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

[Umbran]

For example, think of roleplaying a horse jockey. It doesn't matter if the race is on a track or began impromptu across a field. The playing field must be predetermined ahead of time. If the referee simply chooses what comes next during play then there is no game, the winner is and will always be whomever the referee wants to have win.

Ah. Yes, there are some folks who hold that anything called a "game" has a set of rules, and a "win condition" of some sort.

I am not one of those people.

 

[Obryn]

Now, I'm not saying the way of playing described by howandwhy99 is wrong.

No, I don't think it is, either. It's a perfectly valid style of play.

What I object to is howandwhy99's characterization of his methodology as "true roleplaying," or "original roleplaying" as defined in the 70's. (Frankly, it seems to me like it contradicts a lot of direct advice in the DMG.) I also object to a definition of improvisation as cheating, and to the characterization of a game with flexibility as somehow fixed. Or, worse, not a game at all.

It's a kind of one-true-wayism that doesn't sit well with me at all.

-O

 

[Barastrondo]

It's a variant in playing styles, to be certain. For some, "feels right" is a matter of faithful adherence to the rules of the game or the pre-established module, almost as if running a logarithm would have the same effect. Do something other than what's anticipated in print, and it doesn't feel right. For others (including me and my group), the freedom to improvise, to alter things and to try stuff that a guy you've never met didn't anticipate you doing is all part of "feeling right." The world feels right if you do what you are inclined to, and you still have a game going on.

What it tends to come down to is who you trust to give you the best gaming experience, including things like pacing. I trust my buddy Jeff to run a game I'll enjoy more than, say, I trust Monte Cook. I'm sure Monte runs a mean game — but Jeff knows what I like, and can design to meet the standards of things we both find particularly neat. Playing with a designer might teach you a lot about different perspectives on a game, and help you wrap your head around parts you didn't quite get — but ultimately what keeps me personally coming to the table is the experience that reflects my group, not the one that reflects the books.

I use a lot of pacing tricks that require no small amount of trust from my players. For one game (non-D&D) I will often do "cold openings," scene-setters that may or may not involve the PCs before the opening credits would roll. Players may start a session in media res, with only the briefest explanation of why they're in a place and why the guy with half a face of scar tissue is trying to kill them. Out-of-character pacing stuff I will do all the time, though always with permission.

There are little things that work even without this level of trust, of course. NPC dialogue delivery can encourage players to relax or to tense up, depending on how much tension you get across; if the blacksmith starts speaking urgently, the players might absorb some of that urgency. Keeping an eye on how long combats tend to take can let you figure out if you should probably encourage them to be fighting the lava krakens by 9, so you can have them up against the steam dryads at 10 and have the cliffhanger roughly around 11.

 

[Armadillo]

I'm going to go back to the OP. If players are delaying the game with excessive interactions with minor NPCs, there are several things that a GM can do:

- Cut the interactions short and move on;
- Move ahead to a combat or interaction with a major NPC;
- Practice ready gaming - Be ready to game at the set time even if it is just hashing out questions or one-on-one roleplaying with the players that arrive on time and during the game, when a player isn't sure what to do, move on to another player and give the first player time to think of what their PC will do next;
- Have an NPC remind the PCs about what's going on;
- Have a thug break down the door and threaten the PCs;
- Attempt to have more of these interactions before, after, or in between games (even via e-mail); and/or
- Create consequences for the delay (the NPCs aren't standing still just because the PCs are off on a frolic).

A certain amount of the fun for a GM is watching the players chase the red herrings. But, it isn't fun when the players are just floundering around.

As a player, you don't have as much control over the pace, but there are a few things that you can do:

- Practice ready gaming - be on time and be ready with a proposed action when it is your turn or when the other players aren't sure what to do;
- Have questions for the GM that hopefully will further the plot;
- Remind the other players of the plot (focusing on substantive questions and what needs to be done next can cut down on the detailed roleplaying for buying a new saddle);
- Talk with the GM and the other players about the pacing; and/or
- When all else fails, find a new group.

