnoxious
You're better off writing a book. I'm not even kidding.

>>53245895
Listen, you're making a very basic mistake, dude. RPGs have no "cutscenes" because it's a simulation of another reality, not a simulation of a video game. The PCs are always in control of their characters, and provided they make the rolls, they can, within reason, do whatever at any point.

The point is that there is no way to handle a "Cutscene" because it damages Player Agency, which is super fucking important for a fun campaign.

>>53245895
No. Just no my dude.

Cutscenes have no place in an RPG. I have not experienced one instance where the GM sits down and starts talking about things that the party isn't involved in that ever captured the players' interest. It's just wanking off to our own story and universe. If you want to frame an event that is crucial to the story, it should happen in a way where the characters can only interact with it after it has happened. Don't stop the action to describe how someone is getting murdered, have them enter the room as the murder is happening.

But never - NEVER - take away control from them just so you can start describing a scene. Taking control of the characters is just a sign that you are not good enough on framing a scene well enough for them to be engaged and watch or understand that they can't interfere. From my understanding, you're still new to this and need some experience on the matter. If you start getting control of the PCs and going full video-game, you aren't doing anybody any favors; your story will be weak and you wont get better.

The way I deal with situations necessary to advance the "plot" is either present them far away from the party, to the point where they can't stop it or make them very quick and answer any attempts to interrupt with "you can't yet." And if anybody says that they should be able to do something, just go "yeah, but you can't. Odd, ain't it?"

>>53247678
>>53247860
You do realize that the OP could just contrive a scenario where your bullshit it mitigated the way you insist, but it's a needless chore when you could just use your ears for a few seconds and then react to what happened and not jump into the middle of it constantly. I'm not going to stop you shitting in a bartender's mouth or whatever else you do for jollies in your campaign, but I would expect at least a feigned interest in a cinematic story instead of just a series of vignettes relying on exposition from "safe" NPCs and finding random handouts.

OP here. There are eloquent posts here that contradict me, but I'll consider 'just write a book' shitposts.

My agenda ist simply to infuse more atmospbere into games, as our GMs who took their turn so far were fairly dry in their descriptions and vocabulary. I'd like to present a sandboxy rich world to players with stuff to explore and doing it at their own terms, I know I have to be flexible. But now and then I want to do a more atmospheric scene that will overarch a main plot when the players reach plot-bottlenecks. And not that often, just occasional mid-adventure exposition.

Like when they are approached by riders just after slaying some loud beast, and I take control of that scene to make it possible for the friendly, imposing looking riders to introduce themselves rather than having the players immediately hit some escape spell or something, just for that occasion. After hours of open normal gameplay, mind you. Ideally. Man, I'm new, of course I will botch it up to a degree. I even question my ability to improvise, so that's going to be really challenging, I'm just looking for a way to occasionally play through my strengths of presentation and dramatic reading.

Like In sure my players will bare with me, we're close friends, I want to try something creative here, find a compromise. I don't think it's crazy much to expect some characters be allowed an uninterrupted monologue now and then.

I find 'just write a book'/'go play a videogame' in this context just to be unimaginative conservative bullshit posts, as honest as they might be.

>>53248190
These kinds of RPGs are not for you my man. Write a book.

>I might run the risk of players intervening in events

That is the entire premise of role playing.

>>53248190
Not them, but you do realize that when you GM and don't put any barriers or limitations to your PCs during the important moments, then they will still shit on it, right? Players are mysterious creatures, each of them with a different understanding on how to "enhance" the game. And some of them just want to "win", to kill the big bad and then proceed. These people will do it no matter how much attention they paid to the rest of the campaign. The only way to work around them is with a no-win scenario that proceeds to the actual event you want to happen.

>>53248190

That contrived reason matters more than you think. How am I supposed to hand wave that my character was just standing there doing nothing to prevent a murder? That happened. To my character. It is an event in his life now. How am I supposed to react to it?

>>53248244

You can monologue if they're tied up.

It's your job to contrive a reason for their inaction. It's not a shit post to tell you to write a book. Or run a quest thread. Rpgs do not have the "now you may act: what do you do?" prompt of a quest thread or a text based interactive fiction game. They are people. Why, in your creative masterpiece, did the heroes stand there watching this happen without trying to stop it? Answer that question. Don't say because they didn't want to interrupt or because the monologue goes there. Actually think about the logic of the world.

It'll be useful for when you write a book- because a reader will be scratching their head wondering why the lame hero let the villain go on and on..

>>53248244
What's the issue? Introduce your riders with a description. If someone interrupts through a description you can just override them, it's a description there is nothing happening. Then you resolve their shit once you're done.

If they're interrupting someone mid-speech or mid-action, well too bad for you, learn to improvise. Anything that occurs as a result is handled in the world, people will find it rude if they get cut off, and even more rude if they are attacked when introducing themselves.

If your players are close friends or willing to bear with it, then there is no issue. Have faith in your players to not start pissing in your NPCs faces before they can get out half a sentence.

If you need to introduce seven different actions to describe a murder that the players can't intervene in, even if its ineffectually behind bars or viewing it through dream magic or something, then it's a shit sequence.

>>53248244
>Like when they are approached by riders just after slaying some loud beast, and I take control of that scene to make it possible for the friendly, imposing looking riders to introduce themselves rather than having the players immediately hit some escape spell or something, just for that occasion.

I'll still say don't do it. Just make sure that start out with subtle hints about the riders not coming for trouble
>their horses slow down once closer to you
>they keep their weapons sheathed
That one should be the first clue your players should have that combat isn't afoot. Then describe whatever you've got in mind as a friendly encounter. Their reaction should help paint the scene even better.

From what I gather, you just need to tell your players that the game isn't going to be combat all the time and it's not just madness 24/7 pedal-to-the-metal levels of danger. Again, I think you just need some practice and you'll be fine.

File: Download.jpg (8KB, 312x162px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 312x162px

>>53247930
>>53248147

Alright, THANKS. These kind of posts, I can take seriously and work with. I'm getting serious doubts from these now.

I think I will still give it a shot for maybe one little scene, as an experiment, with my players in the know, can look for feedback afterwards. We're all pretty new, except one guy, and he's mediocre at describing stuff and creating atmosphere.

Maybe I should look more into practicing location-description, efficiently with colourful, short speech, maybe short musical cues. I want to experiment a bit.

