Pacing Games
As I'm pressured (and seriously considering) taking up the Star Wars RPG campaign that petered out several months ago, I find myself contemplating one of the more tricky and subtle aspects of running an RPG. How do you pace the bloody things?
Stated simply, it's a factor in any game, but it's harder online. Whether in PBEM, PBP, IM, or MU*ing, just the fact that thoughts must be typed out makes everything take longer. In person, a simple yes/no question can be asked an answered in seconds. When everyone's at their keyboard, it can still take a minute online with typing, reading, and typing back. Add a little distraction of another window of something to fill the "dead" time between bits of text and that compounds. This is generally why I feel that organized/scheduled RP sessions online deserve top attention priority and I generally refuse to get into anything else which will affect anyone beyond me when I stop paying attention there (WoW dungeons, I'm looking at you). But there's only so much that can be done on that front. It's up to the players to balance attentiveness with fending off boredom. I'll only note additionally that I feel it's important to convey when you're waiting for something to act/respond (because simple "silence" usually don't make that clear).
In a more general sense, though, what is the appropriate pacing for a game? The answer will vary, I'm sure, but I seek opinions.
- Should a game be run like an action movie, skipping "slow" scenes in favor of continuing the action and plot? This would seem to keep interest, but is likely to have characters defined more by what/how they overcome challenges more than anything else.
- Should a game's pace be set by the players? There's then some responsibility to convey when it's proper to move ahead. It gives plenty of time for PCs to interact with one another, but runs the risk of languishing on scenes of little importance.
Something else? As I look at it, I'm not convinced those two are opposite ends of a spectrum, but there's definitely room for gradation between them. So... describe what pacing you (especially those of you involved in said game) find appropriate.
Stated simply, it's a factor in any game, but it's harder online. Whether in PBEM, PBP, IM, or MU*ing, just the fact that thoughts must be typed out makes everything take longer. In person, a simple yes/no question can be asked an answered in seconds. When everyone's at their keyboard, it can still take a minute online with typing, reading, and typing back. Add a little distraction of another window of something to fill the "dead" time between bits of text and that compounds. This is generally why I feel that organized/scheduled RP sessions online deserve top attention priority and I generally refuse to get into anything else which will affect anyone beyond me when I stop paying attention there (WoW dungeons, I'm looking at you). But there's only so much that can be done on that front. It's up to the players to balance attentiveness with fending off boredom. I'll only note additionally that I feel it's important to convey when you're waiting for something to act/respond (because simple "silence" usually don't make that clear).
In a more general sense, though, what is the appropriate pacing for a game? The answer will vary, I'm sure, but I seek opinions.
- Should a game be run like an action movie, skipping "slow" scenes in favor of continuing the action and plot? This would seem to keep interest, but is likely to have characters defined more by what/how they overcome challenges more than anything else.
- Should a game's pace be set by the players? There's then some responsibility to convey when it's proper to move ahead. It gives plenty of time for PCs to interact with one another, but runs the risk of languishing on scenes of little importance.
Something else? As I look at it, I'm not convinced those two are opposite ends of a spectrum, but there's definitely room for gradation between them. So... describe what pacing you (especially those of you involved in said game) find appropriate.
Well, as a hopeful-player (as I've not played in it yet), I think I qualify. It seems like it's a bit of both, for me. I am hoping to create quite a bit of depth in my character this time, and would very much like longer scenes with the other players unhurried by GM plots. But sometimes people aren't in the mood for that, or they feel their character just 'isn't ready' to open up more, or what have you and so a pure RP scene can kind of peter out. So, I suppose I would appreciate an OOC query about the topic: "If everyone's ready we will move on" - because that's what I would do around the tabletop. Nothing is more frustrating to me than to be really engaged in some cool RP and then the scenerunner advances things while I'm still posing about what I said before we zoomed ahead. Then again, if it's only part of the group involved, and the other part is bored to tears this could be problematic, leading to multitasking like you described. Well, my ride is here, so let's start with that and perhaps I'll comment more later.
