Another way of putting it - if the players decide the watchlist (and I have to say, what more epic decision could there be in a fantasy RPG!?) - and then the encounter timing is determined randomly, there decision-making was of no consequence.
Something that Needs More Consideration - Pacing
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
Skyscraper
Adventurer
I think that continuous high pace over an entire campaign might not be desirable. I think that, like a melody being played by an orchestra, the pacing of the storyline should include ups and downs, with the ups getting all their significance as they compare to the downs. In other words, if your PCs are running all the time, is running that special? No, it's just your everyday pace. However, if they walk before running, all of a sudden running seems might quick!
Also, a slower pace is good for RP as players will have time to interact, and lets players absorb what is going on as they discuss the situation.
What needs to be avoided IMO is the pace-killers such as very long planning, buying equipment and unrelated story sidequests about a single PC. And, as always, very long battles. This last is the hardest IMO because it is difficult to control especially if you don't play with a group that is capable of doing so collectively.
Sky
Also, a slower pace is good for RP as players will have time to interact, and lets players absorb what is going on as they discuss the situation.
What needs to be avoided IMO is the pace-killers such as very long planning, buying equipment and unrelated story sidequests about a single PC. And, as always, very long battles. This last is the hardest IMO because it is difficult to control especially if you don't play with a group that is capable of doing so collectively.
Sky
Hussar
Legend
It's a bit off topic, but, I do find this an interesting point. Does every decision have to be important? As Pemerton says, if the random encounter time is determined randomly, then the discussion of who is on watch at what time is moot. There's no consequence.
But, the players do get to engage in the decision making process.
This could be extended. Take a dungeon crawl. Numerous rooms are empty (and truly empty) as well as several corridors. The decisions of the players have no consequence, although the players don't know that. It doesn't matter if you travel through the empty rooms in A-B-C or B-C-A - the result is exactly the same.
In the interests of pacing, would it be a good idea for the GM to skip over, or at least summarize briefly, those three rooms and get on to the next actual point of consequence?
But, the players do get to engage in the decision making process.
This could be extended. Take a dungeon crawl. Numerous rooms are empty (and truly empty) as well as several corridors. The decisions of the players have no consequence, although the players don't know that. It doesn't matter if you travel through the empty rooms in A-B-C or B-C-A - the result is exactly the same.
In the interests of pacing, would it be a good idea for the GM to skip over, or at least summarize briefly, those three rooms and get on to the next actual point of consequence?
Hussar, I'm inclining more-and-more towards "Yes" - I want player decisions to be important.
Once upon a time I would have made my players work their way through those empty rooms. In yesterday's session, after ten or so minutes in which it became clear that they were intending to explore all of them - and thus get a sense of the overall layout of the area - before then heading into the areas they knew to have monsters/traps, I just set out the map for the whole area. It worked a lot better than my old approach would have! We didn't have needless repetition of door-opening routines and room descriptions. Instead, the players got to start making their plans in light of all the information available to them.
It's not really an issue of pacing. Rather, for me the bottom line is that playing time is at a premium. And as I said upthread, it's a zero-sum game. I'm just not interested in spending time on stuff that isn't actually driving play.
Now, some people think that play includes opening doors and checking out empty rooms. That's great for them. I'm very happy for them to spend time on it. But play, for me, is the players actually making decisions that affect their PCs and/or the gameworld. It's about planning, talking, fighting, engaging. Time spent speculating about the meaning of the strange pattern on the ancient minotaur tapestry? Great! That's the players playing the game. Time spend speculating about whether or not it's safe to open an innocuous door about which they have no warnings or information, and which Perception checks suggest is safe? No thanks, not anymore.
Once upon a time I would have made my players work their way through those empty rooms. In yesterday's session, after ten or so minutes in which it became clear that they were intending to explore all of them - and thus get a sense of the overall layout of the area - before then heading into the areas they knew to have monsters/traps, I just set out the map for the whole area. It worked a lot better than my old approach would have! We didn't have needless repetition of door-opening routines and room descriptions. Instead, the players got to start making their plans in light of all the information available to them.
It's not really an issue of pacing. Rather, for me the bottom line is that playing time is at a premium. And as I said upthread, it's a zero-sum game. I'm just not interested in spending time on stuff that isn't actually driving play.
Now, some people think that play includes opening doors and checking out empty rooms. That's great for them. I'm very happy for them to spend time on it. But play, for me, is the players actually making decisions that affect their PCs and/or the gameworld. It's about planning, talking, fighting, engaging. Time spent speculating about the meaning of the strange pattern on the ancient minotaur tapestry? Great! That's the players playing the game. Time spend speculating about whether or not it's safe to open an innocuous door about which they have no warnings or information, and which Perception checks suggest is safe? No thanks, not anymore.