>>53248244
What I would suggest is to either play a system that has this baked into the rules or create a houserule for it. There are games where the narrative control of the game is negotiated, and rules in these games open up the possibility for you to do what you need to do without interruption, but if you're playing DnD, which is probably what you're playing, there is no such thing.

You're gambling with your players' expectations. You're better off discussing it before you do it.

>>53248190
When contrived shit keeps happening to prevent the players from interacting with scenes, they'll notice the pattern and call you out on your bad GMing. Don't be so afraid of the players interacting with things. It's part of what makes it different from video games.

Reasons why the pcs have to watch a cut scene:
>They are in a cage (They are allowed to speak unless gagged or silenced in some way, and allowed to attempt escape. Progress should be noted. 'You're pretty sure you can kick the door open if you keep trying')
>The villain is far away, the heroes are approaching, climbing a tall flight of stairs while he cackles from above
>The npc has requested the players hear him or her out. They have agreed, and do so.
>The npc acts faster than the players react. They react immediately.

If the thing that they cannot stop is fucking amazing they probably won't mind. But it needs to happen within the story, it needs to happen to them. Their characters couldn't stop it. They had to watch this happen. They had to listen. Had to. In character. Not meta gaming had to.

>>53248419
Read a module for the game you are playing. Especially if you're all new, as it will get them used to how you roll things out.

Most modules will introduce any given scene with a pre-set description. It'll be a good example for you as to your limitations (basically, describing what a character sees is fine, or vague ideas of motion like a crowd milling about is fine. Direct action past a few moments won't feature) and it will also get your players to recognize what you're reading off a page and what is you improvising.

>>53248384

This. Descriptions shouldn't be interrupted. Dialogue can be but then you say "...Is your character literally interrupting him?"

>>53248244
You don't need to take control to play out a situation, it's just lazy and it's not fun for the player.

YOU have the power to set up events and YOU are describing what is happening.

Don't call them raiders to start with, call them mounted horsemen
Don't have the whole group gallop at top speed towards them, have the main force stay back and a few key talkers approach.

Spend some time thinking about these events, and you won't have to force players to stop playing.

>>53248419

In a dissent from most of the anons here - if your group is perfectly A-OK with cutscenes, then they're perfectly A-Ok with cutscenes.

Maybe it's because I tend to play only with pretty close friend-groups, but my bunch have always been very okay with forced cutscenes or even just "hey guys, do you mind letting the villian get away? I've got plans" kind of requests as long as the GM is upfront about them.

Ask them first, tell them why you want to do it, and if they're ok with it that's fine. Just don't spring it on them without warning - that's when your players will really start to rebel.

The closest to a cutscene you can get in rpgs without be a total dick is saying "Blah blah blah some crazy shit happens, you have 10 real life seconds to decide what to do before something happens that can't be undone"

>>53248657

I feel like talking ooc to some degree about this is a good idea, though honestly it would make me miserable because I can't reconcile my character's inaction with the story. It doesn't make sense. Just give the villain a smoke bomb.

However if the players attack a peaceful important npc it's totally fine to stop and say "really? So you're just going full murder hobo? If that's way everybody wants, fine, but let me shelf this game and come up with some trivial bullshit for you to play with if that's what we're doing." And yes, being that condescending is essential.

>>53245895
>Say I have a series of events along a 30sec up to a 1min timeframe that I need to unfold in front of the characters, but I might run risk of them trying to intervene in unforeseen ways that might botch up the scene.

I would try to avoid cut scenes as described. They are really something that was invented in more recent years from video game influence in my opinion.

Instead, take your scene you describe above. split that scene up in to several smaller chunks.

Instead of describing the players entering a dance and a murder playing out in front of them for example. Try describing each step in that scene and letting them react and do stuff. They enter, see the dance, what do they do. They see more people doing things, what do they do. Murder happens, they turn their head, what do they do.

It still goes down as you might have wanted in a 'cut scene', but now the players were part of that scene and had agency.

I would also point out that if the players can perceive that badness and be able to intervene, then logically others should have been able to as well which means your bad guy (or event) was not as well thought out as you might have thought. So consider that.

And if the players DO do something stupid? Hey, go with it. Make that new game work.

Of course, on a side note, when players of mine HAVE jumped the gun with meta game 'oh we know what happens next' I have been known to make it 'nothing' instead. Guy walks towards the prince, players jump and pummel him because they 'know' he must be an assassin cause we are in a game - nope, just the princes buddy walking up to say hello.

>>53248716
best way right here

I'm imagining the in-game discussion that PCs might have with each other after the DM forced their players to sit through a cutscene.

>Did you feel that?
>What?
>Just now, right before that man murdered that other man. It was as though... I tried to move, but I couldn't. I couldn't even speak.
>I felt the same thing!
>Yeah, I tried to throw my axe at him, but I couldn't even move my arm.
>Hmm... sorcery? Perhaps someone cast a spell of holding-
>I thought that, but I can't detect any magic in the area.
>Some form of poison, perhaps? Just enough to paralyze us for a moment or two?

And then the players derailed the murder plotline and spent the rest of the game trying to discover what nefarious power stopped them from interacting with the world during the cutscene.

>>53251145

Exactly this.

"The npc does five things before I give you a chance to act" "I say, 'slow down, you're acting crazy' and grab his wrist" "he shakes you off and keeps walking" "I shout 'Bob?? Bob it's me, come on man, can't you hear me? Oh God, it's like you don't even know me...'"


Seriously tho, the players need to remember that this shit is happening to them. They are people who just fucking watched this happen. They saw their weapons do nothing, their spells fail, etc. Your character is now kneeling before the murdered npc with blood on his hands wondering why his medical treatment didn't work when it should have.

>>53251145
OP here. I'm not trying to get completely away from the fair arguments shooting cutscenes down, just wanted to mention that with the murder, I had more of a sudden unexpected 'that escalated quickly' stabbing between otherwise non-combatant royals on a ceremonial event in mind. Loud argument, things getting heated, hidden knife, never expected since they're brothers, stabby stab, pretty sudden.

This is still not a card blanche for what I had in mind, in context of this threads posted arguments, but I don't want to give the impression of having planned to force-freeze players through a more obvious, drawn out murder-scenario, that telegraphed itself for minutes.

Not a big warrior in red uniform brandishing the axe of his murdered father in front of blue-uniform father-killer, roaring hatespeech about honor and how blues suck.

