Speed of Play

[foster1941]

The thing that really bugs me most about the AD&D campaign I'm currently a part of is that the game is mind-crushingly slow moving. In a typical 4 hour session we're lucky to explore about 4 new rooms, get into 1 or 2 fights, and that's it. Combine that with the fact that we only play every other week and miss sessions pretty frequently (average probably about 1 out of 3) and the end result is that we've been playing for right around 2 years (discounting a reboot and a TPK that wiped out ~15 months of prior play) and we're only on our second adventure and the highest level characters are at 4th (my character is multiclassed, so he's at 3/3).

I'm not sure what specifically causes the game to be so slow (and I suspect it's a combination of factors) -- the rules we're using (not only overcomplicated AD&D, but with even more complicated minis-based combat rules), the adventures that are being run, or simply the player-group (I'm coming to suspect the latter, since around last Xmas I ran a one-off adventure with simplified rules (no battlemat, group initiative) and a simple adventure (The Abduction of Good King Despot -- straightforward old-school tournament-style dungeoncrawl) and the game still moved at a snail's pace -- after 10+ hours of play they completed about a third of the module, when I was counting on them finishing it!

One of my biggest goals as a GM, therefore, is to speed the game up as much as possible. That's one of the big attractions OD&D currently holds for me -- the fact that it at least has the potential to be lightning-fast, since there are almost no rules to get in the way and slow things down (though, as would surely be pointed out if I were posting this at ENWorld, combining no rules with contentious players can backfire and slow the game down even further as they argue about and second-guess every ruling). I'd like to be able to have a game like those we had as kids back in the 80s -- you can explore a dozen rooms (including tricks, traps, fights, and even a bit of roleplaying) in a 2-hour session, and a marathon session can finish an entire 32pp module in a single sitting (we did most of the classic TSR modules this way -- in fact, it's hard to think of any modules (aside from T1-4) that we didn't play completely through in a single session (with, admittedly, those sessions sometimes being 10-12 hours long...).

I'd like, if anybody else is interested, to brainstorm and muse about ways to make the game flow quicker, to avoid the "20 minutes of fun in 4 hours" syndrome that plagues 3E. I think part of what might be necessary is to train the players to be less methodical and risk-averse and makes decisions more quickly -- the famous "Tomb of Horrors" traps where Gygax instructs the DM to count to 10 and whoever hasn't acted by that time is dead come to mind. The players in our group (and, I admit I'm as guilty of this as any of them, maybe even moreso) seem to debate everything to death; I think perhaps we need to return to the classic model of a single "caller" who speaks on behalf of the group (and increased wandering monster checks, or at least inability to gain surprise, if the group spends too much time debating out in the open -- though again that could backfire, since if the group spends a bunch of time fighting wandering monsters and uses up all their resources that way the game will move even slower!).

Anybody have any suggestions, observations, or just plain anecdotes on the subject they'd like to share?

[crimhthanthegreat]

The first comment I would make is that the ref (DM, GM) needs to be firmly in control as they were in OD&D. Endless rules debates and rules lawyering are a no no if you want to get any gaming done. I never had a problem with this since my original group had been playing together from early childhood and none of us are interested in slowing down the game with any debate. If you have an existing group that debates things to death, it may be difficult to get them to change without losing them. I suppose you might try starting a game in addition to what is usually done with just 2 or 3 of the better players in the group as an "experiment" and let all know from the gitgo that fast play is part of the game and bad things happen when decisions aren't made fairly quickly and see if you can convert the 2 or 3 and let their enhanced fun seduce the rest of the group when they start talking about how much fun it is to play that way.

When I have had new players (relatives or others) they are coming into a group that is in firm agreement on how to play so the newcomer has peer pressure to teach them to "think quick", "decide quick" and "play quick". Maybe some other people can post some good suggestions for you, since I have never really dealt with the problem to any significant extent.

[foster1941]

I didn't mean to imply the debates were rules arguments (our group is actually pretty good about avoiding those, deferring to whoever's in the DM seat) but rather about courses of action -- we spend a lot of time trying to think through the ramifications of decisions and exploring all our options before deciding on anything -- "do we want to open this door? what is likely to happen if we do? what if we don't? what else could we do besides opening this door? assuming we're going to have to open this door eventually, are we likely to be better off doing so now, or coming back and doing so later?" etc. I've begun to suspect a lot of this comes from playing computer strategy games where there's no time-limit and the player is encouraged to be very methodical like this (and some of it is just plain paranoia -- we've all read/played "Tomb of Horrors" and know that wrong decisions can get your character killed, and those of us who've been playing the same characters for 2 years and finally reached 4th level don't want to see our characters die).

