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

[Umbran]

I doubt there's one answer to this...how long would you feel comfortable in a pure interactive roleplay situation with no plot advancement?

I don't think there's one answer to this for even a given person. It isn't like one can start a timer and you know you'll be bored by the time it goes "Ping!"

And, here's a major thought - just because it isn't advancing the plot the GM planned, doesn't mean there isn't a plot advancing. For one thing, such segments are often the basis of plot: spend a fun half an hour talking to the urchin on the docks, and you can expect the players will be interested in events in that urchin's life from that point forward.

And some plots - like politics and romance, are often largely advanced through roleplay and discussion and interaction, without any mechanics at all.

 

[WayneLigon]

I do pacing in this way. The last session of Star Wars Saga I did is a good illustration of how I deal with time. We usually have exactly four hours to play, so I have to be aware of real-world time constraints and factor that in.

I check the time and I know my players; I generally know how long it takes us for a combat and such. The scenario for this week is so: there is a mysterious prisoner that even the Emperor and Vader have taken an interest in. He's being secretly taken to a hidden Outer Rim prison colony aboard a massive prison transport, perhaps hidden among the general populace.

General Rahm Koto thinks it might be a trap, but any prisoner so interesting to the Imperial powers that be is a potential ally for the nascent Alderaan Alliance. So the group is provided with passes and cover ID's on the transport, with instructions on finding the special prisoner in the 75,000 being transported and getting him off the ship if they can.

So, I have a goal for the evening, and four phases: intro, finding info, acting on the info, and getting free.

I'm using a module as a basis for the adventure, so I have some selected encounters, several contacts, and several choices for set-peices.

The first 30 minutes or so, we do the intro. This goes much as planned, and basic info about the situation is imparted. The group then uses their ID's to make contacts and try to find the prisoner.

This, I estimate, will take about an hour and a half and accounting for a drinks break. It begins to go long, so pacing has to come into play a bit more strongly. One planned contact gets slipped into the notebook to be used at a later point in time, while another says 'Yeah.. you know, we had to go wire an area just before we left Coruscant and like /triple/ the power leads to it. Whatever, you know?'

A more direct hint that something is down there helps move things along, and the group decides to check it out. They find that the former infirmary area have been converted into some kind of special security area, and they figure they've found their man after a few false leads.

So we're at the half-way point, but then we hit a snag. They take some time coming up with a plan to free the man. It's a good one and everyone is involved in making it, but it's taking longer than I thought and I figure we have at least two large fights before we're done with the session. By the time they've decided and begin to implement the plan, we have about 90 minutes to go.

The fight at the security station goes about as planned, but one guard is annoyingly lucky, so much so that it threatens to drag things out. So he goes down the next time he's hit. There is one fewer Imperial Marine in the mix, and one less droid, than the encounter calls for.

The prisoner freed (they still don't know who he is; he has a full helmet locked on his head and drug drip to keep him out. They don't have time to fiddle with either, so they move to part two of their plan: let everyone out of their cells and hope the confusion will cover their escape. It does, and the fight at the hanger deck as they steal a ship can go off without a hitch.

The group blasts free with their prisoner and we're ready to end the session on a high note, and prep for the conclusion next week.

I keep a pretty good eye on time and structure the pacing accordingly, keeping the action moving along. If things had gone the opposite way, say if they'd come to a snap decision about getting the prisoner in five minutes, then I had additional contact and encounters to flesh out that time so we could still end on a movie-like high note.

 

[WayneLigon]

DOINK DOINK!

I need to get a file of that Law and Order scene transition sound and use it some game.

 

[Lanefan]

I agree with previous posters who say that howandwhy99's definition of roleplaying game is actually a lot closer to more conventional games such as boardgames or videogames. In particular it closely resembles crpgs such as World of Warcraft.

1) Impartial referee. The only truly impartial referee is a computer.
2) Runs a set module without deviation from what has been laid down. The referee is governed by strict rules, like a computer program.
3) Purely gamist, all about challenging the player. No roleplaying in the sense of acting in character.
4) Attaining levels is a marker of genuine achievement. This is far more true of WoW where one knows that, with a level 80 toon, at least someone put in the hours (though maybe not the current owner). One has no such certainty in a ttrpg though, a character might have levelled up under a Monty Haul DM.

It's like howandwhy99 has taken Gygaxian D&D, which is already strongly gamist, and distilled it, purified it until every last shred of non-gamism is removed. I'm not sure what he's ended up with is actually a roleplaying game any more.

This doesn't happen often, so make the most of it: I'm going to agree 100% with Mr. McCrae. And I'll leave it at that; there's such a vast disconnect between how I see the game and how haw99 sees it that until-unless we meet in person and sit down and roll some dice there's really no further point.

Lan-"wondering if howandwhy99 is going to GenCon this year"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Back to pacing...

I do consider pacing very important in a game, and one of the biggest determinants to how much fun the players have. I really don't care for simulationist style, where the PCs enter a dungeon, explore around in the time allotted, and then stop to pick up wherever they were at. If they'd just finished room 14, next week they'd enter room 15.

