As a DM I have the bad habit of focusing too much on minutiae of player turns. I know, because I've had players tell me about it.
What I mean is that when tinkering with the environment (i.e. outside of the combat action economy) I let them play they action in detail, and the NPCs or the environment respond in detail, so at some point we kinda lose idea of time and single turn actions completely take over the scene and drag it out. And if the player interacts with the party, I let them do stuff too, but again within the same minutiae, and the whole momentum dies out. This has the unwanted side effect of muddying the scene and it gets harder in my mind to find a proper break point so I kind of feel compelled to continue dragging things until a proper end scene/curtain fall is achieved, which is almost every time too late.
Basically, it's boring. How to make it not boring? Is it ok in an OSR dungeon crawl to treat the scenes more... well, cinematic - with more frequent spotlight change and faster action resolution? If so, how are described actions played out in the proper spirit of OSR?
And another question, somehow related to the slow scene progression. Is it ok to not ask for consent (no, not that kind) from everyone when they presumably do something as a group? Like, if someone says "I enter the dungeon", should I ask everyone if they are following or just go to the next scene if no one objects. I usually ask every one what they're doing because I don't want to retcon descriptions if someone changes their mind, but it doesn't do much other than drag things out. What is the OSR way of handling it or is it that my group just doesn't want to be bothered with such matters?
I know I sound like I'm asking for permission, so read "is it ok" as "is it usually done like this"? ;)
Quote from: theOutlander on October 07, 2020, 07:38:48 AM
Basically, it's boring. How to make it not boring? Is it ok in an OSR dungeon crawl to treat the scenes more... well, cinematic - with more frequent spotlight change and faster action resolution? If so, how are described actions played out in the proper spirit of OSR?
There is no proper spirit of OSR. Make the game your own. If you are bored of describing every empty room and each spider-web ridden corner, don't do it, skip them in a single sentence. "You pass several empty rooms until you reach..."
You might not believe this, but people have been playing this game very differently from each other since day 1.
These are really good questions.
Quote from: theOutlander on October 07, 2020, 07:38:48 AM
Basically, it's boring. How to make it not boring? Is it ok in an OSR dungeon crawl to treat the scenes more... well, cinematic - with more frequent spotlight change and faster action resolution? If so, how are described actions played out in the proper spirit of OSR?
Absolutely, yes! Cinematic with fast changes is exactly how OSR works best for me. More generally, actions are
abstract and encompassing: "You dive across the chasm, somersault, and suddenly stab the troll in the belly with your dagger!" is a description of
one action, not three. Be broad, even generous in your cinematic description.
Quote from: theOutlander on October 07, 2020, 07:38:48 AM
And another question, somehow related to the slow scene progression. Is it ok to not ask for consent (no, not that kind) from everyone when they presumably do something as a group? Like, if someone says "I enter the dungeon", should I ask everyone if they are following or just go to the next scene if no one objects. I usually ask every one what they're doing because I don't want to retcon descriptions if someone changes their mind, but it doesn't do much other than drag things out. What is the OSR way of handling it or is it that my group just doesn't want to be bothered with such matters?
Two things here: first of all, yes, it is fine to ask if everyone is doing what one person declares. Essential, even, to prevent some players from dominating others in many cases. "Is that the group decision?" or "Horvax enters the room, does everyone follow?" are perfectly fine questions and ensure that each player has autonomy and jurisdiction over their own character's decisions.
Back in the day, when groups tended to be larger and table-level consent was harder to come by organically, it used to be that each party established a "caller", which would be that player responsible for communicating to the DM what the entire party is doing (according to some pre-established guidelines, i.e. the "marching order" in which the characters always progressed through the dungeon.) Here "consent" is established by the mechanic, before play begins, and it's up to the players to choose a caller they trust, and to check that caller with their own input as the game plays out.
The second thing is:
you do not need to retcon anything or let players "change their mind"! It's perfectly OK to tell them "too late," and move on to the next player. That said, a well-placed "Are you
sure you want to do that?" can do wonders to avoid attempted takebacks.
Note that even with a "caller", it is always possible for a player to have his character not follow what the caller has stated. When working correctly, there will be a slight pause in the caller stating the action and the GM adjudicating the resolution--to give a player a chance to say, "Wait!"
A good caller will get a sense of when there might be doubt and consult with the party. In effect, the caller is the person designated to work out "Are we good with everyone doing X, or do we need the GM to drill-down to a more play-by-play procedure right now?" Once they have that worked out, then the caller relates what they need.
