Something that Needs More Consideration - Pacing

[Hussar]

It's not paranoia!

In some groups, alright, fine, it might be. But I don't accept that as a blanket rationale for this behavior.

From my perspective, again I bring up the post I made awhile ago. If I were an adventurer, you're darn right I would care about every piece of equipment I own, that my fellow crazy-people own, how they're distributed, possibly (and probably, depending on the item) even where they're being carried.

These are things that sensible human beings doing ridiculous things would worry about. It therefore makes complete and utter sense, to me, that adventurers would - and should - similarly care.

And, I completely agree. The character would care about every piece of equipment. And, in the system I propose, he knows EXACTLY what he's carrying at any given time. He can produce any item needed on demand, so long at its reasonable. And, I trust my players to know what reasonable is. I also trust my players to pull stuff out of their backpacks that would be fitting with the character they're playing and would likely be themetically appropriate to the setting. Because, well, my players are pretty groovy that way.

So, no, tracking pitons is not necessary for me.


Now here's a couple of interesting points:

The game yesterday, all the NPC interaction was potentially important, one PC met a halfling baker/inventor and got a lead on an adventure (rescuing missing halfling youths from the goblins in the Despot Ruins), another made friends with a fellow paladin/escapee and got a slave collar off her neck, without getting them killed or otherwise into more trouble. They could have gone different ways, done different things, but everything they did was interesting (or else I skimmed over it), and their decisions to do or not do certain things were their own, and had meaningful consequences.

You describe two scenes here. Is that everything that occured in the session? How long did it take to play these scenes out? Because, if the scenes were about 30-40 minutes each, we're on exactly the same page.

Although, I do find it funny that you complain about DM driven plot, and yet have two plots here that are entirely DM driven - placing NPC's for the players to interact with who just "happen" to have vital information for the players. I did mention that this is the kind of stuff I WANT to see in the game. This are not examples of stuff I don't want to see - like spending an hour shopping for supplies.

And Exploder Wizard - you've done exactly what I was suggesting. Taking unimportant, trivial details and turned them into a 3 second statement. Bravo. This is precisely the kind of thing that can up the rate of pacing. The first time you have the "setting the watch scene" maybe it takes a bit of time. But, after that? Never again unless there's some reason it matters.

 

[billd91]

You might be under the impression that a DM who wants players to be in control of these seemingly fiddly operations expects a detailed account of each instance and wants to spend an inordinate amount of game time describing them. This isn't the case. Most groups that have been together for a while will develop a standard UNODIR operation for things like watches, camp setup, opening a typical door, etc.

UNODIR= Unless Otherwise Directed.

This means that when the PC's are ready to make camp, all they have to do is say, "we make camp/post watches as usual." The details of what that involves have been worked out earlier. So I know who will be doing what and when without spending any real time on it unless the players want to make changes to the standard procedure in a given instance.

This exactly what I expect my players to do. On the first night of camp, I ask what their standard procedure will probably be like. I jot that down, then we assume they use it every other time they camp unless other major circumstances occur. Then, I've got their watch strategy on hand.

 

[billd91]

I was in a 3e game where the GM listed each art object and so forth in each treasure hoard individually. I took the job of being party accountant and tbh it seemed like needless busy work. If the GM had just given us a total for each hoard or, even better, for each adventure, it would've been better. I suggested this, but he said it wouldn't feel as 'real', taking a view similar to GnomeWorks.

See, we generally enjoy this sort of thing. It also complicates getting the value of the hoard out of the adventure site and into usable form. Just getting the cash value, that seems way to metagamey to the people I play with most of the time.

That said, we're definitely taking the metagamey route in the 4e game we're playing. Even the magic items are "quantum" items that become specific only once a PC owns them. We're given lots of leeway in character design and equipment and so that's giving us a chance to explore 4e concepts and options. It still isn't helping me like 4e, but I'm certainly understanding quite a bit of it.

 

[Hussar]

Heh Bill91.

Here's an idea for pacing that you all might like. This is not my idea - I ganked it years ago from Dragon. I've tried it a few times and it's worked rather well.

Take a fairly large social situation - such as a banquet or party. Many groups will do one of two things. Either all stick together and everyone talks to one NPC at a time, or the group will split up and each conversation will be played out to its conclusion before moving on to the next conversation.

Try this instead. Each player including the DM, at any point in time, can say, "Next" and the spotlight shifts to the next player in line. The goal, from the player's perspective, is to keep the role play interesting enough for everyone at the table that he doesn't get "Next" called on him because then that player loses the spotlight until it comes around again. Being a prat and calling a bunch of "Next"s won't work because another player will just do the same to him.

And, if you reach a point in the conversation where you would like a bit of time to think, you can always call next on yourself.

I've found that this really focuses the players. Whoever is "on deck" is getting her ducks in a row so that when her turn comes up, she's got something to talk about. A plan of engagement with the NPC, rather than just random blather. And players can get pretty competitive about it too, which focuses attention even more.

IME, you wind up with a series of five to ten minute "scenes" with NPC's, and you get a huge amount of very "in character" conversation and play.

This works as well if the party decides to split up in other situations. Instead of resolving all the actions of one group then the other, bounce back and forth fairly rapidly. The players focus on the other group and also on their own tasks because they don't want to lose the spotlight.

It's worked well in the past for me.

 

[billd91]

Heh Bill91.