This is a timely question for me because our GM has led the party off into a dungeon crawl that only he seems to be enjoying. But, I'm not sure that he's realized that is the case. I probably just need to raise the issue with him before the start of our next game.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think it's one of two things: either a) the designers just didn't think about "what comes next" after Kalarel goes down, or b) they did, and it got cut for space. Given the layout of the last encounter, I strongly suspect b.

Looking back on your posts, I'm starting to wonder if you're (erroneously) interchanging the following two concepts:

1. Changing basic game rules on the fly
2. Changing elements in a canned module on the fly.

If I change basic rules on the fly with no warning or discussion (oh, by the way, longsword only does d6 damage now) that's bad. If I do it only to give my monsters an advantage, that's best defined as cheating.

But if I change something in a module on the fly (let's say in KotS that if you defeat the Thing, the portal changes destination and can now get you to an alternate prime material instead of the Shadowfell; I as DM have decided it was the Thing's presence that was keeping the Shadowfell connection open) then from the players' perspective what's the difference? They don't, or most certainly shouldn't, know how it worked in the first place; and I just cannot understand why you think it should matter (or why or how it is "cheating") if I've decided at the last minute - improvising in response to their decision to try and go through - to tweak it into something more than the written module gives me.

Lan-"some things baffle me more than others"-efan

I agree there is something of a distinction between "you have 20 attempts to guess what I'm thinking" or "I have to answer honestly" versus "this is basis or definition for what I am thinking". The first are rules for the game, the second are guidelines to be followed by the answerer. Most all RPG rules are guidelines to be followed by the DM. However, that doesn't mean not following them isn't cheating on the DM's part. It just means they aren't explicitly "game rules" rules known between players to define their options when playing a game. Heck, in RPGs players really only have to roleplay their characters. There are little to no rules for them at all. Just like "try and answer the riddle" is the basic rule for most guessing games.

IMO most game modules must be predetermined in order to be roleplaying challenges for the players to face. Adhering to the damage output of a weapon is a guideline I cannot ignore without cheating in the exact same way I cannot change anything else that is predetermined, like the design of the map or the characterization of an NPC. Once the game has begun I don't get to change what was designed without essentially raising or lowering the pole vault bar before the jumper reaches it. It must remain the same throughout the attempt. Any aspect of an adventure may inform play throughout the challenge. Keeping it uniform for all the players means no part is subject to my whim once the game has begun. Can I set the bar beforehand? Yes, but not during the game.

The heart of the issue comes down to "winning" and "losing" which are meaningless in a game without a defined end. Even if the player's characters all get killed due to bad luck or poor decision making, if the players roll up new characters and continue the campaign continues.
Likewise when the dungeon is cleaned out and the characters return to town victoriously, the campaign doesn't have to end.

Winning and losing only have meaning if there is competition. As a DM I am not competing against the players. Some of the most fun I had as a player were sessions in which my character died. I don't look back on the good time that was had as a loss. YMMV.

The defined end is to gain XP. Or in a tournament adventure to accomplish the task particular to the adventure played like "kill the giants" or "raid the tomb", which of course gives points too. But these points aren't necessarily XP.

Points are given for acting appropriately even if what specifically earns a player points isn't known to them before or during play. In fact, I think that makes playing the game more challenging. If I only know the objective I am to accomplish, the the points I get for roleplaying other elements well becomes more e a matter of my skill as a player too. Not just the accomplishing an overall task or other acts I know which give XP.

If your PC dies, yes, I'd say you could continue in the game. But you certainly do not get to keep any of the points you earned from your previous attempt. That's true in campaign play as well as when playing a single adventure. I know tournament games do not necessarily let players continue who had characters die, but tournaments are almost always more rigorous than home games.

I suspect you may be characterizing a campaign as a story to be followed rather than a group of modules meshed into a "campaign world". If true, I don't think that's what roleplaying games are. IMO, storygames are for folks getting together to tell stories. RPGs are more about players getting together to be challenged through roleplay.

