Interesting problem re adventures

[the Jester]

All I know is, if combat slog is what makes a campaign last longer, I'll take a quick campaign, please.

I don't think I have seen anyone argue for more combat slog, but a lot of us would like longer campaigns. The two don't go hand-in-hand- in fact, in 2e and earlier, in the editions in which advancement was slowest, combat was fastest.

 

[Agamon]

I don't think I have seen anyone argue for more combat slog, but a lot of us would like longer campaigns. The two don't go hand-in-hand- in fact, in 2e and earlier, in the editions in which advancement was slowest, combat was fastest.

Erm...you cut my post off at the knees:

Me, I'll see it as an opportunity to get as many combat encounters in as normal, and then increase the amount of roleplay and exploration that sometimes tends to get brushed off when the fight-of-the-night take an hour and a half.

So, yes, I agree. Long campaigns without long combats, please.

 

[DNH]

This kind of brings up the old character-advancement-without-experience-rewards thing, which is something that I do (mostly). I can see this element as an optional rule too, or the whole experience points system being modular.

 

[Harlock]

This kind of brings up the old character-advancement-without-experience-rewards thing, which is something that I do (mostly). I can see this element as an optional rule too, or the whole experience points system being modular.

I know I've been in campaigns were advancement was based on DM fiat and didn't mind at all.

 

[Lwaxy]

Well, even if it halves the time for a campaign, let's say an AP, it means we can play 2 or 3 a year instead of 1 or 2. Which is good. Considering I now have a group that can't decide between 3 APs or a self made campaign...