Explain "20 Minutes of Fun over 4 Hours" to me

[Schmoe]

Before I played in pickup game at an FLGS, I would have been completely puzzled by this statement. When I run, I try to keep things moving by minimizing distractions, keeping players involved, making spot rulings, and glossing over minor encounters that have little significance. I prefer to focus on the action and the important encounters, and tend to get through a reasonable amount of material each session.

However, before I started running my current campaign, I tried joining a game at an FLGS. In the first session, we spent 4 hours and all we accomplished was to meet our employer and take a bath. Literally. To compound the problem, we didn't really have anything to do. No plots or quests. The second session is largely forgotten, except that we didn't do anything and at the end of the session our employer told us we needed to take a crate and get it into a rival warehouse. The third session comprised getting the crate out of the inn and into the warehouse (open door, deposit crate, run).

I tried to give the game a chance, but in the end I couldn't justify spending 4 hours in what amounted to tedium. I'm not trying to be harsh, as this is just my perception of the game, and most of the other players seemed to be having fun. But that game made the original 20 in 4 so much more real to me.

Oh yeah. I also tend to take a 10 minute break in the middle of each session. It refreshes people and helps keep them focused.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I just don't understand this. I enjoy taking breaks, chatting with my players, mixing cocktails, joking, et cetera. That's what this pastime is about to me.

Now, if it were an issue of arguing over/discussing the rules vs. actually playing, I'd understand that being a problem. We do very, very little of this in my games. In fact, I have an explicit agreement with my players to the effect that rules discussions should be brought up after the fact whenever possible in order to speed play.

 

[blargney the second]

I take a cue from Indiana Jones: red lines cover all the boring stuff. Get to the game already!

 

[mhensley]

However, before I started running my current campaign, I tried joining a game at an FLGS. In the first session, we spent 4 hours and all we accomplished was to meet our employer and take a bath. Literally. To compound the problem, we didn't really have anything to do. No plots or quests.

Anytime you are playing in such a boring game, it is your right, nay your duty, to take control away from the dm. Punch your "employer" in the face! Attack the town guards! Push old people into wells! Toss a dwarf through a window! Start a bar fight! DO SOMETHING!

Who cares if your pc gets killed? At least you'll have some fun dying. If another player objects, attack his character! DO SOMETHING!

Now when your pathetic dm get pissed off and throws his campaign notes away in a huff, you can start a new game or find another group to play with.

 

[Shadeydm]

Argh, this came out all wrong. What this means is when one person goes, usually a few others follow after and we take a small break is all, check on the kids and stuff. Came out all wrong, sorry! And it doesn't mean we have folks away from the table all night is all!

-DM Jeff

Haha, you had me worried for a minute there.

 

[Mark Chance]

So, IOW, if we arbitrarily assign certain parts of the game session to Column Not-Gaming and other parts to Column Yes-Gaming and then generalize from a small sample group, we reach the conclusion that D&D isn't "fun efficient."

Color me skeptical.

 

[DM_Jeff]

Who cares if your pc gets killed? At least you'll have some fun dying. If another player objects, attack his character! DO SOMETHING!

A worthwhile quote from the Tracy Hickman GenCon Seminars, well done!

-DM Jeff

 

[frankthedm]

We were playing in some module and, before the game started, I said, "Let's just start out at the front entrance to the dungeon." Because I wanted to get in there, kill things, and take their stuff.

Instead we had to wander around town looking for someone to tell us where the front door to the dungeon was. It was boring. Those 3-4 hours could easily have been summed up by the DM in 30 seconds, and we could have started having fun right away.

You found it boring. Some of the other players may enjoy in game investigations. Others may appreciate the location not be well known since if it was, it might already been cleared out by another band of adventurers.

What ate up those hours? Were multiple players pursuing in-character agendas with townsfolk? Did anyone try and find someway to circumvent the dungeon crawl?

 

[Odhanan]

The statement of "20 mn fun for 4 hours play" is really at best an approximation, at worse vacuum assumption.

I don't think the original remark was even meant to be accurate.

Sure, you've got some game mechanics, book keeping, and all sorts of stuff that bogs down game-play, but 1/ a DM can regulate these sorts of discussion and make the game smoother, 2/ The players can participate actively in this kind of regulation and 3/ it assumes the amount of rules discussion vs. immersive role-play is the same, which is obviously wrong.

 

[frankthedm]

So, IOW, if we arbitrarily assign certain parts of the game session to Column Not-Gaming and other parts to Column Yes-Gaming and then generalize from a small sample group, we reach the conclusion that D&D isn't "fun efficient."

Color me skeptical.

It is more of Fun for those Wotc can easily part from thier money vs. Not fun for those Wotc can easily part from thier money. Business do focus groups on stuff like this all the time.