I think this really depends on your play patterns. In my case, our group meets every 2 to 3 weeks for a session of 4 to 5 hours. I don't think the campaign needs "downs" to balance its "ups". The intervening 400 or so hours of real life is fine for that. I want play itself to be as gripping and exciting as possible.
That doesn't mean we're all sitting at the table breathless and sweating for 4 hours. It's inherent in a game like 4e, played by players who bring a strong wargame/broadgame approach to the table, that there will be stretches of time when plans are made, implciations of various mechanical options discussed, etc. But for us, this stuff is interesting - it's part of the point of playing. What I want to get rid of is the stuff that gets in the way of play.
Doug McCrae
Legend
I ran a game at the weekend and some pacing related issues arose.
The PCs descended into the crypts under a town, which I imagined as being quite extensive. I didn't play it out room-by-room, corridor-by-corridor, partly because I didn't have a map of any kind, not even a rough one. I hadn't anticipated the PCs would go down there so to some extent I was making it up as I went along. There were two encounters - a ghoul ambush, and a meeting with what I called 'grey ones' (dark creepers which I imagined hailing from a Shadowfell-like place deep underground), which ofc ended in a fight, PCs being PCs. Most of the intervening parts were pretty much glossed over.
Even if I had had more detailed information, most of the crypts are devoid of interest, so I wouldn't have done a room-by-room, I'd have just said something like, "after exploring a dozen empty chambers, you come upon [insert interesting bit]". D&D heresy.
It was 4e, so 'grind' might be regarded as a pacing related issue, how to keep the fights from dragging. There were three proper fights, which I think went on for about 45 minutes to an hour. We used maps + minis and we are all fairly unfamiliar with the 4e rules, which slowed things a bit. And yet I thoroughly enjoyed each battle. I thought they staying interesting throughout. A PC went down in two of them, which really helps to keep things tense and exciting. So I think an area where pacing issues might have arisen was problem free, at least from my perspective.
One of the players hadn't really played a rpg before and she had a refreshing tendency to try totally unexpected things. She was blinded by a dark creeper and asked if she could use her Insight/Religion to use the experience to get an insight into the nature of these weird creatures. It was cool to run with her ideas. Say yes, as they say.
Could this 'say yes' concept apply to pacing? If the players are really into exploring a room say, should the GM run with it? I'm not sure, it can be a problem if something is interesting for some players and not others. Also I think it can be a problem when the GM knows that an activity will ultimately be anti-climactic. The players think they are heading toward an objective but in reality they are not.
I've noticed that some players can be dissatisfied if an activity doesn't lead anywhere while others don't mind, being happy with a chance that it might. I experienced this playing in an investigative game, in which none of the lines of investigation we had followed so far proved fruitful. One player was unhappy that we were 'failing', but I saw it as being fairly realistic - each avenue of investigation only has a small chance of bearing fruit, and you have to try them all.
This was also an issue in the game I ran. The players are actually down in the crypts on something of a wild goose chase. They are looking for a missing boy, but he is not, in fact, down there. Nonetheless they seemed to be having fun fighting undead and interacting with grey freaks. They got quite excited by the concept of the crypts in the first place.
The game was intended to be a oneoff but is now shaping up to be a multi-session adventure or short campaign. Between sessions I'm planning to add a lot to the crypts to make them more interesting. One possibility would even be to have the boy actually be down there after all. Now that's really saying yes. Even when the players are wrong they are right!
The PCs descended into the crypts under a town, which I imagined as being quite extensive. I didn't play it out room-by-room, corridor-by-corridor, partly because I didn't have a map of any kind, not even a rough one. I hadn't anticipated the PCs would go down there so to some extent I was making it up as I went along. There were two encounters - a ghoul ambush, and a meeting with what I called 'grey ones' (dark creepers which I imagined hailing from a Shadowfell-like place deep underground), which ofc ended in a fight, PCs being PCs. Most of the intervening parts were pretty much glossed over.
Even if I had had more detailed information, most of the crypts are devoid of interest, so I wouldn't have done a room-by-room, I'd have just said something like, "after exploring a dozen empty chambers, you come upon [insert interesting bit]". D&D heresy.
It was 4e, so 'grind' might be regarded as a pacing related issue, how to keep the fights from dragging. There were three proper fights, which I think went on for about 45 minutes to an hour. We used maps + minis and we are all fairly unfamiliar with the 4e rules, which slowed things a bit. And yet I thoroughly enjoyed each battle. I thought they staying interesting throughout. A PC went down in two of them, which really helps to keep things tense and exciting. So I think an area where pacing issues might have arisen was problem free, at least from my perspective.
One of the players hadn't really played a rpg before and she had a refreshing tendency to try totally unexpected things. She was blinded by a dark creeper and asked if she could use her Insight/Religion to use the experience to get an insight into the nature of these weird creatures. It was cool to run with her ideas. Say yes, as they say.
