Are Published Adventures Too Long?

[Androlphas]

My current group meets about once a month for a 4-5 hour session. While I'm thankful that I can have a D&D campaign at all, I've come to the realization that at this rate it will take us half a year or so just to finish one published adventure. This can sometimes feel unsatisfying for a DM despite the fun being in the actual playing. Another issue that I've seen in the past is loss of interest in the long storyline on the part of the players, even with a recap each session. OTOH, some of the most memorable adventures I've run have been short ones that concluded in 1-2 sessions. I'm beginning to wonder whether it might be better to adopt the RPGA/convention model of adventure design: short, 4-5 hour self-contained adventures, some with overarching plotlines.

Anyone else feel this way? How have you dealt with this issue? Do you think there is a market for shorter adventures (perhaps at a cheaper price)?

[Fenes]

For my group, official adventures have too many combat encounters.

[TerraDave]

I have been in the same position for a while. And come to the same conclusion.

Published adventures seem to be based on playing every week...where the DM really needs material, and maybe lots of it.

At the same time, I like modules (as they used to be called)...There are various partial solutions:

-trim the adventure down
-motivate/allow the players to do certain things in it, that don't require doing all of it
-speed up action in play
-use play by post or online to suplement meeting in person

I have dabled in all of these, and will use all of them to varying degrees going forward. But it does take a little more work...which sort of defeats the purpose of using a module.

I think my ideal adventure would be about half the size of the current ones, and leveling would be twice as fast, so the same number of levels would be covered. Any publishers out there want to start a "busy DM" series?

[Fenes]

For my playstyle, plot hooks, plot ideas, plot twists etc. are far more needed than combat encounters.

[Verys Arkon]

I'm fine with the published adventures in the H-series length (though I did cut some of KotS combat encounters and added a few non-combat encounters).

I do have a problem with the adventure path in Dungeon, The Scales of War. 18 issues?!? We tried Savage Tide but we only got through 7/12 in two years. I like the idea of linked adventures, but I think 3 (about 10 levels) would be a better length for my group (bi-weekly for 5-6 hours).

[ExploderWizard]

We get to play every other week and for us I don't think that the adventure itself is too long but that the combat encounters take so long. To the OP, how many encounters do you run per 4-5 hr session?

[Mathew_Freeman]

I'm lucky in that my players are all pretty 'casual' - by which I mean they're happy just to be playing on a regular basis. At the moment we've played about four or five sessions of KotS of about three hours each and they're only just now reaching the Keep itself, but everyone seems happy enough.

I can see that the H-modules might seem very long, but for someone like me that wants to do as little prep as possible they're brilliant. I also feel secure in knowing that if I go to another area and start DMing with a new group, I've got several weeks of adventure that I can just run without worrying too much.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by TerraDave

I have been in the same position for a while. And come to the same conclusion.

Published adventures seem to be based on playing every week...where the DM really needs material, and maybe lots of it.

At the same time, I like modules (as they used to be called)...There are various partial solutions:

-trim the adventure down

I think trimming down might be easiest way to go in many cases. For example, I am running Keep on the Shadowfell.

Spoiler:

1) There are several encounters you don't really need. All those in the side rooms on the dungeon. Just keep them empty. The players might want to explore them, but there doesn't actually have to be anything there.

2) There are groups of encounters that can be trimmed down to one.
The Goblin area could be just one Guard post with a lot of Minions, a leader and two goblin veterans. The same for the Hogboblins. Have one area with undead, and mix a few Zombies and Skeletons in one encounter (maybe 8 Skeleton and Zombie Minions, 2 Skeletons and 2 Zombies).
Instead of fighting the Underpriest and Kalarel, the party could fight just Kalarel (adding the Underpriest to the encounter or something.)

All this gives you the chance to focus more on role-playing scenarios in-between, and gives you a more "laid-back" approach - instead having to make a "tour-de-force" through the Keep, the PCs just go from ambush to village to kobold camp to village to keep.

