Length of sessions, pace of play, and complexity of adventures: trials of the aging gamer

[AsenRG]

I wasn't surprised to see you disagree with this!

Nobody was...

By the way, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but you're quoting me from another thread. This was probably leftover in your quote buffer.

...ooopsie!

Yes, I'm using the quote buffer, indeed!

Your mention of DCC is a bit of an outlier, because it falls into the D&D-adjacent category; I'd certainly include it as a good dungeon crawl system (I mean, the name is truth in advertising) without contradicting my premise. I'm a huge fan of the system and many of the adventures.

Yes, I did wonder whether to include it. In the end, I decided to do so, because rolling for spells and Martial Deeds. But yes, it's D&D-adjacent.

Otherwise, our experiences differ. For me, games like WFRP, Mythras and GURPS tend to be a bit too deadly to simulate anything past low-level D&D play.

Yeah, our experiences and attitudes differ. Games that aren't deadly enough stop holding any interest for me.

Consequently, it's possible that you're right, and I'm simply not accounting for the kind of game you have in mind, since I'm writing off all games and adventures that stop holding my interest as "failures" and not including them in any analysis.

Your highly-skilled character will be doing fine, until suddenly, they very much are not. At my table, they had a fundamentally different pace, and trade-off between risk and reward.

I am not denying your experiences. It probably comes down to how we run our games, and our expectations.

Yes, it is probably down to how we run, and/or how our players play.

Also, I'd be really curious where I can see an example of your idea of "higher level dungeoncrawl", if you can come up with any published titles. Preferably sandbox ones, for easier comparison.

I have been able to do smaller dungeons in more lethal systems, but there are more rests required than in D&D when a room is cleared with a sleep spell or later a fireball (especially once they get a wand of fireballs).

Ahem, that's NOT down to the system. That's down to getting a strong AoE spell or magic device and deploying it suddenly and at the start.
I can make a Fireball Wand in Mythras and it would clean up rooms just as fine...or I can bind a Fire Spirit as a RQ6 Animist!


Because of course, if we're talking "same dungeon", we're going to start with analoguous PCs, and it's only fair to assume similar or at least analogous magic exists in the setting.

Another issue is length of time to run a combat slows the pace down. It took my PCs 6 or 7 months of play sessions to clear a 24 room dungeon from Dungeon Magazine, and they actually skipped a few rooms. They did manage with just 2 rests I think (maybe it was 3). In RQ we took close to a year of sessions to deal with ONE encounter location, with several rests.

Care to share specific dungeons you've run with D&D? I'd like to try running them with MCF!

The TFT dungeon we did was horrible. Each foray resulted in a week of rest because of the lack of healing capability. And we didn't get enough treasure to pay for the healing potions we had used... We completed that dungeon poorer than when we started... In that campaign, the best way to get treasure was to start a new PC... Well, OK, I DID make some decent treasure once, because I caught and trained some horses (during the training, the other PC used the Jobs table that got me looking closely at that, and the cumulative risk of just having a daily job...).

Sorry, I've never played TFT, though I'd like to. If Skarg comes to Bulgaria some time, I'd ask him to run a game for us...or I might try tempting him to run a game on Discord, since we're in the same time zone. (In honour of this thread, I'd ask for a game that features dungeons or dungeon-analogues!)

But for now I just plain can't comment!

 

[E-Rocker]

It's harder to say focused with video chat

The group I'm in that started as an in-person group but become an online group when our DM & her boyfriend moved far away stays way more focused via video chat than we did in-person.

 

[Edgewise]

Also, I'd be really curious where I can see an example of your idea of "higher level dungeoncrawl", if you can come up with any published titles.

Look no further than Prince of Nothing's No-Artpunk III contest! The requirement for these entries is that they have to be for D&D of 7th level and up, and most of them are quite a bit higher level than that. The submissions are in and he's been working his way through all the reviews on his blog.

One of those entries came from me (it's called Death-Maze of the Sorcerer Kings), and I've been working on a vastly-expanded version for commercial release. Both my contest entry and the impending commercial release are intended for B/X (or OSE) levels 12-14. The current draft of the latter is ludicrously girthy: 198 pages in google docs with a 9pt font, so far! I'm counting on editor/publisher Malrex to bring some sanity to this enterprise...

I guess none of these are published yet, but Prince will publish a compilation of his favorites entries as PWYW, and my KS will be happening in a few months. I'm already getting some sick drafts from one of the artists.

High-level D&D adventures are notoriously difficult to write. That's why I embraced the challenge. So far, the playtest has been a lot of fun, and nothing has seemed especially unbalanced or arbitrarily restrictive. But it's early; we only completed the second session yesterday!

 

[AsenRG]

Look no further than Prince of Nothing's No-Artpunk III contest! The requirement for these entries is that they have to be for D&D of 7th level and up, and most of them are quite a bit higher level than that. The submissions are in and he's been working his way through all the reviews on his blog.

One of those entries came from me (it's called Death-Maze of the Sorcerer Kings), and I've been working on a vastly-expanded version for commercial release. Both my contest entry and the impending commercial release are intended for B/X (or OSE) levels 12-14. The current draft of the latter is ludicrously girthy: 198 pages in google docs with a 9pt font, so far! I'm counting on editor/publisher Malrex to bring some sanity to this enterprise...

I guess none of these are published yet, but Prince will publish a compilation of his favorites entries as PWYW, and my KS will be happening in a few months. I'm already getting some sick drafts from one of the artists.

High-level D&D adventures are notoriously difficult to write. That's why I embraced the challenge. So far, the playtest has been a lot of fun, and nothing has seemed especially unbalanced or arbitrarily restrictive. But it's early; we only completed the second session yesterday!