ReplyDeleteHmm. Pacing. Maintaining a flow during gameplay to move from scene to scene in a manner that is both internally consistent and pleasing to those participating. Table top games break down into 'action scenes' and 'talky scenes' primarily. Sure there's moments when characters are doing things that aren't very action oriented or interacting with one another to open up more about the character, or providing input on the experiences they are having or had. However, those sorts of scenes can, honestly, drag down a game's pacing. Something's broken and a character needs to make their fix-it roll. Well, is there an urgency to the action? Is the need to fix the thinger important because there's trouble around the corner? Mm, action soon to occur. Or is the act of fixing it going on while characters are talking about previous things fixed to other players who find the dialogue and character backstory of value? If no to either of those, we really don't need or care about the roll (and in most cases, the thinger gets fixed so we can move on to the next scene). Likewise characters performing research in a library. go swiftly on the description, tell the characters what they find, let them come up with their own conclusions and move to the next important scene where the information becomes relevant. As I type this it occurs one more scene pops up that often becomes important to players and tends to involve rolling dice, exploration. Most of these scenes, however, break down to: Describe room. Players who can will check for clues and traps. Move to the next room. This pattern repeats until the entire place is explored or there's a break by action (trap is sprung or a fight occurs). Ultimately the pacing is sort of set by a GM, and the players have the ability to hold up their hands and go, "Wait. I wanna do something here." and they do their whatever until the GM either vetoes further slowing of pace (Like if every other PC is bored or not part of the scene) or they finish up their little side-lining. the GM is the one with the watch, and the one responsible for running the scenes the players care about. If this was something else, like Prime Time Adventures, the Players would be polled for what would be the next interesting scene, and maybe even a vote/general agreement between players would occur to prompt the next scene. Another thing PTA does is ask "Is this scene story driven or character driven?" Does the scene advance the overall plot of the story, or does it fill in depth to the characters involved. Hmm. I've rambled a lot and I've still not even been approached about the game. I'd best stop here.
ReplyDeleteYou know, we could use something like Skype and play via that route, allowing us to hear each other and talk. That could speed things up considerably.
ReplyDeleteYeah but I can write RP poses a helluva lot better than I can say them.... plus the text on the screen helps me get into the character... not to mention helps me deal with distractions.
ReplyDeleteTrue, I was thinking of the fact that it takes about 30 minutes to an hour to do about 5 minutes of RP...
ReplyDeleteIt is more efficient, no doubt about that. I'd be willing to give it a try - Skype supports up to 5 callers in a conference, which I think would be exactly enough to support the group.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you. I also like to keep logs, which is one of the notable benefits of textual online play. Playing over Skype/phone just seems... straaaange to me. >.>
ReplyDeleteWell, in our first couple sessions, things seemed to drag from my perspective. In one scene, one or two of the PCs were asking an NPC instructor... well, a lot more questions than seemed necessary to me. ;) Of the three players, it felt like one was into that, one was sort of into that, and one was being put to sleep by it. I'd need verification to know if that was actually the case, but that's how it seemed to me. We also had a couple sparring matches between PCs and one of theother students. The first one didn't take too long. The second really dragged due, I think, mostly to a series of lackluster rolls on both parties. While this was decent practice looking at the combat system in a casual setting, it wasn't terribly important to the story or involving to those not in it. That, so far, has been the sort of thing that has me squirming and asking myself whether I should force things forward or let the players take their time.
ReplyDeleteAhh, I see. Well, part of this problem may be that there's only a few players, so there's not much for others to do if they're not directly involved with what the GM is doing with another player. But really, online this is a problem in general - as you said the story's not advancing without you presenting what's going on that needs attention. With things advancing so slowly online anyway, that means what would be a little 5 minute interlude in a tabletop setting with the GM and a player off to one side (while others refill soda or whatever) turns into 30 minutes to an hour online. Considering this specific small group of players, and in light of what you've said, I as a player would want to see more control from the GM. In the case of the sparring session - hey lets ease up on the 25-line poses about how we're sparring. Or if the sparring session is going nowhere due to bad rolls, I have no problem with the GM spurring things along by having someone run up: "Jedi Master Ubuntu says to report to him straightaway!" and cut short the endless 1st level rolls. Since it sounds like the group was more or less formed in a vaccuum - that is they really don't know each other prior to the first session - no shared backstory or "issue zero" interactions, the first order of business is to get the group together and in my style that usually meant a crucible. That is, a bad plot device happens that puts the group in a dangerous situation or at a severe disadvantage... so they feel inclined to band together for mutual advantage and hopefully that means start to become cohesive as a group. :) Of course, all styles vary. I guess my point is I'd like to, and expect, to get into the story so I can start figuring out why my character has a reason to work with the personalities I've been thrown together with.
ReplyDeleteYeaaaah. I urged some more communication at chargen, but at least some of the group seemed to have ideas in mind when we sat down to talk about it, so there wasn't a lot of cooperative party building at the time. Which leaves grouping them together through random assignment or some sort of crucible. I wasn't thinking that. No. Really. <..> In all honesty, I view the sessions played thusfar as prelude material. Getting the players familiar with the setting their characters should know already and such. We're just about to reach the point where story/plot is introduced.
ReplyDeleteWell hopefully the discussion has given you some additional help? :)
ReplyDeleteI like to think so, anyway. ;)
ReplyDelete