This entry is part 2 in the series Further thoughts on Pacing

water-droplet-1287309-m

Having established in part one of this series that a pause or interruption to play or to the primary plot being deployed within the game can be more than a necessary inconvenience, it can be a tool whose manipulation by a savvy GM or TV producer can enhance the game or production, it’s time to take a closer look at the anatomy of an interruption.

End, Middle, and Beginning

While studying various television shows as research for this article – all right, paying attention to the breaks and surrounding content while watching – I determined that all the different types of activity pre-interruption could be abstracted into four simple categories, and that the same four categories also described (in the abstract) all the types of activity that followed an interruption.

Having identified those four types of pre- and post- break material, I began to notice that even in the course of presenting content, television programs often interrupt their own content in various ways, to heighten drama, provide narrative counterpoints, infuse irony, or enhance the entertainment value of the primary plot sequence. These were identifiable by the fact that after the interruption, the scene that had been taking place prior to the interruption would continue, though often at a different intensity or with added relevance or emotional context by virtue of the interruption.

By now, I was certain that the observations that I was making were relevant to RPGs, and would form the basis of an interesting article (or series, as it worked out) here at Campaign Mastery. When I began to actually contemplate the application, however, I discovered still more forms that a pause or interruption in play could take, and that some of these were actually almost inevitably built into the mechanics of many of the most popular games simply because that was the most practical time for them to occur.

By the time I was finished, I had 9 types of pause, break, or interruption. Each has it’s own utility from a plot/metagame perspective beyond any intrinsic purpose that it might hold, and each can be manipulated to the benefit of the game, particularly by combining two or more together. But that’s getting a little ahead of myself; Part three four of this series will deal with practical application, though I’m sure a few bits and pieces will manifest as we proceed.

Today’s article defines these elements of a break – the end of the content prior to the break, the beginning of the content that follows the break, and the different types of interruption that can go in-between: End, Middle, and Beginning.

Refining The Concept 1: Pre-pause peaks

Before any sort of pause, the content needs to reach a peak in intensity relative to the starting point of the scene that is being interrupted. Such peaks can be a call to action, a call to interaction, or a call to reflection.

(a) Peaks That Prompt Action

Decisions made that are about to be implemented, confrontations that are about to resolve into combat, or the identification of a need to perform some other sort of action, all are peaks that prompt action. Someone is about to do something.

But before they can begin doing so, there is an interruption or break, which serves to heighten the anticipation of the event that is about to take place.

Such breaks posses two essential attributes that need to be noted:

  • Anticipation can become frustration if the significance of the action does not exceed the negative value of the pause duration.
  • Re-entry into the scene post-break is more readily achieved because of the simple 1:1 relationship between the need to act in a certain way and actually acting in that manner.
  • Emotional intensity is easily lost following a pause if the rejoin takes place at the moment of result rather than the moment of action.

Let me explain each of these a little more substantially:

Frustration

There are two forces that act during a pause or interruption: an upward trend in intensity caused by anticipation, and a tendency for that anticipation to turn into frustration. The greater the initial impetus caused by the pre-break situation, the longer it takes for the second effect to overcome the first. If you were to plot the emotional demand for resolution, ie the intensity, over time, the intensity is analogous to the altitude of a projectile, the first force to the vertical component of the initial kinetic energy of the projectile and the second to the force of gravity acting on the object.

Successful re-entry into the scene is the equivalent of the projectile reaching it’s target at the initial intensity or higher; once it’s downward velocity exceeds the initial input, frustration dominates, and the interruption will have a negative effect on game-play entertainment value.

The more initial impetus there is, the longer the break can be before negative effects overcome the positive ones. Note that once the “projectile” has been launched, you have little-or-no control over it; the point at which intensity maximizes is more or less fixed.

The more-or-less in that last statement exists because there are some forms of break activity that can act as equipping the “projectile” with a rocket engine: adding relevance in some manner, or players spontaneously speculating on the significance or outcome, for example – in other words, if the break is of a nature that it adds relevance, importance, or drama to the scene that has been interrupted.

Crucially, if the initial impetus is strong enough, one mechanism by which players can relieve early frustration is by venting it through such speculation; this, of course, can only occur if they interact socially during the break. If the group breaks up and goes in different directions, or if the nature of the interruption does not permit such interaction, this effect can’t be used. If the action is of a minor nature, the outcome will not be significant enough or interesting enough to prompt such speculation.

Consequently, the ability to manipulate the entertainment value of such scenes depends on achieving the correct combination of pre-break action and break-type.

