Speeding up play in dungeons

[Old Fezziwig]

Hey there. Just a quick thanks to all who threw ideas out in this thread. We played on Saturday and things moved along much more quickly and didn't feel as laborious. Good stuff.

Best,
tKL

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'd say that the best thing a DM can do is to establish an SOP for the party:

1) It means that the DM can assume things, so that just because he describes an encounter, the players don't do something radically different ("Careful - the last 5 peasants were just sketch - outlined characters, this one's probably an assassin in disguise! Cast buffs!" "No Mr. GM, that's how my character would respond to ANY stranger on the road...")

2) It means that characters, whose lives are depending on casting spells in the morning, don't 'forget', just because it's the 50th bloody time the player has had to list out the spells they cast in the morning (as an example)

3) It speeds stuff up, as the players don't need to list stuff, and the DM doesn't have to note it down over and over again.

 

[Piratecat]

That's frustrating, tKL. I really hate games where that happens, so I deliberately designed OSM without a lot of fiddley traps and delays.

In a recent game I sometimes play in, I got so frustrated with the pace that I started booting open doors. Everyone was thrilled; they were futzing around, not doing anything, and this got them moving.

 

[rounser]

More than one poster on this thread has been alluding to what appears to be an inherent Catch 22 of DMing:

1) If you describe something in detail, or even draw attention to it in particular (a room, an NPC, a rustle in the bushes), players will suspect there's something up and react accordingly.

2) If you don't describe something in detail or draw attention to it in particular, you can't blame the players when they spring that trap, don't notice the NPC's a doppleganger, and don't prepare for the orcs who are going to ambush them from the bushes.

It appears to me that the solutions suggested such as the retroactive searching for traps or standard operational procedure for dealing with NPCs can only go so far before players start reacting to everything ("There's a rustle in the bushes that turns out to be an orc ambush! Roll those checks to see how many of you noticed in time..."), and having a player's personal initiative replaced by a die roll...

Hmmm....

 

[LostSoul]

More than one poster on this thread has been alluding to what appears to be an inherent Catch 22 of DMing:

I think you could use the Spot, Listen, Search, and Sense Motive skills to determine what the PCs see. Set the DC beforehand, and roll or have the PCs Take 10 to determine if they notice anything. If they do, mention it; if they don't, the PCs haven't seen anything out of the ordinary.

 

[Rune]

This is where being able to read your players comes in handy. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that their is an art to good pacing and, consequently, good DMing. There have been some very helpful tips presented in this thread, especially, by the Rodent of the Night, but, ultimately, it all comes down to the DM's ability to read the moment

The question, then, is "how does one get to the point, where s/he can read the players so well?"

My suggestion: Try running games reactively, instead of proactively. Get plenty of practice winging/freestyle DMing. Make your notes as you go along. As an exercise, this type of thing can really force you to pay attention to the players' reactions and preferences. Pay attention to body-language and facial expressions.

The reason I mention this (probably all too obvious) bit of advice is that, while I tend to feel that a good mix of proactive and reactive DMing is very important, I think your pacing problem stems from an over-indulgence of the former and a neglect of the latter.

As for the issue of the players reading the DM too well, I advise the same. Don't describe characters or situations by varying degrees based on their relevance to the game; describe them by varying degrees based on the players' attention to them.

Anyway, good luck running an excellent adventure and be sure to tell us how it went, or, better yet, write a Story Hour.

[Edit] Also, it's a good idea to get written feedback -- about the good and the bad -- from your players after each session and take note of it (or, better yet, discuss it) for future sessions.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Hey, folks. Lots of neat stuff here...

Saeviomagy — The SOP makes sense and a bunch of folks have mentioned it — as soon as I have a session where the entire party's present, I'll bring that up and see where it goes.

brief, possible OSM Spoilers

Piratecat — The last session went really quickly (from Tamalruk through the riddle), so I don't know if it was just a question of who was present or the fact that I had more of a plan and felt more comfortable. I did have a bit of fun with the party trying to find Tamalruk in the abandoned tunnels and they seemed to enjoy that. As for kicking doors in, two sessions ago, I was really wishing that the NPC bard in our party was less of a scholar and more of a reckless swashbuckler. Oh well.

end OSM spoilers

rounser — That's an interesting point. It's something I'll have to think of the next time we play (Feb 7 or 8) — the session isn't fresh enough in my mind for me to recall if that was happening.

LostSoul — This is pretty much what I've been doing — I make a couple of quick checks and see what they notice and then I include it in the initial description. If they don't notice something or refuse to look, that's fine.

Rune — I've been trying to take notes mentally on what works, what they seem excited about, and how things end up playing out. One of the things that really interests me is what the characters remember. As for the advice being obvious, it seems like obvious advice to me now, but I hadn't thought of it myself (obviously), so thanks. At any rate, the proactive-reactive thing will definitely be something I consider as I work up to the next session (which is the last session I'll be running OSM at, as they're just about through with it). I'm not sure I really have time to throw it together in a story hour (I had started to, but, wow, that takes a lot of time to do), but we'll see where that heads. Speaking of SH, are you still playing your OA dream campaign? It was a great read; very vibrant.

thanks,
tKL

 

[haiiro]

What a great thread.

I've been casting about for inspiration and fresh approaches to DMing for the campaign I'm planning out right now, and that's one of the main reasons that I've become a (much) more active poster here. The suggestions in this thread fit the bill very nicely, and I'm looking forward to trying them out.

Specifically: I think the idea of treating dungeons as wilderness areas or city settings -- with a few key differences -- is excellent, especially when complemented by pre-drawn maps of anticipated hot spots (combat areas, complex rooms, etc.).

In previous games, I have tended to describe more than I drew and use battlemats for combat, but this thread and my recent experiences with battlemats have given me a different perspective on the whole issue of mapping. Sometimes all it takes is hearing it put a certain way to make things fall into place.

Thanks.

 

[Henry]

In a recent game I sometimes play in, I got so frustrated with the pace that I started booting open doors. Everyone was thrilled; they were futzing around, not doing anything, and this got them moving.

Pleased to meet you, Mr. Hickman.

That tactic CAN get your party killed, but more often it gets the team motivated. I have a very important codicil to add to this:

It's up to the style the DM sets. Players can help here, too, but it's really the DM who sets the pace for most players. If the DM likes to design lots of traps and ambushes as PCat says, then urgency can get you killed. However, the DM has to be able to let his/her players know that they are receptive to a little less mechanical style, more Conan and less SWAT.

For my players, I tend to use one of two things:

1) Simplified dungeons, where the key encounters are not too far in.

2) A more descriptive style, until either interaction or combat is imminent, in which case, I draw out and prop out the scene on the battelmat.

 

[Morrow]

It's up to the style the DM sets. Players can help here, too, but it's really the DM who sets the pace for most players. If the DM likes to design lots of traps and ambushes as PCat says, then urgency can get you killed. However, the DM has to be able to let his/her players know that they are receptive to a little less mechanical style, more Conan and less SWAT.

For my players, I tend to use one of two things:

1) Simplified dungeons, where the key encounters are not too far in.

2) A more descriptive style, until either interaction or combat is imminent, in which case, I draw out and prop out the scene on the battelmat.

That's a good start, but still begs the question: If what a DM wants is "Conan does Of Sound Mind" or "Indiana Jones in the Temple of Elemental Evil," and what he's getting is "Boring Cautions Adventurers Scuttle About," what are some things he can do about it?