Moving the game along

[Ariosto]

Ariosto, would/do you keep track of real-world time when determining when to make wandering monster checks? Also, do you consider player discussion to be in-game when determining if you should make a wandering monster check?

Real-world time may more often correspond to in-game time in old D&D. One-minute combat rounds often take about a minute to resolve, for instance.

It is also possible for 3 exploration turns (30 minutes) of moves to take very little time to describe. Yet, spells and torches run down in game-time -- and those three WM checks get made.

Barring some reason such as magical haste, I assume that player-characters speak no more quickly than players. If discussion among them has gone on for 10 minutes, then it is time for another WM check.

---

At the request of some players, I not only weight but outright 'fudge' checks to make encounters occur when it seems subjectively that they are devoting too much time to something. I think that was pretty standard for Mr. Gygax, who was prone to entertain himself if he found the players' undertakings boring.

I have a higher tolerance for player groups that are entertaining themselves more than me. Skilled parties, I am inclined to leave to determine for themselves what they will do and for how long.

Still, as I mentioned in another thread, "action and drama" are my watchwords. Events that are in fact engaging enough at the time for players to choose to get wrapped up in them for an hour may not seem so exciting in retrospect. Sometimes, that is fine. Who has not enjoyed a TV show or movie that proved less than thoroughly memorable, or seemed memorably stupid, afterward? It should not be the rule, though. (This is, of course, one issue that many people address with plot-line scenarios.)

-----

Examining every square foot for traps or secret compartments or the like easily uses up time! It is incumbent on the DM not to be too arbitrary in placement, to make available clues that players can use to decide where to be wary.

However, players should also accept that occasional things are going to be almost certainly missed.

A low probability of someone thinking to check something is really about the same sort of thing as a high probability of failing to find it based purely on a Perception score or dice roll. It's part of the game's statistical spread, making some outcomes notable.

The cost of the occasional surprising volley of spears or such should be generally low enough -- except in something like the Tomb of Acerak, where deadly peril at each step is to be expected -- that players can move confidently until they come to some place where it makes sense to proceed with especial caution.

 

[Fifth Element]

Assuming that there's a consensus that the table would like things to move faster, it's not going to happen unless you take some steps to change it. Is this learned behaviour from having a DM who often springs old-school "gotcha!" traps and hazards? If so, and the players aren't enjoying it, you'd need to discuss that with the DM. These types of things can be fun, but if they grind the game to a halt they're probably not best for your group.

Why do you think the group takes so long to make decisions like this?

 

[Psikonetic]

Why do you think the group takes so long to make decisions like this?

As part time GM for this group, I'll weigh in...

Two parts, I believe:

One, we play online, using TeamSpeak and MapTool. We're spread across the East Coast and this is our only method of play. Being an online game, the distractions are too many for some to resist. When I run the game, I only have up TeamSpeak and MapTool, but I'm sure the others spend time on YouTube, eBay, etc. so they get distracted. Meaning, they're not always paying attention to me and the set-up, so when it gets to their turn, they have to figure out what's changed and they wasted their time when others were describing their actions to come up with actions on their own.

Everyone there are adults, I don't think I have to "yell" at them or tell them they're "not allowed" to browse the internet during gameplay, I'm not a teacher after all. It would be a sign of respect if done and I've made mention of it, but I don't think it happens.

Second, I think the mindset of some of the players is that they have to "win" each encounter. Many of these folks are new gamers, they've grown up with video games with clear cut goals and game over scenarios. Everything has to be analyzed, pulled apart, and though upon to make sure they're making the "right" choice. I've said that the game is about doing what you feel in the moment and I, as GM, will tell you the consequences. They don't approach it as a cooperative story telling event, but as a set of challenges that must be defeated in the best and most effective way possible. The problem is, all the time discussing what to do next, who should carry which sword, etc. kills some of that effectiveness.

 

[The Shaman]

We do bring in some wandering monsters on occasion. On some of the times where I've DM'd, I've started 10 second countdowns. I guess we could try throwing more random encounters at the players - much of the slow down does happen outside of combat.

I've found that just rolling the encounter die as the adventurers are talking helps to focus the conversation, even if an encounter does come up.

 

[Fifth Element]

One, we play online, using TeamSpeak and MapTool.

Aha. That certainly makes a difference.

