Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?

[jknevitt]

Isn't this thread getting a little distracted by the idea that if players just hurry up with their turn, system doesn't matter (matter in terms of how quickly its use produces results)?

You can never regulate the speed at which players communicate with one another. There is no shot-clock in roleplaying. What you can do is regulate the system. It's not a matter of a player's "speed of turn", as I see it, it's a matter of information acquisition by a player and a matter of information compression.

If a player can "get" something easily, and can relay required information in a more efficient manner, then we have an increased speed of play. You can manage this with the system. It's all a matter of process control.

[GB Steve]

The quickest games to play for me in decreasing order of speed are:
Rules free (just GM/player fiat)
Diceless GURPS (pretty much as above)
Amber
oCtane
OtE
Dying Earth (if you don't use trumping)
HeroQuest (most of the time)
GURPS (akthough G4 is currently slower as we introduce new people)
d20
HeroQuest (when there are interpretation difficulties)
Rolemaster
Dying Earth (if you use all the rules)
RQ3

So yes, diceless has been quicker. I've always found that I need much more material when there are less dice rolls. Combat is what slows things down usually.

[Alan]

Hi all,

Isn't the time a player is allowed to make a decision or to discuss with other players an issue of Social Contract?  We may never discuss it directly, nor enforce it explicitly, but I think each group develops some standard for this unit of time in a kind of tacit negotiation.  The standrad can be renegotiated for each new game system, for periods of learning new system, and there seem to be rules for when a player can take extra time.  Remember social contract doesn't mean it has to be written down, or even consciously agreed on.

We might isolate the concept of unfocused play: this happens because the player's attention is not being held by the game.  There's many reasons for that, not all having to do with the game design and execution.  

Since the Forge is a game design forum, why don't we focus on what we can control when designing and running a game?  


Design Elements that Affect "Speed of Play":

1.  Scale of events - how much fantasy action does one execution of real world process address?

2.  Points of Contact - how often must rules be consulted while processing a unit of event for the fantasy world.

3.   Points of Negotiation - how wide is the scope of existing rules?  How often will they lead to discussions about _how_ to decide something in actual play.

4.  Handling time.  How involved is real world application of the rules?

5.  Teachable presentation of rules.  Play aids, text presentation, etc.


Actual Play Elements:

1.  Choosing players who are interested in what will be run.  (Both in content and creative agenda.)

2.  Social contract agreesments on time allowed for decisions.

3. Group familiarity with rules.

4.   Effective group facilitiation, usually by GM.



If I were asked my major beef about most rpgs, especially the glossy ones like DnD and WoD, I would say it's lack of teachable presentation.  For some reason, there's an accepted tradition among those circles that arcane and obscure is the same as atmospheric.  I don't think these are good examples to follow.



One element that is often lacking from many rpgs is teachable presentation.  Even big lines, like DnD and WoD, obscure rules with presentation of "atmosphere."

[jknevitt]

Since the Forge is a game design forum, why don't we focus on what we can control when designing and running a game?

What an excellent idea!

Design Elements that Affect "Speed of Play":

1.  Scale of events - how much fantasy action does one execution of real world process address?

2.  Points of Contact - how often must rules be consulted while processing a unit of event for the fantasy world.

3.   Points of Negotiation - how wide is the scope of existing rules?  How often will they lead to discussions about _how_ to decide something in actual play.

4.  Handling time.  How involved is real world application of the rules?

5.  Teachable presentation of rules.  Play aids, text presentation, etc.

1. One could assume that there will be more real world processes/units of time expended if the subsequent units of "fantasy action" are small. This is a matter of action scope, yes? In other words, "how much do I resolve/do in one action?" The issue is not how fast in-game action moves, it is how fast the action of the game itself moves -- how fast interplay between players takes place. If you are communicating small amounts of information many times (those small units of fantasy action), this will take longer than communicating large amounts of information few times. Of course, I'm an advocate of efficiency and information compression in roleplaying communication, regardless of the information amount being communicated.

2. Points of Contact (PoC, because I'm a lazy typer) can be significantly reduced if players are familiar with the system. If a system exists that has a relatively small PoC learning curve, ie. the PoCs for a learner and the PoCs for a long-time player are similar -- and low overall, this could dramatically affect the overall issue of speed.