I don't want to discourage this sort of methodical thought too much, because I think it is good and appropriate to consider the risks, rewards, and alternatives before acting rashly -- if we were playing "Tomb of Horrors," for instance, we wouldn't finish it in a single session (like it was designed for) but I suspect we'd get through with fewer casualties than a lot of other groups who are less careful. I just think a better balance needs to be struck between being careful and methodical on the one hand and keeping the game moving on the other...

[Finarvyn]

A few knee-jerk thoughts on what slows down play:
1. The more players, the slower the game. In the old days we had 2-3 players and it was fast, but now my games are usually about 6-7 players and it's a lot slower.
2. The number of players familar with the rules determines game speed.
3. The number of players socializing, compared to the number of players focused on playing impacts game speed.
4. I don't want to get myself in hot water, but often I find that female gamers are more into social gaming while male gamers often are into combat gaming. Social gamers want to know what's happening -- what they see or experinece -- and that can slow down a game.
5. High level characters tend to slow down a game because they need to battle high level monsters. The overall quantity of hit points of both sides, the options open to the characters, and other side effects of high level campaigns all tend to cause each encounter to last a lot longer.

I'm not sure if these are the types of factors you have in mind, but certainly they are biggies in my games. :-)

[crimhthanthegreat]

One thing I would suggest since the problem is not rules lawyering, is to give rewards for the faster play that you want. For instance if you have a player reach a decision and it takes the rest of the group 20 min longer to come to that same decision, give that player an experience bonus.

Another thing is how you present things to the players. If you have them surprised and then time stops for 40 min before you start playing out the encounter, you have lost the whole point of having them surprised. There are times when it is appropriate for the players to stop and have a discussion about what to do next, but there are other times when any discussion is inappropriate. Give them some of both and reward those who handle it appropriately.

I have played games with around 25-30 players at times without a co-ref or assistant and the game still moved pretty quickly. Even when we were in a dungeon and the thieves were doing their search for traps, etc, the game moved quickly partly because several players were very good at helping the group reach a conclusion and act on it.

[Finarvyn]

To give the impression that time is passing, while they debate a course of action you can roll for a wandering monster. "Sorry, guys, do you want to talk to each other or fight it?"

Maybe they'll get the hint. I think in the old days my group wasn't too bright, because we just charged in and did stuff. Now my players are too concerned with staying alive and always want to look for the best option....

[ffilz]

Some thoughts I have on speed of play (not all may specifically address your concerns):

I'm pretty sure the introduction of the vinyl Battle Mat slowed my gaming down. We did use miniatures before then, but we would usually use some sort of rough outline of the room made with dominoes, pencils, string, or whatever was available. Early play with various cardboard floor plan bits showed that was even slower.

I think in the old days, some combats we would just wash over if they were obviously trivial (I think I did occaisionally just assign a probability of a d4 or d6 of damage sometimes). Wands of Fireballs were also great for speeding up combat (ooh, another room full of orcs. Fireball! - we also were lenient on damage to treasure).

Telling the players about all the treasure if there isn't a significant lock or trap can speed things up. Of course you don't always want to do this, and perhaps this is best during a play session when the players have fallen into a groove (you have some idea of what triggers caution, and what triggers "just get the treasure as fast as possible").

Try and keep combat simple. The more important moving around and positioning become, the slower the game. Sure, you need to know when the thief gets to backstab, but the fighter? Well, he's just going to go up and hack away. Facilitate that.

Frank

[serendipity]

admin said:

4. I don't want to get myself in hot water, but often I find that female gamers are more into social gaming while male gamers often are into combat gaming. Social gamers want to know what's happening -- what they see or experinece -- and that can slow down a game.

As a gamer girl (not politically correct but nevertheless true), I can respond to that. I admit that the "role" part is a major reason why I play this game, and I do like to know as much as possible about absolutely everything. But I'm not sure that that's just a female thing; two other female gamers in our group couldn't care less about that aspect of the game. They'd prefer to just get in and kill something. Now.

To continue with the interaction theme, if the situation is dire, the DM gives a hurried account, as though we'd just had a moment to glance about or to talk. If time is not of the essence, we're given more freedom to interact with the surroundings. This tends to keep the time from getting too out of hand. The unexpected monster encounter also does a good job of getting us in gear.

As for the social aspects of gaming, my group has a couple of social players (not all women!) who slow things down by adding extra-curricular chatter and distracting the players from the game. The DM is good at bringing folks back to the table, so to speak, but one of the worst offenders is, gulp, his wife. So how's that couch for sleeping?