Decision-to-action

Character A decides to do something – at which point, instead of resolving the action, there is an interruption of some sort. When the scene resumes, it is natural to restart it with the character putting that decision into action.

So strong is this relationship that any other sort of reentry into the scene is problematic, and likely to have a negative impact on the entertainment value of play overall. Even if there is to be an immediate transition to some other form of post-break content, it will “play” more smoothly if you permit the character to at least start doing whatever they had decided to do.

Decision-to-outcome

It is often considered expedient, especially if available time is running short, to return to the initial scene at the moment that the action produces results, rather than playing through the process of achieving those results. While better than transitioning to some other form of content during the scene continuation by virtue of the decision-action connection described above, the gameplay is never as satisfying to anyone because the action itself is not present to be viscerally satisfying.

This is always a compromise, valuing expediency above satisfaction; being aware of this can enable a more reasoned decision by the GM as to the utility of this compromise.

However, where an action will require considerable game time, a further compromise is possible: the GM can return to the action after the action has commenced but prior to an outcome being achieved. He can then acknowledge the time and events that have occurred “off-camera”, abbreviating the total process but still establishing and utilizing the decision-action connection. Like all successful compromises, the utility of this approach falls somewhere in-between the two alternatives. So this is a better choice than cutting directly to the outcome, while still reducing the time requirement to less than would have been required to play through the entire action.

The more high-paced the scene in question, the more acceptable this dramatic shortcut becomes, making this a useful technique in its own right – one that requires a pause or interruption to the scene in order for it to be useful!

(b) Peaks That Prompt Strong Interaction

Interaction is conversation between a PC and another character, either a second PC or an NPC. Strong interactions are heated, or otherwise possessed of emotional intensity. A character might propose marriage, for example – provided that this doesn’t come completely out of the blue, so that it has some emotional foundation, this would qualify as a strong interaction.

Strong interactions are wonderful in that they can successfully lead to any sort of post-break content within the scene. Take an accusation of betrayal, for example: post-break, this can lead directly to action (a physical response to the accusation), to a continuation of the strong interaction (melodrama), to a weak interaction (non-aggressive emotional response), or to Introspection/Analysis. No other type of pre-break content is as universal. That’s why a break is naturally-tolerated after a melodramatic pronouncement, regardless of the content of the overall production/adventure.

The only time post-break scenes fall flat following such strong interaction is when the subsequent scene does not contain acknowledgement of the strong interaction of some sort. Pretending it didn’t happen might be an occasional human reaction to such a scene, and can be quite satisfactory – but not if there’s a break in between!

But this type of lead-in to a break is even more flexible than it already seems; it’s perfectly justifiable for the content to be of a completely different nature provided that it is going to prompt a strong interaction after the break. Discovering evidence of an infidelity, for example, can precede a break – provided that the next time the action returns to the character making the discovery, they engage in a strong interaction of some sort, i.e. display some sort of intense emotional response to the discovery. This can be anything from having it out with the character in question to discussing the matter with a third party to plotting some sort of revenge, or even a strong denial of the evidence.

(c) Peaks That Prompt Weak Interaction

In contrast, these make the very worst sort of content for preceding a break. They have virtually no intensity, by definition, and next to no momentum to sustain interest through the break. The consequent tendency is to “overact” outrageously when returning to the scene, trying to make it seem more significant and intense than it should be, in order to get some emotional investment in proceedings on the part of someone.

It’s so strongly tempting to say never to use one of these – but that’s too simple an answer. Under the right circumstances, a weak-interaction scene going into a pause can work extremely effectively – can even be absolutely brilliant.

The secret is to engage the players (or the audience/readers) in a way that you aren’t engaging the characters.

EG: The primary character (PC) in a scene is a two-ton gargoyle who is trying to behave in a “civilized” fashion while remaining incognito. The secondary character (PC or more probably NPC) is a normal person who has become upset over something in a previous scene. PC: “I’m told that a hot cup of tea can be very soothing. Would you like me to make you one?” Reply: “That would be wonderful, but we’re out of milk.” PC: “I’ll just go down to the corner store and get some, be right back…”

Okay, this example scene played better in my head when I first thought of it. That’s not the point; it still works as an example. The incongruity of a two-ton gargoyle trying to be inconspicuous signals clearly that a comedic passage of play is to follow; such a passage would also qualify as a low=intensity scene, but because it is engaging the players on an entirely different, meta-game, level, this will work. Despite being low-intensity from the character’s point of view, it nevertheless makes a promise of strong interaction between the GM and the players after the break – and so, it works as any other high-intensity scene would.

