[Those who like 4ed] What has been lost?

[CapnZapp]

Perhaps he means other editions of Rolemaster?

*guffaw*

 

[CapnZapp]

It's pretty normal for LFR modules to take 2.5 to 4.5 hours in my neck of the woods, depending on how packed the module is. I'd say the average is just over three hours. When I play at a local store, we tend to start around 6:30, take a 5-10 minute break in the middle, and I still get to leave between 9:50 and 10 o'clock to catch my bus usually. When I play online, we tend to start around 8:30pm and wrap up between 11:30 and 1:30 and online is much slower than tabletop. In fact, the primary decider of when we end is who is playing that night. Some people are much slower than others - by a threefold factor, for instance.

If you're taking 6 to 9 hours, then there are clearly things you can be doing to make the game faster. Such as having bonuses predone, knowing what to do when your turn comes around, increased teamwork, not hoarding abilities, etc. Next session, try to make notes of how long is taken for what, then work on that. Another session, try instituting a 10 second 'shot clock' on declaring your action and starting to take it. You may or may not also find that waffling, tactical discussion, take backs, etc are eating up time. Or people are playing high tier when they don't have the damage to do it, or playing a strategy of invincibility over effectiveness. In such cases, just saying the party only gets as far as they can get in 5 hours should encourage people to have characters that can deal damage and get things done.

All that said, I agree that combat should go somewhat faster. It's still far faster than it was for our higher level 3e games, but it's a far cry from the three minute combats I think we used to do in 1e. Mind you, I find these combats far more satisfying, but eh.

I am aware some people are able to play a significantly zippier game of D&D than my group.

The thing is, however, we're the same people that played 3E, and that didn't take as long.

Or more to the point, that game offered way more points in time where danger was real.

So I guess we could drastically change our gaming style. But I'd far more prefer to change the game.

In fact, none of us are interested in rushing things along. We like to optimize each move - that seems to be the point of 4E. We just wish a combat would end sooner without us having to sacrifice this... meticulous... game style.

Cheers,
Zapp

 

[Garthanos]

The one place in 4E where the Mystery is really dead for me is magic items.

<whisper mode on>
For me that is a win, it is easy for me as a dm to create my own items that made the players go wow!... see they know all those lame, bland things on their wish list and like mine better ... and it can be as simple as giving them story and picking several items and combining them.
</whisper mode off>

 

[rounser]

You were playing a different version of 1e than I, then. Our 1e combats vary greatly in length, from a low of about 15 minutes (rare; small party vs. pushover opponents) to a high of about a session and a half (rare; big party vs. lots of opponents including casters) with the average being maybe half an hour for a simple one and an hour or so for something complex.

Maybe if you're using 8 players and miniatures. Look, even Throne of Bloodstone doesn't play this slow. A "session and a half" for 1E combat is IME completely unheard of, ever, and 15 minutes being "a rare low" strains credulity.

 

[Garthanos]

All that said, I agree that combat should go somewhat faster. It's still far faster than it was for our higher level 3e games, but it's a far cry from the three minute combats I think we used to do in 1e. Mind you, I find these combats far more satisfying, but eh.

That's my key the battles take longer than AD&D but everyone actually has options and ways of their own to contribute in battle to make it interesting...

I can't contribute much on this thread... so many things were gained for me. I even get to experience the shininess of first rigorous gaming experience through my sons eyes.. though he has been doing free form for years.

Hmm not feeling a need for a game board? We played walking around. (I am giving that up for a sense of multi player tactical interaction.... so where is my cake? ... you just ate it dude).

 

[Tuft]

Maybe if you're using 8 players and miniatures. Look, even Throne of Bloodstone doesn't play this slow. A "session and a half" for 1E combat is IME completely unheard of, ever, and 15 minutes being "a rare low" strains credulity.

Back when I played 1st edition, our DM numbered each round, and kept book on everything with a duration, so that he could tell when spell ended, reinforcements arrived (depending on distance from their barracks) and so on.

Major battles, like cleaning out an entire castle, could easily run into 200-500 numbered rounds - played over one or two 12-hour+ sessions with a 10-12 player group. Decades later, that DM can still get his old folders from his shelves and retell those epic fights from his combat logs.

I remember standing there, holding a doorway, chopping down 50-60 onrushing orcs one by one, round after round after round...

That's when I got painfully aware what happens to the probability curve at the end of the d20. It's am enormous difference between getting hit on a 19-20 as opposed to only a 20 in that kind of situation.

 

[ExploderWizard]

<whisper mode on>
For me that is a win, it is easy for me as a dm to create my own items that made the players go wow!... see they know all those lame, bland things on their wish list and like mine better ... and it can be as simple as giving them story and picking several items and combining them.
</whisper mode off>

I have always enjoyed creating my own items even back when the "mystery" was still there.

The only problem I have with custom items in 4E is related to software issues. If it isn't in the C.builder and I want the item to actually modify the math in some way then I might as well write the character by hand.

 

[keterys]

I just started a game Sunday where they're not character builder bound... I'm making _all_ the items for them, and giving them custom backgrounds and... so much stuff I don't do for any of the games where they're character builder bound.

Some day, that app will have some customization, but until then, I think it's great as a player and Meh as a DM. Though I still get to make all the monsters, so that's fun at least.

 

[AllisterH]

Lewis Pulsipher discusses this in his Introduction to Dungeons & Dragons series, White Dwarf 23-26, 1981. In the article for Fighters he gives advice regarding weapon proficiencies, noting for example that although a bastard sword is a good weapon very few magic ones exist.

See?

Even before we had the net, people were optimizing. What the net has done is allowed for a wider audience for optimizers to spread their knowledge. As well, like I said, pre 3e, few players actually looked in the DMG (unless they themselves were DMs) so few people realized there were optimal options.

 

[billd91]

See?

Even before we had the net, people were optimizing. What the net has done is allowed for a wider audience for optimizers to spread their knowledge. As well, like I said, pre 3e, few players actually looked in the DMG (unless they themselves were DMs) so few people realized there were optimal options.

Of course people were optimizing before 3e. LOTS of people were choosing the long sword over the broad sword because of the d12 damage to large creatures alone without even considering the proportion of magic swords of any particular type.

But I totally disagree that few players looked in the DMG before 3e. I think it was even more common in 1e than in subsequent editions because a lot of info you needed to fill out a general character sheet was in the DMG only. It's only been since 2e that more of that stuff got pushed out to the player's book.