>>53248300
I have never actually run into this problem as GM at all. I've never had anyone complain that I'm taking agency away from them, I've never had anyone "ruining a scene," but I have seen people doing it when I was a player. I feel like sparing a small amount of time to progress a story is a pretty normal thing to do, and the reverse expectation for the GM to make things fair and interesting is also common. There's an expectation of trust in a regular group. My players know the campaign will be difficult and I won't force them into cages just to talk to them for a minute, and they won't force me to make every intelligent bad guy a paranoid shut-in.

>>53248316
If you can look at your own life and confidently say you never froze up you would be lying. Someone was murdered in front of your character, likely someone they cared about, and you locked up for a few seconds. So how do you deal with that? How does this change the course of what your character does from this point forward? What motivates you now versus before?

>>53252588

I agree that it can happen, and that's my point- you'd feel awkward and guilty and confused, especially if you're a Man of Action who is inexplicably frozen during a moment of panic.

OP, have the murder happen but let the PCs act. They don't have to prevent it, and they likely won't mind too much since they'll get that the story is the guy dies and they can't stop it. But have it happen cinematically and quickly. Perhaps even let them suspect the wrong threats. They are fighting the assassins but little did they know, HIS OWN BROTHER was in on it, stab stab, he dies, they feel helpless... It can't be a situation where you break the rules of the game too much to control them (ie is one of them a healer? Can he get close to the dying npc in time to heal him? Why can't he use his healing spells to save him? You better have a fucking answer or that player will be rolling his eyes pretty hard and be annoyed for the rest of that game about that time you fucked him over so you could write your book...)

Why can't it be poison?

>>53245895
Cutscenes are cancer in video games and cancer in tabletop games. Watching you perform some shit you've written is not a reward you can use to justify taking control away from the players. Railroad if you want, but at least let them play the goddamned game

>Hideo Kojima asks help running his first campaign

>>53245895
>Can I, in one fluent narrative motion, just assume that they're going to check it and just go on describing that they're rolling up their sleeve to get to the source of the itch, taking away the option of them ignoring it?
Short answer: Yes, you can.
Caveat: Some groups will make a fuss.

>>53246345
>Listen, OP. You get exactly one cutscene
Nah, he gets as many as his players will let him get away with.

>>53246604
>Second, you can't exactly tell your players "please don't move" or "no, uh, you can't, uh, there was an invisible wall, and it's unbreakable, and-".
You can tell them that it's a cutscene. If they need an ingame explanation, their characters are surprised by the escalation and frozen in horror.

>And when your players notice, you lose your players.
No, only some players object to that. Other players don't mind cutscenes at all, provided they have choice at other points in the plot.

>If the player's choices don't matter once, you need a REAL FUCKING GOOD reason.
It makes for a good plot development, that's the reason.
>>Luke might have intervened and saved Obi-Wan's life but fortunately the GM had hard-scripted the scene.
If protagonists in movies always acted rationally, or at least like players, a lot of good shit in scripts would never happen. So, you suck a lil bit of scripting up, you little bitch player or I'll go find someone else to play with.


>>53247002
>Whole idea of having cutscenes in your game is horrible.
Another example of how players have grown to be spoiled over the last few decades. They expect to be able to have an impact all the time. When there's a scene where they can't that doesn't take longer than a few minutes (and which sets-up other scenes), they'll kick up dust and call you names.
Complete assholes.

>>53247322
>You want a murder to happen in front of the PCs? Call it a surprise round.
You don't have to express yourself in game mechanic terms though. It's fine to simply narrate what happens cutscene-style.

>>53246604
>First, ask yourself exactly why you need that last part. What's the point? Why can't you have the murder happen offscreen?
This is the only valid objection in the entire thread.

>>53253961
>Another example of how players have grown to be spoiled over the last few decades. They expect to be able to have an impact all the time. When there's a scene where they can't that doesn't take longer than a few minutes (and which sets-up other scenes), they'll kick up dust and call you names.

Wanting to play the actual game isn't 'spoiled', it's the entire fucking reason people show up to tabletop RPGs in the first place. If you want to show people a bunch of bullshit they have no control over, say 'hey, let's watch a movie'

>>53245895
"Cutscenes" are terrible.
Your use of the term explains all the negative reactions.

>Say I have a series of events along a 30sec up to a 1min timeframe that I need to unfold in front of the characters
This is pretty short, but try standing quiet and still for 30 seconds to a minute.

A lengthy description of events happening is fine.
Narrating two npcs having a conversation in front of your PCs requires significant explanation, as others have pointed out, and should be avoided.

Things like villain monologues can be permitted by your group tacitly or explicitly agreeing to su suspend their disbelief in order to allow for a more dramatic narrative, but that is very specific to the group.

>I might run risk of them trying to intervene in unforeseen ways that might botch up the scene.
See
>>53246345
>Afterwards, you should just not write plot that NEEDS them to stand by idly while the action takes place, because they won't.
This.

>>53252402
>Loud argument, things getting heated, hidden knife, never expected since they're brothers, stabby stab, pretty sudden.
This could still work.
An unexpected knife to the jugular could spell death before the PCs could react.
The part that could trip you up is the "things getting heated" part.
The players need a serious reason to sit with their thumbs up their asses while watching "things get heated", like they go into their bosses office to deliver important news and are told to wait while he tries to dismiss his brother, or something.
Don't make them watch things heat. Let them start hot, then explode surprisingly.

Oh, and NEVER take over a PC for a narrative reason.
You can control physical reactions like goosebumps and such, but never conscious actions unless they're under a specific effect that does that.

>>53248247
Not him but I'd prefer to rail against spoiled bitch players instead. If you don't like short cutscenes, feel free to get up and leave. NOW. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Too many might-have-been-good plot developments have been ruined by interrupting players in attempt to act "logical" or "clever", constantly injecting themselves without pause.

This here is good for the plot because I say so and you WILL sit out. Choice will be returned to you shortly - after this cutscene is over. This is not negotiable.

>>53248316
>That happened. To my character. It is an event in his life now. How am I supposed to react to it?
Brilliant! Couldn't have said it any better. This is a good question.

Yes, my cutscene just inflicted that on your character. NOW, you have the choice of how to react to that. If I had let you interfere, you wouldn't have this dilemma, making for far less interesting play.

>>53248376
>It's your job to contrive a reason for their inaction.
Being petrified in surprise. Done.