(d) Peaks That Prompt Introspection/Analysis

The final category of content to be considered is revelatory in nature. I discussed these in some detail in part one, so I won’t go into too much detail here. Suffice it to say that the revelation needs to be of a nature that it creates buzz, and the more unexpected it is, the more buzz it will create amongst the players as well as amongst the characters.

This sort of scene works as lead-in to a break when the competence and ability to cope with surprise of the characters is greater than that of the players, because it lets the players vent some of their surprise, or come to terms with the revelation, before play resumes. This enables them to decide just how surprised their characters should be, rather than forcing the characters to mirror the reaction of the players.

The scene itself can be of any type; the fact of its ending in a revelation is sufficient to override that nature, though it may remain a secondary characteristic of the content, favoring the use of one type of post-break content over another. A disguise or truth can be exposed in combat; a discovery can be made as a result of actions undertaken; a secret can be blurted out in a heated exchange, or revealed in a whisper; or can be uncovered through the application of painstaking detective work.

It’s also important to realize that once you challenge the players to reevaluate a situation, you cannot stop them doing so at a player level and that the results will filter through into their character’s handling of the situation, whatever it may be. The introspection/analysis will start immediately – internally, if not aloud.

Finally, a truism that must be factored in: whenever you have a break that follows a revelation, it is dramatically almost mandatory that the scene that follows relates to that revelation. Exceptions can be crafted by skilled writers, but these are so rarely successful that they would hardly bear mentioning, if it weren’t for the one thing that these exceptions have in common: a break in between. In this case, one form of discontinuity (the break) can neutralize another (the content) provided that the break is substantial enough in nature to signal the beginning of a new chapter of the plot. This works because we expect a discontinuity in between chapters of a story. A very useful technique….

Refining The Concept 2: Post-pause activity

As you can see by the preceding, the attributes of all three elements of the interruption must operate in harmony in order to achieve an optimum outcome from the break. As a general rule, you have full control over two of the three, with the exigencies of current play, plot, or the reasons why a break is mandated, dictating the third. However, also as intimated, it is sometimes possible to gain some measure of control over the third element; the technique for doing so depends on the element to be controlled.

Where the initial action is defined by what the players are doing, or what their PCs are doing in-game, which is the most frequent circumstance, you can gain control over this by deliberately inserting a scene of optimum type to precede the break and tie in with the content to follow. This is the optimum solution when a break of some sort is necessary, but you have control over the timing, and avoids the problems of breaking at the wrong time.

Where the break is being forced on you, it usually means that don’t have that option – whatever was happening has to be suspended for some real-world reason, which will also dictate the length and nature of the break. However, rather than simply restarting where you left off, you can deliberately re-start with a compatible scene that (at least partially) regenerates the tension, intensity, and mood that existed before the break, enabling a smooth resumption of play. Furthermore, you can compound one type of break with another, further manipulating the tone of the game in a positive way in terms of its entertainment value.

The final circumstance is where the tonal character of the scene that will occur post-break is known and can’t be changed. This generally occurs because the pre-break scene has already been played and the anticipation/frustration combination is already at work; you can’t insert a new back-from-the-break-scene because you need to pay off that anticipation before the game’s entertainment value falls off a cliff. This might seem as though it locks you into one course of action, but in reality it simply demands that you be a little more creative in applying the principles that this series outlines. You could, for example, compound the existing and mandated break with one that gives a “lift” to the action/intensity by increasing the significance or danger level of the scene that’s already underway. This then allows a third type of break to be inserted before the intensity curve levels off and begins to plummet into frustration which completes the connection between pre-break and post-break intensity and content.

That means that it’s essential to understand the different types of content from both ends of the break, as well as the characteristics of the interval in between. Having looked at the pre-break content, and the post-break content that most successfully connects with it, we now have to look at the other end of the plot element: the post-break content.

(e) Post-Pause Action

While it’s theoretically possible for any type of pre-break content to lead to a post-break action sequence, there is a definite hierarchy of content in terms of the general success of the overall game.

