Something that Needs More Consideration - Pacing

[ExploderWizard]

As a GM I don't agree with this.

For example, it is very common in fantasy RPGing for the players to set out an order of watch whenever their PCs camp in the wilderness or the dungeon. This is a convention arising (I imagine) out of old-style wandering monster play. It also has a certain degree of realism about it - there is something sensible about maintaing a watch while camping in dangerous territory.

But by no means is it important. It's almost always trivial and irrelevant, at least in my games where I use overnight attacks only quite rarely.

There are a lot of other things that players have their PCs do (searching rooms and corpses, haggling over prices etc) because these are simply conventions of fantasy RPGing, or genre conventions. But a lot of them aren't important at all, and are (in my experience) precisely the sorts of things that can suck up time needlessly if the GM doesn't keep a tight rein on them.

it is good to have some perspective on these things. As the DM, players keeping watch isn't an important activity. Because you know the liklihood of an attack happening it doesn't seem important. The players don't know that. If nothing happens, then the night passes without incident, not much time spent, and the action moves on.

If players are interested in talking to NPC's thenI try and make it worth their while sometimes by having a seemingly random NPC that is very much worth talking to. These kinds of activities are indications that the players are interested in interacting with the campaign world beyond the strictly mechanical level and that they view NPC's as something other than background scenery. All qualities that a DM is considered fortunate to have in a group of players. I wouldn't dream of taking steps to halt this sort of interest in the campaign.

 

[Noumenon]

Aww, damn, I can't posrep everyone in the thread. Don't worry folks, I'll get to you.

Everyone here has been awesome.

Actually, I was kind of happy for the limit because I couldn't stop my eye from making me read the XP box even when I knew what it was going to say for the tenth time. XP is supposed to make you feel good about your better posts, so I don't think it means as much if everybody gets it. I have given XP to everyone who replied to my thread before, but I tried to point out what they contributed to the thread specifically.

Catoblepas - save or die. Bodak - save or die. Orcus rod - save or die. Sometimes, the threat doesn't allow a save, just die...power word, kill. This is awful for character development and investent, but removing it has really affected pacing for D&D. Same is true for 3e, but in my experience, 3e had the advantage of "layered" defenses to prevent and prolong some of the "insta-kill" effects.

By "layered" defense I think you meant "PC has a ring of spell turning against finger of death, so it doesn't end the combat." But those absolute immunities meant you either nullified the monster or insta-died.

So what if 3E actually had defenses to "prevent and prolong some of the insta-kill effects"? Like this: "Resist petrification. When you would be petrified by a spell or ability, instead of a saving throw, you get a saving throw each round at -4. Each save you fail, you turn partially to stone and get -6 to Dex." That way you'd stay in the combat, and it would be more dramatic than just "Nope. I have freedom of movement up. Next round."

 

[pemerton]

Doug, unfortunately I couldn't posrep you for Pebbles!

 

[Hussar]

/snip
I disagree entirely. Anything the PCs choose to do becomes important by virtue of the PCs' focus on it. They should not be special snowflakes by any stretch of the imagination, but they are the individuals the game is focused on. If they are interested in something, it becomes important, regardless of whether it's an epic fight with a deity or something as mundane as potato farming.

Yeah, I gotta go with Pemerton on this one. No, not everything the PC's choose to do is important. The two hour discussion on the exact wording of divination spells is not important. It speaks more to a serious trust issue between the player and the DM IMO.

And, honestly, just because a player takes an interest in something doesn't necessarily mean that that interest should translate to hours of table time. IMO, cutting to the chase and moving on will result in a better game.

I absolutely hate coming out of a session, sitting back and thinking, "Wow, we just spent three hours gaming and... nothing happened. We talked to a cranky farmer and that was about it." (actual true occurance)

For me I would much rather things be a bit rushed, and perhaps a bit less detailed, than the other way around. Not that I want zero detail, let's not take this too far. But, like I said in the original post, about 30 minutes to an hour is my general time limit for any given scene, with most probably taking much less.

One thing this does require of the GM though is a fair bit of prep work before sessions. Unless the GM is really good at improv (which I am not). If I'm expecting to have around 5 scenes per session, with a bit of time between each as well, I need at least 5 scenes prepped, and probably more. This does place a fair bit of weight on the GM's shoulders to have lots of material ready to go.