3. This is an issue of "does the system do one thing well?" or "does the system do many things ordinarily?". If the former, players understand that there are few methods in which to get things done. If the latter, players will spend more time deciding what an action will be and how that action will be undertaken.

4. Again, back to my comment about information compression. If you can put enough data into a single unit of communication effectively, handling time will go down simply because you're saying every relevant piece of information at once. This in part is a matter for players. Learners tend to disperse their information communication as they get a feel for the game. If a system exists that even as learners the information is transmitted efficiently, handling times go down for everyone (because if you're efficient as a learner, the odds are you'll be more efficient as a long time player).

5. This is a big issue. Many games often put pertinent rules or system elements in large blocks of text where they are easily missed. If a system can be explained in clear, simple, precise terms with ample aids, then some ground can be gained. Like I always say to people trying to explain something to me: "Tell me like I'm a three-year-old" -- that way I know I'll get it.

Actual Play Elements:

1.  Choosing players who are interested in what will be run.  (Both in content and creative agenda.)

2.  Social contract agreesments on time allowed for decisions.

3. Group familiarity with rules.

4.   Effective group facilitiation, usually by GM.

1. This is a given. If someone's not interested, the more time they will goof off during a game or do stuff not related to a game. This increases their own Points of Contact and Handling Times.

2. It's like that old saying "you can't legislate faith". Decision-making time is not something that can be legislated by the system. That's purely a player issue. However, and I hate to sound like a broken record, if efficiency and speed of play is increased from within the system, decision-making time in general will go down (unless of course, the above is an issue).

3. See my first #2 and first #4, above on my thoughts. Rules knowledge goes up, Points of Contact go down. QED.

4. Aha! If the GM can't clearly act as a facilitator of the system and the setting, and as a communicator between players, then there's a principal cause of lag in the system. This is fairly self-evident, I think: a good GM gets a game going better than a bad GM. This then gets into the issue of player satisfaction and speed of play. a happy player will be more efficient, simply due to my second #1, above.

Yes, I basically rehashed everything that's already been said, but I felt your points needed a reply. :D

[ffilz]

1. One could assume that there will be more real world processes/units of time expended if the subsequent units of "fantasy action" are small. This is a matter of action scope, yes? In other words, "how much do I resolve/do in one action?" The issue is not how fast in-game action moves, it is how fast the action of the game itself moves -- how fast interplay between players takes place. If you are communicating small amounts of information many times (those small units of fantasy action), this will take longer than communicating large amounts of information few times. Of course, I'm an advocate of efficiency and information compression in roleplaying communication, regardless of the information amount being communicated.

This is certainly true, but it is modified by what the expected scope of the game is. This problem is partially out of the designers control, but what the designer can do is set expectations. If your game is about playing through the history of several generations of a family, it's probably not a good idea to have a blow by blow combat system (unless that system is only used to resolve duels that wind up in history books). On the other hand, if the game is about defeating the dragon that has been ravaging the countryside, you probably want some detail in the combat system.

Perhaps it boils down to simply: A "fast" system is one in which all the rules (and their associated proceedures) are relevant to the goal of the game with a meaningful impact. Note that meaningful impact does not necessarily mean that it actually had any effect on the final attainment of the goal, it may just mean that the players decisions are confirmed by the game. "I cast cool spell #657 and I totally wasted the dragon!" Never mind that had the player cast any cool spell between #300 and #700 that he would have totally wasted the dragon. What was important was that the player felt his decision to cast #657 was meaningful and resulted in victory.

Frank

[neelk]

You can never regulate the speed at which players communicate with one another. There is no shot-clock in roleplaying. What you can do is regulate the system. It's not a matter of a player's "speed of turn", as I see it, it's a matter of information acquisition by a player and a matter of information compression.

Actually, there can be -- I use a kitchen timer to regulate how long a scene will run, and played in a D&D game in which the GM gave us ten seconds to decide what to do each turn of a combat situation. Both of these worked very well, and made for much happier players.

