D&D General Matt Colville on adventure length

Lanefan said:

I don't have that one either. That said, extending the timer by 8 hours wouldn't mean much as it's already one day per level of the casting Cleric; meaning when someone dies you've got a minimum of 9 days to get the corpse to someone willing and able to cast Raise Dead on it.

That 9-day limit has, hoever, caused no end of headaches in the past to parties that were more than 9 days away from anywhere useful; and while Resurrection has a far longer time limit, 16th-level Clerics don't grow on trees and the cost is roughly double that of Raise Dead.

Oh, and in my game revival spells of any kind have a small Con-based chance of failing, as per 1e.

Click to expand...

Yea it can be looped indefinitely as long as someone recasts it every 7 hours & change

Lanefan said:

Given that today's entire hobby is built on the back of early-edition D&D, I'll challenge the bolded all day long.

Click to expand...

You may challenge it all you like. The facts are what they are. Demonstrably, this style of play is unpopular, it has been unpopular for decades, its semi-recent recovery (the OSR movement, "FKR," etc.) has settled into a new normal that is nowhere near dominant, and the vast (vast, VAST) majority of newcomers to 5e--which constitute something like 80% of the playerbase today--have shown no meaningful inclination toward such styles of play.

Again: There is genuinely, truly nothing wrong with preferring this style and wanting to see it get support in the future, even from mainstream D&D. I genuinely believe that it should continue to get support, even from mainstream D&D. But it is not mainstream, and it is extremely unlikely that it ever will be mainstream again. Most people who get into D&D are much more interested in character arcs and ongoing stories and exploring a character concept, rather than logistics and precise time records and heistery.

This isn't judgmental, even though I fully admit that that style isn't my preference. It's simply a fact; that style is not only not predominant, it hasn't been so for at least 25 years, and 5e--despite actively courting folks interested in that style--is in fact really really bad at providing any meaningful support to it. If you want to use 5e for that purpose, you basically have to strip it down to its bare bones and rebuild it, perhaps not quite "from scratch," but with a massive overhaul that leaves very little of the game totally untouched.

Scott Christian said:

It's like the old Ninja Warrior show in Japan. No one ever made it, and once someone did, they made it harder. There is something comforting for some about seeing the effort. For others, they thought it was stupid. Those that thought it was stupid remade it. The American version is meant to be conquered. Now the question is who can do it the fastest. Some people find comfort in this style of show.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm definitely the kind of person who sees a challenge designed to be unbeatable and asks, "Okay so...what's the point? The conclusion is foregone." At least with Kobayashi Maru-type scenarios, there's a point to it being unbeatable: to teach a lesson, namely, that sometimes there are scenarios which do not have good solutions, so you must pick which bad consequence you are willing to deal with, or (as Kirk's cheating did) try to force a "third option" that transcends the limitations of the dilemma.

Scott Christian said:

It's weird to me (and I am going to assume most players) that losing a character means you will quit the game for good.

Click to expand...

And I think you should heavily re-evaluate that assumption. I've personally seen it drive people away from the hobby in general. Not just that campaign, not just D&D, all TTRPGs. "Oh. I guess this just really isn't for me. Oh well, moving on."

"Hard" gaming has its fans (Elden Ring proves that), but it's at best a niche (Minecraft having more than 10x the sales of Elden Ring proves that.) Fans of old-school D&D styles of play absolutely should not be ignored nor denigrated. Their preferences should not be treated as some pointless, deprecated thing--they are vibrant and worthy parts of the melange that is D&D. But let us not pretend that there's some vast silent majority that adores such things. There is no evidence of such a thing, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. The casuals outnumber the hardcore--and it's not even close.

That they do is no excuse for how poorly 5e actually supports such styles. Which is one (of several) reasons why I advocate for design things I do, like "zero levels" and harder difficulty options and built-in support for survival challenges and pure no-/low-magic gaming. 5e actively courted such fans, and then let them down. That's one of the most disappointing things about it.

EzekielRaiden said:

And I think you should heavily re-evaluate that assumption. I've personally seen it drive people away from the hobby in general. Not just that campaign, not just D&D, all TTRPGs. "Oh. I guess this just really isn't for me. Oh well, moving on."

"Hard" gaming has its fans (Elden Ring proves that), but it's at best a niche (Minecraft having more than 10x the sales of Elden Ring proves that.) Fans of old-school D&D styles of play absolutely should not be ignored nor denigrated. Their preferences should not be treated as some pointless, deprecated thing--they are vibrant and worthy parts of the melange that is D&D. But let us not pretend that there's some vast silent majority that adores such things. There is no evidence of such a thing, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. The casuals outnumber the hardcore--and it's not even close.

Click to expand...

I just can't comprehend this. If there are no stakes, and your character can never die, what is even the point of combat and dice rolling. The entire game is built on success/failure with randomness intervening via dice. It seems impossible to have a success/success model. If you cannot die, why use dice in combat at all? Just have everyone narrate cool scenes and move on with gameplay.

EzekielRaiden said:

That they do is no excuse for how poorly 5e actually supports such styles. Which is one (of several) reasons why I advocate for design things I do, like "zero levels" and harder difficulty options and built-in support for survival challenges and pure no-/low-magic gaming. 5e actively courted such fans, and then let them down. That's one of the most disappointing things about it.

Click to expand...

I like the thought of alternate styles of gameplay entering the 2024 DMG.

