Explain "20 Minutes of Fun over 4 Hours" to me
- Thread starter DM_Jeff
- Start date
I think there are a lot of reasons that RPGs can stumble over the 20 minutes of fun in four hours thing. Many of them go beyond the game mechanics. For instance, I think LostSoul's comments echo many of the worst sessions I've played, particularly at conventions. The party wants to do fun stuff, but the DM/scenario writer is too obsessed with making you walk from one part of the plot to the next, picking up random clues along the way, until the big reveal at the end. Obviously, that's a problem with adventure design, not the rules. I've played that "game" in D&D, Shadowrun, Spycraft, etc.
As a lot of people have said, the big issue lies in DM training. A lot the advice out there falls into a few pit traps:
1. It's way too simple. "Dangerous monsters make for exciting encounters!" Really, you don't say? This is bad because maybe it helps beginners, but it primarly teaches people to ignore advice in gaming books.
2. It sets the bar way too high. The Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide from 2e fell victim to this. It basically said that combat is bad, avoid it all costs, and players who aren't in character 100% of the time and who are the equivalent of trained, professional actors, are a waste of space. Um, yeah. How many groups actually act that way? Maybe 5%? Yet this book depicted it as the norm.
3. It sounds nice in principle ("Everyone should wear hats when they're in character, and take them off when they're out of character!") but in practice it goes over like a lead balloon ("I am not wearing that @#^$@#$ hat again you %$@#$#@ !@$@#! son of a @$!@#$#.")
Realistically, I think the vast majority of gamers like "wasting" time at the gaming table talking about movies and videogames, or making fun of the designated spaz in the group. The problem is when the game starts and nobody gets to have much fun, or if socializing replaces the game because the game is boring.
I don't think D&D (or any well designed RPG) is inherently doomed because of the 20 in 4 issue, but I do think it points to a larger issue that the hobby has faced since its inception.
As a lot of people have said, the big issue lies in DM training. A lot the advice out there falls into a few pit traps:
1. It's way too simple. "Dangerous monsters make for exciting encounters!" Really, you don't say? This is bad because maybe it helps beginners, but it primarly teaches people to ignore advice in gaming books.
2. It sets the bar way too high. The Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide from 2e fell victim to this. It basically said that combat is bad, avoid it all costs, and players who aren't in character 100% of the time and who are the equivalent of trained, professional actors, are a waste of space. Um, yeah. How many groups actually act that way? Maybe 5%? Yet this book depicted it as the norm.
3. It sounds nice in principle ("Everyone should wear hats when they're in character, and take them off when they're out of character!") but in practice it goes over like a lead balloon ("I am not wearing that @#^$@#$ hat again you %$@#$#@ !@$@#! son of a @$!@#$#.")
Realistically, I think the vast majority of gamers like "wasting" time at the gaming table talking about movies and videogames, or making fun of the designated spaz in the group. The problem is when the game starts and nobody gets to have much fun, or if socializing replaces the game because the game is boring.
I don't think D&D (or any well designed RPG) is inherently doomed because of the 20 in 4 issue, but I do think it points to a larger issue that the hobby has faced since its inception.
seans23
First Post
An average baseball game takes 2 hours, 48 minutes to complete.
Rick Reilly once timed a baseball game that lasted 3 hours, 15 minutes.
During that time, the ball was in play for 12 minutes, 22 seconds.
so, compared to baseball, D&D is action-packed.
--a baseball fan
Rick Reilly once timed a baseball game that lasted 3 hours, 15 minutes.
During that time, the ball was in play for 12 minutes, 22 seconds.
so, compared to baseball, D&D is action-packed.
--a baseball fan
Last edited:
GreatLemur
Explorer
My gaming group is certainly distractable. We haven't had an argument yet (Maybe this is because we're playing a drastically rules-light World of Darkness game?), but there's certainly plenty of community dialog and eating. One side comment or in-game occurance can send us all off on a tangent of conversation that will only end when one of us realizes what's happening and reminds us all that we're there to game.WizarDru said:
And, I've gotta say, I don't really see that as a problem, because [LordofIllusions]D&D is a SOCIAL GAME[/LordofIllusions].
Seriously, though: I really do think the chatting and other social distractions are a big part of what makes RPGs fun. I think the value of such tangents to a given group (or even a given session) is pretty variable, depending on the level of immersion that's going on at the table--because there are times when you really don't want get distracted--but overall, I'd say they ain't a bad thing.
The biggest impediment to my gaming fun isn't at-the-table distractions; it's just the inevitable hassle of trying to get a bunch of adults with jobs and lives into the same living room on a weekly basis.
JohnSnow said:
Not that I'm aware of.
If there is, however, it's a spoof of a different quote: "Everway would have been the best-selling RPG of all time if we could ship Jonathan Tweet with every copy." (Commenting on WotC's spectacular failure to produce an RPG to capitalize on their MtG success.)
IanB said:I think the most baffling thing I've read all day is that someone schedules *bathroom breaks* for their gaming group.
Eh. My group generally follows a "play for two hours, then take a break" schedule -- fluctuating a bit depending on what's happening in the game. For the most part, people who need to hit the bathroom wait until a break.
I mean, we don't shoot you in the head if you need to hit the head before that.
