Pace of Play, Engagement and "Excitement"

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.

Slow is slow, doesn't really matter who is generating it. "I'm just playing my character," doesn't work as an excuse for inconsiderate behavior in any form. There are other people at the table, and their time and happiness playing matters. Players and GMs both have responsibilities to the other folks at the table.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm not sure anyone here has talked about pacing and engagement in the context of player segmentation. In software games, where I work, there are many different systems of segmentation. At Ubisoft and Sony, where I used to work, they dug down beyond marketing spending categories, into the division of audiences by their play style.

A lot of this stuff is built off the Bartle taxonomy of player types, though some companies expand this to eight categories. Bartle's breakdown is:
  • Achievers - Broadly, Achievers are players who seek progression. To level up and focus on rewards that emphasize their eliteness. They are eager to move the game along to accomplish their goals.
  • Explorers - Explorers want discovery, immersion, exploration. They also want to explore the world at their own pace. Time might not matter to these players.
  • Killers - Killers are not just combat freaks, but are likely to be power gamers. They might share some crossover with achievers, but they are not seeking accomplishments so much as domination and reputation.
  • Socialisers - Socialisers play for the social aspect. They love interacting with other players or NPCs and invest in the roleplay scenes. Like explorers they want immersion, but to be part of the world rather than exploring it.
Now, Bartle further divided his player types into subtypes based on whether they are implicit or explicit. That gave us:
  • Achievers - Planners, who set goals to achieve; Opportunists, who need to find opportunities.
  • Explorers - Scientists, who are methodical in their exploration; Hackers, who intuit the world and explore unsystematically.
  • Killers - Politicians, who seek a positive reputation; Griefers, who seek a bad reputation.
  • Socialisers - Networkers, who assess others' abilities; Friends, who just enjoy their company.
The intention of this system is to discover what blend of category a user is. What proportions are they Achiever, Explorer, Killer, etc.? Note that the Bartle system is far from perfect. Many corporations have their own different systems. I'm NDA'd from discussing the Ubiosft and Sony systems, but I can list the Quantic Foundry system, which is more software-specific, and which has nine types:
  • Acrobat - Players who want to perfect their abilities.
  • Gardener - Enjoys task completion, but at a relaxed, stress-free pace.
  • Slayer - Wants to be the main character in a strong narrative, though is happy if this is on-rails.
  • Skirmisher - Loves exciting challenges that don't require a lot of though. Gravitates towards combat.
  • Gladiator - Hardcore but balanced gamer who loves progression, exploration, challenges to engage them.
  • Ninja - Enjoys challenges but are less motivated by progression and more by mastery.
  • Bounty Hunter - Enjoys narratives but loves to exploit exploration, customisation, as well as progression.
  • Architect - Loves planning, and enjoys task completion and achievement. Enjoys slower-paced games.
  • Bard - Social players who love to interact with other players and participate in a shared world.
Now, the Bartle taxonomy, like the Quantic Foundry system, is more designed for software games than TTRPGs. However, looking through these I'm sure GMs can map some of these systems to their own groups. And understanding your group's needs can be vital for assessing suitable systems, pacing, and engagement. It's probably a good idea to have a long hard think about yourself and your players, and see if there's anything you can do to serve ther play styles better. For example, your killers might be happy with relatively slow-paced play if it's combat, but it might be tuning out your socialisers.
 
Last edited:

nine types:
  • Acrobat - Players who want to perfect their abilities.
  • Gardener - Enjoys task completion, but at a relaxed, stress-free pace.
  • Slayer - Wants to be the main character in a strong narrative, though is happy if this is on-rails.
  • Skirmisher - Loves exciting challenges that don't require a lot of though. Gravitates towards combat.
  • Gladiator - Hardcore but balanced gamer who loves progression, exploration, challenges to engage them.
  • Ninja - Enjoys challenges but are less motivated by progression and more by mastery.
  • Bounty Hunter - Enjoys narratives but loves to exploit exploration, customisation, as well as progression.
  • Architect - Loves planning, and enjoys task completion and achievement. Enjoys slower-paced games.
  • Bard - Social players who love to interact with other players and participate in a shared world.
Ah, the great words of Sun Tzu: know the enemy. That's like "know the players," right?

I feel like the player-type exercise can mostly be accomplished by asking the players what character class they want to play. Point: games with classes.
 

Is class really a solid indicator as to player type? Superficially, Bards map to Socialisers, but I wonder how often that mapping is true. Particularly if you have players who want to stretch themselves out of their comfort zone. I can imagine a Killer who wants to min-max a bard to dominate battles and social interactions.
 

Is class really a solid indicator as to player type? Superficially, Bards map to Socialisers, but I wonder how often that mapping is true. Particularly if you have players who want to stretch themselves out of their comfort zone. I can imagine a Killer who wants to min-max a bard to dominate battles and social interactions.
I think it is easier in class based games that have lots of niche protection and clases are actually oriented toward what they do. 5E is not great in this regard, but 3.x and 4E were.

I think it is more applicable if you examine the player's build -- sometimes a player might have a hard time articulating their preferences, but if they built their character to dominate social encounters, you can see what they want to be able to do well in play.
 

Is class really a solid indicator as to player type? Superficially, Bards map to Socialisers, but I wonder how often that mapping is true. Particularly if you have players who want to stretch themselves out of their comfort zone. I can imagine a Killer who wants to min-max a bard to dominate battles and social interactions.
Bard class is for folks who like to dabble in multiple types. It is the jack of all trades master of none archetype in my experience.
 


What do you think? Do you think a game can still be engaging and exciting 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.

It depends a lot on what players want and their expectations. For example, if someone came to D&D from Critical Roll, they will likely get bored easily with long combat turns.

But, a big part of the problem IMO with speed is not always with the mechanics themselves, but with players who are indecisive, unprepared or don't know the system well. Also GMs or rules lawyers who insist on spending a lot of time looking up/verifying the rules, instead of just making a ruling and running with it.

Also, the lack any real risk of perma-death lowers the stakes, and removes the edge-of-your-seat feel.
 

Though a class is an indicator of roleplaying needs, it's not necessarily an indicator of player type. You can be a Socialiser and a Fighter. You can be a Killer and a Cleric. Explorers and Achievers can be any class. I think there's a separation here between what the GM needs to deliver for the player based on their class, and what they should do to serve different player types.

Both things are meta goals, but one is character-focussed and the other player-focussed.
 

Also, the lack any real risk of perma-death lowers the stakes, and removes the edge-of-your-seat feel.

It's arguably out of the remit of this conversation, but I'm not sure I agree with this. The lack of perma-death can be freeing, in that I've seen players empowered to do exciting, mad, memorable things in service of the story, who would have been timid and trepid in a game with permadeath.

But perhaps that's a chat to save for another thread.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top