The Forge Archives

Okay, first off, what this question is not.  I am not asking what tools a GM can use in order to effect changes in pacing.  I'm asking why one effects changes in pacing.  Particularly, what does a slower scene contribute?  What type of tool is it?  When is it appropriate, when is it not?

I think I've got a pretty good grasp of what big, climactic, conflict-ridden scenes contribute.  They contribute resolution of issues, address of premise, rising to challenges, all that jazz.  I see how they contribute to the fulfillment of CA.

You can make a game where every climactic scene, by resolving some issues, raises others.  Therefore there is no need to "prepare" for a climactic scene by doing other, less conflict-fraught, scenes.  The climactic scenes can be self-perpetuating.

So, setting aside the notion that slower scenes are necessary for any other type of scene, what do they contribute on their own?  What do they contribute that faster scenes can't?  And how can that contribution be made explicit, so people can value it, and so that rules can be crafted to help people see when they need one type of scene, and when they need another?

Non-climactic scenes and low-stress scenes allow time for reflection and elaboration of issues.

They provide room for characterisation without the constraint of life-or-death-or-worse-than-death decisionmaking.

Basically, I feel like they're not about issues, and that's absolutely the point. If all you care about are issues, then you can live in climactic scenes alone, but if you want the occasional lull where everyone is just portraying character, then that's what you need slow scenes for.

Just by being slower paced a scene can serve as contrast to the more conflict-ridden scenes. That contrast can often highten the appreciation of the giant climactic scenes. The slower scene can be necessary for the participants to "catch their breath", have time to assess what's happening in the game and in what areas they want to focus their energy.

Slower scenes can be used intermittently in a game with a lot of conflict intense scenes to sort of catch the players off guard, alter the rythm of play and cause a refocusing on the game. Sort of like an off-speed pitch, a change-up.

I'm not sure how to make those sorts of contributions explicit. I'm so used to just following my own sense of timing, drama, and aesthetics that  it's not something I normally concern myself with.

I've designed a couple games that define specific types of scenes to be used, the order for scene types, and the general nature of the conflict inherent to a particular scene. They might sometimes have the appearance of being designed for a specific form of pacing but that wasn't my intent at the time.

-Chris

In addition to what Shreyas said, imagine a story that has a conflictual scene right at the start, when you don't even know the characters. How much do you care?

And then compare that to a story that shows the peaceful, everyday life of sympathetic people, all with their own quirks and issues. And BAM, there comes the big conflict. That's how most Stephen King stories work.

So the scenes in between allow you to get to know the characters, and the peaceful ones show you what it is you're fighting for (cf. the Shire at the beginning of LotR).

To elaborate on that, one thing I noticed when reading The Hobbit to my kids was the impressively large amount of it which is spent on "down-scenes" with little tension or adversity.  Rest breaks both for Bilbo & co., and for the reader.  Throughout much of the book, literally half the time is spent on what most RPGs would consider down-time.

My feeling is that this sort of thing functions because not everyone has the mileage to go hard all session.  This may be particularly true of kids of the appropriate age; I'm not sure about that.  But I do note it even among adults, especially when reallife is being high-tension in its own right.

- Eric

So, if I can sum up what I've heard so far:  Slower scenes are necessary because players aren't good enough to establish their characters and issues during a faster-paced scene?

I don't buy that.  I don't think they're a crutch.  I don't know what purpose they do serve, but I'm pretty sure it's not just "fast-paced scene, but with training wheels."

Bah.  "Not good enough" is biased summary.  Acclimatization is a real issue, not to be mocked - especially when (e.g.) playing with S.O.'s and other nongamers.  As is burnout/distraction/exhaustion of players, new or otherwise.

Yes, most peoples' norm is too slow.  Yes, fast scenes generate their own energy.  But they don't always do so faster than people replenish, particularly if they themselves are depleted to start with.

Slower paced scenes are building and contrast scene.  To use a couple of non-role-playing examples, consider the roller coaster and the suspense/thriller movie.

On a roller coaster there are large hills where the coaster slows down and might even require mechanical help getting to the top.  As the coaster nears the top the tension mounts and mounts.  The point of greatest tension/suspense is actually when the coaster is balanced perfectly at the top of the hill and has no momentum at all.  Then the lead car tips over the apex and... away you go.  Slower scenes shouldn't mean no conflict but they should refrain from conflict with immediate consequences.  Instead the consequence should be put off and put off until they begin to build and then... *BAM* big, fast-pace climax scene.

Suspense/Thriller movies do much the same thing.  Slow, quiet scenes tend to build suspense because we, as the audience, know that something, somewhere is going to jump out and get us.   The movies even sometimes build up and build up and then... nothing... only to have the thing jump out at you when you weren't expecting it.  Slow scenes can do that too.  They can build up the expectation and then NOT deliver, only to deliver it in the next scene that is expected to be slow, ie when the players aren't expecting the explosion of action to happen.

