What Should You Be Able to Accomplish in Four Hours?

[Rel]

Our sessions run typically 4.5-5 hours and most of the time I feel like we get enough done to make me satisfied. This last week was an exception but there was some pretty bad timing and miscommunication that was out of the ordinary.

We're currently playing Savage Worlds and one of the things I like about it is that it lives up to its claim to be Fast Furious Fun. The combat system is pretty lean and moves quickly. And it lets the PC's mow through mooks fast and deal with the real threats in reasonable time but all the while it feel dangerous. That's about as much as I can ask from a combat system.

The other factor is pacing and I'm running a "Fantasy Gothic Horror" game right now. So a lot of the pacing is building up the creepy unknown and mystery. So that takes time too and the game isn't going to have the same fast pace as a dungeon crawl where it is often "Fight, Loot, Repeat".

I generally plan on having at least one major and one minor combat each session as an average and that seems pretty comfortable for this group, with this system, in this setting.

 

[NewJeffCT]

It depends on the game. Since we switched to 4E almost a year ago, we seem to accomplish a lot more combat-wise each session than we did during our 2 1/2 year long 3.5E campaign.

With 3.5, I rarely got in more than one combat per session and it was such a huge task to have a combat, so the game was a series of epic showdowns where the combat could last the entire 4 hour session, and then some. Heck, the last two encounters of the campaign both lasted two complete overtime sessions (5 more more hours) because they were so big and the bad guys and PCs both had so many choices/options at high levels. The party cleric, wizard and psion all had a ton of options to choose from, and what they cast/manifested could change based on what happened right before their turn came up in the round.

With 4E, because player choice is more limited, combat seems to move along much quicker than it did before.

While our last two sessions of four hours have been all role-playing (murder mystery), I anticipate some role-playing to start the next session, followed by two big combat encounters and then some more roleplaying and mystery solving to close out the night.

Depending on player choice, the following session could start with some big combats, followed by roleplaying, traps, haunts and mystery solving. Or, it could work in reverse. Or, somewhere in between. But, I hope to get through most all of that.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I currently have two Pathfinder groups - one is a Teens & Tweens game and the other consists largely of the first groups' parents. (It's becoming a family tradition! *Does a little dance.)

One group focuses on the task at hand and bends their concentration to achieving their goals. The other wastes time, interrupts itself, takes breaks for snacks, and talk about how much their kids are enjoying the game too....

The important thing is that both groups are enjoying the game - the kids can go through a good three and a half hours of play in four hours while their parents manage about half that, but both are having fun and playing at their own pace.

A third group (up until this very week I had been running four games a week... not one of my wiser endeavors... ) was a bunch of thirty something brand new players, more focused than the parents but taking about the same amount of time because of questions, both on how to play and how to run. That game is now finished and the Parents and Tweens campaigns are going to be alternating, giving me a much more reasonable two games a week.

The fourth game is a leisurely Steampunk/Gargoyles game using the Spycraft system. No rush, no hurry, just lots of roleplay. Actually accomplishing things is quite aside from playing - most of the players are also LARPers. This is going to stay at one game per week.

So, the answer to the question is 'Which group?'

The kids may go through three combats, search a small complex or solve a minor mystery, and settle down for the night in a single sitting. The adults... one, maybe two combats (they are much more chary about ending up suddenly dead), and a few clues followed up on.

The Auld Grump, meanwhile the Gargoyles will have had a good meal and conversed in character for a good three hours....

 

[howandwhy99]

The question is: what should I be accomplishing in an average four hour session? It obviously varies depending on what's going on in the session, but I think, at the very least, in four hours I should be able to engage in four combats or other kinds of encounters, plus an equal amount of time in explration and/or role-playing.

In part it depends upon how detailed the ruleset is, but a lot also is determined by how capable the players are. How well they work together as a team. How concise they are. How well planned they are. How much stuff is SOP'd over and narrated through because of that. Like Chess it can be speedy, but it's still dangerous to act rashly because it is a game. It's both express an act and reflect, so session time gets eaten up. The biggest obstacle for some groups I have been a part of is not addressing the game. Of course, for a lot of people that is why they play, to hang out and talk rather than game. It depends upon the people involved.

Now, it isn't all combat that eats up time. I have found that flipping through rules eats a bunch of time, as does the process of rejiggering spell lists.

What do you expect to be able to accomplish? How have you managed to increase your "game efficiency"?

Combat or any highly detailed portion of the game slows the overall game. That's to be expected. I think when the level of complexity goes up there is a point where most anyone just wants the pace to speed up again. Options in a turn can affect this like number of cards in one's hand. But I think number of actions per turn is more of a factor. D&D means you can attempt any expressible action, but the amount per turn is low. Out of round turns are almost always taken cooperatively too, so that helps out.

We don't really have expectations for how much must be able to be accomplished, but game efficiency? We make plans out of game and do SOPs as mentioned above. Callers really do work wonders. As does having certain players focus exclusively on team tasks instead of everyone doing so in duplicate, like mapping and tracking group treasure, etc.

 

[Mallus]

In part it depends upon how detailed the ruleset is, but a lot also is determined by how capable the players are. How well they work together as a team. How concise they are. How well planned they are.

It also depends on what the focus of play is at the moment. PC's talking amongst themselves in-character, or chatting up NPC's for the sheer pleasure/entertainment value of it can be pretty time-consuming, and it can occur outside of any particular goal/reward structure. Simply play-acting the part of a fictional character you are in the process of writing.

Some of the best sessions I've been in featured little getting accomplished, outside of characterization.

 

[Dausuul]

Fortunately, gathering by the info from The Weem's post that nobody paid any attention to, the Mearls chap and his loyal cohorts recognise this and plan on doing something about it.

Got a link? I is very curious now.

 

[Keldryn]

Got a link? I is very curious now.

theWeem.com | D&D / RPG Fan and Graphics Guy

EDIT:

These are the full quotes referred to:

Q: If there was one thing about 4E you would change, what would it be? (R J Schwalb)
Mearls: I’d get rid of Schwalb
A: Mearls - I’d make combat faster. Minimum combat time is higher than some people like, I’d want to find a way to make combat more flexible and make a shorter fight be more compelling.

Q: Any plans to look at combat length, or quick skirmish rules?
A: Mearls: I think that’s something we’ve talked about a little bit, but there may be something like an Unearthed Arcana article, or how to use skill powers to help
Perkins: We’re actually experimenting with things from the community - like halving all the PC and Monster hit points as suggested in a blog who’s name I can’t currently recall.
Kidd: Greg Bilsland is experimenting with concept in his game, doing things like removing all but one healing surge from all the characters, and seeing how that changes people’s actions.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't know about other groups but around here the amount of stuff that gets done in a gaming session sort of depends on how often we can get the gang together. Being busy people we generally don't get to spend much time together apart from game nights.

Our usual schedule is every two weeks. When something comes up then it can be a month or more between sessions. When this happens much less gets accomplished game wise regardless of what system we are playing because we are too busy shooting the breeze, catching up, and so forth. I think that if we were able to get together every week, then we could get a lot more actual gaming in per session.

Spending time with friends > How much stuff we do in the game.

 

[wilrich]

CLIP

Fortunately, gathering by the info from The Weem's post that nobody paid any attention to, the Mearls chap and his loyal cohorts recognise this and plan on doing something about it.

Sorry for the quick derail, but do you have a link? The fact that the powers that be recognize and are addressing this issue would be most welcome to me and I would love to see the link. Thanks!

Nevermind! I see it's been asked and answered!

 

[Impeesa]

Fun

More specifically, about 20 minutes of fun crammed into those 4 hours, or so the joke goes.