PS - Ok Noumenon. I'll stop posrepping. Heh. Was fun though.

 

[Rel]

I wouldn't say, as a general rule, that a specific pace on an ongoing basis is important. I would say, as a general rule, that exerting control over the pace is an important skill for the GM to master. One of the most important in fact. It goes hand in hand with "reading the table" and "knowing the players".

I typically stress "knowing the players" as the most important thing for GMs to master because it informs so much of your adventure design, rewards offered and also pacing. But "reading the table" helps you when you're playing with unfamiliar players or when something you thought was going to work isn't or when the players focus more on an element that you thought was just going to be a throwaway. Those are the times when you may need to exert control over whatever pacing you had intended to establish.

My best advice for learning good pacing control is to run one-shot games*. If you design a game with a beginning, a middle and and end, and you know that you must somehow visit all three or the game is going to feel like a bit of a flop, then it forces you to exert control over the pacing. If you aren't planning on attending an event that requires a one-shot game then you can also run an ongoing campaign more episodically, making each session its own sort of one-shot, each linked to the next. I think this, more than any other activity, helps you structure things so that they keep moving past the stuff that isn't important and focus on the things that are.

*I'm a big believer that one-shot games, as both a player and GM, are one of the most underrated teaching tools in gaming. They are, without a doubt, the source from which my biggest improvements as a GM have come. I strongly encourage people to find an event to participate in where you have the opportunity to run and play games like this.

 

[ashockney]

Actually, I was kind of happy for the limit because I couldn't stop my eye from making me read the XP box even when I knew what it was going to say for the tenth time. XP is supposed to make you feel good about your better posts, so I don't think it means as much if everybody gets it. I have given XP to everyone who replied to my thread before, but I tried to point out what they contributed to the thread specifically.



By "layered" defense I think you meant "PC has a ring of spell turning against finger of death, so it doesn't end the combat." But those absolute immunities meant you either nullified the monster or insta-died.

So what if 3E actually had defenses to "prevent and prolong some of the insta-kill effects"? Like this: "Resist petrification. When you would be petrified by a spell or ability, instead of a saving throw, you get a saving throw each round at -4. Each save you fail, you turn partially to stone and get -6 to Dex." That way you'd stay in the combat, and it would be more dramatic than just "Nope. I have freedom of movement up. Next round."

Yes, that's exacty what I meant. Death Ward/Spell Turning/Contingency/Spell Sequencer/Quickened Defensive Spells and so on...

Yep, I love the idea of "staged" effects that compare a range of offensive powers to a range of defenses. More like the Maze spell or the Holy Word spell. This spell will slay all the blokes in the room, but against "elites" or "solos" it has a nice "step" effect that still offers a benefit and some damage. A nice combination of the best of 3e and 4e. My "house-ruled" 3e that we played near the end of the edition had these types of effects. I couldn't get my players to buy-in on giving up their "uber-tight" insta-kill effects, for the big picture.

 

[amerigoV]

Damn, I go on vacation and a topic near and dear to my heart pops up. Anyway, pacing to me is one of the key aspects of GMing. Its key to the mood (for example, horror needs a build up then a release - two completely different paces), its key to general story telling (I would slap another player if they talked to EVERY NPC for hours on end), and it keeps the players engaged.

One thing I have not seen in the thread is how frequent you game makes a huge impact on pace. Gaming every week allows the GM to let the story unfold at its own pace. If the PCs get side tracked for a session, its no big deal as the story can pick up next week with the players having a chance at remembering what is going on.

If you game every other week, pacing becomes important. A side trek or unproductive sessions means that it is a month of real time between "meaningful" sessions. The GM needs to think more like a movie director and think about what scenes are important, do you let the PCs wander around to much, etc.

If you game less frequently than every other week, then Pacing is overly critical. Players are not going to remember much between sessions. You have to make sure that story moves along briskly and may consider shorter story arcs.