Second, I think the mindset of some of the players is that they have to "win" each encounter.

So they're basically analyzing each decision in detail, regardless of how important that decision is, if I follow you? Paralysis by analysis?

 

[ArghMark]

Two suggestions:

Ever run a meeting? Gaming is a meeting and the GM is the chairperson. Not to say he is just talking (Thats a lecture), but he controls who gets prominence and when. Understand this point and be willing to cut people off where necessary. Ever been in a meeting with five people where two of them do all the talking? That isn't a good meeting, its two people hogging the limelight. Control the game, its your job as GM.

Two things to do -

1. "Back to topic guys. The orcs won't wait for you to chat about it."

This is the easy option and works with people who believe the purpose of the game is to progress through it.

2. Deliver this as blankly as you can. "Moving on" and then ask another player what he does. And if you don't get an action say he does nothing. If a conversation goes on the monsters go again. Thats for combat.

For exploration, cut off long winded stuff. If people need to discuss then make them do it in character; people often can't do this for too long. If other stuff comes up just say "I'm happy to discuss this with you all after the game. What do you do now?"

Seems harsh. But it'll get your game moving, and after a while people will respect you for it.

Edit: Oh, make sure your players understand that you want to move the game faster. Co-operation is key.

 

[Salad Shooter]

Holy Bananas! A lot of stuff, here.

Aha. That certainly makes a difference.


So they're basically analyzing each decision in detail, regardless of how important that decision is, if I follow you? Paralysis by analysis?

This is exactly the problem. We once spent about an hour and a half naming a boat.

I'm both player and DM, depending on the week.

I definitely think the group believes there is an issue here, in general, there are a lot of comments about the length of time, and even more about the lack of levelling up (we never get anywhere, so experience is handed out slooowly).

There may also be an issue because of learned crashing and burning. We've had a few rough encounters (I managed to have 2 of my characters in a row go down in a single hit, against creatures that should have been a piece of cake). This has gotten out of hand, though...we know what the proper thing to do in the situation is to do, but then discuss whether actually want to do it ad nauseum. I've done the impetuous thing, but I worry sometimes about completely taking decisions away from the party too often.

We (Psikonetic and I) intend on talking with the rest of the group. I was just hoping to get some ideas on possible routes we can take, to present to the group.

Everything you guys are saying here are pretty common sense. Which, is just par for the course...I ask a question, and get told everything I should have known but didn't actually think of. Thanks! Keep 'em coming!

 

[SuperJebba]

That'd be 20 minutes of that, then 3 hours 40 minutes of the group investigating who stabbed me in the heart when the rest of the table wasn't looking. At the end of which they'd find it was a self-inflicted wound.

I think you are being funny with this, and if so, I laughed really hard at this. Good form!

 

[LostSoul]

A question for Ariosto - how do you deal with these sorts of planning moments in wilderness adventures? Time - by Turn - is less of a factor there; I'm not sure how I can press the pace forward without railroading the players.

I can detail a recent session in which planning took up most of the session, though it turned out to be somewhat pointless, if that helps!

 

[Ariosto]

Lost Soul: I don't recall ever having the problem with a D&D wilderness expedition.

However, I once had a single player waffling badly in a Traveller scenario with longer-scale turns.

The last resort is just the same as in any game: a turn is a turn, and when it's you're turn it's time to make a move or pass so we can get on with the game.

One thing that helped in this case was that there was a fairly formalized set of regular considerations that I made explicit to the player. That helped a bit with focus, and I could press him along the lines of, "Okay, so what you're doing for X is... right? Next on the agenda, we have Y...".

I think one problem was that he was distracted, trying to do other things at the same time as playing the game. There were other challenges, though, in getting "on the same page", and neither was I in top form.

The problems that may arise with players accustomed to being shuttled from one "scene" to another by a DM who indicates the "right" course of action present a big topic by themselves! Suffice for now to say that to run more open scenarios for them a DM may need great supplies of patience, graciousness and care in trying to grasp assumptions that can be even stranger to him than his are to those players.

Communication is often the key to RPG problems, and communication is always a team effort.

The Bottom Line:
Do the players really, truly want to have a scenario with daily or weekly turns proceeding so much closer to "in real time"? If they do, then humoring them may be more successful than pushing them. A basic assumption here is that they really want to "move the game along".