Look, you asked why people want to level faster than you do. I answered that. Instead of simply saying, Ok, fair enough, you and others have repeatedly told me I don't know how to play D&D, have insulted my intelligence, and pretty much badwrongfunned all the way along.
As opposed to your very respectful references like cramming 20 minutes of fun into four hours?
Show me one single time I have criticised longer play styles as being wrong.
See above. "Incredibly tedious and boring" and "does not interest me in the slightest" aren't exactly complimentary of other peoples' play styles as well.
Unfortunately, when we like one play style, we probably dislike another, and that means it's tough to have a discussion of our preferred play styles without having some negative comments on the ones we dislike. I think readers of your posts are just as able to suggest you are telling them they don't know how to play D&D, are having badwrongfun, etc. And I don't think anyone's posts are intended to insult or offend those with different viewpoints.
All I have said, and ALL I have said, is that the idea of a 500 hour campaign where 400 hours is spent on build up and 100 hours is spent on events that lead to XP (Ie, challenges of some sort) does not interest me in the slightest. I would strongly dislike such a campaign. I would find it incredibly tedious and boring.
Not surprising, really, given some past threads. For me, having interacted with the townsfolk at the Harvest festival, and gotten to know some of them, at least, as real people, not just faceless masses I'm supposed to defend either because I am an altruistic hero, because I get paid for it or because I will earn xp, makes the game much richer and more enjoyable when I go off to defend the town from the Goblin Horde. Non-challenging encounters also allow me to express, even build, my character's personality, and show off his style, while learning about other characters in play.
One aspect of "get to the die rolling" games I have always found annoying and boring is having each player read a summary of his character's background, abilities and personality. My character can't see that when he meets your character - let it come out in play. He's not really "a sarcastic punster" unless he is actually sarcastic, and uses puns, in the game anyway.
Again, I'll ask you since I asked Bill91 as well - do you think that The Whispering Cairn, one of the most highly regarded modules ever published for D&D, should take an average of 80 hours to play through? And if it takes less, do you think that it is because the module lacks depth or that Erik Mona fails to understand D&D?
Who cares? I've never read it, and I've never played it. However, the richer the scenario is, the more opportunities it would logically have for interaction which goes beyond the module and remains entertaining for the players. Does the author specify in the module itself how many hours of play it should occupy, or are you assuming how many hours the author expects it will occupy? "Module" is a component part - other aspects of play might take place outside, say, a module focused on dungeon crawling or wilderness exploration.
You seem very focused on ratio of "challenging xp garnering play" (largely combat, I expect) and "low challenge encounters" like role playing interaction and, perhaps, opportunities for characters to show off. Have you tried applying those ratios to source material like books or movies? The Avengers was a great summer blockbuster. I wonder what its ratios look like. It certainly had its challenging combat encounters (the battle on the Helicarrier and the moving fight in NYC being prime examples).
But it had plenty of low challenge interaction and play as well. Thinking on some of those:
- The whole point of the scene with a tied-up Black Widow seemed to be showing just how lacking in challenge the situation actually was for her;
- That German fellow standing up to Loki? I could see my players on the edge of their seats, eager to eke out any bit of extra speed to arrive in time to get between him and the villain;
- Would Phil Coulson's death have been remotely as impactful if we didn't already know him, through things like those collected trading cards;
- Banner and Stark just rolling Aid Another and Knowledge checks? BORING. The interaction between the two? Priceless.
That's just an off the cuff sample. I suspect the RP aspect of even this action/adventure summer blockbuster comes a lot closer to the 3:1 or 4:1 ratio of Role Play to XP Gathering than to the near-constant xp gathering events you seem to prefer.
There are a host of non-challenging, non-XP garnering events which, in game, I would call the kind of role playing I think [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] suggests occupies a large part of their games. Just fast forwarding to the next action/fight scene would make for a much less engaging movie and, for me at least, reduce a game to a tactical exercise. If I want constant challenge and potential xp gathering, I can play Wrath of Ashardalon (a great game, but not an RPG). In an RPG, I want characters with CHARACTER, and that shines through in those low challenge role playing scenes, which can be so much more than just the bridge between combat-oriented xp gathering exploration like wilderness treks and dungeon crawls.