Pacing is what got me back into full-time GMing. My group was GMed by guy that loved details in his stories. That was fine for every week gaming. There was enough fights to sate my bloodlust as a player, and he got to run his "great American story" at the table. Then, he got married. Gaming became at best every other week then slipped to once every 3 weeks. His pace never changed. When you only game once every 3 weeks, you tend to want your style of game (he his story, me the action). Friction abound. I started a second group because of it (stayed in the first, just started a second group that run every other week).

Recently, we switch that first group to every other week and more short story arcs. For me, I loved it (and I think the group enjoyed it). I heard from another player that the main GM hates it - he cannot get big epic story in.

So, I think it is important to understand your gaming style and make sure that your gaming frequency supports the pace you enjoy.

 

[GnomeWorks]

For example, it is very common in fantasy RPGing for the players to set out an order of watch whenever their PCs camp in the wilderness or the dungeon. ... But by no means is it important. It's almost always trivial and irrelevant, at least in my games where I use overnight attacks only quite rarely.

As ExploderWizard mentioned up-thread, just because you - the GM - know there won't be encounters at night, does not mean the players know that.

There are a lot of other things that players have their PCs do (searching rooms and corpses, haggling over prices etc) because these are simply conventions of fantasy RPGing, or genre conventions. But a lot of them aren't important at all, and are (in my experience) precisely the sorts of things that can suck up time needlessly if the GM doesn't keep a tight rein on them.

How is this a "needless" waste of time?

Part of the advantage of the table over MMOs and such is the ability, as a player, to do whatever, to investigate whatever. If the GM is trying to constrain that by putting limits on how much time s/he is willing to spend on certain actions, that is effectively putting the game closer to MMOs and such. Not a good thing.

No, not everything the PC's choose to do is important. The two hour discussion on the exact wording of divination spells is not important. It speaks more to a serious trust issue between the player and the DM IMO.

Then give an example of a task the PCs choose to spend a seemingly-ridiculous amount of time on that doesn't have an obvious motivating factor but still isn't important.

And, honestly, just because a player takes an interest in something doesn't necessarily mean that that interest should translate to hours of table time. IMO, cutting to the chase and moving on will result in a better game.

Cutting to the chase and moving on... to what, exactly? Preferring one element of the game or another is totally acceptable, but at the same time you should acknowledge that not everyone at the table will share those tastes.

I absolutely hate coming out of a session, sitting back and thinking, "Wow, we just spent three hours gaming and... nothing happened. We talked to a cranky farmer and that was about it." (actual true occurance)

And I'm sure you've had sessions filled with other things that someone else at the table was pretty bored by. Sometimes you have a session that has everything you're looking for, and sometimes you have a session that has everything someone else is looking for.

For me I would much rather things be a bit rushed, and perhaps a bit less detailed, than the other way around. Not that I want zero detail, let's not take this too far. But, like I said in the original post, about 30 minutes to an hour is my general time limit for any given scene, with most probably taking much less.

Yeah, I'm not really a fan of the time-limit concept. Let a "scene" take as long as it takes. If it takes five minutes or five hours, so long as most of the table is engaged, it's all good.

 

[I'm A Banana]

He replied that he wanted the skill challenge to seem natural. To announce it as a skill challenge would have broken immersion in his opinion.

And, really, I can see his point. It probably would have.

I'm not sure it can be emphasized enough that DMs need to be good communicators.

This wasn't so much an issue about pacing (though it was a bit about that -- a skill challenge for an optional trap disabling seems like a lot of time to spend on a trap disabling), it was about the DM not being clear about what was going on.

It would've been easy to describe a "partial success" in game-world terms to you, to clue you into the fact that you need to do more checks to overcome the trap. Like, "You manage to disrupt a few gears, but a failsafe kicks in. You're going to need to try a few more times to get this thing quiet!"

Pacing is one of the most important things in the game, but individual groups set their own pace. For me, the three-act structure is key, though it doesn't always get to play out in every session (right now, I'm finding that with 6-7 PC's, combats run quite a bit longer than I expect). I try to keep it with regards to the adventure as a whole at least.

 

[pawsplay]

I usually aim for about 2 to 3 scenes per hour. The slower pace can probably be somewhat explained by my preference for things to unfold naturally, and perhaps because of a tendency to spend a few minutes on dialog now and then.