Yeah, I'm with those who say changing the current settings from "scenes" to "posts per player" puts them into a reasonable range. Honestly with how long scenes run in most games I've seen, I'm not sure one scene a day is even possible.

That said, there might also be some merit in adding in-between speeds, cause there's quite a bit of a gap between 2-3 posts a week and one a day (7 per week). Or, as said, custom speeds.

Here are my suggested modifications to game speed:

First, add posting frequency as another dimension. I realize that number of moves in a scene will vary but providing an idea of frequency of posting will be much more informative than just putting in an expected number of scenes per duration.

Second, add a "custom" option. The host of the game could enter in what they think will be the average number of scenes per week and the frequency of moves per player they would like to see. For example, I could put in 1-2 scenes per week and Players make 1 move per day.

Great idea but you should also be able to change the pacing at any time, before and after the game starts.

I totally agree. My fastest games will still rarely make one scene a day! There are lots of moves in a scene in most games, so i think it's really like everyone has said, MOVES per day...

Another vote for posts/time rather than scenes/time. Sheesh, I'm not even working right now and I still don't think I could handle/keep up with a whole scene every day.

I agree also. I have played in a lot of games. And fast isn't how many scenes per week. It's how many moves per amount of time. I have been in slow games that have had one scene a week. And I have been in super fast games that I could barely keep up with that took two weeks to close. The slow game was one move per scene. The fast game was seven moves per scene.

I agree with everyone here as well. If the language read "posts" instead of "scenes" it would be closer to accurate.

I completely agree that 'scenes per (time period)' is unhelpful at best. 'Player posts per (time period)' would give a much clearer picture of expectations. And as has been said, I have never played/watched a game that accomplished multiple scenes in a single day.

I do feel like the scene-based speed tallies may be giving an unclear representation of how fast Storium games go, especially once they're past their initial "burst". Even without that, though, it seems like Storium was more thinking of rounds of challenges, not necessarily complete scenes. I don't often see games where the scene is "complete" after the first challenge / set of challenges, so maybe coding the speeds off of challenges or post expectations rather than off of scene completions would be a better idea.

I actually rather like the post expectations idea--I agree that would be more useful as a measure of expected game speed and tell the players how much the narrator intends that they be around.

(I also have to say I don't think I've ever been in a game, regardless of speed setting, that managed more than 1 scene a week, myself.)

That sounds very reasonable too, Prester.

I'd go a step further and suggest that Speed of Play based on scene count is a flawed mechanism, or at least a less useful metric. I think the better choice is 'player posts per [time]' or something along those lines to give a prospective player (and reader, for that matter) a reasonable idea of what their expected contribution will be. Some scenes run longer or shorter, but I think pacing of a story revolves more closely around how frequently players update.

Agreed. My experience is that in more 'normal' speed games, 'normal' is about a single tag per player once every day or two, maybe - which probably adds up to about one scene a week. A scene per day is most definitely hardcore. From what I've done/seen in other games, I would've thought something like:

Casual: no expectations
Slow: at least 1 scene per month
Normal: about 1 scene per week
Daily: at least 1 tag per player per day
Fast: 2-3 scenes per week
Hardcore: 1 scene per day