[Melan]

I had a similar problem when I was running Tegel Manor last year - the players, while they were very good strategists (esp. for people without any prior dungeon crawling experience), but were also agonisingly slow in making decisions. So slow that sometimes the campaign became downright irritating... which is a shame because I love Tegel more than almost any other module.

Keeping in mind that I couldn't solve the speed problems in that campaign (sometimes it is a fault of the players and it can't be fixed), here is what I do in my current one (with different people):
1) Don't overwhelm the party with choice. Choice is great, but an almost infinite range of possibilities can induce paralysis in some. A series of quick decisions with a smaller number of potential outcomes works better than fewer decisions where you can go in a dozen directions. If the PCs have a distant goal before them, it is even better.
2) Reward quick thinking: be a bit lenient when the PCs make fast decisions; let them gain an advantage over opponents, succeed in ambush situations, etc. On the other hand, punish laggards: if they don't move against the opposition, the opposition moves against them, or fortifies and makes preparations to set up traps (e.g. barricades, volleys of javelins, etc.). I agree that random monsters were invented to cure this problem.
3) This one's a bit controversial. Don't make too hard adventures. If every choice is a potential life-or-death challenge, the players will turn their characters into McGyver. You don't want to do this. Remember the thread on ENWorld about pulling unmarked levels in a dungeon? Your proposed solution there, while a great case of dealing with dungeon puzzles, is something you don't want to encourage. If the environment is more or less forgiving (although not a give-away), the players cann allow themselves to make small mistakes and can make up their minds faster. I might have been guilty of this in Tegel, since I kinda overhyped the dungeon with the rumours I distributed, and the players became very afraid for their characters, even though they were powerful and well equipped to deal with almost all challenges not involving vampires and liches.

I realise that some of this advice moves away from the ideal of the impartial Referee and maybe even into a lighter form of railroading. But now that we are older and have less time to play, I find that encouraging the action to move rapidly makes for a more satisfying play experience in the time we have to sit down and roll the dice.

[crimhthanthegreat]

serendipity said:

As for the social aspects of gaming, my group has a couple of social players (not all women!) who slow things down by adding extra-curricular chatter and distracting the players from the game. The DM is good at bringing folks back to the table, so to speak, but one of the worst offenders is, gulp, his wife. So how's that couch for sleeping?

Hmm, that would be a tough one to do anything about. The DM may have a lot of practice bringing folks back to the table in more areas that just his D&D game.

[Finarvyn]

What it comes down to is the key question: do the players want to play or socialize.

If they want to play, they will accept guidelines to keep them on track. They might sit around a table instead of lounge on couches. They will try to keep side comments restricted and focus on the adventure at hand. They will actively invest in themselves to make the adventure happen quickly and smoothly.

If they want to socialize the game will just be slow-moving.

I'm not sure if this at all addresses Foster's original points, or if we've gone so far afield as to warrent a new thread on serious/social gaming. I think that Foster was more concerned with players who were engaged but slow to decide anything.

[foster1941]

It all ties together. I've been trying to forumlate my thoughts together for another long post following up on my previous post and a lot of your (all of you) great responses. I'm not ready for that yet, but I do have some thoughts on playing vs. socializing:

I absolutely think players should socialize during the game -- they should engage with the other players, crack jokes, talk to each other out-of-character, and generally be sociable. This aspect is, IMO, one of the main things that sets tabletop games apart from computer games and makes them worth playing. However, ideally, in order for this socializing to reinforce, rather than distract from, the game, the topic of conversation should be what's going on in the game -- the characters, the situation, and the plot. This is accomplished not by dictatorial fiat but rather by making the game interesting to the players, so that it engages their imaginations and keeps them focused. If someone has a desire to start talking about something outside of the game (their job, something they saw on tv, something that happened in another game, etc.) that's a sign that their attention is wandering because their imagination is not engaged in the current game (which means that, to put it bluntly, the GM isn't doing his job well enough). The players are there to have fun, and if the game isn't providing enough fun they'll provide their own through out-of-game chatter. Some tips and suggestions fo keeping players engaged in the game and minimizing boredom:

1. Don't try to enforce a code of behavior (i.e. banning out-of-game talk at the table) because that doesn't fix the problem, it just hides it and creates another problem -- a player who isn't talking out-of-game only because there's a rule prohibiting it still isn't engaged in the game, only now in addition to not being engaged he's also bored and not having fun. A player stacking dice or doodling on his character sheet is less disruptive than a player chatting about out-of-game stuff, but he's still a symptom of a problem

2. Take lots of breaks -- most people's attention spans aren't all that long, and asking someone to go an hour or two (or more) in immersive high-gear is asking a lot. Plan to set aside around 5 or 10 minutes out of every hour as downtime - to use the bathroom, smoke, refill drinks and snacks, and chat about out-of-game stuff. Don't plan these breaks arbitrarily, let them flow organically -- after a major encounter is usually a good spot, or whenever you notice players getting fidgety or their attention starting to fade (or the out-of-game chatter starting to pick up), or even when one player simply stands up from the table and heads for the bathroom. Stand up from the table, stretch, walk around, chit-chat for a few minutes. And then sit back down and pick up the action where you left off.