What's wrong with this? It pays no attention to the pace of the story. All game sessions have a beginning, middle, and end.

OK, right here we already have a huge disconnect: session length does not (and in my situation anyway, cannot) equal adventure length. I can't remember if I've ever got through an entire adventure start to finish in one session, and that's including some monster-length sessions back in the day.

All adventures, chapters, and stories have a beginning, middle, and end. Sessions don't, really...not unless you're so organized and-or so tied to the railroad that you can plan exactly how long each element of the coming night's game will take (i.e. you know exactly how long your players will take to make each decision, absorb and discuss each bit of new info, etc.). As with the other discussion, I have to ask here: what happens if the players go off script?

Say for example you've planned out a session where, because of where they left off last time, they're right set up for the final battle - one more room with a few relatively minor guards and then the boss battle. But the party take extra long dealing with the guards - instead of quietly and efficiently killing them they manage to capture two and then spend a long time questioning each one individually and comparing their stories - and then spend three hours using this new info to re-plan their assault on the boss. Are you suggesting the players can't do this, that you'd somehow force the boss battle to start around 10 p.m. real time because that's what's scheduled?

Slow down, man!

If the adventure's going to take 10 sessions even though you'd prefer it take 4, let it take all 10. There's nothing at all wrong with finding a logical break point (an overnight or "extended" rest is an obvious one) and stopping there, (remembering to note what hit points etc. the characters are at) to resume next week.

Game design plays an ever-increasing part here too. Older editions didn't really bother designing for campaign length. 3e specifically went for a 1-20 run taking about 2 years. 4e, if memory serves, wants to go 1-30 in about 18 months. And hell, a good deep campaign is barely getting underway at 18 months!

I'm starting to ramble as it's late and I haven't had dinner yet, but what I'm trying to say is that unless people are getting bored, let the pace set itself and don't force it...and assume that each adventure, and by extension the whole campaign, is going to go on exactly as long and take exactly as many sessions as it needs to. And if your campaign lasts ten years, good on ya!

Lanefan

 

[jdrakeh]

And some plots - like politics and romance, are often largely advanced through roleplay and discussion and interaction, without any mechanics at all.

It's worth noting that this is usually the case, not because mechanics can't be used to advance such plots, but because most RPGs don't include mechanics to resolve such things. In games like Exalted 2e or Burning Wheel that do include mechanics for resolving social interaction, such plots will typically be moved forward as much (if not moreso) by mechanics than by roleplay.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Regarding howandwhy99 - He has his own, specific definition of what a "real" role-playing game is. It seems to be a coherent and self-contained definition.

It unfortunately bears little relations to what most people that play RPGs associate with it - but even these people might not agree among themselves all the time.
In a way it's like a mathematicl definition might be- elegant, precise, and unfortunatelly describing something that has no relevance to the real world. And trust me, there exists such definitions. Peoples have written thesises on a particular mathematical properties for an object - say a set - and in their research found that the objects properties can never be satisfied - so it's effectively an empty set. At least howandhwy99 discussion doesn't describe an empty set of RPGs, since he seems to play his game that way.

Any discussion regarding his definition or a "general" discussion is most of the time off-topic, and at other times often fruitless, since it just doesn't cover enough of what most people want to see covered.

 

[ST]

It's worth noting that this is usually the case, not because mechanics can't be used to advance such plots, but because most RPGs don't include mechanics to resolve such things. In games like Exalted 2e or Burning Wheel that do include mechanics for resolving social interaction, such plots will typically be moved forward as much (if not moreso) by mechanics than by roleplay.

To build on that, I just wanted to add that mixing roleplay and mechanics in a social scene is not only possible, but really to be expected if you're using social conflict mechanics. By that, I mean that "I convince him (clatter dice)" is every bit as Totally Lameas "I swing at him (clatter dice)". If we're playing along and people are just rolling without really getting into what they're doing and why, I take it as a sign that I dropped a dud of a scene on the players and try to quickly wrap it up and move on to something that does interest them.

I recognize a lot of folks feel that roleplaying scenes should be pure dialog with no mechanics invoked, especially those folks that label themselves Immersionists. That's a totally cool preference for people who like it, but it's definately a preference and not something innate to roleplaying. Maybe it's because our group is variously mostly-female or all-female but me, but if I didn't get to use mechanics in scenes where people were "talking it out", we'd be playing freeform.

 

[maddman75]

OK, right here we already have a huge disconnect: session length does not (and in my situation anyway, cannot) equal adventure length. I can't remember if I've ever got through an entire adventure start to finish in one session, and that's including some monster-length sessions back in the day.

See, here's the disconnect - I don't think in terms of adventures. I think in terms of episodes. And no matter how long your plot arcs, that is how they are experienced by your players.

Sort of my central thesis, if you treat the session as an episode that needs to be somewhat self-contained and come to a climax, you will have a better game. Its worked for me so far .