Here's an idea for pacing that you all might like. This is not my idea - I ganked it years ago from Dragon. I've tried it a few times and it's worked rather well.

Take a fairly large social situation - such as a banquet or party. Many groups will do one of two things. Either all stick together and everyone talks to one NPC at a time, or the group will split up and each conversation will be played out to its conclusion before moving on to the next conversation.

Try this instead. Each player including the DM, at any point in time, can say, "Next" and the spotlight shifts to the next player in line. The goal, from the player's perspective, is to keep the role play interesting enough for everyone at the table that he doesn't get "Next" called on him because then that player loses the spotlight until it comes around again. Being a prat and calling a bunch of "Next"s won't work because another player will just do the same to him.

<snip>

We actually don't call "Next" much but we do things like this many times the party splits up. It does work fairly well, indeed.

 

[Desdichado]

We do stuff like that all the time too, with rapid shifts between scenes when the party is split up. But we don't have a "next" call, it's just up to the GM, as the arbiter of pacing, to keep his finger on that pulse and keep things moving.

To me pacing is much more of an intuitive thing than one that needs to be spelled out in concrete terms (anyone remember that thread about exactly how long you should maintain eye contact with a girl before you get "creepy"? Gah.) I'd be really hesitant to put time limits on stuff, even if, on looking back at it, I'd almost always fall within the time limits. Because time (or at least the perception of it) is fairly elastic. Stuff that everyone's really enjoying seems to go quickly regardless of how long it actually takes, and stuff that people aren't enjoying seems to take forever regardless of how quickly its actually resolved. I think pacing control, therefore, should be handled intuitively by the GM. If he starts feeling, or noticing that players are giving nonverbal (or even verbal!) cues that they feel, that something is taking too long, he should wrap it up and go on to something else. But pay attention to the cues of what's going on at the table. That's much more important than an arbitrary time limit.

 

[Barastrondo]

I find that the wonders of email are a great aid to me. For instance, I enjoy detailed hoards (full of really weird stuff like pet corpse-eating moths, collections of old medals and otyugh eggs), but that's boring to handle at the table. Instead it works great as something that's sent around to the players so that they can discuss who wants what via email between sessions. The more resource management that can be handled via email (where there's even a record of it!), the quicker we can get back to the action, or interaction as the case may be, next session.

I find that there's a meta-pacing element that arises for the entire week as we distribute wrapup notes, ask questions and finally send around ready checks, actually, but that's probably another topic entirely.

 

[S'mon]

You describe two scenes here. Is that everything that occured in the session? How long did it take to play these scenes out? Because, if the scenes were about 30-40 minutes each, we're on exactly the same page.

Although, I do find it funny that you complain about DM driven plot, and yet have two plots here that are entirely DM driven - placing NPC's for the players to interact with who just "happen" to have vital information for the players. I did mention that this is the kind of stuff I WANT to see in the game. This are not examples of stuff I don't want to see - like spending an hour shopping for supplies.

The log of the session is here - post titled CSIO Session 3 Log. There's some vaguely R-rated stuff (and a joke reference to the Book of Vile Darkness) but nothing too explicit:
Dragonsfoot • View topic - Wilderlands: next is Tues 3rd August 12.30pm UK BST (GMT+1)
The session took around 4 hours including a bit of chill-out at the end not on the log. Being text-chat, typing speed restrictions it has the content of roughly a 2-hour tabletop game, although the slower pace makes rules-referencing & setting-referencing in play much easier to do without further slowdown. This session (#3) was the first without any combat, but that didn't seem to me to be a problem.

Off-hand I'd guess the scenes were indeed mostly around 30-40 minutes.

No NPCs just happened to have 'vital information' - I certainly seed a bunch of plot hooks as well as using random generation, and the listed stuff in the CSIO sourcebook, but the PCs were free to ignore stuff, and often did (eg they were keen on facing Goblins, not so keen on taking on the Thieves Guild). The hooks are mostly just ways to bring in some of the material in the book. And the absence of two PCs meant things developed quite differently from what I expected.

 

[S'mon]

Although, I do find it funny that you complain about DM driven plot, and yet have two plots here that are entirely DM driven - placing NPC's for the players to interact with who just "happen" to have vital information for the players. .

The escapee Paladin was 'placed' - but in session 1, 2 games previously. The halfling with the goblin tunnel in his basement is a static encounter detailed in the CSIO book, the sightseeing PC just happened to take an interest in him; the hook was improvised but many CSIO NPCS have specific hooks listed.

 

[amerigoV]

A wise woman once said that D&D looks like 20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours.

I think my wife said the same thing! Wise, those women are! She will listen to my summary of a session, but has no interest in playing because of that very concept.

The above sentiment also is one of the reasons I GM more than play these days. The pace as a player can be dreadfully slow sometimes. As a GM, I am near constantly engaged for the evening. When I am a player, I can easily get bored if the scene is dragging and I cannot help push it along. I am there for entertainment, not to listen to the party's bard talk 20 minutes to the butcher. The worst phase to me in an adventure is the "discovery" phase when you are going from NPC to NPC to find out what is going on. I enjoy a James Bond style discovery phase - where the action leads to the next scene.

The social aspect is the only thing that saves it for me as a player in those cases of boredom. That is probably why I only game with people I would otherwise hang out with in a non-gaming setting. I have 3 hours and 40 minutes of non-fun to fill