3. Plan pre- and post-game social time -- in a lot of adult groups, many of the players probably don't see each other very often (if ever) outside of the game, so they'll naturally want to chat and catch-up about out-of-game stuff. To faciliate this occuring outside, rather than during, the game, set aside a block of time before the game (a half-hour or so) and make it clear up front -- if the "game is starting" at 4:00 let the other players know whether this means the game is actually starting at 4:30 and before that we're socializing, or that the game actually is starting at 4:00 and if you want to socialize beforehand you should show up at 3:30 (note also that many players (men especially) will scoff at the idea of a declared "social time" so it could perhaps be disguised a bit as lunch/dinner potluck, prep-time (for players to catch up and make adjustments to their characters, consult with the GM about off-stage stuff, etc.), or something else, but the idea is the same -- a "warm-up" period before actual play starts in which the players are free to socialize about non-game stuff). The same applies after the game as well -- actual play should end about a half-hour before the scheduled 'end-time' so that everybody doesn't have to immediatelly run off home as soon as play ends and can "cool off" and reflect on the game, make plans for the next one, finish up any out-of-game chat, and so on.

4. Don't be strict about attendance -- sometimes people just not in the mood to play -- you're tired, you're distracted by other stuff, you're in a bad mood, or you just don't feel like it. Players in those situations should never feel that they're obligated to show up at a session anyway, because even if they do they're 1) not likely to have much fun, and 2) are likely to spoil everyone else's fun. Better to just stay home. This means that the GM has to be flexible -- ready on a moment's notice to handle 1 player or 9 -- which means not making elaborate plots that hinge on particular players/characters involvement, and also avoiding whenever possible stopping 'mid-adventure' (with the party camped out inside the dungeon, or equivalent) since you don't know who's going to be there next time.

5. Keep all of the players involved -- one or two players interacting with the GM while everyone else watches isn't much fun. The GM needs to not get caught up in the positive feedback from the active players and take affirmative steps to engage the more passive players -- the quiet player down at the other end of the table probably needs the attention and encouragement of the GM to get involved with the game; don't let him fade into the background because your attention is focused on the active players sitting right next to you. Also, be sure not to mistake character involvement for player involvement -- it's entirely possible that a character will be involved in lots of activity (fighters fighting, thieves checking for traps etc.) but if the player isn't necessarily making the decisions for his character and is just following some other player's instructions and rolling dice he still might not feel engaged in the game; likewise, a player can be thoroughly engaged in the game even if his character isn't doing much of anything (this is true of me -- my character, Malo, is a total loser whose main tactic in combat is to stay as far away from the action as possible, but I remain vicariously involved in what the other players are doing -- making comments and suggestions, heckling/encouraging, and so forth -- and am if anything more engaged in the game than the player who's fighter is always in the thick of the action but whose only real contribution is to roll a d20 to hit each round when his turn comes up). Be sure to recognize the difference, and to focus on the players rather than their characters. Regardless of what the characters are doing, you want all of the players as engaged and involved as possible.

6. Keep the game moving -- this is almost a tautology, but it's true. The faster-moving the game is, the more it will keep the players interested and engaged; the slower-moving the game the more the players will drift out of the game into out-of-game talk or just plain boredom (stacking dice, doodling on their character sheet, etc.) which slows the game down even more and makes it even less engaging. It's a self-reinforcing loop in both directions. Therefore it's up to the GM to try to keep the game fast-moving (in ways I'll get to later) to get things on the right track from the start and keep them there.

[tgamemaster1975]

I think foster1941 really has it down. Very good advice. I never have a problem with this, but I do indeed keep the game moving quickly and once your players develop the habit of deciding quickly the game really moves. This is more realistic for those that are into "realism", since if it was real, decisions would have to be made quickly or die during the debate.

[oldgeezer]

Well...

I would heartily recommend having a "Caller" for just this reason. And if anybody speaks above a low murmer, or if debates go on for more than 15 seconds, start throwing wandering monster dice.

That's what Gary always did and it worked.

Old Geezer

[tgamemaster1975]

When we started playing, Kevin, my friend who introduced us to the the game, he did things like that, we had to decide quickly since he moved the action right on and brought it to us.