All adventures, chapters, and stories have a beginning, middle, and end. Sessions don't, really...not unless you're so organized and-or so tied to the railroad that you can plan exactly how long each element of the coming night's game will take (i.e. you know exactly how long your players will take to make each decision, absorb and discuss each bit of new info, etc.). As with the other discussion, I have to ask here: what happens if the players go off script?

I don't have a script. I throw a situation at them and see what they do to resolve it. If they can't get it in one night I announce that the game is To Be Continued and let them resolve it the next game.

Say for example you've planned out a session where, because of where they left off last time, they're right set up for the final battle - one more room with a few relatively minor guards and then the boss battle. But the party take extra long dealing with the guards - instead of quietly and efficiently killing them they manage to capture two and then spend a long time questioning each one individually and comparing their stories - and then spend three hours using this new info to re-plan their assault on the boss. Are you suggesting the players can't do this, that you'd somehow force the boss battle to start around 10 p.m. real time because that's what's scheduled?

Slow down, man!

No, that would be awesome, and I'd do a To Be Continued just as they begin to move in with their new plan.

If the adventure's going to take 10 sessions even though you'd prefer it take 4, let it take all 10. There's nothing at all wrong with finding a logical break point (an overnight or "extended" rest is an obvious one) and stopping there, (remembering to note what hit points etc. the characters are at) to resume next week.

By 'adventure' you mean plot arc, right? It takes as long as it takes. This isn't about the plot arc. The plot arc is irrelevent to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what you do with *tonight*'s game. What is going to make it awesome, memorable, and leave the players wanting more?

Game design plays an ever-increasing part here too. Older editions didn't really bother designing for campaign length. 3e specifically went for a 1-20 run taking about 2 years. 4e, if memory serves, wants to go 1-30 in about 18 months. And hell, a good deep campaign is barely getting underway at 18 months!

I'm starting to ramble as it's late and I haven't had dinner yet, but what I'm trying to say is that unless people are getting bored, let the pace set itself and don't force it...and assume that each adventure, and by extension the whole campaign, is going to go on exactly as long and take exactly as many sessions as it needs to. And if your campaign lasts ten years, good on ya!

Lanefan

Again, I'm not talking about how long a game runs. That's not really relevent. Its about paying attention to this particular episode. The whole point is you don't get to pick the episode points in advance. They come based on your restrictions in the real world. Deal with this and make it work for you, and your game will be better for it.

It might also clear things up to explain that I don't run a lot of D&D, and most of my games are not exploratory in nature. So exploring a lost dungeon is simply not something that would happen with any frequency. Scenarios of how many rooms away they are from the end are not something that get dealt with very often. More investigation and character conflict than environment exploration.

 

[Hussar]

Hoo boy, this thread took off on me. Yay me for starting a popular thread.

First off. ST - some fantastic thoughts there. Great advice. Definitely food for thought. I'll get back to this when I've done some reading. Also, thanks for finding my question in the scrum. Well done you sir.

Next, HowandWhy99.

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.

This I disagree with 100%. And here's why: I cannot change the damage output of a weapon because that fact has been established. The players have access to that information at character generation, and may very well have used that particular weapon in the game. If I suddenly change that rule, I better have a damn good reason why.

However, I can "raise or lower the pole vault bar" at any point up until the players have tried to make the jump as it were. The altitude of the bar is in no way fixed until such time as the PC's have interacted with it. Either they've seen it, or are in the middle of trying to jump over it. Presumably they've investigated it first. If I tell the PC's the bar is 15 feet and then make it 20 feet when they attempt to jump, that's bad DMing.

However, if my module says 15 feet, but I announce to the players that it's 10 feet because I want to make the challenge easier, that is entirely my prerogative as the DM. If there is one thing EVERY SINGLE RPG out there agrees on its that. The DM/GM/Referee has absolute control over every "fact" in the game world until such time as it is established as canon by the players.

Here's a question that the first part of this thread made me think of: how much time is too much? I must admit that as I've gotten older, I enjoy the interplay between characters, even minor ones, a lot more. As a result, when some of my players get into it, I can tend to dally with minor events and NPCs longer than I should. My question to the floor is: how long is too long? How much time should you spend roleplaying just for the fun of the interaction before it becomes boring?

I doubt there's one answer to this...how long would you feel comfortable in a pure interactive roleplay situation with no plot advancement?

--Steve

Yeah, I agree. There is no answer to this other than, what makes everyone happy. You have to build a bit of a consensus here with the group and go with that. It might even be a case of quid pro quo between different players. Maybe this session we're going to drag our heels and talk to every shop keeper, but, you turn to Bob, who's rolling his eyes, give him a nudge and a wink and let him know that next session will be guns a blazin'.

That was the problem I ran into. I was Bob. I wanted to get going because I wanted to see where the plot of the Adventure Path was going. The rest of the group wanted to saunter and explore. Basically, a failure in coming together with play styles.

Looking back at it, as a player, I should have let my frustration be known more constructively to the DM and the other players and tried to find a way to have my cookie without piddling in the pool. I'm sure we could have compromised. In fact, I have recently rejoined that group and that's precisely what has happened. The plot is advancing nicely, and we have lots of roleplay sessions as well. Everyone seems to be happy.