This will not necessarily make the game move faster, though. What it does is prevent the GM from being a bottleneck when there is disagreement among the players about the proper course of action. So whether it helps or not with your issue is questionable. If the GM has other things he could be doing during such disagreements that will overall help the game move faster, it might help.
Pacing is the single most important element of an rpg session. More important than realism, characters, correctly applying rules as written, or nearly anything else that beginning and journeyman DMs obsess over in threads.
In play there is are two variables and a constant. The constant is the movement of the world apart from the PCs. The variables are the urgency with which the players approach the session, and whether either the world or PCs are attempting to impose themselves upon the other in the present moment.
To loosely use a ping pong analogy, I want to always return serve to the players immediately; put the ball back on their side of the net without delay.
When you can't do this, their attention wanders similarly to suffering slow-loading websites.
Do you care how accurate something is if it takes five minutes to load and is splashed with a bunch of shut you have to click through to get to what you're trying to read/watch? No, you don't sit there and watch the hourglass spin. You check out somewhere else until the page loads.
A lot of DMs are shitty web pages filled with ads for crap you're not there for
Now if they fuck around with their urgency, and that independent constant of a world imposes itself on them - now the players must volley at the pace imposed.
And everyone stays engrossed
Do you use random encounter / wandering monster rolls?
What you're really asking is a pacing question, and the use of various sources of pressure to keep players from taking too long inspecting every square foot of dungeon is important. You need time pressure to make them have to decide if it's worth it to waste time on something. At that point the players will decide on their own to move on -- and if they don't, you have to follow through on the threat. When they see waiting too long almost got them killed (or did get someone killed) they will not only be more engaged in the game, paying more attention to details out of necessity, because they have to make sure it's actually important, it will also ensure the game moves faster.
Thanks for the responses!
Reflecting on the answers, I think the root of the problem lies indeed in the urgency imposed on the party. The stakes in question for each action.
And the hidden culprit - dead ends. What if the party stumbles at a puzzle, or can't find the hidden thing, or doesn't think for the proper way to exit the room: should I throw waves of random encounters at them, or let them die because of failed search roll/missed clue? I'm not sure how to handle such events, because if I improv a couple of times or give them leeway, it becomes a habit and then it's a matter of WHEN not IF they progress. And the WHEN part is what drags out.
Quote from: theOutlander on October 08, 2020, 07:29:58 AM
Thanks for the responses!
Reflecting on the answers, I think the root of the problem lies indeed in the urgency imposed on the party. The stakes in question for each action.
And the hidden culprit - dead ends. What if the party stumbles at a puzzle, or can't find the hidden thing, or doesn't think for the proper way to exit the room: should I throw waves of random encounters at them, or let them die because of failed search roll/missed clue? I'm not sure how to handle such events, because if I improv a couple of times or give them leeway, it becomes a habit and then it's a matter of WHEN not IF they progress. And the WHEN part is what drags out.
You let the random encounters hit them, and if they die they die -- that's what creates the urgency for them to decide they should leave and move on.
Unless you don't like doing a game with deaths and want it more heroic?
The inherent danger in many old school games is its potential lethality. If you think about it, the Dungeon Fantasy milieu truly is a horror scenario. Play it that way.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 08, 2020, 08:46:08 AM
Unless you don't like doing a game with deaths and want it more heroic?
No, not really. I'm probably care bearing my players though. :D
The Old School Way is:
1. Out of combat in the dungeon, PCs do one thing per ten minute Turn. You take the input, roll and resolve, go to next Turn.
2. The Party Caller tells you what the party is doing, so you don't need to get consent from every player. Players can say "no I don't" of course.
Quote from: theOutlander on October 08, 2020, 07:29:58 AM
Thanks for the responses!
Reflecting on the answers, I think the root of the problem lies indeed in the urgency imposed on the party. The stakes in question for each action.
And the hidden culprit - dead ends. What if the party stumbles at a puzzle, or can't find the hidden thing, or doesn't think for the proper way to exit the room: should I throw waves of random encounters at them, or let them die because of failed search roll/missed clue? I'm not sure how to handle such events, because if I improv a couple of times or give them leeway, it becomes a habit and then it's a matter of WHEN not IF they progress. And the WHEN part is what drags out.
TL;DR don't make winning rigid or built around your preference
If the adventure requires passing through a knothole vs failure/abandonment, then the DM is setting themselves up for failure/abandonment
My general philosophy is to design every scenario from the position that the players are going to straight-up frontally assault it. There must be a success path requiring little thought, roleplaying, strategy, etc.