The reason these techniques worked is because taking either a short or a long time to make a decision is self-reinforcing. If everyone takes a long time to make a decision, then the players don't get to make them very often and so they become rarer and more important, which means they take longer to carefully decide. If everyone is deciding quickly, on the other hand, you'll get to make decisions more often, and so you don't need to take a long time because you'll get another opportunity to make a decision soon enough, and can correct.

[ssfsx17]

I have personally found that most of my time is spent looking at a variety of different sheets, numbers, tables, and dice and trying to think of how they all work with the system. Thus, a system with "intuitive" rules (that is, a system in which there are no tables or curves) tends to go faster for me. Even a monster like BattleTech becomes much faster to play when the computer does everything for you (like with MegaMek).

Total subjectivity is not necessarily faster, although it is definitely faster than all of the big-name RPGs out there. For example, The Window (found at http://www.mimgames.com/window/ for your pleasure) is almost totally subjective, but I still end up spending quite a bit of time thinking about relative strengths and weaknesses. Not only that, but I also spend some time thinking about what rolls represent. But at least it's a good imaginative excercise.

[Kensan_Oni]

Isn't this thread getting a little distracted by the idea that if players just hurry up with their turn, system doesn't matter (matter in terms of how quickly its use produces results)?

I don't think so, for outside forces are the primary factor in speed of play. In solo play, you could conclude combats at a much quicker rate then you would in group play, as due to lack of interaction with various people.

Computer games reflect this aspect by removing the interaction part of the game. All things happen as quickly as the system allows for it, because the factors that would interfer with this (Cross Talk Chatter, Die Rolls, looking Up tables, ext) are taken care automaticly by a program. Therefore, the actual time it takes to resolve things is slowed down to let the players enjoy it.

While removing a lot of the interaction from a RPG would help speed up play somewhat (Lack of tables, less die rolls, so on),  it is still the human experince that slows down games.  While indeed if you could use one roll to resolve combat, it might speed up the game, but that is still dependent on factors that are not in control of the system.

If you can dispute this, please do. If you have an example of what you mean by speed, this would also help.

Thank you.

[Kensan_Oni]

Hi all,
...

Since the Forge is a game design forum, why don't we focus on what we can control when designing and running a game?  


Design Elements that Affect "Speed of Play":

1.  Scale of events - how much fantasy action does one execution of real world process address?

2.  Points of Contact - how often must rules be consulted while processing a unit of event for the fantasy world.

3.   Points of Negotiation - how wide is the scope of existing rules?  How often will they lead to discussions about _how_ to decide something in actual play.

4.  Handling time.  How involved is real world application of the rules?

5.  Teachable presentation of rules.  Play aids, text presentation, etc.


Actual Play Elements:

1.  Choosing players who are interested in what will be run.  (Both in content and creative agenda.)

2.  Social contract agreesments on time allowed for decisions.

3. Group familiarity with rules.

4.   Effective group facilitiation, usually by GM.

Hmm... Here are the problems I see with the issues... although you have good thoughts here.

Design Elements
-------------------

1) Scale is irrelevant to speed of play. A Large Unit Action game can be as complicated and Time Consuming as a man to man fight. Scale of time is also irrelevant if you start considering what resolving things in unusal terms means. If you have a combat round last, say, a day, then the system must reflect all the risks of that day. Most mass melee combat systems that have been developed for most RPG's tend to show that they tend to be more complicated. Even if you design the system so that you take it to a real abstract level, what exactly are you trying to accomplish?

2) This obviously is the most valid point you have. The less time one needs to look up rules, the faster games go. Battletech, before the Field Tatical Books, epitimizes this. Once the system was learned, one hardly needed to pick up the books during game again. Everything was pretty easy to memorize, or put down on a sheet to speed up play. Overall, this is probably the most system related problem out there.

3) This falls under your social contract clause, and should not be taken into consideration of this point.... with the possible exception of diceless RPG's, and in that case, it's also pretty irrelevant. :'D

4) Appliable mainly to LARPG's, this is a interesting point, that I am not really prepared to address... However, this also feels like your Social Contract thing, and should probably be outside the consideation of points.

5) Shouldn't this be addressed as Learning Curve? I will say that well designed aids help speed play... however I have seen enough poorly designed aids to say that they also can have a tendency to slow down play. If you decide to include aids in your design, you must give careful thought on how to use them and where to put them. This is a valid point, and  probably deserves the most discusion.