>>53248376
>Rpgs do not have the "now you may act: what do you do?" prompt of a quest thread or a text based interactive fiction game.
I don't take your word for it.

>Why, in your creative masterpiece,
It's not a creative masterpiece but it might be good for the plot.

>Actually think about the logic of the world.
Because people in LOTR or Star Wars or Conan or Game of Thrones or whatever always act so logical?

>>53248475
>But it needs to happen within the story, it needs to happen to them. Their characters couldn't stop it. They had to watch this happen. They had to listen. Had to. In character. Not meta gaming had to.
This is another line of reasoning that I can accept. HOWEVER, this is easily rationalized (petrified). Again: think about movies, think about novels... these things happen to protagonists, even in good books.

It's simply so that some players adhere to the philsophy that players need to be able to make choices about their PCs and the immediate environment all the fucking time. Nonstop. And I a) consider this attitude spoiled
b) have seen players too often fuck up a scene
to subscribe to the philosophy. To the contrary, I expect my players to trust me that the cutscene is good for the play experience overall.

>>53254045
OP here. But in the way I meant it, I'm thinking of say, one 1minute-scene every two sessions of 4h. Granted, I'm actually trying to get away with a little bit more, but for arguments sake. That's hardly taking away the playing of the actual game away from players.

And it's not like I want to rail all the important, impactful decisions of an adventure away from players influence. They can kill the king, by all means (fuckton of additional work for me though, fingers crossed, god I hope they don't kill the king), but I really wanna drive home the atmosphere of a scene when two crucial NPCs interact.

This is pretty vaguely described by me, but I still gotta say that by most singel-senteced contras, I just feel misunderstood and contered with narrow perspective.

>>53253515
Spoiled.

>>53254045
>Wanting to play the actual game isn't 'spoiled',
Correct. Not being able to stand being sidelined for a 2 minute GM monologue while he narrates skillfully how the conversation heats up and ends in murder IS spoiled. If the session lasts longer than 3.5 hours, that's less than 1%. Players who can't stand that are plain asshats.

> it's the entire fucking reason people show up to tabletop RPGs in the first place. If you want to show people a bunch of bullshit they have no control over, say 'hey, let's watch a movie'
Because a short cutscene is tantamount to watching the GM narrate for 60% of the game session, while his players keep looking bored at their mobile devices, rrrrrright?

No, the real reason is: why do the players need to be present? Even for atmosphere, it could be an NPC who describes the gruesome events in vivid details.

Strangely enough the little bitches who post in this thread wouldn't object to that, even though the tale might take as long OR LONGER than the cutscene. The reason? Because the players have the spoiled attitude of "when something happens in the proximity of MY character I want to be able to influence or stop it ALL THE TIME."

Yeah. Spoiled.

>>53254354
OP, chances are you'll get negative reactions because a lot of players are spoiled. So it's dangerous grounds at this point in RPGing history. The idea of small cutscenes being more than acceptable needs to find wider acceptance.

My advice is to have an NPC narrate the scene to them instead, it's safer. Unless you trust your players, that is.

File: 1450231723194.jpg (239KB, 1044x770px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1044x770px

>this shitter telling a new GM to railroad hard
>making him believe that his plot > players being able to play
>calling people calling him out spoiled

Damn /tg/, we're taking "No Fun Allowed" to a whole new level now, aren't we?

>>53254052
Write a book. It's easier.

>>53254264

What do you want? Permission? Granted, go with God.


The only people who can tell you if your players will mind are the players themselves. I would mind. I've explained that and you chose to cherry pick and hear what you want, so I'm done. Have fun.

>>53254498
Maybe OP is samefagging?

>>53254718
Maybe, but I don't think so. He seemed pretty receptive of advice earlier and now suddenly he makes an 180 and starts going off about spoiled players? It sounds more like a That GM found the perfect outlet to get buttmad about players not appreciating his storytime with also some dice or shit.

>>53254718
OP here. Can't proof, but I'm not. I'm against things getting heated up, some exchange here goes sideways, not in my interest.

I see the two parties here. I think the most problematic comments are "spoiled" vs "write a book", but I try to think of arguments and ideas instead.

Gotta say though. Just write a book guy. You trigger me, I find that very dismissive in an arrogant way, and I don't like it. Just to be honest and say my personal reaction to you, not provoking, just saying I think you could be more substantial in your argument, cause the way you're saying it now doesn't register nicely with me.

More power to outspoken arguments though, so thanks so far in general for participating.

OP, talk to your players. If they are okay with it, go for it. Or, alternatively, do it, and talk to them after the session. Just, if you do care, talk to them, or else a player might dislike what you're doing but not try to talk to you.

Ultimately, I think the biggest issue here is how the world you're playing in works. The world of a book doesn't work solely on its own internal rules (physics), but also external rules (plot). Sometimes things happen or not happen because "it's more interesting that way", and characters in-universe don't even need to notice (example: shitty Stormtrooper aim). It's not simply a question of determinism vs free will (vs compatibilism), it's more like "determinism, but someone made the universe and they have a plan".

Just remember that "not freezing or fleeing" in dangerous situations isn't the standard of normal people, but the standard of action heroes. So if your players are arguing their character are closer to Conan the Barbarian than Bob from Accounting, they are assuming their character works according to the rules of a world ran by "plot", a fictional world. As long as the players believe they actually couldn't stop the scene (perhaps, they did try and fail), whether that's true or not, they won't complain. Unless their complaints are like "hey, why didn't you let my level 2 warrior defeat that 50 foot giant?", which is unreasonable (usually; Idk, in your setting that could be common, but you know what I mean).

>>53254049
This is an unfair characterization of events. Rather, try to stand still and quiet while someone else talks to you for 30 seconds.

Do it in a way that the player's characters wouldn't be able to react. If you want a murder to happen in a town, something like

>While you're all gathered in the tavern you plan to stay the night in, eating dinner, you hear a blood curdling scream and one of the people falls over with a knife in her back, amidst the chaos you see the doors slam open and a hooded figure runs out into the night. What are you all doing?

>>53255732

This is exactly right, and at the beginning of a game or arc I wouldn't think to mind. Only a really pedantic asshole would sit there and say "but I should have had a spot check!" Or "really? Really???"

