Legends and Lore April 2, 2012

My gaming group consists of busy working adults(all gainfully employed and over 30) with kids. We still manage to play every Sunday from 5-10 (or later) in 2 separate campaigns (2 DMs who swap every other week)

We play our characters until the campaign ends (one way or the other), someone dies or on very very rare occasions when a character needs to go away for some reason (party strife, player doesn't find the character fun)

We tend to level fairly quickly, about every 3 sessions or so, after a year that would put us at about 8-9 levels per campaign for a year.
I don't think I like the idea of D&D assuming we play 2 hours a week or that were will be bored of a character after 12 levels, those are DM calls that shouldn't really be codified in my opinion.

If they want to build adventure paths or adventure modules around those assumptions, that would be fine.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Janaxstrus said:
I don't think I like the idea of D&D assuming we play 2 hours a week or that were will be bored of a character after 12 levels, those are DM calls that shouldn't really be codified in my opinion.

I don't think of it as codified -- I don't think they'll FORCE anyone to stop playing after two hours.

I think of it as optimised -- if they know that the average person plays for that long, that often, and sees that percentage of the game, they can target their design that way.

For instance, in 4e, a combat can take an hour or so to resolve. If someone plays a session for two hours, this means that they can get through two combats each week if they do nothing else (or one combat + some story, or whatever). In the first case, this may mean they can structure how long a thing takes to resolve -- if combat is taking up half of your session, is that a good thing? A bad thing? Something we might want to scale? Does every goblin-bashing need to take an hour? Do we want a dragon to take the full two hours? Do we want to make turns shorter? What if the group wants to spend half the session on roleplaying? Or exploring a dungeon? Or maybe we split it three ways (combat/roleplay/explore!), about how long should each chunk take, and how complicated then should we make each chunk?

So that's useful to know because it helps give you a baseline target for these things: Okay, if we can fit an entire short "adventure" into one night, complete with all of D&D's major features (combat, interaction, exploration, resouce management, tactics, strategy, etc.), we've got something that even someone who only plays D&D once for two hours will get a handle on -- something we can market as a casual game -- and something that can scale well. Stacking adventures can make for a more complex, powerful game, where each time you meet, you can get something done and walk away feeling like you've done something other than roll dice with your time.

Those who play for longer can always fit more in. It's not hard to pad out something that can take an hour in D&D into four or more.

This also plays into a longer-term strategy.

If the game takes 10 combats to level up and your combat time is like 4e, this means the "two-hour group" is leveling once in a little more than a month (5 weeks). In a year of play, they'll be about level 10 (give or take a few weeks for holidays and whatnot). If a group doesn't stay together for more than a year (or just wants a change of pace), how does that affect our sales strategy?

How long will it take them to see 30 levels? Is it wise to publish 10 new classes within the first few months, or should we wait a year or two? Should we invest a lot of R&D into epic-level stuff when almost no one has a game that lasts that long anyway? How much should we want to bring that experience into that year of play anyway? How many new characters will a given player usually play? How many options do we really need, so as not to saturate the market?

Again, this isn't about exclusivity or control. Okay, the group that plays for 8 years can stretch it out or change over time. But do we really need to change the one-year-game group's game that much? Or, do we need to do it faster, so that we can actually sell Epic Destiny rules to those who play in briefer games? Do we need to provide an option other than "Spend 2,000 hours in the next two years killing 1,000 goblins to get to level 20, and THEN you can play this content" because the amount of people who can sit down and actually do that is not very big?

I think it's vital when you're producing any product, to understand how your product is actually used. In this situation, it might be something like: "We think Epic Destinies are an awesome idea, but no one seems to be using them, because almost no one plays one character for 2,000 hours. Maybe if we implement them as a form of reward that the DM can insert in the campaign at any point to change the flow of the game, rather than something that automatically happens at point X, we can get them out to people who will love them and use them."
 

What Kamikaze said makes a lot of sense. It seems the modular design will encourage faster play for some, without eliminating the options for those who like more detailed tactics or play styles that involve slower or faster advancement. They are just designing around the averages. One poster asked, how do they know that is truly the average? I don't know...hopefully the designers understand statistics. Can't speak for them there, but their observations certainly mesh with my experience. Also, if they design for a year bringing the character up to about 12th level, that's about half as fast as the goal of 3rd Edition design...which was about 20th level in one year, if I remember correctly (I have no idea if that ever became reality, because I didn't play that edition long enough to know for sure).

I don't think of it as codified -- I don't think they'll FORCE anyone to stop playing after two hours.

I think of it as optimised -- if they know that the average person plays for that long, that often, and sees that percentage of the game, they can target their design that way..."
 

