Pace of Play, Engagement and "Excitement"

[coralwave]

one solution is introducing a potential element that can involve them even when it's not their turn (or playing a game that includes them).

sometimes it just comes to preferences- not all players like the same aspects of the game. combat with some other elements (RP, puzzle, riddle, objective)can give other players something to think about and want to stay engaged

 

[Piperken]

Regarding these questions, I'd be interested in hearing from those who can share what they've constructively done when:

• Running a game at a con
• Running school club games
• Running one-shots
• Running time-limited sessions (e.g. at most ~2-2.5 hours)

to keep things exciting, keep players engaged, and when pacing in a scene happens to be organically slow, in above situations.

 

[coralwave]

Regarding these questions, I'd be interested in hearing from those who can share what they've constructively done when:

• Running a game at a con
• Running school club games
• Running one-shots
• Running time-limited sessions (e.g. at most ~2-2.5 hours)

to keep things exciting, keep players engaged, and when pacing in a scene happens to be organically slow, in above situations.

can't answer about cons and my experience with kids as players is limited.

1. system is key: take some systems that have quick turns.
2. If you're playing with the same group, take note of the average turn duration. divide your allocated time by that to approximate how many turns you realistically have, and plan your session accordingly.
3. have an in-world time constraint: I like "timers" from ICRPG, but clocks from Bitd operate similarly. when we play the introductory adventure from Death in space I literally set a timer for the session duration minus 10 minuets.
4. time the sections of your session- if you see something lags, don't be afraid to introduce another pressure element that will incentivize them not to tarry.
5. start in media res, use hard framing liberally. focus on the "meat" of the games and adventure.

hope this helps

 

[adrianthebard]

I don't think we should consider tactical play bad when the games in question put the fights on grids and include a lot of meaningful choices. Rushing people creates a subpar experience. We can dispense with tactical rules entirely, of course, but I don't think "fast and furious" is always the goal for tactical combat.

i perfectly agree.
what i do is for immersion mostly: a tactical game works well for a wargame or a miniature game such as warhammer, while in order to model realistic man to man combat in an rpg (or at least the feel of it) it works well to offer a limited but significative set of choices (eg rock paper scissors or pokemon) and asking the players to quickly recognize patterns that can then be freely couteracted.
irl: "the opponent tends to prefer a high guard and circular cuts, i will go for the centerline while being wary of counters"
at the table: "the opponent always charges, then sweeps and then power attacks the downed foe, i will:
a - make the warrior float, so he can't be swept
b - block line of engagement, so opponent can't charge
c - shield the warrior, as the foe is about to power attack

such simple patterns can still be acted against in many ways, so tac depth is preserved, but while simple, the push for fast reactions and turns will make recognizing and counteracting coherently to such patterns still rather challenging

 

[payn]

Another thread reminded me of the long ago days of playing Champions (4E; BBB forever!) where once combat broke out we settled in for quite an extended experience. Speed charts, players choosing maneuvers, adding up Body damage, players moving power pools around: all of that slowed down play for sure. but here is the thing: people were still engaged. Despite the fact that it took a lot of real time to go through folks' turns, everyone was still playing and the fights still felt exciting.

This is not something that is limited to Champions/HERO of course. Lots of games, especially 80s and 90s games, were complex and involved and made for long turns. Even 5E can feel slow, and 3.x era D&D/Pathfinder certainly often did.

I don't think slow turns is inherently bad, or inherently means the combats are not "exciting" (in quotes because it is a different kind of excitement than a faster paced game or video game).

What I think has changed is that many people have a hard time staying engaged on other peoples' turns. Since that itself -- other people having turns that take a minute -- isn't the new part, I have to think the problem lies with the players. Some people can't stay off their phone or opening another tab when playing online, and can't seem to be engaged in someone else's moment.

What do you think? Do you think a game can still be engaging and axciting even with a relatively slow real world table pace?

Sure. This is entirely subjective though. There was a time I really liked 3E/PF1 for how complex the combat and strategies were. Not too bad compared to straight wargaming, but also a nice twist of role playing in the mix. As i've aged though, im finding myself rather straight wargaming or role playing with faster real world pace game instead. I never played wargames in my youth or narrative driven RPG games, I always split the difference and that fit the bill then. Now I have more of a desire to optimize the experience I am after.

How do you feel about players that don't stay engaged? What are your solutions for such issues?

If rules crunch slowdown is the issue, you can always teach best practices. Shortcuts to math, repetion of obscure rules etc.. For non-mechanical slow downs and loss of attention, Im simply no longer in the business of making a player pay attention or fixing their excitment problems. You are in it, or you are not. I just dont have time to waste forcing it to happen any longer. I will politely excuse myself from such a game instead. I think both my drive to optimize my enjoyment and larger available pool of gamers has moved me in this direction.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What do you think? Do you think a game can still be engaging and axciting even with a relatively slow real world table pace? How do you feel about players that don't stay engaged? What are your solutions for such issues?

Thanks.

I've made it clear I'll take a slower game with a lot of tactical engagement and meaningful choices that the mechanics actually interact with (as compared to throwing it entirely in the GM's lap) any day. There's obviously some practical limits, and everyone's line is going to be different, but most light games have struck me as, from where I sit, mostly pointless (this doesn't mean some couldn't be interesting under some circumstances, but they'd require an extremely high quality of roleplayers to lift up the load since the game element is so weak).

 

[payn]

I've made it clear I'll take a slower game with a lot of tactical engagement and meaningful choices that the mechanics actually interact with (as compared to throwing it entirely in the GM's lap) any day. There's obviously some practical limits, and everyone's line is going to be different, but most light games have struck me as, from where I sit, mostly pointless (this doesn't mean some couldn't be interesting under some circumstances, but they'd require an extremely high quality of roleplayers to lift up the load since the game element is so weak).

Yeah I can see mechanics protecting against what one may think are boring GMs and players. The thought has occurred to me when approached by some folks for games before.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah I can see mechanics protecting against what one may think are boring GMs and players. The thought has occurred to me when approached by some folks for games before.

Its less "protecting against" than diluting the problem; when you keep a fair mix of game and roleplaying, if someone's so-so against one of the two, they're only harming a portion of the game, and I don't insist every bit of a game be good.

With a game with less, well, game, the roleplaying end of it is doing pretty much all the heavy lifting. My experience with an extremely pure roleplaying environment (MUSHing) was that few people are good enough to make that interesting all the time (and even some of them could have used a bit of mechanics to prop them up occasionally).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Champions battles were epic. The slow pace was part of the fun, it felt weighty and meaningful. I think the problem isn't slow turns themselves, but the expectation of instant gratification. People are used to fast-paced games and struggle to focus on something that unfolds more deliberately. Solutions? Maybe shorter combats more often, or finding players who appreciate that slower, more tactical style.

That second option seems like the best bet to have as many happy people at your table as possible.

 

[Reynard]

I don't want to give the wrong impression: I appreciate and enjoy fast paced play with tension built from a sense of immediacy, too.

I'm just saying that we can also embrace precise, intentional tactical play in TTRPGs, even when the fiction is describing superheroic shaky cam dynamism.