What are the tools of pacing?

[matthijs]

I think I might be seriously misunderstanding you somewhere.

This is a really weird question to me. Conflict and climax isn't the point of a game; it's just one of the things we like to have in it. It's like you're talking about love, and asking "What does smiling at a person contribute on its own? You can have a relationship where every orgasm leads to the opportunity for a new one."

Some things grow slow, some fast, and they're different kinds of things. The atmosphere of certain scenes, the feel of certain characters, certain states of mind - they can't be done quickly. The way you play them is the way they are.

If one of your NPC's is an elderly lady waiting for death, a bang-ridden scene isn't the way to go to describe her. She needs a slow scene where she's lying in her bed listening to the radio at 4 in the morning, then turns it off and lies in the twilight listening to the dripping of the tap in the next room.

The scene doesn't have to lead into conflict at all. It can lead to another scene where she's lying in a hospital bed with her eyes closed, and it's hard to tell whether she's breathing or not. After a while, she sighs.

Am I reading you wrong, or are you really of the opinion that all games/stories must have conflict, and that the conflict is the most important thing?

[Andrew Cooper]

Matthijis,

Yes, I think that is exactly what we are saying.  If you are playing a Sim dominated game, then Conflict might not be the most important element of the game.  However, with Gamist or Narrativist play, Conflict is King.  Or should I say that Situation is King and almost every good Situation that I can think of has inherent in it some Conflict or another.  Your scene with the dying old woman might support The Dream when done correctly but I have a difficult time seeing it support Step On Up or Story Now.  In fact, every Gamist player I know (and I know a lot of them) would be saying, "Yeah... sure... whatever.  Can we get to the next part now?"

[Shreyas Sampat]

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?

OK, it took me a little while to hit on this.

Faster-paced scenes are not inherently better.

As long as you cling to that assumption, this thread makes no sense. If you discard that assumption, then the statements here are self-evident.

[TonyLB]

Andrew:  It seems like the whole "adding complications" thing isn't really done any better by slow scenes than by fast ones.  Is there a reason you would want them to discover that the rocks aren't magical while setting up camp, as opposed to while battling orcs?


Shreyas:  Of course, all other things being equal fast-paced scenes are better than slow scenes.  You have (say) three hours for your session.  You can get a certain amount of satisfaction by (say) posing and addressing conflicts.  If you can do one of those in three hours, or ten of them in three hours, then you get ten times the satisfaction by going faster, so long as you're fully posing and addressing each.

Now I actually believe that fast scenes aren't inherently better than slow scenes.  But I think that's because "all other things being equal" doesn't apply.  I just can't figure out what it is that slow scenes do that makes them worth the investment of my very limited gaming time.

[timfire]

Tony, can you define what you mean by "slow scene" versus "fast scene"? I'm not sure everyone is working with the same understanding here (or maybe its just me).

To me, it sounds like you're defining "slow" = "no conflict" while "fast" = "conflict." Is that right?

I think some people (myself included) would define "slow" = "no action" while "fast" = "lots of action."

Using my definition, you could still have a scene filled with conflict and tension, but little "action."

[edit] Or I should add, you can have a scene without much action, but still have thematically/ dramatically relevent events [/edit]

[TonyLB]

Tim, I think I'm saying "Nothing gets resolved" scenes vs. "Something gets resolved" scenes.  Which is not exactly the same as "no conflict" vs. "conflict", but is awfully close.

[Andrew Cooper]

Tony,

I think timfire is correct in that we are working on different definitions of terms.  I'm defining fast vs slow as the pacing of the action and not as a lack of conflict or plot development.  The reason I mix in slower paced scene is simply that "fast" is only "fast" when compared to something else.  If all I have is "fast" scenes then I get the bullet-train effect and not a roller coaster effect.  While a bullet-train is fast, it doesn't change speed or direction much and the novelty of it wears off after a little while.  the roller coaster is interesting because it is in a constant state of flux in terms of velocity (pacing).

Ultimately, it might just be a matter of aesthetic preference.  I find games that have a constant barrage of action without any let up to be tiring and eventually boring after a while.  However, action mixed with slower scenes that build up to more action is much more pleasing to me.

[Bankuei]

Hi Tony,

If we look at other forms of media, scenes in which nothing gets resolved typically fall into:

-Foreshadowing (setting up a conflict, or foreshadowing resolution)
-Expression (of Character, of setting, exposition, etc.)

If you look at foreshadowing scenes as single bids in an extended HeroQuest game, then it makes a lot more sense.  Expression is an exploration issue, but I think it can also be vital to set up plausibility in play.

Now, historically, and for the most part, I believe many groups out there have what we might as well call zilch-scenes.  There's neither Resolution, Foreshadowing or Expression going on.  The scenes are pointless, and usually a stall on the part of the GM or play stalling out as the players try to guess what they "should do" next, especially in regards to illusionist play.  

Slow scenes that focus on foreshadowing a conflict, or its resolution, or express necessary bits for plausibility- that's good slow scenes.  Scenes where people dither around, and nothing happens- that's empty scenes.

Chris

[Shreyas Sampat]

Okay, let's try and distinguish some things that, in aggregate, account for what we mean by "pacing".[list=1][*]Play occurs at different speeds. This is slower, for example, in PB(eM|M|P) environments and electronic chats than face-to-face.
[*]Conflicts are resolved.
[*]Tension is introduced.
[*]Details of character/setting/etc. are explored.[/list:o]Generally, the things that constitute pace are things that we get satisfaction from. Now, if I understand Tony, he is using 3 as the main metric of pace.

