In basically every game I've run or played, regardless of the system, I've encountered the same problem: things that should be quick decisions end up taking ten, twenty or even thirty minutes, and not for any really good reason. Gameplay generally goes something like:
GM: Okay, you're standing on the edge of the forest.
Player 1: Okay, I ready my bow and start forward.
Player 2: Hold on, I'm still talking to this other guy.
Player 3: Did we stock up on bread? I need to put on my night vision goggles.
Player 4: [Crazy roleplaying thing!]
GM: Okay, are you guys going into the forest?
Player 1: I am, yeah.
GM: Okay, but are you going alone? Is anyone else going?
Player 2: One sec, I need to cast detect evil.
GM: Okay, what about everybody else? Is player 1 in the forest by herself? What's happening?
And so on …
Since part of the point of playing roleplaying games is being able to manifest your own character and make your own decisions, it's hard for any one player to enforce a consensus in the group (except in some rare cases), and it's even harder for me as a GM to justify undermining player agency by just saying, "Okay, well you're all in the forest now." What if Player 2 feels cheated because he didn't get to cast detect evil and find the scary monsters? But at the same time, when this kind of hemming and hawing happens constantly, even at not particularly crucial moments, the game really starts to drag, and more action-oriented players start to tune out. So basically, this question has two parts:
-
As a GM, how can I design adventures to minimize these moments?
-
How can I move players smoothly past these moments when they do arise?
I'm not interested in answers that use a stopwatch or other artificial method of advancing the game, because I find that breaks immersion. I'm looking for storytelling and facilitation techniques. Pointing out game systems that specifically avoid this is also welcome.
Also, as a corollary, is there anything that individual players can do to help things along?
Best Answer
Maybe I'm treating the question as more specific than it needs to be, but in your example it appears to me as though player 1's agency is being denied. Twice she stated her action clearly, and yet somehow she failed to get the results of that action back from you.
You don't have to wait until all players are agreed before allowing a player to act. Now, OK, you don't want the party to split unless really necessary, but until they're actually out of earshot of each other, let each player get on with what they want to do. Running through your example hopefully will show the principles I mean:
Principles:
Now, there's a whole other scenario you have to be able to deal with:
In this case you have mass analysis-paralysis. There are a few ways to break it:
Specifically tell the players that their precise plan doesn't matter. As soon as any encounter begins you will prompt them for their formation, and you will allow for sensible precautions. This doesn't suit all playing styles, but it saves a lot of time making preparations for things that never happen. The game style issue you want to resolve is, will the players be punished for acting without thorough explicit preparation? If so, then that might be why Player 3 is worried about bread, and it's the nature of a "10 foot pole to check for traps" game.
An extreme version of this is to run the game such that whatever the players suggest is considered reasonable. The world conforms to their expectations rather than the other way around. Then they don't need to plan at all, and the way to reach group agreement is not to wait until everyone agrees, it's to take turns to speak, and agree with and build on whatever the previous person said. They can improvise, they can take turns to contribute, and no matter how stupid what they do is, you will respond "yes, and...". Not "no, because" or "oh, this other thing first needs to happen first", or "you do that but you die because you never said you'd put your armour on". Again, this won't suit all styles, it's not very simulation-y. But they'll stop doing pointless boring things, because any interesting thing they think of is worth saying.
Guide the players through making the plan. You don't want to give them too much OOC information, but usually the characters have expertise that the players don't, and you can bolster their confidence by confirming their guesses and supplying general information at the right times. Confident people make decisions quicker:
Design adventures so that the party doesn't have a lot of time to waste. You don't have to railroad, but make sure that there is always something happening to them. They can deal with it however they like, but they must act. After all, arguably if there's nothing happening to them and they're free to delay as much as they like then that's practically the definition of "downtime between sessions" ;-) So, players don't arrive at the edge of a forest at their own leisure, they arrive at the edge of a forest as a consequence of dealing with the previous problem:
Finally, be aware that "keeping the game moving" doesn't need to mean physical activity or plot progression. If Player 4 goes off on a crazy roleplaying thing that the other players react to and enjoy, then it's irrelevant that it isn't part of your plan for the session. It's as much a part of the game as anything you invent. So encourage it to play out properly, and as long as it's not boring the forest can wait. Similarly, if the players just plain enjoy bickering in character over their plans, you can let that be part of what defines that particular campaign. Just build 20-30 minutes per significant group decision into your session plan. Less work for you!
To do this you need to get buy-in from the "more action-oriented players". If all they like is combat then that's pretty much a non-starter, you can't run a game this way for them. But otherwise you need to stop them tuning out by soliciting their responses, and making those responses matter in the conversation. A frustrated character who spends the whole argument saying, "we need to stop arguing about this and get into the forest" in 10 different ways is still an active player. One trick is to keep track of who is speaking, and if someone hasn't spoken for a while specifically ask them, "what do you think, what are you doing while this is going on?". That gives the player the freedom to take a turn in the conversation, or for that matter to wander off into trouble if they like. If you frequently find that you ask a player what they're doing and they say "nothing" and tune back out again, then you still have a problem and need to address personally with that player what they need from the game. Some players enjoy spectating for some of the time, and might look tuned out when they aren't, so you do need to ask.