File: images.jpg (6KB, 284x177px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 284x177px

Los shouldn't forget that no playstyle is exclusive, and dependant on player personality. There's a bunch of lovable fa/tg/uy oldfags in washed out black shirts and the occasional lack of deodorant playing in our store twice weekly. They're pretty comfy, but don't seem like the kind who traveled the world and did much outgoing stuff, so to speak. They have relatively monotone style of speaking, and have a very matter-of-fact problem solving approach. I overhear them having tactical discussions a lot. There's not much drama installed in the GMs presentation or the players role-playing, emotions and fun just come up naturally through amusement over the stuff that happens and making jokes. But it's nowhere hardwired in the prepared missions they encounter.
They seem a little reclusive and dense in the creative and role-playing department, so I'd expect the general idea of 'cutscenes', which are a controlled infusion of emotional drama to a story on the presentation-level, go completely over their logica-oriented heads.

>>53252730
Maybe this will help. If I was going to put a sudden murder of an NPC in a D&D game - a game where the rules explicitly prevent murder, I would ignore the shit out of those rules and have the murder happen when it was meant to happen. If that murder happens in front of the players and I don't want it to be a combat, I would let every roll initiative and then give the villain a surprise round where he breaks lien of sight from spell casters and makes a barrier to get past. Probably knocking over a brazier and starting a fire on the floor and then baring a door he runs through. I would have the path vaguely planned out and in the rules to provide a reasonable amount of time to get away to where when the party finds him just not there anymore they are angry but not questioning if I followed the rules to the T. I don't stand on my chair and give a ten minute speech about the events, they are fast and chaotic like the scene requires.

The only time I've done a murder, we played a Star Wars game where some Mandos sniped a dignitary JFK style in a speeder and my player caught them in the leg before they got away - but even if they caught them in the head it would probably just be a nasty scar or eyepatch later instead of a limp even when the rules would have said it was a death. The events and choices still have an impact later in the game, but that murder was going to happen and the killer was going to get away.

>>53255514
>try to stand still and quiet while someone else talks to you for 30 seconds.
This is also an unfair characterization of events. Rather, try to stand still and quiet while watching someone else talk to another for 30 seconds to a minute.

>>53254264
>Being petrified in surprise
Depending on the the situation, or the duration of inaction, this is a bullshit option and you know it.
Some dude slits his brother's throat? Yeah, that might stun you before you can react to prevent it.
Darth Vader appears in your breakfast nook? You're gonna draw your blaster and shoot, not listen to his monologue first.
Now the GM has to block the blast, take the blaster, surround the party, and force them to sit down to an awkward brunch at gunpoint while the Darth Vader monologues over croissants.
"No, you're 'petrified'." isn't gonna cut it.

Doing this once in a while might work, but too much can feel forced, because it is.

>Because people in LOTR or Star Wars or Conan or Game of Thrones or whatever always act so logical?
I think they meant "logical" as consistently in character.
If it's well written, yes they do.
If it's not, it's not to be emulated unless bad writing is part of the campaign feel, like campy superhero genre where the bad guy gets away or such.

>players need to be able to make choices about their PCs all the time.
Their characters? Hell yes.
The GM controls the entire physical world, up to and including the involuntary physical reactions of the PCs' bodies.
They do not control the PCs heart, mind, soul, psychology, or actions. (Unless a specific effect is in place)

>the immediate environment
Full stop.
I will occasionally allow a player to describe something I'm letting them incorporate from their backstory, otherwise fuck that shit.
No, there is not necessarily a chandelier in the room just because you want to swing from it.

>I consider this attitude spoiled
Clearly. But do you ever question that opinion, or do you just assume any opinion you've formed has been duly considered and is now as good as fact?

>players too often fuck up a scene
How is it possible for a player to fuck up a scene when there is no script to follow and nothing is predetermined before play?

>>53254264
>Being petrified in surprise. Done.
"but I'm playing a paladin, which is literally immune to fear"

>>53257926
Fear and surprise are two different things. You weren't expecting this to happen and it takes you a moment to process what just happened

>>53257926
Pretty sure that's immunity to MAGICAL fear, friend.

>>53258047
>You weren't expecting this to happen and it takes you a moment to process what just happened
And you believe this is an adequate interpretation of the word "petrified"?

>>53258224
>immune to the magical fear induced by the most fearsome undead abominations.
>moderate surprise "petrifies" them

>>53258284
Your God blesses you with protection against the magical fear effects that radiate from their most hated enemies, it doesn't cease your natural human (or elf/dwarf,etc) reactions to things

>>53258510
>making a valid mechanical point that deflates my complaint
I'm mostly just whinging at the hyperbolic use of "petrified".
I feel it's an inappropriate term for the reaction a seasoned adventurer would have to an unexpected surprise.
Being shocked for a couple seconds is not being "petrified".
Being actually petrified would be an extreme response to the scenarios presented.

File: 1486423740187.jpg (183KB, 517x768px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 517x768px

>>53253589

>>53258224
It's immunity to fear, magical and otherwise.

>>53257143
The GM is talking to the players tho, not to some unseen third entity.

>>53258241
I don't know about that anon, but I do.

>>53257728
Darth Vader probably has the ability to hold you down while monologuing. Even if he didn't, "oh shit, it's Darth Vader," should be enough to prevent some people from taking immediate action (that is, anyone who didn't have the (will)power to dare challenging Vader).

Different people have different reactions. Some people might have the willpower to flee at the sight of Darth Vader. Others will freeze in place. Some will kneel and beg for mercy. You might be Badass McBadass but you only need to falter for a single moment for Darth Vader do his shit.

>>53260730
The problem of course, is that if you're NOT the main heroes of the original trilogy, and Darth Vader lands on the planet you're on, you are fucked.

Let the characters guide the events of your collaborative story, a story you share with the players.

If you know your players, you can also know their reactions in/out of character, which means you can better orient the scene--not "cut"scene--in anticipation of their behavior/character options.

It is better to be clever with your need-to-happen events than to force their occurrence. If you need to plan everything, consider multiple outcomes per event.
Look at the last part of >>53246604 to understand that the players at least want the illusion of control, though you may propel them using the world itself into certain situations.

>>53258863

But what if OP uses a basalisk?

>>53245895
My favorite cutscenes in video games are the times when an NPC was starting to act but gets caught up in the cutscene and start spazzing out.

What is the equivalent of this in a tabletop RPG

>>53261584

How the players react with snide comments when they see a shit DM who is not only railroading them, but railroading them so hard that he has to add cutscenes into the world as well.