This doesn't have to be easy, or even likely, but plausible (and sometimes it shouldn't be hard or dumb). A group taking this path can say "well, we died trying" if it doesn't work out.
Then you can built in other elements that short-circuit this journeyman sort of default play that reward the thinking, devious, diplomatic, scheming, superior player. There will be multiple alternative paths of these sorts, that makes success easier but aren't
necessary Otherwise you're playing "bring me a rock" as much as you're playing D&D. And you'll have to end up giving them that rock yourself anyway, most of the time.
Quote from: EOTB on October 08, 2020, 06:24:09 PM
Quote from: theOutlander on October 08, 2020, 07:29:58 AM
Thanks for the responses!
Reflecting on the answers, I think the root of the problem lies indeed in the urgency imposed on the party. The stakes in question for each action.
And the hidden culprit - dead ends. What if the party stumbles at a puzzle, or can't find the hidden thing, or doesn't think for the proper way to exit the room: should I throw waves of random encounters at them, or let them die because of failed search roll/missed clue? I'm not sure how to handle such events, because if I improv a couple of times or give them leeway, it becomes a habit and then it's a matter of WHEN not IF they progress. And the WHEN part is what drags out.
TL;DR don't make winning rigid or built around your preference
If the adventure requires passing through a knothole vs failure/abandonment, then the DM is setting themselves up for failure/abandonment
My general philosophy is to design every scenario from the position that the players are going to straight-up frontally assault it. There must be a success path requiring little thought, roleplaying, strategy, etc.
This doesn't have to be easy, or even likely, but plausible (and sometimes it shouldn't be hard or dumb). A group taking this path can say "well, we died trying" if it doesn't work out.
Then you can built in other elements that short-circuit this journeyman sort of default play that reward the thinking, devious, diplomatic, scheming, superior player. There will be multiple alternative paths of these sorts, that makes success easier but aren't necessary
Otherwise you're playing "bring me a rock" as much as you're playing D&D. And you'll have to end up giving them that rock yourself anyway, most of the time.
If they can just go head first into every threat and steamroll it then it's more like modern D&D isn't it?
If they can't go headfirst in and steamroll it, it's more like 2nd edition AD&D than it is 1970s D&D.
Killing them all and letting Crom pick them out is almost always not the best way to get through one of my adventures. But neither is it a futile way to get through my adventures, or a slightly-punished way to go through my adventures (beyond the punishment opponents can plausibly dish back out to invading PCs)
I thought OSR was all about avoiding fights to get gold because the combat was ultra dangerous.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 09, 2020, 05:08:49 AM
I thought OSR was all about avoiding fights to get gold because the combat was ultra dangerous.
Myth. People were killing monsters and taking their stuff since day 1. You just gotta be smart about it.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 09, 2020, 05:08:49 AM
I thought OSR was all about avoiding fights to get gold because the combat was ultra dangerous.
This depends on a whole host of factors; if you have 8th level PCs in a 4th level dungeon certainly they can likely wade through the enemy - XP probably won't be great but can still be fun. If the PCs have access to Raise Dead then more force on force play also becomes more viable.
After 1st level (maybe 3rd level) OD&D combat is not *inherently* ultra dangerous. 'Delving too deep' or other risky activity can be, of course.
To second what S'mon said - in OSR there are rounds and turns. Rounds (Short, usually 10 seconds or so, but sometimes longer) are for combat actions. Turns (10 mins, usually) are for non-combat where time is important. Learning when to switch between these 2 is an important skill.
In terms of boredom - if fights are going on too long - are you rolling for monsters morale? That can cut short a long fight quickly. Similarly, if people are roleplaying every last interaction with a merchant, feel free to cut it short and ask for a roll/say bartering is over, cost is Xgp, take it or leave it. You are the GM, putting on your Viking hat is allowed occasionally, especially to alleviate boredom!
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 09, 2020, 05:08:49 AM
I thought OSR was all about avoiding fights to get gold because the combat was ultra dangerous.
In my experience, it's about having options. For example, it should be possible to steamroll right through the barricaded/guarded front door, but that would be high risk and likely end up wasting a ton of resources (life, hit points, spells, etc). It should also be possible for a smart group to do some recon with stealth, spells, etc to discover a sneaky way to avoid that resource-draining route. Maybe they find another entrance, maybe they charm a guard, maybe they disguise themselves somehow. Fighting through the heavily-protected front door is the sucker's route. /shrug
Yeah, exactly. There's a difference between rewarding/encouraging a style of play and mandating it.