Play Elements
-----------------

1) This is a challenging Real World Problem. Most Game Groups can agree on a general theme... but with each person interested in different aspects of games, it will be hard for a GM to hold the attention of the group at all times.

2) Not controllable in most casual situations... and you can never ever take account for the twenty minutes of laughter effect that occasionally happen. :'D  This is not to be said it can't be done, but most groups I've been with bulk when you start to count down time.

3) Absolutly the most critical factor in this section... which is why I suggest we focus on discussing point 5 from the previous section, for well designed aids help speed up the Learning Curve.

4) ... Effective group....  facilitiation ... I can't find this word. What does it mean?



... I really don't intend this to be flamy, although I guess it kinda is... I just am trying to find the issues that I think are relevant, and toss out the rest.  However, it is also very hard to use any of these points without a point of reference, no?

[ffilz]

I think part of the hang up we're having on speed of play is that speed of play is not an objective thing, it's subjective, and thus depends on the perception of the player, all of this modified of course by the objective real time that it takes players to process the game (some of which is driven by mechanics, some of which is driven by the individuals [rolling more dice objectively takes longer, even though one player may be able to roll 10 dice in the time it takes another to roll 1]). To this extent, I think it's important to understand how the objective rules interract with the subjective perceptions of the players.

Kensan says that scale is irrelevant to speed of play, and from an objective mechanics point of view that's true. But from a subjective player perception point of view, scale may be the most important factor the rules themselves contrbute. Perceived speed of play is very dependant on "how much story" happens per unit of real time, but it's also very dependant on what the players subjectively want (thus my examples a few posts back where the combat fan found a much shorter time spent on non-combat "slow" while the non-combat fan found the combat "slow").

The amount of rules lookup certainly is a factor also, but it can surprise you. First off, players find ways to optimize this (RoleMaster's bulk of charts looks daunting, but each player actually only has to reference a few at a time [not that I've ever played RoleMaster but I pick on it is the stereotypical "lots of charts" system). Secondly, players may not actually mind spending all that look up time if they feel the results are worthwhile. Again, we're back to player perception.

Points of negotiation can be part of the system. A poorly written system can result in extraneous points of negotiation, no matter how the players develop their social contract. A system can also specifically leave some points of negotiation open (Universalis does this, suggesting that the players should negotiate the rules as part of play during the tenet phase).

Handling time is not just applicable to LARPGS. Quoting from the provisional glossary:

Handling Time

The real time required to process, calculate, and interpret a resolution Technique once its procedures have been applied. See also Search Time.

Frank

[Kensan_Oni]

I think part of the hang up we're having on speed of play is that speed of play is not an objective thing, it's subjective, and thus depends on the perception of the player, all of this modified of course by the objective real time that it takes players to process the game . To this extent, I think it's important to understand how the objective rules interract with the subjective perceptions of the players.

I definatly can agree to this.

Kensan says that scale is irrelevant to speed of play, and from an objective mechanics point of view that's true. But from a subjective player perception point of view, scale may be the most important factor the rules themselves contrbute. Perceived speed of play is very dependant on "how much story" happens per unit of real time, but it's also very dependant on what the players subjectively want (thus my examples a few posts back where the combat fan found a much shorter time spent on non-combat "slow" while the non-combat fan found the combat "slow").

Ultimatly, however, this is all abour advancement, wither plot based or not...

Typically advancment in old style RPG's is in the form of experince, which was only gained in combat. It was measurable, and easy to see. Many skills used in old style games were experemental, and did not get fully realized. In more modern games, the story tends to become more important, but when players get stuck,  or are left with  nothing to interact with (Or they choose not to interact with what is presented to them, as I find the case), then it becomes troublesome.

Part of me really has been thinking that providine the players with a plot map might actually be benificil to see the advancment of plot, so that they know that they are on the right or wrong track. Something like this wouldn't work with an overly complicated plot, but something simple that had many branches (like the Wing Commander mission tree) could help the non-storytellers see their progress, and give them a way to judge their actions. While this might not really speed things up, it is exciting in itself, and helps direct the action of play, which in itself if a good thing.