Could this 'say yes' concept apply to pacing? If the players are really into exploring a room say, should the GM run with it? I'm not sure, it can be a problem if something is interesting for some players and not others. Also I think it can be a problem when the GM knows that an activity will ultimately be anti-climactic. The players think they are heading toward an objective but in reality they are not.
I've noticed that some players can be dissatisfied if an activity doesn't lead anywhere while others don't mind, being happy with a chance that it might. I experienced this playing in an investigative game, in which none of the lines of investigation we had followed so far proved fruitful. One player was unhappy that we were 'failing', but I saw it as being fairly realistic - each avenue of investigation only has a small chance of bearing fruit, and you have to try them all.
This was also an issue in the game I ran. The players are actually down in the crypts on something of a wild goose chase. They are looking for a missing boy, but he is not, in fact, down there. Nonetheless they seemed to be having fun fighting undead and interacting with grey freaks. They got quite excited by the concept of the crypts in the first place.
The game was intended to be a oneoff but is now shaping up to be a multi-session adventure or short campaign. Between sessions I'm planning to add a lot to the crypts to make them more interesting. One possibility would even be to have the boy actually be down there after all. Now that's really saying yes. Even when the players are wrong they are right!
Last edited:
D&D is funny, there are by default quite different approaches to Wilderness and Dungeon adventures.
Wilderness defaults to linear series of encounters until you get where you're going; more rarely encounters-by-hex.
Dungeon defaults to fully mapped dungeon, explore room by room.
You can do Wilderness in the Dungeon style - eg the Forest of Doom fighting fantasy gamebook, or The Hill in B5 Horror on the Hill - but it's comparatively rare.
Likewise you can treat a big dungeon as Wilderness - mostly empty, with a linear series of encounters on the way to the objective - eg 3e Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk.
I use the latter in PBEMs a lot, a Dungeon may consist of a Beginning, Middle and End encounter. This is how many sword & sorcery movies do it - look at the 'dungeons' in eg Conan the Barbarian (Tower of Set, Mountain of Power) or Conan the Destroyer (the temple-crypt). Or Moria in FoTR.
And I think with 4e the latter approach to big dungeons works well too; treat it like a Delve, with 3-4 set encounters and you have a night's adventuring.
Wilderness defaults to linear series of encounters until you get where you're going; more rarely encounters-by-hex.
Dungeon defaults to fully mapped dungeon, explore room by room.
You can do Wilderness in the Dungeon style - eg the Forest of Doom fighting fantasy gamebook, or The Hill in B5 Horror on the Hill - but it's comparatively rare.
Likewise you can treat a big dungeon as Wilderness - mostly empty, with a linear series of encounters on the way to the objective - eg 3e Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk.
I use the latter in PBEMs a lot, a Dungeon may consist of a Beginning, Middle and End encounter. This is how many sword & sorcery movies do it - look at the 'dungeons' in eg Conan the Barbarian (Tower of Set, Mountain of Power) or Conan the Destroyer (the temple-crypt). Or Moria in FoTR.
And I think with 4e the latter approach to big dungeons works well too; treat it like a Delve, with 3-4 set encounters and you have a night's adventuring.
Hussar
Legend
Y'know S'mon, it's uncanny, I was just pondering the whole dungeon/wilderness dichotomy as I was walking home from work. Take the difference in random encounters between the two - 1 in 6 every 10 minutes in a dungeon vs 3 times per DAY (and 3 more per night) in the wilderness.
I think your approach is very interesting. Treat the "dungeon" as a wilderness - skip most of it and get to the good stuff, exactly the way we do with wilderness adventures.
I think your approach is very interesting. Treat the "dungeon" as a wilderness - skip most of it and get to the good stuff, exactly the way we do with wilderness adventures.
Doug McCrae
Legend
It's mostly a way to increase plausibility imo. The classic D&D dungeon is stoopid for a number of reasons but one of the major ones is that too much is packed into too small a space. I mean why does this tribe of hobgoblins live so close to a gray ooze's pond and an owlbear's nest? They'd either kill them or move.
Not doing a room-by-room allows you to have bigger, more plausible underground settings without having to make every room interesting.
Otoh if no one minds lots of monsters close together or the GM is able to make empty rooms interesting and the PCs like to turn the moose-heads therein, then the trad dungeon is fine.
ExploderWizard
Hero
The traditional dungeon became traditional for a reason. The closeness of neighbors in an underground setting provides the backdrop for meaningful quests that would not normally be possible.
-The hobgobins in apartment 3C would like to borrow a cup of sugar from the roper in 7C but the communication barrier has prevented them. Can the PC's help?
- The fire giant in 37D stays up all night stomping around playing DDR Max
preventing anyone nearby from getting any sleep. Someone needs to knock on his door and inform him that he is being a rude neighbor. Do the PC's want to be the bearer of bad news?
- The stench from the Otyugh's apartment is making all nearby units unliveable. Someone needs to evict that stinky guy, find out what died in there, and clean it up. Are the adventurers up to the challenge?