Good Players often don't have to frontally assault everything
No player is never going to frontally assault anything
Quote from: S'mon on October 09, 2020, 06:37:37 AMThis depends on a whole host of factors; if you have 8th level PCs in a 4th level dungeon certainly they can likely wade through the enemy - XP probably won't be great but can still be fun.
Wading through the 4th dungeon level could be very dangerous. For the 4th level of the dungeon, the OD&D random monster table gives a 1/6 chance of an opponents of ~ 4th - 6th level, 1/3 chance of an opponents of ~ 6th or 7th level, 1/3 chance of an opponents of 8th or 9th level, and a 1/6 chance of an opponents of 10th or 11th level or higher so a 50% chance that the opponent you meet is at least your level.
DM:
I know what you're thinking. 'Did he roll a six on the Wandering Monster table or did he only roll a one. Well to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I kind of lost track myself. But being that this is the 4th level of the dungeon and monster on the sixth table would tear your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?'
Well do ya, punk?
Quote from: Bren on October 09, 2020, 02:46:12 PM
Quote from: S'mon on October 09, 2020, 06:37:37 AMThis depends on a whole host of factors; if you have 8th level PCs in a 4th level dungeon certainly they can likely wade through the enemy - XP probably won't be great but can still be fun.
Wading through the 4th dungeon level could be very dangerous. For the 4th level of the dungeon, the OD&D random monster table gives a 1/6 chance of an opponents of ~ 4th - 6th level, 1/3 chance of an opponents of ~ 6th or 7th level, 1/3 chance of an opponents of 8th or 9th level, and a 1/6 chance of an opponents of 10th or 11th level or higher so a 50% chance that the opponent you meet is at least your level.
DM: I know what you're thinking. 'Did he roll a six on the Wandering Monster table or did he only roll a one. Well to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I kind of lost track myself. But being that this is the 4th level of the dungeon and monster on the sixth table would tear your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?'
Well do ya, punk?
:) I'm only really familiar with the 1e DMG system - reduced numbers of high level monsters on upper dungeon levels make the risk fairly manageable for mid-high parties if they are of the envisaged size I think, anything like the 9-member NPC parties.
Quote from: theOutlander on October 08, 2020, 07:29:58 AMAnd the hidden culprit - dead ends. What if the party stumbles at a puzzle, or can't find the hidden thing, or doesn't think for the proper way to exit the room: should I throw waves of random encounters at them, or let them die because of failed search roll/missed clue? I'm not sure how to handle such events, because if I improv a couple of times or give them leeway, it becomes a habit and then it's a matter of WHEN not IF they progress. And the WHEN part is what drags out.
If the dungeon is designed in such a way that failing to solve a single puzzle or finding a thing brings exploration to a halt, then that's a bad dungeon. There's a lot to old-school dungeon design, and this post elsewhere (https://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=8720) is a good starting point, especially since the linear dungeons described in it are exactly the type where such bad bottlenecks can easily occur.
If the problem is that the players DO have the option to just turn around and explore some other part of the dungeon
but consistently decide not to, and instead get hung up on the problem at hand, that's a problem of bad players. Keep rolling for random encounters at the intervals prescribed by the game, and also make sure to keep track of when their torches and lamps will run out of fuel and go out. After the second or third (near-TPK) under such circumstances, you'll want to sit down and talk with them about whether they've noticed the reason for their regualr failures, and just flat out TELL them why they suck if they're still too dumb to figure it out.
I've been doing real-time dungeoncrawling in my Roll20 campaign.
E.g. if an effect takes 1 hour, set a real timer for an hour.
The players explore by moving their tokens around the map with arrow keys, so the passage of real-time maps in-game time pretty closely.
Quote from: Libramarian on October 11, 2020, 12:57:28 PM
I've been doing real-time dungeoncrawling in my Roll20 campaign.
E.g. if an effect takes 1 hour, set a real timer for an hour.
The players explore by moving their tokens around the map with arrow keys, so the passage of real-time maps in-game time pretty closely.
Interesting!
I guess time does actually map pretty closely, if you take a 1 hour Short Rest in game after each 5-round combat that takes 1 hour IRL. :D
Of course I did have 9 players last night in Roll20, so might have slightly skewed experience....
How would you all run the scene with the trash compactor in Star Wars if the compactor could be dealt with from the inside either by disarming it or breaking the mechanism somehow? This use case presumes that the whole party is in the compactor and at least the first couple of checks (if any, by your rulings) fail.
