Pace of Play, Engagement and "Excitement"

Coming back to this thread after thinking some on what others' have mentioned...

Trying a different lens, most games tend to have this break between combat & the other parts of the game. I'll use D&D as the framework. Once combat starts, play becomes more procedural, time in game becomes more granular, there are discrete blocks of focus: everyone rolls initiative, it is now this individual player's turn, they may choose to do a list of things that fall under a move + action rubric, once those are stated, dice are rolled, etc.

As a game engine, D&D historical strong points are: how it handles combat, and how it handles dungeon crawling. When I think about examples in the social and exploration parts of role playing, when play visibly slowed (not because of the framework, like above) yet players remained focused, it tended to be when the situation was engaging for most, if not all the group.

When this happened for me in situations outside of combat:
  • They meet an npc the party for whatever reason, finds fascinating
  • When the party has had to plan for something e.g. a heist, an attempt to deceive guards on the street so they get a brief opportunity to interview a few persons of interest
  • In a dungeon and the crawl suddenly leads the party to a different environment e.g. a large cavern. One of the party spots something that could be hazardous. This sparks discussion over how to best enter the new space as a group
  • Through conversation, how to approach an npc in order to gain something of value from them.
Another example that came up not too long ago:

The party had met some dryads who lived in an apple grove. In exchange for not being messed around with by the fairies, the party agreed to get rid of a small goblin warband that had been chopping down trees for firewood. Because the warband was currently active, there was a random encounter table to run into them based on how long they spent in this grove.

What happened?

Rather than be aimless, they decided to set up an elaborate pit trap to attempt to draw the goblins to them instead. This came out of 30 minutes of talking among themselves, as to what they wanted to do with the game state.

That's slow, slow for me! But I thankfully saw how actively engaged they were in the fiction. It was as if I didn't even exist. It worked out well too, because I used the opportunity to look up other things for later use in the session (me, engaging in another part of the game)

Much like if some activity interests a person, it doesn't matter how rote it is i.e. solving logic problems or putting together a table puzzle. Some people genuinely enjoy doing that!
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Generally the issue with complex RPGs isn't the complexity itself, it's the fact that nothing happens as a result. Yay, someone's HP number changed! Let's continue doing the exact same damn thing we were doing before! It's no wonder people kind of stop paying attention, why wouldn't they?

Most of the complex game I know, there's usually a lot more to a successful attack potentially than just iterating a damage counter. In fact I can't think of one I've done in the last decade where that was all there was to it.
 

As a game engine, D&D historical strong points are: how it handles combat, and how it handles dungeon crawling. When I think about examples in the social and exploration parts of role playing, when play visibly slowed (not because of the framework, like above) yet players remained focused, it tended to be when the situation was engaging for most, if not all the group.

Just a note, but I've rarely seen D&D's combat engine as particularly strong. At best, and this has only been with some latter day version, some character/NPCs based appendages have made it somewhat interesting, but that always struck me as more working around the limits of the base engine than particularly supported by it.
 

. . . the party agreed to get rid of a small goblin warband that had been chopping down trees for firewood. Because the warband was currently active, there was a random encounter table to run into them based on how long they spent in this grove.

What happened?
I was hoping you'd say, "the PCs decided to protect the dryads by erecting a fort around them. So they started cutting down trees for the palisade and building fires to harden wood and light their fire arrows. The dryads asked the goblins for help instead."

Much like if some activity interests a person, it doesn't matter how rote it is i.e. solving logic problems or putting together a table puzzle. Some people genuinely enjoy doing that!
I've been dreaming up rote things for PCs to do for a while now. PC jobs: chronicler, leader, bookkeeper, and mapper. GM delegations: initiative tracker, minion player, random table/dice roller, rules lawyer. How much scrolling time is a player going to have if she's a PC, mapper, and dice roller?

Less rote, though, is to use a game that doesn't make everyone but the initiating player wait.

Most of the complex game I know, there's usually a lot more to a successful attack potentially than just iterating a damage counter.
Sometimes it just feels like all you do is tick off HP. These are also the times that the GM could have done more to help the player feel engaged.
 

I've been dreaming up rote things for PCs to do for a while now. PC jobs: chronicler, leader, bookkeeper, and mapper. GM delegations: initiative tracker, minion player, random table/dice roller, rules lawyer. How much scrolling time is a player going to have if she's a PC, mapper, and dice roller?

Less rote, though, is to use a game that doesn't make everyone but the initiating player wait.

Def. agree on last, I feel there's a lot of different ways games parse combat now that alleviates everyone else having to wait while it is X player's turn.

I've assigned some of above for players to do; they sometimes don't do them very well! (In fairness, they're in the process of learning.) >.>
 

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.

With respect, I remember being bored out of my skull in games with long turns back in the 80s... and 90s... and through to today. There's no problem with the people. The people are just the same - they just have a technological option or two that didn't exist back in the day. Back then we'd get distracted and doodle, or stack dice, or have side conversations...

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?

My solution is to not run games with interminably long turns. Back in the day we may have had 8-hour sessions every weekend, but my gaming time is just too short for that stuff these days.
 
Last edited:

With respect, I remember being bored out of my skull in games with long turns back in the 80s.. and 90s.. and through to today. There's not problem with the people. The people are just the same - they just have a technological option or two that didn't exist back in the day.

Obviously true for a number of people, but I have to note that OD&D turns were pretty quick, but very early on I got bored about how little there was to think about in most OD&D combats. This was even more true when playing a Fighting-Man.
 

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?
Yes a game can still be engaging when the pace is slow.

That said, I don't much care if players are disengaged when it's not their turn provided a) they remain attentive enough that if e.g. their character takes damage they'll note it right away and b) they "switch back on" BEFORE their turn comes up and are or remain aware enough of what's going on that things don't have to be explained or recapped.
 

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.
Of these, the first three are or could be just players playing their characters true to the character. I'm completely fine with that and if it slows things down, I'm happy to put my feet up and wait.

The slow DM can be a real headache. I try not to be that guy. Most of the time I hope I succeed. :)
And the DM that just lets the game 'hang' when the players are lost, confused, or otherwise not progressing.
If the players in-character are lost, confused, or otherwise not getting anywhere I'll give 'em as long as it takes to sort it out because again, they're acting in character.
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.
Quick solution to this is to rule that if the player says the character says it, word for word.
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.
I don't require the players to know all the rules as I figure that's my job as DM...and even I don't know all of them! I do, however, usually know where to look them up. :)

Playing at your table, given these parameters, would probably be more stressful than relaxing; and as many people including me play to (at least to some extent) kick back and relax this would seem somewhat self-defeating.
 
Last edited:

I don't think slow combat should be a problem at all as long as everyone likes the game they're playing. Boardgames can be slow as well and have long turns but still be considered classics even though talk about downtime in boardgames also tend to show up from time to time.

Another thing about this however that I feel could be raised is that every time this discussion comes up it's about combat and rules when this seems to be more of people problem. You could boil it down to a person taking up too much spotlight and not leaving room for other players. This can happen in combat, but I've also been bored out of my mind at times when other players have had long discussions with NPCs that I had nothing to add to or not even been a part of. These are times when it's helpful to have a GM to move things along regardless if it's a combat or a roleplaying situation.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top