The One Hour D&D Game

DEFCON 1 · Mar 19, 2012

The advantage of getting the basic system in place that allows for the 1-hour adventure is that (just like with modular design) it is much easier to add stuff to the basics to expand it, than it is to try and strip things away to condense it.

Yes, 3E and 4E can be built and run in such a way to reach the 1-hour goal... but it's not something that occurs naturally through normal gameplay. The DM really has to work at it, and the players have to be on their game to help accomplish it. So using that as a benchmark is probably not the best foundation on which to build.

Start small and simple. And believe me... once you then layer in the tactical miniatures module and the "martial exploits" module... that 1-hour adventure will swell to a 3-hour adventure easy.

dkyle · Mar 19, 2012

DEFCON 1 said:
The advantage of getting the basic system in place that allows for the 1-hour adventure is that (just like with modular design) it is much easier to add stuff to the basics to expand it, than it is to try and strip things away to condense it.

My main concern is that Core will be basically an OSR game. And be rife with old-school game balance problems. Which is OK for that style of game, but it makes it difficult to take that, and add tactics modules, and somehow arrive at a well balanced game. And without balance, all that fancy tactics is for naught.

KidSnide · Mar 19, 2012

AbdulAlhazred said:
I think 'encounter' vs 'adventure' focus is a matter of presentation though. I also think that speed of combat is more a matter of tuning than anything else (and I don't see with 3e or at least 4e that anything outside of combat is slow). You could make combat fast in 4e with basically just tuning the existing rules a little differently. As for XP budget for adventure, I already do that. In fact it is a well-discussed concept here and in other forums at this point, so not even notable.

I think my point is really that I don't get why we have to have a whole entirely new set of core rules to accomplish this goal. It is overkill. Might be a nice way to sell more books, but I'm getting tired of total rewrites of the system for reasons that aren't compelling.

I think it's fair to criticize WotC for creating a whole new rules system when a revision is an alternative, but I think it's important to note that (1) it's not like the encounter-to-adventure change is the only think they are doing with D&DN and (2) WotC gets a lot of flack for "revision" style updates too.

Also, I think the encounter-to-adventure focus is a big deal. I play 4e and I think it solved a number of 3.x problems that were driving me mental, but I agree with the sentiment that it was too encounter-focused at the expense of the adventure, and I'm happy to see Mike agree in L&L. I love a good set-piece fight, but I want that to be the climax of an adventure, not the beginning, the early middle, mid-middle, late-middle, early-end, pre-climax and climax of an adventure.

As to the point of being able to take an xp budget for an adventure, I don't know what version of 4e you're playing. IME, a single 4000 xp encounter is completely different than four 1000 xp encounters. I don't think "adventure xp budget" is an especially useful concept in 4e, unless it's an "xp budget for N encounters."

-KS

Mengu · Mar 19, 2012

Don't care for the approach... I am not likely to run an adventure for my group in one hour. And I don't want to be told by the masses, "that's how we're doin' it these days." True or not, it influences perceptions and expectations. Currently, I might have 4-5 hour sessions with no combat, that completes maybe 1/6th of a sub-plot. The important part is, those 4-5 hours of no combat can still be quite intense, and everyone has a good time.

But then again, I don't run "adventures". I run campaigns. So maybe I'm playing it wrong.

I'm not particularly fond of combat speed of 3e or 4e at high levels. There's certainly lots of room for improvement there. But I like the tactical options. I think the key is simpler to use character sheets, and simpler/faster action resolutions. I don't need time clamps on exploration and interaction.

DEFCON 1 · Mar 19, 2012

dkyle said:
My main concern is that Core will be basically an OSR game. And be rife with old-school game balance problems.

And somehow the designers of the game will just forget everything that's been learned in the past 40 years of game balance in design? Okay. If you want to think they're just idiots, I suppose that's your right.

DEFCON 1 · Mar 19, 2012

Mengu said:
But then again, I don't run "adventures". I run campaigns. So maybe I'm playing it wrong.

Yes, of course you are. Didn't you read that first paragraph in Mearls' article that said "we're using the 'adventure' as a baseline specifically because Mengu uses 'campaign' and we want to make sure this game is not EXACTLY like his."?

dkyle · Mar 19, 2012

DEFCON 1 said:
And somehow the designers of the game will just forget everything that's been learned in the past 40 years of game balance in design? Okay. If you want to think they're just idiots, I suppose that's your right.

First, considering they only got even remotely on top of balance 4 years ago, and it lead to an edition that has (much to my chagrin) apparently failed enough to warrant a new edition this soon, I don't think my concerns are unwarranted. That wasn't 40 years of progression, in terms of game balance. That was 36 years of increasingly imbalanced editions, and one revolutionary edition the last 4 years.

And they wouldn't have to be "idiots" to have an imbalanced Core. There is a sizable community that do not care about having well-balanced encounters, or solid balance between classes. They tend to be the ones that favor old-school-style games, and every indication I've seen is that Core will be modeled after old-school D&D. A game that focuses on simulating the literary, and classic D&D, tropes, and isn't focused on game balance, is a not necessarily a bad game. As long as the DM can produce a game with as much balance between players as the players desire, it can work fine. It just isn't a game that makes much sense to have deep tactical options and complex character building.

froth · Mar 19, 2012

hellish

gloomhound · Mar 19, 2012

Nothing I have read or seen anywhere has instilled in me more confidence in the next version of D&D than this article.

ExploderWizard · Mar 19, 2012

kitsune9 said:
I want my combats to be fast, scenarios to play out fairly quickly, but I need tension to build up in the mechanics of the game that gives BBEG "staying power" so that they won't blow us out of the water in the first round or for us to do the same.

This is where well integrated modularity comes in. Imagine a simple basic game that moves fast. You can run combats with scrubs using this engine. The characters have stats that support more tactical play so that when the big battles occur, perhaps minis and a lot more tactical focus gets included in those parts of the game.

Its kind of like a throttle. You can speed up or slow down to suit your desired pace.

This model has worked well for GURPS for a long time. Basic combat, with advanced options there whenever you want to use them.