Don't you think this is kind of a mischaracterization?

Improvisation does not mean the PCs are guaranteed of success or failure. Yes, the DM could intentionally choose to throw too-easy or too-hard stuff at the PCs, but they could do that before the adventure was ever written, too.

-O

I don't believe it is a faulty characterization. I believe it applies for any guessing game designed. Just because we might take on game designer status and act like the judges on Jeopardy doesn't mean we get to rewrite clues and answers after the players start trying to answer them.

FUN FACT: If your players decide, on the spur of the moment, to teleport to a far-away city and go to the bazaar, you are cheating if you did not have the merchants' and beggars' names, products, motivations, skill at haggling, and cash on hand ahead of time. Because then it would not be a fair challenge.

-O

In campaigns this is (most likely) hopping from one module to the next. In one shots, anything outside the module is irrelevant. I think most home games put one shots in campaign settings to broaden the scope somewhat. But that still doesn't mean anything but the module being played is relevant to that module's design.

No, If your players decide, on the spur of the moment, to teleport to a far-away city and go to the bazaar, the appropriate response would be 'they can't, because it is not in the module'.

I disagree. Players can always elect to quit the module. But starting a new one does require a new module is prepped and ready to go.

Actually, this is why I believe 4E choose to go back to the old design of limited range teleport.

 

[jensun]

Actually, this is why I believe 4E choose to go back to the old design of limited range teleport.

I dont have my books handy but IIRC 4e does not have limited ranged teleportation, it has fixed destination teleportation.

 

[howandwhy99]

I am curious to see an answer to this myself. Is there a definitive point at which the game goes from fair to cheating? What factors determine this? What if my players opt to go beyond the scope of the module? How do I adjudicate their actions if improvisation is cheating? Or am I not following your argument?

Game design must end before a game can be played. So cheating would be changing the rules of the game during a game session, or sessions depending on what's need to play a whole module. Most games I know use reality to answer about what happens beyond the scope of the module. ("If I put this thing [a rock] in a river, does it sink?") Some things are truly beyond the scope of a module though, so you could just say "you've quit the module". For example, someone teleported to a far away place with no means of returning. That's quitting the module. Same as going through a portal with no means of return.

No, I don't think it is, either. It's a perfectly valid style of play.

What I object to is howandwhy99's characterization of his methodology as "true roleplaying," or "original roleplaying" as defined in the 70's. (Frankly, it seems to me like it contradicts a lot of direct advice in the DMG.) I also object to a definition of improvisation as cheating, and to the characterization of a game with flexibility as somehow fixed. Or, worse, not a game at all.

It's a kind of one-true-wayism that doesn't sit well with me at all.

-O

This isn't "true" roleplaying any more than storygames are the only kinds of roleplaying games. And I doubt it is the way "everyone played" originally. But I do think it is the basis for which RPG were originally designed and run. And it is certainly a more enjoyable game for me than those without any challenge.

Don't get me wrong. I understand under particular philosophies roleplaying can be challenging, but only when those challenges are limited to resolution mechanics. Like the difficulty in pulling a block from a tower, from playing a miniatures game, or even a CCG to resolve what happens next. But I prefer games with actual roleplaying challenges.

EDIT

I dont have my books handy but IIRC 4e does not have limited ranged teleportation, it has fixed destination teleportation.

There you go. That's an even more limited option for hopping between modules.

 

[Obryn]

I don't believe it is a faulty characterization. I believe it applies for any guessing game designed. Just because we might take on game designer status and act like the judges on Jeopardy doesn't mean we get to rewrite clues and answers after the players start trying to answer them.

At what point does the module become fixed, though? Maddman has an excellent point - you're arbitrarily dividing adventure design into before- and during-play times. If a dungeon room hasn't interacted with the game whatsoever, how is changing its contents during play different from doing so a week beforehand?

