Something that Needs More Consideration - Pacing

[Hussar]

Looking at the various bits of DMing advice out there, there's lots of stuff about making interesting worlds, interesting NPC's, designing encounters and so on. Great stuff. But something that I don't think gets enough attention is pacing. I've come to the opinion of late that the single biggest element in a successful campaign is pacing.

Now, this is just my opinion, so, don't start firing up the keyboard just yet.

But hear me out. I've played under a number of GM's over the years and when I compare campaigns that I really enjoyed to those that I either just liked or outright disliked, the biggest thing that jumps out at me is pacing. In games that I didn't like, we'd spend hours on elements. The elements could be important or not, but, we'd spend god awful amounts of time on them.

I'm taking a different approach in my games. I'm setting a kind of internal clock where any single element should never last more than an hour, and most should be about half that. In a three hour session (which is what I play), I should be able to get through about 5 "encounters" (I put the scare quotes there because encounter does not have to mean combat). Five or so fairly distinct scenes.

However, this does come at a price. The players don't have a lot of time to sit and mull things over. Conversations can get cut short. Stuff occasionally blows up for no reason, just to move things along. And, yup, from time to time, I might even be guilty of a bit of rail roading just to get things moving.

IMO, this is a small price to pay for keeping the pace very, very high. I want the game to run almost like a stage play or a movie. You don't spend two hours of a movie on a single scene, generally you're lucky to spend ten minutes in a given scene. Now, I realize I can never get that kind of speed, and I don't want it either. To get that level of pacing, I'd need to be running from a script, and I'm not quite that bad.

But, by the same token, I don't want to play in games where things take forever to get anywhere either. Three to six significant scenes (averaging about 5) per three hour session seems good to me.

My question to you is how should I go about achieving this pace? What things can I do to keep things running like a well oiled machine? What pitfalls are there that I should avoid? What might I be missing out on by moving things along so quickly?

And, which do you prefer? Fast or slow pace? Mixed? How do your games usually go?

 

[Obergnom]

I absolutly agree with you, pacing is very important and as a player I hate to be stuck in a situation I can not get into. Depending on system and character that might be combat, social interaction or 'shoping'.

But it depends upon the game system and your players if your plan is realistic or not (without changes to the system). I currently run a 4e Chaos Scar campaign and it is very easy to change things without warning.

The players rapidly switch from sneaking up on a watchtower full of goblins (physical skill challenge) and attacking them (combat) to being supprised by the wandering Mist Titan (social skill challenge) to regenerating their strenght in Restwell Keep (interacting with homebase NPCs).

We play 4-5 hours a session and usually do between 2 and 3 'encounters' a session with quite a lot of in character gaming in between those encounters. With my group 30min per encounter playing 4e is just not possible and eliminating the in character gaming would transform the game into a DMs show, I want my players to get creative.

As for advice, I would use a setting that lets the players know random stuff might happen quite often. The Chaos Scar or any classic Mega Dungeon like Undermountain or Rappan Athuk, for example. Otherwise they might feel cheated.

 

[Uder]

Pacing is hugely important. I'd be interested in seeing others' opinions and advice on it. IMO I'm pretty good at it (at the best of times), but it's largely intuitive and also largely situational.

 

[Argyle King]

What kind of pace I enjoy depends somewhat on the system I am playing and what kind of game I am playing.

If I'm playing D&D 4E, I think a fast pace is usually the best due to the way the game is built. The PCs are expected to be constantly moving on to bigger and tougher challenges; gaining levels so they can become strong enough to defeat whatever the huge threat to the world happens to be at the time. Usually, I suppose this would be similar to movie pace at the far end; something akin to an action oriented supers comic at the slow end.


When I played 3rd Edition, I'd say I liked a pace similar to what I still want out of 4E, but I was more comfortable with the time line being stretched out a little more. Interludes of downtime and the occasional castle building diversion or political intrigue mystery were more acceptable. I'm not quite sure how I would categorize this. Perhaps something akin to a tv mini series or some of the longer drawn out comic stories.


If I'm playing something more open ended like GURPS, I enjoy a lot more downtime for my character because the system is built in a way to make those experiences feel rewarding. I enjoy the pace to be more similar to a novel and give me time to lose myself in the characters and in the world.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm the same as you, Hussar, I like a faster pace than most. This can lead to frustration on my part when other players or the GM want to slow the game down.

