"Focus on shorter games"? I'm excited

[shadow]

I've noticed one of the design goals of the new edition is a focus on shorter games. This is a decision that I couldn't support more.

As someone who has to contend with work and school, I can no longer sit down and play all night D&D sessions or regularly meet a full group on a weekly basis.
Moreover, when I do play, it seems like players enjoy creating new characters and trying new options rather than sticking with a single character for months at a time.

I would like to see faster advancement and a class's powers kick in at lower level, rather than having to play a character for nearly a year before making any significant gains (assuming you're playing by the book).

If you want to continue to play the same character for a long time, or have long term campaigns, then there is nothing stopping you. There would be no rules forcing you to retire your character after a certain amount of play time. However, a focus on shorter games would be a godsend for players like me who have trouble being able to commit to longer campaigns.

 

[Yora]

I think it's an interesting idea, but for the opposite reason. "Shorter games" would also mean less dice rolling in longer games. And in many of the games I play and run, people are really not that crazy about rolling dice. When a fight starts, you need to get out the dice to resolve what the results at the end of the fight are before you can resume the actual plot itself.
"We overpower the guards and take their weapons" should not have to take 10 minutes. It's something that really should take only a few seconds in in-game time. Faster roll-play means there's more time left for the actual roleplay.

 

[the Jester]

I'm firmly in the camp of "should be able to run 12-20 combats in a 6-hour session with no problem".

 

[Greatwyrm]

The last long-term game I ran was online. Between jobs and family, we only managed about a 2 1/2 hour session a week. I'm interested in seeing anything that lets me use that kind of time to have an awesomer* game.

*yes, completely made up a dumb word.

 

[Lanefan]

I would like to see faster advancement and a class's powers kick in at lower level, rather than having to play a character for nearly a year before making any significant gains (assuming you're playing by the book).

If you want to continue to play the same character for a long time, or have long term campaigns, then there is nothing stopping you. There would be no rules forcing you to retire your character after a certain amount of play time.

First off, what do you mean by a character "making any significant gains"?

Second, the second paragraph I quoted above contradicts the first - yes there would be a "rule" forcing character retirement afterr a certain amount of play time, and that's the fact that a long-term (and I define long-term as 5 years or more) character played in the system you say in the first paragraph you would want would otherwise end up at some stratospheric level that the system is 99% likely not designed to handle.

Lan-"level-up should be a side effect of playing the game, not the reason for it"-efan

 

[Mercule]

A little of column A and a little of column B: I want the game to play faster, but I'm not too stuck on advancement speed.

I'm also in that category of insanely busy people. I get a 3 hour session every 2-3 weeks. I want to be able to have a couple of combats and follow up with and/or introduce plot points to move the story along. Every single week. And I don't want to have to spend a ton of time prepping, either.

I'm okay if it takes a year of playing 6 hrs/mo to hit 10th level, though -- as long as the game isn't too precariously balanced. When I GMed 1e/2e, in college, the PCs made it to 8-10th level in a school year, typically. I'll grant, I tended to be fairly stingy with the xp, but I also had no trouble working a +5 sword in for a 5th level character.

1e and 2e may have had a fairly broad definition of balanced, but it was robust for what it was. 3e and 4e are painfully fragile, if you deviate very far from default assumptions or start tweaking rules. I guess more than anything, I'd like to see that brittleness fixed. Give me a system that plays reasonably fast and has a robust set of core rules and I'll take care of the rest. Oh, and make sure that those core rules don't imply the GM is at the mercy of the rules lawyers.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Lan-"level-up should be a side effect of playing the game, not the reason for it"-efan

This made me think of something thats fairly amusing (at least IMHO).

Way back when I first started playing, the objective of the game was gaining wealth, fame, and power. Treasure was the main source of XP and published adventures were largely locations stuffed with monsters & treasure. We tried our best to play smart and get as much treasure as we could of course but speed of gaining levels was barely a blip on our radar.

Flash foward many years..............

Characters now have more abilities and fiddly bits. The objective of the game is defeating enemies, completing quests, and being the most badass heroes you can be. Quests and combat are the main sources of XP. Despite wealth & power being de-emphasised, there is an inordinate amount of time obsessing over leveling up, chomping at the bit to get to level X so that Y ability can be used.


What I find amusing is that in games featuring powering up as a goal of play, the players have a moderate interest in gaining levels. In games featuring quests and heroic activities, the players have more of a fixation on leveling up and gaining power.

Its funny because logically one would expect the exact opposite to be true.

 

[Elf Witch]

I am not excited about this at all. I run long term campaigns and having to deal with PCs leveling faster is not something I am looking forward too.

I can understand why for some people this is a great idea.

If they go this route I hope they have some suggestions on how to expand it and run a longer campaign.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I am not excited about this at all. I run long term campaigns and having to deal with PCs leveling faster is not something I am looking forward too.

I can understand why for some people this is a great idea.

If they go this route I hope they have some suggestions on how to expand it and run a longer campaign.

The game playing faster at the table and advancement rates are separate things. The DM is responsible for handling XP and thus controls the rate of advancement. Characters don't have to skyrocket through the levels in any campaign unless you want them to.

 

[Greatwyrm]

I am not excited about this at all. I run long term campaigns and having to deal with PCs leveling faster is not something I am looking forward too.

How fast your characters level is between you and your players. It can be as fast or slow as you all agree on. I was a stickler on points in 2e and 3e, but I didn't use the xp system at all in my 4e game. If the pace is what everyone wants, nobody will complain.