In campaigns this is (most likely) hopping from one module to the next. In one shots, anything outside the module is irrelevant. I think most home games put one shots in campaign settings to broaden the scope somewhat. But that still doesn't mean anything but the module being played is relevant to that module's design.

I disagree. Players can always elect to quit the module. But starting a new one does require a new module is prepped and ready to go.

So if a group of PCs decides to do so half an hour into the game, and you don't have a "module" prepared, what then? Quit for the night and not play?

Is it your expectation that DMs should have fully-detailed realistic campaign settings before play, with information on - for example - bazaars in distant towns?

Again, that's not like any RPG I've ever seen or ever played. That's past sandbox play and well into ... gosh, I don't even know a good term. Sandbox play is (AFAIK) all about having enough details to improvise (see the Wilderlands box set) - while this is seemingly about having enough details and never improvising, and remaining confined to individual modules for all aspects of play.

Actually, this is why I believe 4E choose to go back to the old design of limited range teleport.

I think there are other reasons, but that you think so doesn't surprise me.


Basically, I think once again that you're defining "role-playing game" in a bizarre and non-intuitive way. You're focusing on an RPG as a series of dungeon rooms to overcome, while RPGs are - and have always been - a lot more than that.

What's more, you're excluding games which fall outside of your narrow and unconventional definiton from the umbrella of "role-playing game," instead dismissing them as "story games." It's a crazy - and frankly frustrating - form of one-true-wayism that basically amounts to you telling others, "You're pretending to be an elf wrong."

So, I'll ask - since the definition used by others in this thread matches the popular definition of RPGs and is used by just about everyone except you; and your definition does not... Would you say it's fair to instead say you're playing "puzzle games" whereas others are playing "role-playing games"?

-O

 

[howandwhy99]

At what point does the module become fixed, though? Maddman has an excellent point - you're arbitrarily dividing adventure design into before- and during-play times. If a dungeon room hasn't interacted with the game whatsoever, how is changing its contents during play different from doing so a week beforehand?

A module must be completed before play. It's an unknown to what will or will not affect gameplay before the players directly interact with any particular element. So every relevant element must be available to inform the DM as he responds to the players. It doesn't matter if any particular element (person, place, thing, knowledge, etc.) is interacted with directly or indirectly when it comes to maintaining a fixed challenge. For example, a dungeon room may switch ownership a dozen times before the players finally learn of its existence. That doesn't mean its' existence didn't inform the game indirectly prior to their arrival. Heck, they may never even arrive to explore it. Smart players may have already figured out its existence, size, shape, contents, previous history, etc. All of these things affect the game and can be learned without ever entering the room. Maybe the challenge is not to enter the room at all?

So if a group of PCs decides to do so half an hour into the game, and you don't have a "module" prepared, what then? Quit for the night and not play?

Is it your expectation that DMs should have fully-detailed realistic campaign settings before play, with information on - for example - bazaars in distant towns?

This sounds like what campaign settings are for. They give the situation a broader context both spatially and in many other respects. Just like playing a wargame on an army base changes slightly if the setting is present day Bosnia rather than Indo-china in 1944, a RPG module is changed slightly too by the setting it is in. But the roleplayng challenge is still primarily about the module. So yes, if the players decide to quit a module during a one-shot and that's all the DM has prepped, that particular game is over. I don't think this is unusual as almost every RPG is designed this same way.

Again, that's not like any RPG I've ever seen or ever played. That's past sandbox play and well into ... gosh, I don't even know a good term. Sandbox play is (AFAIK) all about having enough details to improvise (see the Wilderlands box set) - while this is seemingly about having enough details and never improvising, and remaining confined to individual modules for all aspects of play.

Elements that aren't designed are by definition irrelevant to play. So they were either never expected to be used to succeed or they cannot be used to do so. I think this is why RPGs tend to default to reality, so answers can be given honestly and objectively.

I think there are other reasons, but that you think so doesn't surprise me.

