How do you Control/Set the Pace of a Game?

[ExploderWizard]

Truthfully, a referee can never set the pace of a game. They can only resolve the players' attempted actions. Unless the DM is playing an NPC, the speed of the game should ideally proceed irrespective of his or her responses. This is true for the same reason railroading a predetermined plotline cannot happen in an RPG, a DM can neither control how fast the players choose to play nor what their decisions will be. It's as simple as that.

The DM has no control over the pace of the action taken by the PC's but does indeed have control of the pace of activities and actions in the game world that are not within the PC's ability to control.

For example, if there were a humanoid lair in the vicinity of a human settlement, the DM decides how long it takes for those humanoids to organize and attack the settlement (assuming no activity by the PC's). The PC's can act in time, early, or be too late to prevent the raid depending on thier decisions. The pace of world events moves on. The humanoids won't postpone the raid because the PC's decided to go prospecting in the hills for a few days.

 

[Grymar]

So to sum up. Here's OchreJelly's advice on keeping a brisk space for the average working stiff: 1) prepare as much as you can ahead of time. Having the encounter maps ready ahead of time is a huge time-saver. 2) Look for logical breaks in adventures where real choices can be made and try to end your night there. This is more of an art than a science. 3) Offer choice and minimal RP between game sessions. If you have a free online group this is pretty easy. 4) Use an online wiki like Obsidian Portal to unload much of the lore / history checks about your adventure. The players will appreciate the reminder and help them keep the story fresh for when they arrive next session, so you don't have to spend much time reviewing the previous session.

This is all excellent advice and mirrors how I try to run my games. The live sessions are for combat and big RP events. Major decisions, small RP'ing and such is done via email or wikis (pbworks.com is another good choice).

Making sure decisions are done between sessions allows you as the DM time to fully prepare without railroading. You know where they are going, so prep is easy. Now it also means that sometimes I end up over preparing, (what if they do this? or that?) but that is a burden I do not mind.

Also, keep a "kick in the door" encounter in your back pocket. Stat up an assault team or assassin group, then set it aside. At some point when the pace lags, have the assassins kick in the door and attack the group. Even if you have no idea who would send that assassins, do it. Leave a single, odd clue like a foreign coin or an unknown crest. Then figure out on your own who sent them and tie it in with the clue some six or eight sessions later. Your players will think you are a genius.

 

[howandwhy99]

I just find the juxtaposition of these two viewpoints, right after each other to tickle my funny bone.

I think Doug is talking about storygames. I'm referring to more tradRPGs from the 70's and 80's. FWIW, I think D&D 4E is trying to be both.

Howandwhy - I'm not sure I agree that the DM cannot set the pace of the game. He can most certainly slow it down - "ok, guys, wandering orcs attack you. And then more wandering orcs attack you. And still more wandering orcs attack you." or speed it up, "You hit for fifteen damage? ((glances at notes, sees that the baddie has 17 hp left)) It goes down in a welter of blood!"

Yes, a DM can speak very s l o w l y, but that doesn't advance the time clock so much as the content related does. And acting out an NPC character is the exception to the rule, as I mentioned earlier. So, no, a Referee is never in control of what happens in the game world. To act otherwise would be cheating - the proverbial "killer DM" who uses DM fiat (I find this a false accusation that is somehow being brushed across the entirety of the hobby.)

The DM has no control over the pace of the action taken by the PC's but does indeed have control of the pace of activities and actions in the game world that are not within the PC's ability to control.

I disagree. The Referee must follow the game rules of the module (or modules) and the game system they are running. If not, there really isn't a game going on IMO.

For example, if there were a humanoid lair in the vicinity of a human settlement, the DM decides how long it takes for those humanoids to organize and attack the settlement (assuming no activity by the PC's). The PC's can act in time, early, or be too late to prevent the raid depending on thier decisions. The pace of world events moves on. The humanoids won't postpone the raid because the PC's decided to go prospecting in the hills for a few days.