  • A pre-break peak that prompts post-pause action is a natural match, so long as you haven’t waited too long. If you have, it’s often better to “cushion the fall” with a lower-intensity post-break sequence before transitioning to the action sequence, and this is so much more effective if the lower-intensity sequence adds value to the action sequence.
  • A pre-break peak that prompts a post-break high-intensity interaction can work, but can feel awkward and forced if player emotions have had time to cool during the break – so this combination suffers from exactly the same problems, in a way, as the call-to-action frustration issue. The same solution also applies; so your choices are to transition via the break from a high-intensity interaction either to action or to a low-intensity interaction that enhances an action sequence that follows it. This is one circumstance in which you can also achieve success by targeting the players in a different way to their characters; that’s because the problem isn’t that the PCs have cooled off, it’s that the players have, and hence will no longer bring the same intensity of motivation to their play. Doing something to fire up the players again therefore solves the problem.
  • A pre-break revelation that prompts a post-break action sequence is almost as natural as going from a moment of high melodrama into an action sequence, but the nature of the revelation must support a transition to action. Quite often, a revelation doesn’t create a clear course of action in response; it is more about providing context to events that have already occurred, and inducing a threat within current or future events that cannot be combated until those events transpire. It is often more effective to segue post-break into a period of weak interaction or even further reflection/contemplation/introspection/analysis; but that can leave the game dragging and limp after a while, so it is best to only permit so much of that before inserting a sequence of mindless and unimportant action, which has the sole purpose of lifting the energy levels and pace of the game. Both roads ultimately lead to an action sequence, in other words, but some (perhaps most) revelatory content mandates getting there the long way around.
  • Worst of all is transitioning from a low-energy or weak interaction – a quiet chat between allies, or neighbors, for example – straight into an action sequence. No matter how relevant the action sequence is to the overall plot, it always feels tacked on. The solution to this problem is to redefine the scope of “action sequence” to include low-intensity actions. If your low-intensity interaction leads to a character intending to go shopping, play the shopping expedition. Then transition from the low-intensity action to a call to medium-intensity action – while the character is shopping, someone attempts to rob the store. It is then easy to transition from the medium-intensity action to full-on action – the robbery has been thwarted, the store is surrounded by Police, and the news helicopter overhead is making live reports – which lead the antagonists of the real action sequence to the PC. Alternatively, you can simply have a medium-intensity melodramatic statement – a low-key threat when the PC is discovered in a tense situation, leaving the door open for a quick-witted quip on the part of the PC and then into the action sequence! (James Bond movies have been using this trick of a rapid-escalation for decades (especially leading into the pre-title action sequence), as have the writers of Spider-man). Either way, the technique is to elevate the intensity to a medium-level in one step and thence to further elevate it into the action sequence, rather than trying to complete the jump in one step.
(f) Post-Pause Strong Interaction

I described strong interactions as the most universal of the content types when used as the closing moment of a pre-break sequence. It is almost as universal in the post-break position.

  • Going from an action sequence to a Strong Interaction works – unless there’s a break in between. Even if the game system calls for a post-action-sequence break, you are better off deferring it until after the ensuing strong interaction. I’ll talk some more on this subject in a little while, because the nature of the break shines light on how to handle this. For now, suffice it to say that the post-action break should be deferred until after the strong interaction, even if that interaction is likely to lead to a further action sequence.
  • Going from one strong interaction sequence to another can be really problematic, because there’s no contrast. Only if the tone of the two interactions is completely opposite would I contemplate it – one couple declaring their love for each other while another scream verbal abuse into the wind in a heated argument, for example, has enough contrast to make it work. Indeed, you could argue that the contrast heightens the significance of both sequences.

    Under any other circumstance I would deliberately separate the two with a low-intensity interaction or an introspective moment. Since these don’t work very well pre-break except under very restricted circumstances, the better choice most of the time is to position the low-intensity interaction post-break. However, that means that the atmosphere generated by the high-intensity interaction will persist through the course of the break, which is only acceptable if the tone was positive in some way. The lesser of two evils is often to insert low-intensity interactions on both sides of the break, even though that can be problematic in itself; tying one of the two into one of the high-intensity interactions can lift it just enough to make the transition palatable. A brief interlude in which a third character asks one of the participants in the first high-intensity exchange, “Are you OK? I can’t believe the nerve of that [fill-in-the-appropriate-term]…”, for example.

  • Going from a low-intensity interaction to a stronger interaction can happen naturally if it builds on an existing trend or undercurrent in the low-intensity interaction, and involves the same characters. Under any other circumstance, the best approach is to insert a scene or pre-scene sequence after the break which lifts the intensity to a medium level; the simplest such is to recap – in the most biased and prejudicial way possible – the reasons that the high-intensity interaction is about to take place. The bias to employ is the one that best leads to the high-intensity interaction, so it has to match in tonal value.
  • Finally, going from a period of introspection or analysis that has led to a revelation, to a high-intensity interaction, works perfectly IF the subject of the interaction is the revelation and vice-versa. Yes, this is highly melodramatic – but so long as you accept that, there’s no problem (I have a lengthy example to offer, but don’t think it’s warranted). Instead, let me turn my attention to the alternative situation – where the subject of the interaction bears no relation to the revelation. There is only one way that I know of to make this succeed, in terms of the broader narrative and overall entertainment value, and that is to employ a break that possesses attributes associated with the “end of a chapter”, as described earlier. It follows that if the break is not of that nature, you need to compound it with a break that is.
(g) Post-Pause Weak Interaction

It’s always a problem transitioning to a weak interaction after a break. There are occasions when this transition is natural, however, and not to be obstructed.