Basically, I think once again that you're defining "role-playing game" in a bizarre and non-intuitive way. You're focusing on an RPG as a series of dungeon rooms to overcome, while RPGs are - and have always been - a lot more than that.

What's more, you're excluding games which fall outside of your narrow and unconventional definiton from the umbrella of "role-playing game," instead dismissing them as "story games." It's a crazy - and frankly frustrating - form of one-true-wayism that basically amounts to you telling others, "You're pretending to be an elf wrong."

Storygames are roleplaying games, they just don't relate to the vast majority of games created and played in the hobby. They use a different definition of roleplaying and I would never suspect them of being guessing games or using that design. They are primarily like games of Catch or Look What I Can Do! They aren't games in the sense that players need certain skills to win. This is getting award points in RPGs. I do understand many storygames incorprate many other non-role-related games exterior to their roleplaying. And, yeah, those games require some degree of skill and have measures of success or failure. But the playing of storygames in general are a whole different category of game and game design than what the roleplaying hobby is. Just looking at them makes this pretty obvious. I've played a few too and it seemed pretty clear each time success, "playing smart" as some call it, wasn't relevant to playing the game.

So, I'll ask - since the definition used by others in this thread matches the popular definition of RPGs and is used by just about everyone except you; and your definition does not... Would you say it's fair to instead say you're playing "puzzle games" whereas others are playing "role-playing games"?

-O

Do you think everyone wasn't roleplaying before White Wolf came along and made up storyteller games? Or that RPGs in the 70's and 80's were simply misnamed? Honestly, guessing and performing proper behavior is the very definition of roleplaying. At least of the two definition used in the real world outside the hobby. So I don't believe "RPGs before were not about roleplaying" or D&D before 4E was "objectively bad game design" because all those games use a very different definition of roleplaying than the one storygames use. As this is a D&D board, I think most players here would prefer a game of Zork to round robin campfire tales.

 

[Lanefan]

Game design must end before a game can be played. So cheating would be changing the rules of the game during a game session, or sessions depending on what's need to play a whole module. Most games I know use reality to answer about what happens beyond the scope of the module. ("If I put this thing [a rock] in a river, does it sink?") Some things are truly beyond the scope of a module though, so you could just say "you've quit the module". For example, someone teleported to a far away place with no means of returning. That's quitting the module. Same as going through a portal with no means of return.

But what if the whole party teleports? They've stepped outside the "module" (which by the way is not defined by a rigid boundary in any case; unless you're running it in complete isolation from the rest of the gameworld) and thrown the DM a curveball.

By what you're saying, if I understand correctly, the DM is not even allowed to swing at that curveball never mind hit it.

Note: the following all assumes a campaign-style game. Tournaments and competitions are different animals.

If we as a party are in the early stages of G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief and we realize an hour into the session we're getting our donkeys kicked, and furhter that we really have no good in-game reason to be here, are you saying we don't even have the role-played option of turning around and leaving the Giants for someone else to clean up while we go back to Greyhawk City and find something we can handle?

If your answer is "no" to the above question, then the DM has a curveball to hit and has to be allowed to do so; to improvise what happens in Greyhawk if anything, and keep the game flowing. (or stop the session cold; an unacceptable outcome for all involved)

If your answer is "yes" to the above question, then you might want to seriously consider yielding the DM's chair to someone else.

And this is all true regardless whather your game is a flowing story in which module-type adventures only rear up occasionally, or a strictly module-to-module game where your-as-DM intention is minimal interaction with the rest of the gameworld...sooner or later your players are going to go off script. The same is true within a module: the writers can't think of every possible outcome and even if they could space/cost considerations would prevail. So any DM worth their salt *has* to be able to improvise, sometimes in major ways and often at the drop of a hat. The true challenge for the DM in these cases is maintaining consistency - making sure what gets dreamed up now doesn't contradict something already established.

A DM running a module is not a computer running a program...nor, one hopes, an engineer running a train.

Lanefan