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.

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?

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?"

TonyLB wrote: 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?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

Okay, let's try and distinguish some things that, in aggregate, account for what we mean by "pacing".

• 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.

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).

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]

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?

TonyLB wrote: 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

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

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.

TonyLB wrote: 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.

Except that the tension-building works in situations where there is absolutely no fear of losing the character (like most serial TV shows, and all Capes games).

Which is not to dispute that tension-building occurs as a warm-up process to future events (while, simultaneously, other plot-threads might be integrating in the same scene). It's just to say that I think the psychological process is probably somewhat more subtle than simple fear.

The other problem I have is that none of this is reflected terribly well in the SiS. It's all at a meta-game level of concern for the perceptions of the "audience" of players. Which makes integrating it with the in-SiS actions that prompt it (the telling of jokes, etc.) a very strange proposition. Does that make sense?

Hi Tony,

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.

TonyLB wrote: 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.

TonyLB wrote: 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.

TonyLB,

There is no one universal reason why you would want to run non-conflict resolution scenes. It depends entirely on the type of game you are running and the type of people who are playing it. Here is a list of reasons why you might want to run a non-resolution scenes.


1. You want to build on some aspect of the character(s) present in the scene. These aspects could be relationships with other characters, personal values, etc. These aspects you are want to build on are important and you do not want them to be undermined by only showing them during a resolution scene where they will not be the focus. This would be a narrativist reason.

2. Real life is not a constant nonstop roller coaster. It is more realistic to stop and take a break once in a while. This would be a simulationist reason.

3. The party needs to plan their next move perfectly. One mistake and everything will go to hell. This is a gamist reason.

4. Players only have so much energy. After a really intense conflict they might simply need to recover. This reason works in any type of game.


These are not the only reasons why you could use scenes other then ones which resolve conflicts. Many other very good reasons (and at least one of the above) have already been suggested in this thread.

The type of scenes you include in your game will determine the type of experience your players have. If your goal is to design a game about a futuristic cyber hell where life has accelerated so fast that people no longer have time for human interaction you might want to completely remove all non-conflict resolution scenes. If your game is an RPG Noir focusing on suspense then more non-resolution scenes should be in order.

Best,
Bill

The Graduate. You know, the movie with Dustin Hoffman, Anne Bancroft, Katherine Ross. Made around 1967. Watch it. Pay attention to the scene structure, to the scene content.

As far as such things go, The Graduate is not a fast paced film. Nor is it a slow paced film. BUT! There is one, maybe two scenes in the entire film that are not either filled with conflict or dripping with the delicious tension of blossoming conflict.

I hadn't seen the film in years, and I had forgotten the beauty of it. Last night I watched it again. Just the dramatic structure and pacing of the film had me laughing with joy. There are no "wasted" scenes, no filler or fluff, yet there is also no sense of haste. (The acting is top-notch too, but that's not applicable here.)

The film is an incredible example of tight pacing that focuses equally on conflict and tension-laden scenes, of various "speeds". The character development takes place within that structure and is done superbly.

It's a must watch.

-Chris

In an online game that I came from (last week) we made an intentional decision to "slow down the action."

Two new players had just come onboard (literally and figuratively--it was on a space ship) and there had been some tension between the existing crew and the new characters. Because this was IRC it was not clear to anyone how much tension was IC/OOC (although clearly some was both in some cases).

So we had a "slow things down" scene. The GM asked us each to make up a 1pg story about our characters that we'd reveal IC in the next session. We all did so and ran a session of sitting around the galley and drinking and telling our stories.

I would say:
1. This worked-out some issues that existed between players through the conduit of their characters (i.e. the stowaway robot-cat came across to me as much more sympathetic once it's story was out).
2. There was no conflict but there was (at least for me) some tension in, for example, the telling of my story In Character.

If, instead of the slow-scene, we had gone to the next "fast scene" (the delivery of illegal cargo) there would not have been the same opportunity for integration of the new characters that we had.

-Marco

I think that pace of a scene and the nature of conflict in a scene can can actually be separated.

I agree with timfire and others that there are build up and conflict scenes. My model (with liberal borrowing from fiction theory) would be:

Build-up scene - puts the characters on a path (like pieces on a game board or ships in space). Character(s) may face obstacles or undertake activities, but the choices they make establish character traits and desires, and also the metacharacter elements like topic and premise.

Conflict scene - when one or more characters collide. The established character traits and metacharacter elements conflict. Choices made by characters at this point are generally expressions of stuff established in build-up scenes.

Integration scene - (I like the term "integration," timfire) - the characters process the results of the conflict scene and take new actions that set them on altered courses - usually a variation or deeper exploration of the character and premise traits they started with. Integration is very similar to a build-up scene.

Pace

By pace, I assume we mean the speed at which significant challenges are presented. Faster pace is usually achieved by increased detail. Fast pace usually occurs in conflict scenes because there are a lot of challenging details coming together. Build-up and integration have fewer challenging details (they may deal with a lot of details though - activities or thoughts.) So, build-up and integration scens tend to be slower paced.

However, I point to the openning scene of almost every Bond film. These are fast paced build-up sequences - the function is not to process real conflict that's important to the story of the movie, but to demonstrate Bond's skill and determination.

So I think build-up (and, I suspect, integration) scenes can be slow or fast-paced.

Can a conflict scene be slow-paced? I think so, though writers tend to make them fast-paced in order to emphasize their importance, so we don't experience them very often. Also, slow-paced conflict scenes tend to show up in emotional or mental conflict, rather than physical conflict - also less common in movies.

Having said that, I don't have an example that comes to mind. I do think what I've said applies to roleplay as well as writing. Can anyone think of a game example of slow-paced but important conflict?