Howdy all.

Been a while.
Our little group of players has finally taken the plunge and is enjoying the waters of new games.
We were a very strong WoD/Exalted group, but finally moved on :)
We've tried "In a Wicked age", "Primetime Adventures", "Mouse Guard" and right now are playing "Houses of the Blooded".

Now, "Houses" has been a huge hit. We went from 1 session every couple of weeks (and sometimes I as GM was having to remind people - hey, we're playing this week") to the other week the players badgering me to play multiple sessions in the same week.

They are loving the much stronger narrative control they have (also in PTA), but also having some more measure of "crunch" which was absent in PTA.

The problem (i feel) we are having though, is that we are spending a looong time on the same event/scene and it never seems to resolve.

Perfect example - the characters arrive at a castle and were introduced and told to prepare for a contest/hunt in the morning. That one scene has lasted three multi-hour sessions!  Of course this may not really be a problem as the players seem to be really enjoying themselves, but there is no real progress it feel to me.

Basically asking for - how are ways to maybe limit the amount of time complicating /going into minute detail by players, and maybe more aggressively pushing the action?

Of course this may not really be a problem as the players seem to be really enjoying themselves, but there is no real progress it feel to me.

Dionysus wrote:
The problem (i feel) we are having though, is that we are spending a looong time on the same event/scene and it never seems to resolve.

You know, these days I'd actually recommend NOT talking to your friends about it.

I mean, how is pacing handled? What mechanism controls it? It's probably just been left up to the spirit of the moment at the table.

And they are using that vague spirit thing 'correctly', as much as you can use anything ill defined correctly. Having a chat with them about how they handle the pacing mechanic would be like having a chat with someone (ie, chatting to make them change their move) about making a certain chess move or having a chat with someone not to win a stake in capes.

I think you need to make pacing mechanics which do what you want, then pitch it to them that next session your using this when you GM, or your not GM'ing. Sure, they might like the laza faire method. But you don't. If you can't offer some model of doing it which is a compromise, you just have to give the ultimatum (or go with their flow and do what you don't want to do).

As a GM, I tend to default to dictating the pacing a bit too much.  I encouraged my players to give more input on this during play, and they said they would, but then didn't.  I attributed this to my game's focus (for the players) on character play instead of system play; controlling pacing was understandably off their radar.  Plus, they're used to me doing a pretty decent job of it.

My solution was to put a "pacing dial" on the game table, just so they'd have a reminder of their options sitting in their field of vision.  It mostly gets ignored, but every once in a while helps our group speed up or slow down to optimal effect.

As GM, I never initiate a change on the dial, but for your group, it sounds like you'd probably want to.

Hope this helps,
-David

Callan wrote:
You know, these days I'd actually recommend NOT talking to your friends about it.

I mean, how is pacing handled? What mechanism controls it? It's probably just been left up to the spirit of the moment at the table.

And they are using that vague spirit thing 'correctly', as much as you can use anything ill defined correctly. Having a chat with them about how they handle the pacing mechanic would be like having a chat with someone (ie, chatting to make them change their move) about making a certain chess move or having a chat with someone not to win a stake in capes.

I think you need to make pacing mechanics which do what you want, then pitch it to them that next session your using this when you GM, or your not GM'ing. Sure, they might like the laza faire method. But you don't. If you can't offer some model of doing it which is a compromise, you just have to give the ultimatum (or go with their flow and do what you don't want to do).

Yeah, I haven't mentioned anything about it yet, specifically as everyone seems to be having a great time. :)

But in other discussions on the HotB forums i'm beginning to realise that I haven't been running the game exactly right - doing the equivalent of letting the character do over their actions again and again.. hence why it feels like its taking so long...

But - something learnt from this - a) my players LOVE having direct input, so empowering them is a good thing. b) making a interpreted summary of those rules might be a good thing as they are not really clear :(
c) most importatnly - to be gentle and keep everyone enjoying the game - sudden unexpected changes will annoy everyone :)

Falc, taking a stand for what you want is always going to be confrontational to some degree - either that or your not really taking a stand for it and what you want is getting diluted.

Now perhaps I should have said talking about a new game system is fine. Even one that uses alot of the previous system.

But talking about the way they play? They are playing the games rules (what rules there are) the way they want to right now. To talk about it is to literally say 'Lets talk about you playing in a way, to varying degrees, you don't want to'.

I mean, that's what I'm taking from the actual play account right now - they are playing the way they want to. Would you also say that's the case?