My hypothesis is that 2-4 (and onwards), in total, add up to approximately some constant over time, but their relative values vary. There are clearly cases where they all increase in unison, though.

My guess is that these things vary in relative value because people like to focus on distinct things, and focusing necessarily means that you are deemphasising other elements. In a related fashion, I think a lot of games interfere with multi-focus (such as d&d3.x, whose players (IME) tightly separate exploration of mechanics away from exploration of character).

[timfire]

Well, if that's your definition, I have to refer to Emily Care's excellent thread [game design and psychology] (you probably remember it).
There, she describes 3 phases of the pyschodramatic curve.

1. Warm-up (or Build-up)
2. Action
3. Integration (or Reflection)

So there you go. "No resolution" either lets the players build the conflict, or they let the players reflect on and integrate the drama.

I suspect you actually follow this curve, Tony, but the difference is probably one of scale. While some people prefer to build this curve over multiple scenes, you prefer to do all in one scene.

[edit] crossed-posted with a bunch of people [/edit]

[matthijs]

Oops, I see I failed to address my reply (the one that started with "I think I might be seriously misunderstanding you somewhere." I was, in fact, replying to Tony's initial question, not Gaerik's post.)

Tony, are you getting satisfying answers to your question? Or does the point of non-resolution/slow scenes still baffle you?

[MatrixGamer]

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 think it has anything to do with players not being good enough. It has more to do with music. Slow contrasts fast. Even slow scenes need a little dissonance, just a little less than combat. There is also a human element outside of the story. The players need to have time to go to the bathroom, get another can of soda or have that eternal discussion of who is stronger - Superman or Batman?

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Bill Masek]

TonyBL,

I am not sure if the question you are trying to ask is the one everyone is answering.  Let me see if I can translate.

It seems to me like you are asking what the benefit is, if any, to running scenes where very little or no game development happens per unit time of game play.  (The type of development will be different for each game.)

I would argue that there is no reason to do this.  Like you said, you only have so much time in a game.  Make it count.  There is no reason to run through the PCs setting up camp every night in your average D&D game.  It will simply drag it down.

On the other hand, scenes which are not action packed can be just as effective when it comes to development per unit time as hyperactive ones.  A dialog between a girl and her dying mother might not be action packed, but if done right it can develop your story much more effectively (per unit time) then a series of fire fights.   I believe that this is what everyone has been trying to tell you.

Dr. Ron Edwards showed me the trick to pulling off effective pacing.  You have to be able to make sure scenes don't go on to long.  While this is important for fast paced resolution scenes type scenes, it is vastly more important for building scenes.  If you get the important information across, build the relationships, (or what ever it is you want to do) then move onto the next scene your game will feel crisper, cleaner and you will get more done per unit time.

Best,
        Bill

[TonyLB]

Timothy:  Great reminder.  I hadn't looked at that in a while, and I'll clearly need to re-peruse.

Matthijs:  I'm satisfied that I've gotten your answer, but I'm still hoping to find an answer that works a bit more closely with my radically different creative agenda.  I'm interested to know whether you think there's any important place for scenes where conflicts are resolved, but that's probably something we can discuss in PM.

Bill:  I totally get that people are telling me that a dialog between a girl and her dying mother can contribute to the story.  What I'm trying to figure out is, specifically, what it contributes.

My immediate inclination is to say "Well, obviously, there's got to be some conflict there, like 'The mother wants her daughter to be happy, but the girl wants to be miserable to show her love', and this scene will be resolving that conflict.  That's what it contributes."  

But I am almost entirely sure that that's wrong, on two levels:  First, it actually turns it into a "conflict-resolving scene", which is what I think I'm identifying as "fast-scenes".  Second, I don't think that's the only way that such a scene could contribute, just the way that's obvious to me.

So, with much trepidation, I introduce an Actual Play example:  My simian super-hero Zak is, as we speak, in the clutches of an evil Seergassa lizard-priest.  He has Doctor Kettridge, a team-mate, for company.

The relationship between Zak and Kettridge doesn't need to be further developed.  The characters are known, and do not need to develop further at this moment.  No further complications need to be introduced.  And yet, I have this intuition that we could benefit from a scene where they just talk to each other, in captivity, maybe swapping some gallows-humor jokes, and generally not doing a thing toward resolving the current conflict.

Why is that?  What would we accomplish?

Right now I'm leaning toward "We would build tension for the upcoming conflict against the Seergassa," except that I have zero idea of what "tension" actually means, in straightforward, measurable terms.

[timfire]

So, with much trepidation, I introduce an Actual Play example:  My simian super-hero Zak is, as we speak, in the clutches of an evil Seergassa lizard-priest.  He has Doctor Kettridge, a team-mate, for company.

The relationship between Zak and Kettridge doesn't need to be further developed.  The characters are known, and do not need to develop further at this moment.  No further complications need to be introduced.  And yet, I have this intuition that we could benefit from a scene where they just talk to each other, in captivity, maybe swapping some gallows-humor jokes, and generally not doing a thing toward resolving the current conflict.

Why is that?  What would we accomplish?

Right now I'm leaning toward "We would build tension for the upcoming conflict against the Seergassa," except that I have zero idea of what "tension" actually means, in straightforward, measurable terms.

If I may return back to Emily's psychodramatic curve, this scene either serves as integration or warm-up.

At first glance, it seems like integration. You want a moment to reflect on what just happened.  This type of activity has a subtle effect on character growth.

But it could also be tesion-building. By spending a moment on just your characters, your deepening your identification with the characters. In other words, you care for the characters more. And because you care for the characters more, your sense of doom deepens, because you worry about losing the character more. That's building tension in practical terms.