Pace of Play, Engagement and "Excitement"

[payn]

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).

Which is why ive largely moved away from tactical heavy roleplay games and focused more on the lighter games with folks that enjoy the RP aspect more. In the past it was the folks I had to play with that pushed the compromise, nowa days I have all the tools I need to find the right folks for the right games.

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.

I think its up to the individual to embrace it. There really isnt a general "we" when it comes to perception of excitement. Which is good becasue it brings variety. YMMV.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

Well, there's absolutely no question that people who place a high priority on speed and a high priority on detail and options at the same table is a formula for some problems. Contrary to some arguments I see, I don't think those two wants are particularly compatible, and acting like they are is liable to leave at least one of the two groups unhappy.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which is why ive largely moved away from tactical heavy roleplay games and focused more on the lighter games with folks that enjoy the RP aspect more. In the past it was the folks I had to play with that pushed the compromise, nowa days I have all the tools I need to find the right folks for the right games.

Well, to be clear, the problem I mentioned can be true of both ends; a game that's very heavy on game element but light on roleplaying can make it a problem if people aren't good at the game part too. But I'm showing my biases to having my chocolate with my peanut butter, and you mentioned that's no longer the place you're at.

I think its up to the individual to embrace it. There really isnt a general "we" when it comes to perception of excitement. Which is good becasue it brings variety. YMMV.

Of course. The only reason I push back on this is there's an awful lot of people who tend to over-generalize about the virtues of speed over everything, and heavy roleplay over gameplay. I don't think that's a set of assumptions that should be allowed to pass as a given outside the selective case of the specific people involved.

 

[DEFCON 1]

A very basic method for keeping player's attention to the table is to give them more opportunities for off-turn action. If a DM has monsters move around more often and thus triggering opportunity attacks, it gives you two things-- the monsters die faster and thus combat speeds up, and the players have to pay at least a little more attention when it isn't their turn, in order to identify when they get to make OAs.

So long as the DM tells the players that they won't tell them when they can use their Reactions to take OAs, players will need to keep their eyes open to make sure when they get to make them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A very basic method for keeping player's attention to the table is to give them more opportunities for off-turn action. If a DM has monsters move around more often and thus triggering opportunity attacks, it gives you two things-- the monsters die faster and thus combat speeds up, and the players have to pay at least a little more attention when it isn't their turn, in order to identify when they get to make OAs.

Though that only goes so far.

As a confession I've made elsewhere, I'm easily distracted as a player; I read this as an expression of being a forever-GM (and as a GM you're intrinsically involved in almost everything all the time in a trad game) and most likely being undiagnosed ADHD. I don't consider this a virtue, and frankly, would probably find it annoying as a GM, but I am what I am. Even playing a PF2e Champion (who have a lot of off-turn reactions that you can do and are pretty useful) didn't seem to help with the problem.

So long as the DM tells the players that they won't tell them when they can use their Reactions to take OAs, players will need to keep their eyes open to make sure when they get to make them.

Like I said, you'd think.

 

[payn]

Well, to be clear, the problem I mentioned can be true of both ends; a game that's very heavy on game element but light on roleplaying can make it a problem if people aren't good at the game part too. But I'm showing my biases to having my chocolate with my peanut butter, and you mentioned that's no longer the place you're at.



Of course. The only reason I push back on this is there's an awful lot of people who tend to over-generalize about the virtues of speed over everything, and heavy roleplay over gameplay. I don't think that's a set of assumptions that should be allowed to pass as a given outside the selective case of the specific people involved.

Which is odd, becasue im exactly saying this, like to a point, that there is no general "we" consensus here. So, folks should really not be bothered by folks acting like there is.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Though that only goes so far.

As a confession I've made elsewhere, I'm easily distracted as a player; I read this as an expression of being a forever-GM (and as a GM you're intrinsically involved in almost everything all the time in a trad game) and most likely being undiagnosed ADHD. I don't consider this a virtue, and frankly, would probably find it annoying as a GM, but I am what I am. Even playing a PF2e Champion (who have a lot of off-turn reactions that you can do and are pretty useful) didn't seem to help with the problem.



Like I said, you'd think.

That's why I said "very basic".

If nothing, it is a fairly easy and basic start towards more involved solutions. The shorter the amount of time between a player getting to "do stuff", the less opportunity they have to true distraction.

Perfect solution? Not even close. But at least it is something every DM can start with tonight-- have their monsters move and trigger OAs.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The other easy solution is reduce your number of players at the table.

If you only have 3 PCs, they cycle through their turns much faster and have less opportunity for getting really distracted.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which is odd, becasue im exactly saying this, like to a point, that there is no general "we" consensus here. So, folks should really not be bothered by folks acting like there is.

Yeah, and I'm not talking about this thread to be clear, but I've seen too many discussions dominated by assuming the speed-over-all was a given, and I decided some years ago I was done letting that pass.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's why I said "very basic".

If nothing, it is a fairly easy and basic start towards more involved solutions. The shorter the amount of time between a player getting to "do stuff", the less opportunity they have to true distraction.

No, that's entirely fair. The only thing you need to watch is if the player is being depended on for those sort of out-of-sequence actions to support others and it doesn't work--well, that may make the experience worse, rather than better for others. I'm afraid that was to some extent the result when I was playing that Champion, though I think most people found my depiction of him entertaining. My tuning out? Not so much.

Perfect solution? Not even close. But at least it is something every DM can start with tonight-- have their monsters move and trigger OAs.

Of course you have to be playing a game that has OAs or something like it.