Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6804011" data-attributes="member: 85870">First off, 100% agree with everything Ralif Redhammer said. Second, I've discovered that pacing is a huge element for keeping players engaged --- Are the players getting answers to questions fast enough? Are things happening fast enough? I've found that when gameplay slows down unnecessarily, it's often because as GM I'm trying to keep something from the players to "build tension" or "drama." And sometimes instead of holding back, I need to give out MORE. Say "yes" more often and see where it goes. Third, players disengaging from the game means they don't care about what's happening. They're not invested. In my experience getting players re-invested typically means increasing the number of meaningful choices they have available. The most frustrated times I can remember as a player have been when I've felt like I've had no viable options to accomplishing my character's goals. Fourth, are the characters connected to other people in the game world? Even if they belong to a clan, or tribe, or guild, or whatever, do they have a connection to a person or persons within the broader organization? Working for the Guild of Thieves because it's a way to get phat lewt is one thing. Working for the Guild of Thieves because a trusted NPC's reputation and future are at stake if they don't succeed is another.Fifth, even though the PCs are the "protagonists" of the game, are the NPCs pushing just as hard to accomplish their agendas? If the players aren't running up against constant obstacles from the people who oppose them, the opposing NPCs aren't trying hard enough. Sixth, are the stakes high enough? And not in the sense of, "If you don't succeed, the world ends" type of thing. There needs to be enough at stake during each incremental step. At a writing conference a couple of years ago, I heard Brandon Sanderson say that characters need to have goals within goals for accomplishing their "end game." In Mistborn, for example, he said that in order for Kelsey's group to pull off their final battle, there were dozens of sub-goals that had to be met first, and that those sub-goals pushed the story forward.  This sometimes goes back to the pacing question. If the players aren't seeing enough of what's at stake, give out more information until they do. Also, this may or may not be applicable, but one of the things that led me to abandon D&D as my system of choice was that it inevitably seems to lead to conflicts at the "cosmic" level. Because really, that's what a level 20 PC should be facing. I've never really cared for conflict at the "cosmic" scale, traveling the planes, facing demons and demi-gods, etc. I've found that my players tended to stay more engaged when the conflicts stayed at a more "human" level. And past level 8 or 9, D&D's arenas of conflict start moving past that.In any case, unless you're purposefully engaging them with a "puff" encounter, players should feel the weight of potential failure during every significant scene.</blockquote>

Verification