Pace of Play, Engagement and "Excitement"

[Reynard]

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

Thanks.

 

[damiller]

My real world pace is SLOOOOOOWWWWWWW. I like to draw out the emotional experience, and have things have an impact. I KNOW it kills player engagement, sometimes. So now I try to keep focused, and really think about what needs to be included to give the impact I want, without taking 3 months to get through one adventure*.

*Everytime I run Reign of Terror for Call of Cthulu, we never get past the first adventure, it takes at least 2 months. While I like it, and it give a lot of opportunities for RP, at some point it would be nice to get through the entire "campaign".

 

[Reynard]

My real world pace is SLOOOOOOWWWWWWW. I like to draw out the emotional experience, and have things have an impact. I KNOW it kills player engagement, sometimes. So now I try to keep focused, and really think about what needs to be included to give the impact I want, without taking 3 months to get through one adventure*.

*Everytime I run Reign of Terror for Call of Cthulu, we never get past the first adventure, it takes at least 2 months. While I like it, and it give a lot of opportunities for RP, at some point it would be nice to get through the entire "campaign".

I was thinking more about immediate pace of play -- scenes and combats, rather than adventure length.

 

[adrianthebard]

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

Thanks.

they surely can but it's harder to make them be so. in general a fast pace is ideal for a fight that is a hectic series of actions. when each action is confronted in a granular fashion that slows down play it is harder to keep your focus for long.
my solution isn't mine (credit to the angrygm) but it is to roll initiative early and segment each turn into a precise series of prompts (such as briefly reminding them each time abt the state of the board, of themselves and of their foes) that are meant to keep each player in the action and ease them through the process of deciding what to do, less thinking, more acting. i discourage as much as possible stopping to think and to talk. during your turn you act, FAST, or lose it otherwise.

 

[thullgrim]

In the 3.x/PF1 play I use a lot of tactics to help with the combat speed issue. Busy people only have so much time to play. Once we get to the mop up phase or we know the outcome of a fight we’ll truncate it.

Monsters only has as many hit pints as they need to make a combat interesting or fun. After that they are quickly disposable.

If I have a player who is separated from the group or their character goes down I’ll often hand them monsters to play just so they can stay engaged and present. Also offloads some GM overhead.

At some point you have to start getting through content though. One reason most of my games are run in SWADE these days is the happy medium between pace of play, task and combat resolution, and granularity. The quick encounter, dramatic tasks, and other tools make working through content easy, and the tools allow for different pacing depending on the situation.

I ran some GURPS earlier this year. Probably 20 sessions worth split between renaissance monster hunters and dungeon fantasy. I stripped back as many die rolls as I could. Everything was center mass, no random hit locations for instance. Rolled dice and used paper character sheets even with the Foundry tool. Used the simplified range bands and BAD systems from the Action line. It was still slow and we just could not move through content as quickly as I would have liked.

We get three hours a week to play these games. I can’t spend one minute exploring three rooms and having two fights. Its just not productive.

 

[Reynard]

they surely can but it's harder to make them be so. in general a fast pace is ideal for a fight that is a hectic series of actions. when each action is confronted in a granular fashion that slows down play it is harder to keep your focus for long.
my solution isn't mine (credit to the angrygm) but it is to roll initiative early and segment each turn into a precise series of prompts (such as briefly reminding them each time abt the state of the board, of themselves and of their foes) that are meant to keep each player in the action and ease them through the process of deciding what to do, less thinking, more acting. i discourage as much as possible stopping to think and to talk. during your turn you act, FAST, or lose it otherwise.

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.

 

[kigmatzomat]

In college I ran a campaign for 12 players. Rounds took a while even though I used a lot things to accelerate GM actions (i.e. had an XLS that pre-rolled a ton of d20s and I just went down the list for NPC rolls)

Other things to keep players engaged

• Would call out whose action it was, whose action was next and who was up after that. "The goblins go now, Smith you're next followed by Baggins"
• I ran a commentary on actions and used character names a lot. "The Ankle Biter Goblins are retreating away from Smif, Horrend and Baggins and encircled Jed. Jed they gnaw at your ankles and use their hammers on your feet. Take 28hp and your movement is reduced by 10ft.". "Smif closed with the goblins and stands in front of Baggins"
• Give players a few ticks to take an action then declare "Baggins delays while figuring out how not to fireball the whole party", go to the next person and come back to Baggins
• If a player is perennially uncertain, give hints. "It's Baggins turn again. If you don't want to fireball the party, you could safely firebolt one of the flanking goblins to make Jed's life easier."

 

[bloodtide]

It can be so bad......with just four players, and each player talking just 10 minutes to do their combat: this has you sit around for 30 minutes per combat round. So five rounds of combat can be half the night that you just sat there.

It is also bad with a leaderless group of PCs, a group of too many PC leaders, a group of PC Lone Wolves or worst of all, the slow DM.

And the DM that just lets the game 'hang' when the players are lost, confused, or otherwise not progressing.

And this does not even count when "that guy" mentions "that viral video" and then most gamers will sit around and talk about it for 30 minutes or more.

---

So, as DM, I'm very harsh at my table. I like a quick fast paced game that moves along.

I might give one warning for a new player when they attempt to disrupt the game with "drr...hey guys did you see the viral video, it was so cool!". But more often then not I will just kick the player out quick.

I require all players to play attention always. If a player say something like "what is going on", I will just go to the "ok, you loose your turn to act as your character stands confused for the round".

I require all players to know the rules. Again asking about a rule or such gets you a quick "ok, you loose your turn to act as your character stands confused for the round".

In combat, or other adventure worthy activities, I give players three seconds to state their action. And again, if a player does not, "ok, you loose your turn to act as your character stands confused for the round".

These make for a fast paced game.

 

[prabe]

If you presume this is a new problem (and I know people for whom it was a problem at least as early as Champions 4E) then you have to look at what might have changed. If you think it's the players--which could be sorta organic to the players, or it could be a reflection of changes in the larger society--it seems to me you have to wonder whether it's about gratification being quicker and/or easier in other entertainments (look at how much more quickly remakes of old movies, say, get to the perceived action bits) or whether it's about the players literally having shorter attention spans (not always literally ADHD, but plausibly at least sometimes) or whether it's a combination and/or something else.

 

[Reynard]

These make for a fast paced game.

For clarity, I don't really care about how to have a fast paced game. It is about how it is okay to slow down and enjoy things like tactical complexity and nuance, for me.

It is also about how to get That Guy to stay off his phone, though.