>>53260554
>The GM is talking to the players tho, not to some unseen third entity.
The GM is portraying two non-player characters talking to each other.

>Considers 'just write a book' shitposting because it's phrased in a dismissive way
No dude. If you want to write an entire plot out beforehand in a way that would fall apart if your players touched it: Tabletop RPGs are not the medium you need. It's for collaborative storytelling. It isn't your plot, it's the groups. Games played with this in mind will flourish and produce fucking amazing stories because that's what these games thrive on. Meanwhile books provide a much more structured environment where you can plan out elements like that so those kinds of stories can work well there. 'Cutscenes' for poor GMs that are in the wrong group and are trying to force a playstyle or don't know how to provide good exposition.

The players control how their characters feel and their characters actions, you get literally everything else along with a bunch of people who show up to experience the world you put together and you're saying the players are spoiled? You pretty much just want to tell a story to a captive audience dude. Ego masturbation. Get over yourself and stop acting like a fucking martyr for doing an enjoyable activity with people you enjoy and if neither of those things are true then you should stop GMing immediately. And before you start pissing and moaning about spoiled players: I can and have run games and enjoy it.

>>53262050
th is

my experience with "cutscenes" went like this:
One of my players, out of game, told me he'd like me to be descriptive. I wrote up a few sentences detailing the awakening of a dragon (very important to the plot, it wasn't until this moment the players had any idea it was even a dragon). Couldn't get in more than one sentence.
>"Before you, a chasm begins to open, and-"
>"I draw my weapons and try to find a safe place to hide!"
It was the same player that asked me to be more descriptive.
Last time I did that. Now they just get "a dragon shows up". Fuck em.

>>53245895
Know how everyone complains about stupid shit happening in cutscenes of video games?
Times that by 1000 and thats 1 millionth of how fucking retarded it is to do in p&p

>>53262585
Tell him to shut the fuck up.

>>53262184
Top post

TTRPGs are a give and take coolaborative story. This goes for both GM and Players.

Players, go along with the GM from time to time. You want to do your cool thing with your character, let them have theirs with some scenes. Not everyone can improvise perfectly at a moments notice, and can get really bummed out and lose the the drive to make your game happen. Basically everyone should get a turn in thw spotlight, GM included.

GMs, don't out right rob choices from players. You only get so many scenes before you start infringing. Compromise, and let them wound a villian as he escapes and have it come up later down the line. Youll get to keep your story rolling (in a way you can manage), and they still feel accomplished.

To OP, your royal murder-escalation thing sounds fine, but like other anon mentioned the escalation bit will get tricky. I'd say you have absolute max of 3 lines of "heated" before any resonable person would intervene. Maybe do something like start off calm, go to back handed remarks/lowkey insults, then full heated before you stick'm. Again though, time is of the essence. Get that shit on lock before game day.

>>53262184
You want to tell me of ego masturbation and acting like a martyr all along, but all you presented to me at first is a dismissive ' just write a book', and I think it should be clear that I want to play a RPG with friends, and your just presenting a self-conscious, ridiculous non-option (all things considered, being just a guy asking for GM opinions) that just serves you to drive home the point of how ridiculous and silly you find my proposition. You just give sarcastic, around-the corner dismissiveness. Would you have leaded with that post that I'm answering to now, that would have still been much better.

I understand the job and goal of the GM to be: deliver fun. I'm empathic enough to catch the reactions of my friends quickly, and exposing myself with something that would just drag out and bore them would be slightly embarrassing, mostly disappointing to me. I would recheck my methods before I got the idea that my players tastes just sucked. I also want to genuinely try something new, experiment, and yes there's also ego involved, it would thrill me if I could come up with something that would actually work in delivering fun.

I think you just have an anti-special snowflake attitude towards me, based on finding my idea ridiculous and dumb, and not worth a respectable, contributing answer. I have an idea and I want to dabble with it. Not the mere concept of cutscenes, but the finer executions of it in a way that it might be actually become enjoyable. It's tough, but I'm motivated, keeping my dudes in the loop.

I'm not the one calling 'spoiled' though, I'm not picking up on that, and I don't think like that. The productive discussion has other counterpoints.

>>53265101
Then again, how are you going to respond if some of your players want to step in on the argument before it gets more heated? You have a surprising murder scene in your mind but they don't know it, and might want to do the sensible thing and stop the situation from escalating. Thing is, if you stop them from doing that by GM fiat then the resulting shocking murder will ring hollow instead of being a cool ohshit moment. Basically you shouldn't be too married to your story and go where the player actions lead.

>>53246345
this

>>53262050
The GM is still talking to the players. Or do you turn your head away whenever someone else starts telling you a story about something that happened to them, anon? "And then he said-" oops, we lost anon. Better try again next time.

>>53265311
Ok so the answer to this imo is to have the players be distracted by something else they feel is more important. Someone else they think is dangerous. Then the guy they didn't suspect stabs the king.

The other option is to have them be so far away/low ranking that it would be weird to interject in the argument. Perhaps it's a bigger coup and the princess is also in danger. Two choices: save the king or save the princess he hired toy to protect! Something like that. That way the king is dying but the players are dragging his crying daughter the fuck out of there etc.

Like... Even if the players were down with it I just don't like the idea of Our Intrepid Heroes standing there doing nothing during the action. Like even in a video game that would be stupid. In the Witcher, Geralt doesn't stare blankly as other people take cool actions, he's up there trying to engage in situations etc etc. OP should *want* to contrive a reason why the players don't prevent it. 'They can't' is fine, but 'They have a choice and they choose not to' is better. Better game, better story.

>>53265101
>Not the mere concept of cutscenes, but the finer executions of it in a way that it might be actually become enjoyable.
Look this is not adding a new, interesting feature to TTRPGs, it's completely mishandling a core conceit of the medium. You as GM already have explicit control over how granularly time passes. If you use that power to rob your players of agency because your plot won't survive interaction with them, you're fucking up royally.

>>53263989
This was the entire point I was making the whole time, but it immediately gets shit on by players.

>>53269103
not everyone for always on interaction is a player brah

>>53269402
Then that's just embarrassing because you are probably either breaking their agency by your own rules and don't think you are, or you are running a really watered down and uninteresting story about the players.