Many of the games I've played in in the past were extremely boring to me due to slow pacing. In particular I remember spending an entire session scaling an ice cliff in a 2e AD&D game. There was another campaign, also 2e AD&D that I played for several years. It was low fantasy, slow levelling, Tolkien-inspired. Travelling was described in a lot of detail - the weather each day, the landscape. We roleplayed out talking to shopkeepers in those days. Mang, that was a dull game. It was actually very well GMed, on the whole, but the pacing was way too slow for my taste.

Incidentally, I think the power level can have a lot to do with pacing. Superhero games and the like tend to go much faster, as the PCs can blow thru problems so much more easily. Superheroes wouldn't spend a session on an ice cliff, they'd just fly over it.

 

[pemerton]

I mostly GM rather than play. As a player, I like a fairly fast pace - maybe not quite as fast as Hussar describes, because I do like a bit of thinking/discussion time among the players, without always being driven by the GM to the next encounter - but I don't want to do travel, shopping etc.

The games I run tend to be slow than I would like, but I'm working on it! My players are all at least influenced by the wargaming/squad leader style of play, so there is always the danger of the game bogging down into minutiae as the players try to eke out every advantage and avoid getting done over by missing some bit of petty detail.

Incidentally, I think the power level can have a lot to do with pacing. Superhero games and the like tend to go much faster, as the PCs can blow thru problems so much more easily. Superheroes wouldn't spend a session on an ice cliff, they'd just fly over it.

Interesting point. I'm trying to use more metagame-y mechanical techniquest to speed up the pacing - use simple skill checks for shopping, skill challenges for ice cliffs, etc, so that even if it's onerous and time consuming for the PCs we can skip over it quickly in play, just focusing on a few key aspects of each challenge (like maybe one fall or threatened fall from the ice cliff).

Another way I try to speed up pacing is by having a lot of magical items be in the form of rewards or spontaneous upgrades, rather than loot. I find the whole searching/looting aspect of traditional fantasy RPGing even more tedious than travel, and am really trying to minimise it in my game.

But even taking all the above into account, there's no way my group can get through 5 encounters in 3 hours. Even ignoring the eating, the chatting, the need to look after kids from time-to-time (we play on Sunday afternoons and the kids hang out together while we play), even a simple social skill challenge my group can easily spend half-an-hour on, as they weigh their options, compare what they're learning to info that's come out in earlier sessions, and plan an overall strategy.

 

[TheNovaLord]

OP is spot on

it is my over-riding issue.

A game with the wrong pace is the big-fun-killer

 

[DragonLancer]

As both player and DM I like a more average pace. Too fast and I feel that control has been lost (especially as a player). Too slow and the game drags, people get bored. I find this especially true when I'm playing rather than running a game.

 

[Mesh Hong]

Pacing is certainly a very important consideration and something I try to keep an eye on. Usually this is because as the DM I have an expectation of the session time remaining and where I want the plot to be by the end of the session.

However I also have to be prepared for how much me and my group love "cake" or indulgent roleplaying. If I am not carefull then any sniff of downtime can turn into an hour by hour RP of the characters day to day life and with 6 PCs that takes more than a little time!

In the end over the course of the campaign we have settled for a varied pace with most "moving it on" elements comming from me as the DM rapidly explaining the consequenses of their last quest.

One thing that would probably horrify Hussar was when it took an entire session to have basically one conversation with an NPC (probably about 5 hours). But then it isn't every day when Asmodeus pops round your house for a friendly chat about problems you are having with Dispater, where you are casually asked if you wouldn't mind putting up your imortal soul as collateral in a deal.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Travelling was described in a lot of detail - the weather each day, the landscape. We roleplayed out talking to shopkeepers in those days. Mang, that was a dull game. It was actually very well GMed, on the whole, but the pacing was way too slow for my taste.

I prefer this approach - slower, more descriptive, more actual RP interaction.

Even in situations where the characters are in a hurry, where such details and such simply get in the way, I feel that this approach helps engender the right feel for the players: you're in a hurry, and it shows when you're dealing with NPCs who stand in your way. You want to get to where you're going, but the character still has to deal with the minutiae - and thus, so should the player.

You could make an argument that you don't want to wait to get to the "good parts," but I would argue that working up to the "good part" makes its arrival that much more... meaningful, I think. It's even more significant, because you had to spent time "screwing around" to get to it.

It takes a good GM, I think, to handle this well, to ensure just the right level of detail - too much, and you bog the game down; too little, and the journey stops being as important as the destination. It's a tight line to walk.