Tony,

Well, that's certainly not what I was saying. But in my experience, and as some other posters have pointed out, many gamers don't necessarily see the choices they make during a conflict to be as character defining as 30 minutes of dialogue with the baker over the price of bread and his wife's knitting. That's an extreme example, but I think it gets the point across.

Give me important decisions to make and making them will certainly establish the nature of my character.

-Chris

Hi Tony,

I think the music analogy hits right here.  What purpose does the intro hold?  What purpose does the bridge have?  Pacing(and volume) in songs change because blaring at Forte fast tempo continously becomes dull.  

Slow scenes aren't just there to make fast scenes highlight- they're there because they allow players(GM included) to address things that don't come across well in a fast paced scene.  It often takes time for some emotions to be expressed, and to sink in.

Consider what it says to players if a character is making a serious decision("Should I keep my baby, or give her up for adoption?") and the group lets it ride with scenes of discussion, thinking hard about it, etc. vs. "Oh, here's my decision! Done!"  Both can say a lot about a character, about a player, and as a means of addressing a premise, producing fidelity to a dream, etc.  Slow scenes are by which meaning is instilled that might slip past people in fast scenes.

If we go to movies as an example- you can look to the movie PI as a movie where the crisis points hit in fast paced scenes, but the real outcome (resolution and climax) happens in the slow scenes.

Chris

Andrew and Chris (not Edwards):  Hrm... are you implying that the slower scenes impact the story indirectly by lending weight to a conflict that is currently unresolved (but which will be addressed in later, fast-paced scenes)?  I could buy that, and possibly even provide tools for it.  I'm not sure that's what you're saying, though... it's mixed in with some statements about how change is always good, and references to music and roller-coasters, which I have trouble parsing.

If you can give me a quick heads up about whether I've interpreted you correctly, that would help me going forward.


Chris Edwards:  I am having trouble reading what your opinion is, through your kind concessions to the tastes of other gamers.  Do you, personally, feel that thirty minutes haggling over bread is more character defining than (say) the moment you decide to either shoot a man dead or let him get away with the nuclear plans?  Because your last sentence seems to say otherwise and... anyway, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

Hi Tony,

1- Slower scenes allow expressing situations/emotions/conflicts that may not be clear in fast scenes.  Internal conflicts particularly.
2- Sometimes the crux of a conflict- the decision to be made- is made in slow scenes.  The fast scene(s) which follow are just narration of outcome.
3- Sometimes the real outcome of a fast scene is best narrated through a slow scene. ("And there's a gunshot.  Cut scene- You're in the hospital, talking to someone- but we're not going to show who that person is, until the end of the scene, ok?")
4- Emphasize everything, and you emphasize nothing- doing nothing but fast scenes makes them boring- not exciting(continous hack & slash for 8 hours...)

Better? :)

Chris

I think that that psychology in roleplaying thread might be relevant reading here.

In short, humans just don't deal with stories that have climax after climax, with no unwinding or increasing tension. We need those parts for stories to make sense and have impact.

I'm saying that I, personally, like short hard scenes with serious conflict involved. The "shoot a man dead" conflicts, the "should I keep my baby" conflicts. I've really got no use for the rambling "day in the life" kind of scenes that involve random discussions with the baker.

Now, when I'm running a game for others I can't necessarily fully indulge in that aesthetic. Many gamers want and/or need that sort of slow idle to get comfortable in their character's skin and to get their roleplaying muscles warmed up. It's not a bad thing, just different than what I want. Even in a slower paced scene I want the tension to wash, viscous, over me.

But then, when I roleplay I'm not so much playing a character as I am exploring myself. So that might have something to do with my preference, can't say for sure.

-Chris

Tony,

Yes and no... hope that helps. :)  Let me see if I can rephrase what I'm saying.

Slower scenes add weight to a future conflict by adding (and continuing to add) complications until the point where the scales are tipped and the climatic scene is reached.  Let me put this in something that is from Actual Play.  In my D&D campaign, the party is hired to carry some stones by a local Wizard to a Wizard in a distant town.  This is a pretty simple goal.  During the journey they rean across the bodies of a dead adventuring party carrying the same stones, which implied the local Wizard had hired other groups to do the same thing but hadn't mentioned them.  They they discovered that the local Wizard was discovered murdered after they left and they are the suspects.  Then they discovered that the stones don't seem to be magical after all.  None of these scenes were fast-paced or super-exciting but they have continued to add complications and tension to the situation and the climax is on its way.  The climax would not be nearly as exciting if I had just introduced all that information in some quick scene just before the climax.  The slower pace actually helped to build tension by allowing time for thought and contemplation of the issue at hand and focusing on some of the small stuff that might have slipped through the cracks of a fast scene.