Things to include - how many turns, order of PC actions, how and what to roll (if required) and DC, whatever else you think is important to include. The system of choice doesn't matter as long as it is OSR-ish.
It may not the smartest or best designed puzzle, but I think it's illustrative enough.
I will try to make time for a longer answer, but here's my core thoughts on OSR dungeoncrawling (which I love more than any other form of RPGing).
1) I run the dungeon as Haunted House. Every "trick" from horror RPGing is on the table when I run dungeons.
2) This House belongs to the Monsters, not the PCs. (aka, many of them know its secrets and they will use that constantly to their advantage). This is enemy territory and the PCs are the invaders, often clueless, noisy invaders.
3) Wandering Monsters are your friend. As with #2, imagine how the various denizens move through the dungeon, why and where, and what they leave behind as they travel.
Here's a fun question to muse. If the dungeon is in darkness and the PCs have a light source, how far away can that light be seen...and what do monsters think and do when they sense the light?
Quote from: theOutlander on October 12, 2020, 05:26:31 PM
How would you all run the scene with the trash compactor in Star Wars if the compactor could be dealt with from the inside either by disarming it or breaking the mechanism somehow? This use case presumes that the whole party is in the compactor and at least the first couple of checks (if any, by your rulings) fail.
Things to include - how many turns, order of PC actions, how and what to roll (if required) and DC, whatever else you think is important to include. The system of choice doesn't matter as long as it is OSR-ish.
It may not the smartest or best designed puzzle, but I think it's illustrative enough.
It's just a trap, not a scene.
Are you trying to control the micro? This feels like a DM trying to control the micro
I write up places and situations as they exist before and apart from players. Then I introduce players and the environment reacts to whatever they do. I'm not trying to make any particular event/sequence/etc happens. If I know how the adventure mostly plays out, that's very boring. I expect the players to surprise me, and we end up somewhere nobody really expected when we sat down.
I'm definitely not thinking "ok, in round 3 this is the likely player action" or whatever. Instead, I'm thinking about what the plans/tendencies of "my side" are, and playing that straight, win lose or draw. Don't try to get into your players heads, get into the head(s) of your NPCs and monsters - why did they build this trap, what is their likely ability and tendencies, and what did they make the trap to do? Then run that.
The players are likely to react in a way you didn't foresee. Extrapolate according to whatever knowns you laid out beforehand. If the players defeat it easily, congratulate them. It it turns them all into paste, commiserate with them as you pull out the blank character sheets.
Just relax. This isn't supposed to be hard, because the DM isn't doing more than set up the playground - trying to guide the play is where things go south most of the time. You're playing an honest version of their opposition, reacting and acting as circumstances-yet-to-be-known will make clear in that moment.
Fair enough. But what does "control the micro" mean?
Trying to guide/plan what happens after contact, specific to the players. (Obviously every NPC/monster has a plan. I mean specific to the players' play experience)
I agree for the most part -- you don't want to try to micromanage things.
BUT -- it's a lie that you don't want to think of their experience, right? When you think of what encounters and monsters to put down, before you get into the monsters heads, you're deciding what would be fun to play. You don't want to set things up so it becomes an unbearable slog. So from the start, you do take the player experience into account when designing a scene. It's just that once the thing starts you play it out instead of trying to control what the players themselves do.
Of course. Micromanagement doesn't mean something drastically different than its common usage in the workplace.
Quote from: S'mon on October 11, 2020, 04:25:37 PM
Quote from: Libramarian on October 11, 2020, 12:57:28 PM
I've been doing real-time dungeoncrawling in my Roll20 campaign.
E.g. if an effect takes 1 hour, set a real timer for an hour.
The players explore by moving their tokens around the map with arrow keys, so the passage of real-time maps in-game time pretty closely.
Interesting!
I guess time does actually map pretty closely, if you take a 1 hour Short Rest in game after each 5-round combat that takes 1 hour IRL. :D
Of course I did have 9 players last night in Roll20, so might have slightly skewed experience....
With TSR D&D I find even combat is pretty close to real-time. I do assume the 1e one minute combat round, since I use 1e spells, many of which have durations given in rounds.
E.g. I have Hold Person lasting for ~10-20 RL minutes, and so if cast in combat, it might wear off before the combat ends.
In the case of a complex combat that is clearly taking much longer to resolve IRL than in-game, I would probably delay the results of timers until after the battle. E.g. wait until after the combat is over to check for a Wandering Monster & reset the timer.
Although the party's light source going out during combat IS very fun :D