So to talk with them (the talk your refering to) about how they play is to bring up the idea of them not doing what they want to do. That's the conclusion I come to. Am I missing with the conclusion or am I off base with the foundation assessment that they are playing the way they want? I'm genuinely asking this, not saying it in the traditional internet way of 'Of course I'm right!'. I may be wrong and am interested in recieving evidence that might indicate that.

Dionysus wrote: But in other discussions on the HotB forums i'm beginning to realise that I haven't been running the game exactly right - doing the equivalent of letting the character do over their actions again and again.. hence why it feels like its taking so long...

Yeah, I haven't mentioned anything about it yet, specifically as everyone seems to be having a great time. :)

Alternatively it's actually a bug in the games design that they can just keep trying till they pass. I mean, I could go write a quick design that is deliberately buggy this way and no, it wouldn't be your fault if you didn't make failure explosive, it's my fault as designer for writing it that way.

Just thought I'd chime in with the world's mildest example of what Raven's talking about, as a halfway compromise to not changing anything at all:

Player: "After that harsh speech, I'm rolling to intimidate him."  Rolls to Intimidate.  Fails.
GM: "He laughs in your face.  He was unimpressed, and now intimidating him will be even harder.  Say, a -1 penalty."

As far as ways to resolve an interaction go, this could still be very slow, but also nicely detailed and with its own mini dramatic arc.  That seems compatible with what you've described of your group's play style.

I find it is easier, when you aren't used to treating failure as interesting, to use explosions as a way to wean yourself off the idea that "you fail and that's just that". Once you get to where you're comfortable doing things with failure, to start moderating it.

It's like learning to throw a baseball. The first thing you learn is to throw it as hard as you can. Once you've got that down, then you concentrate on accuracy. You don't do it the other way around because accuracy doesn't count for shit if you can't even reach the target.

Seriously, I talk about explosions, but look at my example from the 3:16 game: that's pretty low-key. But the point is it changed the situation. The player didn't just "try over" after I said that, he thought about it for a minute, then tried to scavenge parts from their crashed drop pods to build a bigger transmitter before trying again. The failure added flesh to the narrative that wouldn't have existed if the character just sat and played with his radio knobs all night (ie: rolled and re-rolled).

To make the sessions stop dragging:
I haven't played Houses of the Blooded yet, but it seems to me to be a scenario where people are expected to do a lot of scheming. It could be that the players are taking their time, setting up the many webs within webs within Bold! that the Ven are supposed to do. Setting up the table just right so that they can yank the tablecloth out from beneath it, with Style! It could be that the scheming is their fun, so don't change it.

On the other hand, if you want to interject a faster pace, then "clock" it.  Have the actions take up a certain amount time, so that each player gets one action before it is time to dress for dinner. They have time for one key conversation at dinner. Before the Count falls asleep, they can accomplish one thing. During the night, they can accomplish one more action.  And so on: they only get so much "prep" time for their schemes, and they have to work them out on the fly. (Instead of planting all the rumors and conversing with all the NPCs as they walk in the door.

To make scenes stop dragging is a different set of Techniques, and I like greyorm's ideas.
-Fred

Thanks!
The last two from graygorm and Fred are particularly interesting.
I'll definitely try that in our next session.

jburneko wrote:
This is actually my #1 issue with Houses stated with the caveat that I have never played it.  It lacks a resolution system.  When you roll dice all you're doing is breaking up "who talks."  The dice decide and declare nothing.

I have one way to stop a scene dragging; find a way to add something you enjoy!

What is it you like about events progressing? Is there stuff they are doing that could be happily spread over multiple scenes? (So you change the scenery more often but they still get to plot, more like planning scenes in ocean's eleven or something) Can you add more of the dynamics you are interested in while still staying in the same scene? (I think shifting to the correct rules will probably help with that, along the lines of what people have suggested) Also, is it possible to "shift modes", so that when they are into slow plotting or planning you have npcs or environment descriptions that are still interesting to you, just different from the kind of fun you have when things speed up?

I often find as a player that in games like shadowrun for example; often split into legwork and the run itself, I have two very different kinds of fun from making a plan and then having it fall apart, if the GM can have similarly differentiated fun in the two sections (sometimes based on hiding flaws in the plan and other anticipative "meanness" in the slow section, or just adding amusing npcs or references) then no-one is tapping their feat waiting for the next bit, everyone has something they like.

You may be able to find a place for compromise that has not yet been considered.