>>53267811
>The GM is still talking to the players.
And the PCs are still standing there awkwardly doing nothing for 30 seconds to a minute while the NPCs talk.
30 seconds to a minute is not really that long for a cut scene, but try just standing quiet and still for 30 seconds to a minute while others are talking in a conversation you are not part of.
Hard Mode: Do it without reachng for your cell phone.

>>53268944
>Even if the players were down with it I just don't like the idea of Our Intrepid Heroes standing there doing nothing during the action.
This guy gets it.
If you want to craft a scene where "x" happens no matter what, then you have to throw up reasonable obfuscation, distraction, or obstacles to prevent the PCs from taking action to stop it.
However, doing it too much or using the same tricks is as obvious as asking the players to sit quietly with their hands in their laps while you do a cutscene.
Even if they're on board and go with it, it takes away from the game.
It's lame, like a magician asking everyone to turn around and look away for a moment while they finish their trick.

>>53269070
>If you "y" to reduce your players' agency because your plot won't survive interaction with them, you're fucking up royally.
This is true though.
If your plot won't survive interaction with the players because they might do something you don't want them to, you're fucking up.
Say, if it's mechanically possible for the PCs to kill the BBEG at an early level, having him show up and gloat could end badly for you.
If you can't establish a way around it, such as him being known for communicating through interactive holograms or illusions, then you risk your plot, forget the scene, or railroad.
Those are the only options.

And if you can't let go of your scene or plot in an interactive game, anons suggest that you write a book, forgetting that if you could write well, you wouldn't be in this corner in the first place.

>>53270221
You are literally a child. Only a child acts like this.

Nope. Not how RPGs work, the players need to be allowed to be an active part of the story, even if it messes with the script.

When (not if) they do, improvise.

Wait so, you NEED an argument between two nobles that turns into a homicide?

Shit man, have one challenge the other to a duel.

If your narrative cannot withstand player interaction, it should be a story, and not a game. I say this as a man running two games, playing one, and working on a book thats so shite itll never see the light of day.

>>53270984
>You are literally a child. Only a child acts like this.
If you are referring to feeling like time drags on when one has to quietly stand still doing nothing and waiting, that's humanity.
Afterall, "A watched pot never boils."
Unless you consider Benjamin Franklin "a child".

Responding to that impatient feeling with unseemly fidgeting and thrashing might be considered acting like a child.

If you were referring to something else, I'm afraid you'll have to be more clear when posting.

>>53252402
See thats fine. If the players step in, try to stop the argument have the brothers ignore them. Unless they can stop a guy mid-stab you should be fine. But dont expect them to let the murderer get away, unless he has means of mobility greater than the players.

I don't use cutscenes, but I do add little pre-scripted vignettes at the beginning and sometimes middle/end of sessions, depending. They're never so important that I can't cut them out if we're tight on time, but small pieces of world building or atmospheric pieces that help set the tone of the game after a week away. Stuff like news stories, newpaper clippings, short excerpts from books, etc. that don't take more than thirty seconds.

>>53271297
Pretty sure Benjamin Franklin can manage to listen to a conversation he wasn't a part of for 30 seconds to a minute in 1775, whereas a child would find it difficult.

>>53274259
I find that interesting to hear. I guess you said most of it already, still care to go into a little more detail on an example? Especially one that would happen miss session.

>>53276133
Because an adult can withstand the impatience of waiting.
That doesn't mean that there is no impatience of waiting.
And an adult needs a valid reason to stand there quietly rather than take some other action.

>>53245895
>How should I, the going to GM, handle cutscenes?
Cutscenes?
Like this:
https://youtu.be/22XdYRbFHoE

>>53246162
The problem with this type of scenario is you don't get to control the players characters. Trying to adapt a movie of video game concept in which you as the producer of the game get absolute control does not work in a group game like D&D. Either you set up a physical barrier to prevent the characters from being able to act immediately or you drop the scenario, that is my advice.

>>53255007
To be fair OP, you're the one dismissing arguments left and right in a very arrogant manner. You've admitted you are new, and you came here for advice. You need to take a step back and realize people are speaking more from experience than anything here.

Games they've run, or games they, as a player have left. Not an outcome any GM really wants in the end.

You are quoting books, and popular cinema like it is gospel for an RPG. Op, you are missing one major thing about that.

Those play to an audience. A cutscene plays to an audience. The players are your actors, in ADDITION to your audience. They need to be able to act in some way.

>The scenes in LOTR, Game of Thrones, etc...
Okay lets talk about those. Frodo is about to be stabbed, how? Well we had un-combat savvy Hobbits, and Aragorn struggling to reach him, or riding back depending on book or movie. All REASONS they didn't interfere in a vital stabbing. This led to the ride to save him and moving the plot in a very memorable way.

>The brothers argument escalates. But instead of it going from words, to murder, the would be victim slaps his brother. The other takes off his glove.

"I have half a mind to challenge you to a duel for laying your hands on me."

"We both know you'd never meet your own date."

As he turns away, coming back to the party. He shares a glance with the cleric, shaking his head, smirking at his arguments victory.

Ask them to roll a perception check. Win or lose, the outcome isn't major, win, they see the glint of a leveled pistol barrel at the brother's head from behind.

Lose, they only hear the shot.

Even an initiative roll would have a hard time arguing beating the gun ready, and the only 'cutscene' you take is a few actions that could have maybe been seen, but you don't need to ask them to stop. It was his argument to have. Hell, maybe they were chiming in. Everyone loves a peanut gallery.

But now here is the kicker, I wrote that like a book. I don't know what they'll do, but there is plenty of unspoken actions I am waiting to see, and how it unfolds is for you as the DM to paint. Not just to color with blind shock every time. Though I could see that once! But then the next time, as you give them a chance to react. "You recall the assassination in the study, you promised yourself to always be ready. What do you do?"

>>53284456

There is an elegance that is needed with narration, that you say you have. But that comes at more than monologues of descriptors and fine writing. You need to be able to react off the cuff, and organically. This isn't you telling your story. This is them living theirs. You just get to direct where it goes, and challenge them. You're all there to see their characters grow and react, and hopefully some of your supporting cast gets to become vital to them as well.

But the thing to remember is, if the entire party decided to leave the plot behind. To walk out of town and find a life among the miners miles away. The camera follows them. Not the npc's.

>>53284456
I think it is worth pointing out in addition to this one. It is very rare to see combat stop in ANY book. Television and movies do it, not for dramatic effect of the scene, but to give the crowd the time to react and process the scene.
Which isn't something an rpg needs within it, nor really flourishes from. The cutscenes should be seconds of game time, in your descriptions, and in your npc's.