Paul Farquhar said:

Early D&D was great, and I played it much the same way as I play 5e. The main reason for 5e’s success is managing to recapture much of the feel of early D&D in a more accessible fashion (and with less sexism).

Click to expand...

I agree. I don't understand someone saying "I would have never played early-edition D&D," that's a statement made with all the knowledge and game-experience that you have now.

I mean, I loved 3e when it was the current edition- I'd NEVER want to go back to it, but it was the bees knees at the time.
And yet I would absolutely go back and play AD&D, I'd play BECMI, etc. I have done so to a limited degree!

EzekielRaiden said:

You may challenge it all you like. The facts are what they are. Demonstrably, this style of play is unpopular, it has been unpopular for decades, its semi-recent recovery (the OSR movement, "FKR," etc.) has settled into a new normal that is nowhere near dominant, and the vast (vast, VAST) majority of newcomers to 5e--which constitute something like 80% of the playerbase today--have shown no meaningful inclination toward such styles of play.

Again: There is genuinely, truly nothing wrong with preferring this style and wanting to see it get support in the future, even from mainstream D&D. I genuinely believe that it should continue to get support, even from mainstream D&D. But it is not mainstream, and it is extremely unlikely that it ever will be mainstream again. Most people who get into D&D are much more interested in character arcs and ongoing stories and exploring a character concept, rather than logistics and precise time records and heistery.

This isn't judgmental, even though I fully admit that that style isn't my preference. It's simply a fact; that style is not only not predominant, it hasn't been so for at least 25 years, and 5e--despite actively courting folks interested in that style--is in fact really really bad at providing any meaningful support to it. If you want to use 5e for that purpose, you basically have to strip it down to its bare bones and rebuild it, perhaps not quite "from scratch," but with a massive overhaul that leaves very little of the game totally untouched.

Click to expand...

All I can think of is
You literally used a reasonable statement to bring up and argue for the presence of a problem caused by how 5e's near guaranteed survival warps how some players handle PC death into something unhealthy and immediately turned around arguing against ticking the dial back with an adpopulum as the first last and only justification for preserving the warped expectations.

Lanefan said:

It's a hell of a lot quicker than Curse of Strahd, though.

A friend has been running CoS for well over a year now..maybe two years, I'm not sure...with a group I'm not in. The various times I've seen/known Castle Amber run, it never took longer than 3 months (weekly play in all cases).

Click to expand...

Are your play examples for Castle Amber played in AD&D or 5e? Cuz 5e takes ... longer. Everything takes longer. All the modern D&Ds do, as it's a consequence of expanded character options.

Castle Amber as written is definitely not CoS-length, but it can turn into quite a long adventure unless the group is literally just jumping from encounter to encounter post-Castle. There's a whole province out there to get mixed up in- it really is like a proto-Ravenloft

Distracted DM said:

Are your play examples for Castle Amber played in AD&D or 5e? Cuz 5e takes ... longer. Everything takes longer. All the modern D&Ds do, as it's a consequence of expanded character options.

Castle Amber as written is definitely not CoS-length, but it can turn into quite a long adventure unless the group is literally just jumping from encounter to encounter post-Castle. There's a whole province out there to get mixed up in- it really is like a proto-Ravenloft

Click to expand...

Castle Amber is shorter than Curse of Strahd, no doubt. Curse of Strahd also runs in well under a year for most groups. But some groups have a LOT of fun with it, and expand sections and do lots of role-playing.

I've got a friend who has spent over a year on Lost Mine of Phandelver. Last time I ran it, as part of The Shattered Obelisk, it took us nine sessions (max 3 hours each). If those were four-hour sessions, that's 7 sessions.

Cheers,
Merric

MerricB said:

Castle Amber is shorter than Curse of Strahd, no doubt. Curse of Strahd also runs in well under a year for most groups. But some groups have a LOT of fun with it, and expand sections and do lots of role-playing.

I've got a friend who has spent over a year on Lost Mine of Phandelver. Last time I ran it, as part of The Shattered Obelisk, it took us nine sessions (max 3 hours each). If those were four-hour sessions, that's 7 sessions.

Cheers,
Merric

Click to expand...

To be fair, @MerricB, you are a racehorse compared to my groups. I mean, we're eight sessions into Shattered Obelisk right now and we've still not gotten to Cragmaw Castle. Now, granted, I did a short side trek adventure that took two sessions (A Tough Tavern to Swallow - a freebie I got from somewhere or other that is an absolute blast if anyone wants to try it) so, that would be 5 sessions to do Cragmaw Hideout, Tressendar Manor and Thundertree. So, technically session 7 will be Wyvern Tor and probably going to Cragmaw Castle.

You guys are SOOO fast.

Hussar said:

To be fair, @MerricB, you are a racehorse compared to my groups. I mean, we're eight sessions into Shattered Obelisk right now and we've still not gotten to Cragmaw Castle. Now, granted, I did a short side trek adventure that took two sessions (A Tough Tavern to Swallow - a freebie I got from somewhere or other that is an absolute blast if anyone wants to try it) so, that would be 5 sessions to do Cragmaw Hideout, Tressendar Manor and Thundertree. So, technically session 7 will be Wyvern Tor and probably going to Cragmaw Castle.

You guys are SOOO fast.

Click to expand...

I'm fast, and other people get distracted.

But if you look at the expected levelling times (1 session for level 1 & 2, 2 for each thereafter), Lost Mine - levels 1-5 - should take 10 sessions. Ish.

Now consider how long AD&D adventures will take for your group!

Cheers,
Merric