I don't really know if such a thing could be implimented, but it is a neat idea.

Points of negotiation can be part of the system. A poorly written system can result in extraneous points of negotiation, no matter how the players develop their social contract. A system can also specifically leave some points of negotiation open (Universalis does this, suggesting that the players should negotiate the rules as part of play during the tenet phase).

.. *light bulb* Wheedling! Okay... NOW I understand that.... though to be honest, I find that part of the sociability of the game, and not a design choice or flaw... Although I find it highly amusing there is an actual game that encourages such things. :'D

....

I suppose it comes down to the saying "A game can't be all things to all people".  Now, I suppose the big question is, what the heck are we trying to speed up? I still don't kref= :'D

Kensan

[Callan S.]

The reason these techniques worked is because taking either a short or a long time to make a decision is self-reinforcing. If everyone takes a long time to make a decision, then the players don't get to make them very often and so they become rarer and more important, which means they take longer to carefully decide. If everyone is deciding quickly, on the other hand, you'll get to make decisions more often, and so you don't need to take a long time because you'll get another opportunity to make a decision soon enough, and can correct.

I'd never thought of that sort of feedback loop. I'm sorry, nothing to add...it's just such a notable example of how system does matter a lot (in this case, the system of having a timer) and I had to say so!

James: I think your just saying what I did. On the first page there seemed to be a distinct drift to 'it'd be faster if those players just did their thing faster'. That's something a designer can't help with...he can help with shortening table look ups and such like though.

Kensan_Oni: I don't dispute it. I just don't know why something out side a designers control is being used to answer a design question on how to speed play.

I suppose it comes down to the saying "A game can't be all things to all people". Now, I suppose the big question is, what the heck are we trying to speed up? I still don't kref= :'D

It's not really a matter of speed, but results produced over time and work. Lot of work/time spent for little reward wont work. And results are a reward.

For example, you could have one attack roll that takes five minutes to calculate...but if the results are rich enough, there will be no objection from users. Because it pays off...and really reward Vs time its technically the same as a whole fight which takes five minutes and has certain similar rewards. Time (or even work) doesn't really matter, so much as the results (which are rewards, and I'm not just talking XP as a reward. Anything you enjoy as a result, is a reward).

What makes five minutes of time/work worthwhile will vary, but doesn't matter. One designer might decide he's going to aim for X amount of reward for 5 minutes of work/effort, another designer might decide Y amount of reward. Their both aiming for different markets, which is valid. So we don't have to worry about how each user likes different levels of reward and whether that might make the discussion moot.

As I said before, it's a payoff between time and work Vs results (the reward for that time & effort). Well, I didn't mention work, but often enough time and effort are blended into just time (time drags when your doing something unpleasant, so it feels like a time issue).

[FzGhouL]

I've found the best way to effectively speed up game play is have a curve of rules as the gameplay goes on.

Low level characters should have 2-5 options per situation that make sense to them (Maybe other options), and as the character levels up, they should gain a variety yet at the same time, they will already have an idea of what works when. I think the slowest part of gameplay is A) Decision by the players B) ability of the GM to keep the non-battling game interesting and at a reasonable pace. Of course. B is harder to solve...

But as for A, pretty much think of it as a chess board, without all the pieces. Characterrs should start out say, with a couple of pawns. They have a few options, but thery head down the same path. Then, maybe add a bishop, kind of goin' at a different angle, or whatever. As your players level up, they get more, but they know how to use each and everything effectively...

As for an RPG, you got me there :D. The only RPG I've played is the one I wrote, so I have some really obvious bias. But, I've read some systems...And, I don't suggest many D20 system I've read, including D&D.

As for out of battle stuff, my game has no rules, and its totally arbirtrary. I don't really believe in skill rolls out of battle, or I just never got the hang of em'. All I know, is it makes it quick cuz instead of looking at modifiers and DC for things, I just say "You fail" or "You succeed"

Interesting thread :D

[Bill Cook]

Welcome to the Forge, FzGhouL!

You make some interesting points about metering options as characters advance. An etiquette tip: we refrain from ressurecting dated threads. A better approach is to start a new one.

But no harm done:)