Why the obsession of hard coding in the rules the campaign's plot and fluff? Shouldn't the individual DM and his group decide if they want to play politics when they reach 10th level or continue crawling dungeons, this time killing giants instead of kobolds?
 

Regardless, I have never found 2 hours or 12th level to be close to reality (in my own 28 years of personal experiences).

I would double the avg time, and drop the levels by 4. We end more campaigns either by TPK or boredom, or just running it's course by 8th, than any double digit ones. And if you tried getting most of the people I know that play together for anything less than 3-5 hours, they'd not bother getting out their dice.

Heck, the games at some of the local stores run for longer than that, and those tend to be introductory or pick-up scenarios, not ongoing games.

To me, they would be better served designing better adventures (as DMs I know are already perfectly capable of developing a schedule to account for their time allotted) to make use of short time windows, than designing the game around 2 hour/12 level assumptions.
 

Why the obsession of hard coding in the rules the campaign's plot and fluff? Shouldn't the individual DM and his group decide if they want to play politics when they reach 10th level or continue crawling dungeons, this time killing giants instead of kobolds?

Yeah, it seems like there's an awful low of focus on how the game should be played, what players should be doing and how players should go about that compared to functionality and systems fixing.
 

As a researcher, I would like to go on record and say that the way in which WotC designs their polls causes me to seriously question the data they collect, the decisions they make based on their analysis, and their original intent. The polls are poorly designed in terms of the language used and the constructs found in each instrument.
 

Janaxstrus said:
Regardless, I have never found 2 hours or 12th level to be close to reality (in my own 28 years of personal experiences).

I would double the avg time, and drop the levels by 4. We end more campaigns either by TPK or boredom, or just running it's course by 8th, than any double digit ones. And if you tried getting most of the people I know that play together for anything less than 3-5 hours, they'd not bother getting out their dice.

I think the modular nature of 5e should help make sure we can play this jazz in our own way.

So, say the game is designed first with a two-hour play session in mind. This might mean something like dividing up the Three Pillars with some rough evenness in them (maybe, a half hour of real time sucking up each, to allow for a bathroom break or table-talk or something). This might mean systems that are pretty simple, pretty obvious, and that play pretty quickly.

Then you look at it, and go, "Huh. A little light."

There's a few things you can do. First would just be to maybe double up on each pillar. Add a few combats, or a few role-playing scenes, or some levels to the dungeon. This makes your adventure more detailed and robust, and it takes up more time.

Another might be to swap out the default rules with something less abstract and more detailed. If you swap out the defualt combat with minis combat, for instance, your combats take longer. If you're not a fan of combat, maybe swap out the default interaction skills system for the Witty Repartee module, which involves more detail and specificity with your social skills. Or with the Detailed Resource Management module, which tracks individdual arrows and pounds of encumbrance. Basically, you've got a lot of flexibility to customize your game, since you have more time.

You might also consider running the game a little faster. If the game doesn't automatically change at Level X, you can fit two standard-size adventures into your gaming night, and get that much more D&D goodness out of it. Maybe you'll gain more levels and help stave off that boredom, to boot, if the game is changing more often. As long as the game doesn't change underneath you, what's the harm in advancing faster? Or not -- run two and halve the experience awards.

Janaxstrus said:
To me, they would be better served designing better adventures (as DMs I know are already perfectly capable of developing a schedule to account for their time allotted) to make use of short time windows, than designing the game around 2 hour/12 level assumptions.

If the rules aren't designed to be able to accomodate those 2-hour, 10-15 level assumptions, making adventures to handle that would be VERY difficult, especially for a DM with limited income and resources and experience.

But I'm not sure it'll make anyone's game worse for them to optimize the game for that. They're not going to forget there's other kinds of players, too. And there's a lot of solutions to the "I have too much time to play D&D!" problem. Not so many solutions to the "I don't have enough time to play D&D problem!"
 

I get the impression that those polls are snapshots of fan sentiment, rather than considered robust statistical data...I'd be very surprised to learn they had no other means of collecting relevant information about players, or that they are basing large decisions on those polls alone. :uhoh:

As a researcher, I would like to go on record and say that the way in which WotC designs their polls causes me to seriously question the data they collect, the decisions they make based on their analysis, and their original intent. The polls are poorly designed in terms of the language used and the constructs found in each instrument.
 

As a researcher, I would like to go on record and say that the way in which WotC designs their polls causes me to seriously question the data they collect, the decisions they make based on their analysis, and their original intent. The polls are poorly designed in terms of the language used and the constructs found in each instrument.

Agreed, as a political scientist, if these were polls related to the elections, the data would be thrown out in a heartbeat.
 

Remove ads

Top