Going from any sort of high-intensity situation to a low-intensity situation only works under very limited circumstances: either the low-intensity situation must relate in subject to the preceding high-intensity situation, in which case it is effectively a winding-down of the characters involved; or the weak interaction must connect in subject to a future high-intensity situation and precede the break.

An example of the first: after the big fight, letting the victorious participants interact with each other is very natural and normal. Give the PCs time to celebrate before moving on and they will enjoy the game far more than they would otherwise – while never realizing that it is this release that boosts the entertainment value so highly. Note that it can be argued that this scene is even more effective if the break is delayed until after it takes place – even if that means inserting another low-intensity scene post-break!

An example of the second: after the big fight, the GM cuts to a scene that the PCs cannot possibly observe, showing a villain (unnamed) watching the PCs deal with the high-intensity situation, and talking ominously to himself in a manner that signifies an eventual threat to the PCs. This sort of scene is natural in comics, and occasionally shows up in movies and television as a teaser for future developments – Thanos’ appearances in various Marvel movies being a great example. This works in an RPG because it speaks directly to the players, while passing completely unnoticed by their characters; in media parlance, it breaks the fourth wall to promise “even more interesting events” in the future lives of the PCs.

The value of this type of scene can be maximized if it falls somewhere close to, but prior to, a chapter-ending break. A perfect example is showing that Darth Vader survived the final attack on the Death Star in the original Star Wars movie; this is THE scene that promises a sequel, because it shows that the threat has only been abated, not ended.

Despite the problems that go along with the proposition, going from one low-intensity scene pre-break to another, post-break, is often the most natural transition. As noted previously, the major difficulties are with the turgid, even soporific, pacing that results. If you can spice things up before and/or after such scenes with a more dynamic sequence, this can be anywhere from tolerable to brilliant. I’ve already discussed using this form of transition as a bridge between other content types, so there isn’t a lot more to add here.

(h) Post-Pause Introspection/Analysis

This works so poorly that I can’t think of a single instance of it being successfully employed. When the premiere of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was shown on Australian Free-to-air (commercial) TV, they cut to an ad break just before Cisko found himself speaking to the “wormhole aliens”. While this emphasized the discontinuity with normality that he experienced at their hands, it also meant that it had all the impact of a wet noodle – especially when they did the same trick of timing again, and again, and again.

There is only one solution that works, and that is by harnessing the power of melodrama (ie a moment of high-intensity interaction) – a dramatic revelation can be followed by a break and lead into a post-interval period of analysis or introspection. The usual rules of a revelation apply – it is pretty much mandatory that the subsequent scene be all about the revelation.

In our previous episode…

There is one special case that deserves closer attention: the presentation of a synopsis at the start or re-start of play. Technically, this qualifies as a post-break introspection/analysis scene. However, it works for one particular reason: the synopsis aims to recapture the situation prior to the break after summarizing the path that led to that situation; and the post-synopsis scene should pick up after the events described. This need not be immediately afterwards, in game time; minutes, hours, even days, can have passed in between, provided that the situation at the end of the previous play session did not demand instant action, and did not mandate decisions on the part of the players. The synopsis becomes something of a break-content hybrid, a bridge between game sessions. Note that the revelation rule still applies: if the previous session ended with a revelation, the first scene after the break should be about the revelation, even if it’s a low-intensity conversation between the characters about the revelation, or an introspective moment as a lone PC tries to gather further information relating to the revelation, or whatever.

When the PCs come up with a plan, there is sometimes no need to play through all the steps of preparation; instead, contemplating a hard-cut to the PCs beginning to put their plan into operation. That’s how Return Of The Jedi begins – with a plan to rescue Han from Jabba the Hut, a plan that begins with two Droids carrying a message from Luke to Jabba – and smuggling a weapon into his throne room in the process.

I’m completely out of time and haven’t even started on analyzing the nine types of break yet! Oh well, that will have to wait…



Discover more from Campaign Mastery

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.