Combat is a lot of fun for me and my group, but it is the thing you should cut first if stuff seems to be going on too long. (That's not even uncommon to happen in our group - some adventures just include combats that are not that relevant or interesting...)
It's not like you spend a lot of time setting up combat scenarios in 4E, so if they get boring or exhausting, just throw some out. On the other hand, if the party gets bored by all the intrigue, mystery or socializing going on, slap on a combat encounter and create some instant excitement.


And once again, I am reminded of Torg - The Law of Action in the Nile Empire and in Terra demands the PCs to get attacked if they sit around too long, agonizing about making decisions and stuff like that...

[Androlphas]

Originally Posted by ExploderWizard

To the OP, how many encounters do you run per 4-5 hr session?

The average of about 1 combat encounter per hour. The first hour or so of the session is the usual socializing, re-capping, etc.

I'm currently running Rescue at Rivenroar. The group has just made it to Castle Rivenroar (the main dungeon of the adventure) after two sessions. The plan is to run Thunderspine Labyrinth afterward since I don't want to commit to the entire Scales of War AP.

In the past I've run the first two adventures of Age of Worms, which took about a year to complete before the group inadverdently scattered. Running the first installment of Rise of the Runelords for the current group took almost a year as well and we decided to try the new edition instead of continuing the AP.

APs are fun, but I think they are not easy to complete with most groups. I agree with Verys Arkon that perhaps APs should be shorter, maybe lasting one tier.

[der_kluge]

Yea, I tend to agree that they're too long. I think most groups also tend to get kind of bored with the campaign well before they reach 20th level.

I think there's probably a market for adventure paths that end at about 8th, 10th or 12th level.

[S'mon]

I'm currently running a 3.5e campaign based off early '80s Classic D&D modules (Rahasia, Horror on The Hill, The Lost City, etc) - these seem to be around 4-5 5 hour sessions each, which at 2 games/month suits me well. When I ran 3.5e Lost City of Barakus though it took nearly two years (February 2005-December 2006), around 40 sessions I think, and that was way too long for a single dungeon crawl. I like the old White Dwarf magazine adventures, around 5-6 pages and usually completable in a single session. I think if I were only playing once a month I'd definitely prefer one-offs completable in a session, with the occasional epic two-parter as a "season climax" type event.

[Jack99]

I think most if not all modules produced today have way too many encounters compared to what actually happens (meaning compared to the amount of history/roleplay/events in between). Also, I find most if not all dungeons way too big, at least for our groups playstyle.

[Umbran]

I have to go in with the "too much combat" crowd. For my players, combat is not itself a major reason to play the game, and I'd prefer a published adventure that has more non-combat encounter stuff in it.

The thing is, anyone can produce a combat encounter, and expect that it'll at least be appropriate to a large number of groups. Producing encounters that depend on, say, social interactions and still fit to many groups is somewhat more difficult.

[Fenes]

Originally Posted by Umbran

I have to go in with the "too much combat" crowd. For my players, combat is not itself a major reason to play the game, and I'd prefer a published adventure that has more non-combat encounter stuff in it.

The thing is, anyone can produce a combat encounter, and expect that it'll at least be appropriate to a large number of groups. Producing encounters that depend on, say, social interactions and still fit to many groups is somewhat more difficult.

Does anyone produce plot hooks books? Shadowrun had entire books of those sourcebooks descirbing a major event, with a lot of small bits that basically outlined an adventure each without any details - perfect to adapt to any group.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Jack99

I think most if not all modules produced today have way too many encounters compared to what actually happens (meaning compared to the amount of history/roleplay/events in between). Also, I find most if not all dungeons way too big, at least for our groups playstyle.

In a way, combat encounters become the padding between "story". There are only so many "story things" (exposition, role-playing, other events) available for each encounter, so the rest is padded with combat, to lenghten the story.

Maybe a good "homework" for module writers is to ensure that most combat encounter also serves as a way to propel the plot. If you can't make it really relevant to say something about the world, the characters or the plot of your adventure/campaign, consider throwing it out.

But likewise, players might also want to make each encounter being more then just some "killing monsters and take their stuff". A wilderness encounter during travels or a dungeon exploration might serve as a "bonding experience" (be it between PCs or between PC and NPCs).

Of course, if there are too many encounters, neither can be possible.