Players tend to describe their actions in the jerky motions of the rules. You are free to embellish and turn every npc turn into a cutscene. As well you should, the antagonists' you bring to bear should be exciting and described well. Not a chess game read aloud.

Leave them their agency, and find your style with it intact. You'll grow far better as a DM, and keep your groups longer. And almost as importantly, your stories will be far more worth telling.

And when you do, THEN you make it the cutscene.

>>53265101
Your idea is far from snowflakey. The idea of "these damn players are going to step in and ruin all my plans" is as old as gming itself. You got so many "just write a book" responses because we have this debate every Saturday.

You're running thought experiments and that's great but the unfortunate thing about some experiments is that they lead to dead ends. This is one of those cases. Video games can do video game shit 100 times better and faster than tabletop games. But tabletop games can do things video games could never even dream of emulating. Focus on those things.

That being said: every group is different and some groups are fucking weird. If the guys you're playing with actually enjoy it you're not doing it wrong. It's all about the good times. Art is weird and all that.

Here is my two cents, OP, in the hope that you are not a jism-guzzling queer.

If my character is talking to an NPC to settle their differences and try to better their relationship, then I will not appreciate it if you tell me that your awesome superskilled assassin NPC had a dagger ready and in position on one of my PC's weak points to kill him at a moment's notice. I will call you out for it and I will attack that character.

And I will probably not stand for it, but walk out on the game if you dismiss it and make light of the players being able to play the game.

Finally, if the group walks in the room where the villanous character is about to kill one of their beloved NPCs and you choose that moment to say "You all are surprise and can't react as the villain slits her throat", do not expect your players to find your story... your GAME, fun. I, for one, would be pretty cross with you.

File: 1410441015216.png (82KB, 1300x892px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1300x892px

>>53245895

>>53276256
My group sometimes takes ten after a few hours so people can smoke and grab some wine/snacks, and rebuilding the atmosphere afterwards can be pretty tough. I've had mixed results from short vignettes in that arena. I've definitely been improving on it though, so it can be done.

Setting is a Superhero Academy, noble-dark undertones as heroes fight a losing war. My group is particularly fond of news-reels, and probably half of my vignettes fall into that category. Usually I'm working to maintain that sense of noble-dark, with evil on the edge of their vision slowly consuming everything they love, the only thing between their loved ones and chaos being what they're working towards. I usually have two to three 'clips', summaries of news stories maybe a few sentences long. An example from last session (a little longer than usual because of the quote):

{{News Cast: Credits flash for "S-Rank Updates" \\ "This just in, the town of Jackson, Montana has been reported as destroyed by Painforged, member of the S-Ranked group The Horsemen. Surprisingly, resident Community Hero Project member Multiplier managed to hold off Painforge for nearly fifteen minutes before a passerby called into authorities and an IMA response team was dispatched, and a battle is currently ensuing. A statement from the IMA has confirmed five capes taking part in the exchange, including the North American Director, Goddess.

In other news, a breach in the Scandinavian Quarantine Zone has been reported as 90% patched, although the S-ranked threat titled 'Wendigo' is still loose somewhere in the Northern Atlantic. Finally, a response from Smash of the Metropolis cape community regarding the recent outbreak of Fiend users."

>>53286254
"My department has made this our number one concern, rest assured. We have field teams working the streets of Metropolis at all times, and are leading daily raids on dens and dealers of this drug. If you have any information, call our hotline below immediately to help crack down on this epidemic. If you or a loved one have used Fiend and are looking for help, a separate hotline has been made and can be reached 24/7. Let's work together to make our city a safer place. Thank you."}}

>>53284354
OP here. I've tried my darndest not to seem arrogant, but to communicate that I consider every argument, and keep all posters relevant. At one point I mentioned that I didn't like the single-sentenced "just write a book" comments for their imo sarcasm and relative lack of substance (not meant to do a side stab here, just mentioning for this context. I moved on).

Some parts of the discussion is more heated, with fingerpointing and namecalling, but that's not me.

In the end, pretty sure I communicated that I register the counter-arguments and opinions that go against it, that I consider them and that they make me hesitant, that I generally thanked for participating in the discussion so far at one point, but that I still want to try.

Still wanting to try it despite all the other opinions isn't arrogant, that's my free right, and should not devalue the contribution of commentors saying I shouldn't do it. I understand that not following the 'don't do it' s might seem like I'm not listening to adverse opinions, but I am. I expect a cutscene to very very probably not to work out, but I still wanna try cause I just wanna try.

>>53286306
>I still wanna try cause I just wanna try.
More power to you, OP.
Like I said earlier, a cutscene of less than a minute is short enough that even if falls flat, it won't be that bad.
And if it works as intended, despite the naysayers, great.

Come back and tell us if something interesting happens.
I'm certain some anons will call you a liar as well as an arrogant, baiting faggot again too, so there's that to look forward to.

File: 1466215921256.png (55KB, 217x190px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 217x190px

>>53286306
>"hey i want to do this, should i?"
>"no dont do it op"
>"i'll do it anyway though"
This thread was a huge waste of everyone's time. OP is a massive faggot.

>>53289368
OP here. I don't see it that way. People talked a lot about why I shouldn't it, and that is something I can take with me. Granted, I haven't written much about what I do with what people are telling me.

The murder scenario will see some changes inspired by feedback here. The brothers will stay at some distance, must be careful to avoid with telegraphing clues during the argument to not give away the upcoming murder, must consider healers, must ensure the general feeling of 'well okay, couldn't have intervened there' for the players, must think of some impact possibilities for the players post cutscene to redeem the 30sec agency-vacuum.

The reason I want to do this so badly is that I want to insert something that is nice to look and hear at, (I'd time speech with music and stuff), and I'm a reasonable presenter (some acting experience, SOME, nothing huge, no ego wanking) and I think I can deliver something here.

Saging, I think the next step is to see it through and come back with a report some other time, maybe even with positive feedback or some insight. Or you know, 'eat shit anon told you all along you whore' failure.

>>53289368
Nah.
Most of the "don't do it" posts focused on cutscenes done differently than OP ever planned to anyway.
Most of the remaining negative posts were in the vein of "it's tricky to pull off and probably not worth trying"
OP is fine for replying, "Hold my beer, I got this."