This sounds like an example of the DM running NPCs. As long as he decides their actions according to the definition of each NPC, or in this case the collective group, and not according to what he personally wants the players to do or some OOC knowledge about the game, then the DM is being a good auxiilliary. Running NPCs is not being a referee. And the referee doesn't need to be the one who runs them. But whoever does run them, the auxilliaries, needs to follow their characterization or the game doesn't work either. This is why they aren't players. Playing an NPC isn't about playing the game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So, no, a Referee is never in control of what happens in the game world. To act otherwise would be cheating - the proverbial "killer DM" who uses DM fiat (I find this a false accusation that is somehow being brushed across the entirety of the hobby.)

I disagree. The Referee must follow the game rules of the module (or modules) and the game system they are running. If not, there really isn't a game going on IMO.

Wow. I never considered altering the contents of a module to suit my particular campaign to be cheating. Those module writers should have warned against altering thier creations and that such modification could have dire consequences.

 

[howandwhy99]

It's not cheating, but it is certainly taking part in the game design. EDIT: a.k.a., being a game designer. When this is done during a game session it is absolutely cheating.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I like the direct approach that PC and others have recommended. As a GM, just a gentle reminder, very direct. Something like, "I don't think you guys need to spend this much time here unless there's something I'm not thinking of. Is there?" or "We can fast forward to the next point that needs focus. You guys ok with that?" As a player, that can be a little bit harder to do, but it's possible. I've been in games where I've said, "My character is all set here. Actually, are we all good? Can we just fast forward to the next point we need to focus on?" I tend to be one who likes a fast pace.

You can also try scripting your games. That is, before the session or adventure, write down "Combat - Social - Chase - Combat - Social - Social - Combat with a reveal" and then that's the end of your Beginning, just like a novel might be plotted. Cross off the scenes as you go, and make sure that the players are aware of them. If you have active players, make sure they get to choose the details of the scenes: setting, motivations, conflict (must be a conflict every scene!). You don't have to say these things explicitly, but it's the GM's job to make sure they're there, in my opinion. Anyway, scripted play isn't for every group, but it can be super.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's not cheating, but it is certainly taking part in the game design. EDIT: a.k.a., being a game designer. When this is done during a game session it is absolutely cheating.

I would say that running a campaign that isn't 100% pre-written requires game/world design skills from the DM. If the players give me a great idea during a session and I use that idea to make the game experience more satisfying for all involved then I am an admitted cheater although I do let the dice fall where they may.

 

[Obryn]

I disagree. The Referee must follow the game rules of the module (or modules) and the game system they are running. If not, there really isn't a game going on IMO.

I would disagree, because this eliminates the fundamental advantage of RPGs over board games and computer games - the ability to improvise. A DM's improvisation of things left out of the module and off the map is a strength of the game-style. It means an RPG is not a board game or card game, but does not make it a non-game.

At any rate, I don't think excessively narrow definitions of "game" are very helpful in this regard. If the OP is asking about how to pace his game, telling him he's cheating or not actually playing a game isn't very helpful. You may have a different definition of "game," which is dandy (EDIT: And possibly worthy of its own thread), but I don't think a discussion of whether or not he's playing a game is helpful in this context once it's clear he's not using the same definitions you are (as it was in the OP).

In other words, I'm struggling to find some way in which your answer isn't "You're playing it wrong" and I'm not finding it.

-O

 

[Umbran]

When this is done during a game session it is absolutely cheating.

Well, I've improvised more gaming sessions than I care to count - run without any preparation whatsoever. Since I was continuously changing the adventure contents during the session, I take it that I was continually cheating, then?

 

[Tewligan]

It's not cheating, but it is certainly taking part in the game design. EDIT: a.k.a., being a game designer. When this is done during a game session it is absolutely cheating.

A DM who's too inflexible to change or adapt a written module on the fly to fit the game's needs is a remarkably bad dungeon master.