How to GM: Pacing

One of the hardest parts of running a game is trying to make sure the story is paced correctly. Unlike a novel, board games, or video games, TTRPGs can be incredibly collaborative, and are thus harder to pace. This is because of the number one problem (and advantage) in most RPGs: the GM.  RPGs are entirely relational constructs, which means that everyone at the table has to be in sync and capable of bending to each other. The GM, being (usually) the designated director of the narrative, has the unenviable position of making sure that everyone acts in concert, all the time. Fortunately there's a few good ways to make sure this happens: stick to your themes and genre, know what the players expect, respond but don't react, and feed as much as you can back into the mechanics of your game. All of my advice comes from the assumption that you are trying to do a collaborative narrative.

The first point is vital: stick to your thematic and genre guns.  Role-playing games are an interpersonal exercise and you, as the GM, are the designated point of unity for your group. It is for their own good that you stick to what you set up for yourself. It is the player's duty to bend, but not break, in the direction of your themes and the genre. And it is very important that they only bend. The GM is not there to take away choices; a GM'd game is meant to have him be the lightning ground of the group. But the GM needs to incorporate player input. He cannot run the players over. Take what the players do and weave it back in. Draw straight with what you think are crooked lines, but do not erase them.

Player expectation is only second to sticking to your guns because the GM has to know what he wants before he's able to communicate it. But, once the GM knows what he wants, he has to communicate it.  You cannot run a narrative game without player feedback and communication.

No, I'm not going to bend on that.

Interpersonal rules of communication and trust will always be hard and fast rules, in any game, and if you're blindsiding players (as opposed to surprising, which in this case means playing inside the bounds you and the players set up) you have made a critical error, one of which I heartily recommend stopping the session to talk about. And yes, if you blindside your players, you should be fully prepared to change what you did. It's not fair to them to go outside what they agreed to, not without warning.

With those two guidelines (stick to your guns and know what the players expect) we come to the third point: feed it all back into the mechanics of your game. Mechanics are the medium through which all decisions go. Even denying "but this doesn't need mechanics" means that you've made a mechanical choice, in the form of denying existing mechanics. Now, that's not necessarily a bad decision, to jettison the pre-established mechanics of the game. Sometimes things happen and you find yourself in a weird spot where your game just cannot cover what you want need it to. Mechanics are tools, not straight jackets, after all. But if you find yourself constantly making new tools to add to the box then why not just play a different game? If you're constantly getting into world-ending arguments, where people want to be able to nail the nitty-gritty of negotiations into something mechanical , then why are you playing a game that doesn't have that in the toolbox? Anyway, whatever thing does wind up happening, plug it back into the mechanics of your game as fast as possible, where the players can address it on even ground. Always try to tie your plans into the mechanically rich and enticing bits for your players. Let those mechanical interactions guide your plot, that's what they're there for. Think of the mechanics kind of like a calculator: you plug your equation in, but you can't expect the calculator to do the work of figuring out the equation in the first place. You don't bring half an equation to a calculator, but once you plug that sucker in sit back and accept the results.

All of this requires being able to think on your feet, to respond instead of react to the players. Part of responding to players means to not let emotions get in the way. This is because players can really surprise you. If you need to take a second to say "Holy crap, I did NOT expect that" then do it! It's fine! You get to sit back and laugh in disbelief! Hell, congratulate the person who threw you for a loop. Whatever not-toxic thing that lets you get the reaction out of the way so that way you can respond is what should be done. A GM usually has his hands into so many pieces of the game that a flippant response is almost always a bad move, as he sits at the center of the narrative. You get to have that moment to go "Wow, I have no idea what the hell to do". The additional vulnerability also gives you more leeway for when you do make a mistake, because you have communicated to the players that you are not above them. Granted, you've got a few more responsibilities, but you are not God. That means that, whenever you do respond, they will get to see someone doing the same thing as them: a dude playing a game and having a blast.

It sounds a bit abstract, but if there's anything I would tell a new GM about pacing it would be to stick to their core themes and genre, corralling the other players into the fold as best you can (and should), stay within player expectations (don't kill puppies in a silly game about pound puppies), respond but don't react, and always put things back into the mechanics, so that way players can interact with it and thus morph that situation into something new. If you keep these principles in mind your ability to keep the game moving at a good clip, not too fast but not too slow, will improve pretty significantly.