I love all of this except the part where it's not published! Instant gratification, man, gimme my insta-gratification, because for this thread, anything that's only going to be published "in a few months" might as well not exist...

There shall be other threads in a few months, and I'm sure we're all going to be interested in your entry. Although I'm going to run it with MCF, as you very well know, but I'm also sure you won't care...


Edited to add: ...wait, that's a Google Drive link!?!?!?!?
Oh, 75 pages - thank you, that's exactly what I wanted! Now I'm off to read, expect me to comment in a day or two, after I've not only read it, but mulled it over!

 

[ffilz]

Ahem, that's NOT down to the system. That's down to getting a strong AoE spell or magic device and deploying it suddenly and at the start.
I can make a Fireball Wand in Mythras and it would clean up rooms just as fine...or I can bind a Fire Spirit as a RQ6 Animist!

Because of course, if we're talking "same dungeon", we're going to start with analoguous PCs, and it's only fair to assume similar or at least analogous magic exists in the setting.

Ah, but I include all of the assumptions in a system. Cold Iron has a sleep spell, single target at 8th level... Does this mean a D&D style dungeon should assume 8th level Cold Iron characters? Are they still fighting 1st level goblins and kobolds? Most D&D magic items can not be replicate in Cold Iron. Fireball is single target, area Firestorm is a 7th level spell (OK, that at least is only 2 levels higher than D&D), but if you had a Firestorm wand, it wouldn't have 100 charges, you would get a few uses out of it. RQ magic is pretty personal until you get Rune Magic. But even if without the differences in magic, just the simple length of fight slows things down and requires more resting.

Care to share specific dungeons you've run with D&D? I'd like to try running them with MCF!

With D&D or other systems? It's been a long time (1980s) since I ran a published dungeon with D&D.

With Cold Iron, we just completed Falcon's Peak from Dungeon Magazine Issue #3. In the 1980s I used a few other Dungeon Magazine adventures.

With RuneQuest, I've run Rainbow Mounds from Apple Lane (1e version), TSR UK5 Eye of the Serpent, Lair of the White Wyrm from White Dwarf Issue #14, part of Dyskund Caverns from Shadows on the Borderland, and some home made adventures. They are just starting Snake Pipe Hollow.

Sorry, I've never played TFT, though I'd like to. If Skarg comes to Bulgaria some time, I'd ask him to run a game for us...or I might try tempting him to run a game on Discord, since we're in the same time zone. (In honour of this thread, I'd ask for a game that features dungeons or dungeon-analogues!)

But for now I just plain can't comment!

Some of the TFT problem was the way the campaign was run. Obviously if the system relies on treasure for quick healing, then you can't do the same kind of adventuring if the treasure haul doesn't support it.

 

[Skarg]

Not quite true... in skill-based systems with active defense combat and fixed HP, you want to recover as much HP as you can, but often you can't afford to recover it all, IME. So you are going to press ahead with some wounds, probably, and those might make it more likely to suffer a serious wound on an already-injured location...but if you're already suffering one of these, your combat efficiency is questionable.

You might press ahead, but you're like an OD&D fighter with only 6 HP. You might be able to hold your part of the line, or you might drop on the first strike...

What happens IC is:
"He's hurt, should we head back?"
"We can't", the wounded man says, while others bandage the wounded arm. "And it's just a flesh wound! I trust in my armour!"
Meanwhile, the dwarf is hammering out the dented part of the armour and making it at least less noticeable there's now a chink in it...

Yes. In other words, it's about treating situations with actual logic about the situation, instead of about weird abstract mountains of "hit points" that supposedly don't represent anything real, but somehow pass with some players as a budget of luck and cool moves, or something.

In most games I play in, when on a long-term operation like a big dungeon expedition, smart parties also usually have a good number of NPC companions along too, and the dead or incapacitated PCs/NPCs, as well as some equipment, and anything like healing potion (if any), also serve as resources that can wear down a party.

 

[AsenRG]

Ah, but I include all of the assumptions in a system. Cold Iron has a sleep spell, single target at 8th level... Does this mean a D&D style dungeon should assume 8th level Cold Iron characters? Are they still fighting 1st level goblins and kobolds? Most D&D magic items can not be replicate in Cold Iron. Fireball is single target, area Firestorm is a 7th level spell (OK, that at least is only 2 levels higher than D&D), but if you had a Firestorm wand, it wouldn't have 100 charges, you would get a few uses out of it. RQ magic is pretty personal until you get Rune Magic. But even if without the differences in magic, just the simple length of fight slows things down and requires more resting.

Yes, that's why I said "analogous" spells and gave the example of a Mythras/RQ6 Animist. Is it Area of Effect and liable to take out of combat a group of low-level enemies? Then it might as well be fireball, if it softens them up, or sleep if a successful save prevents all effect...

With D&D or other systems? It's been a long time (1980s) since I ran a published dungeon with D&D.

Whatever the kind of dungeon you're talking about is, of course!

With Cold Iron, we just completed Falcon's Peak from Dungeon Magazine Issue #3.

Just to double-check, what year was that published in?

With RuneQuest, I've run Rainbow Mounds from Apple Lane (1e version), TSR UK5 Eye of the Serpent, Lair of the White Wyrm from White Dwarf Issue #14, part of Dyskund Caverns from Shadows on the Borderland, and some home made adventures. They are just starting Snake Pipe Hollow.

...I'm more than 100% sure that those would all be doable with Mythras characters, though. Is there a catch?

Some of the TFT problem was the way the campaign was run. Obviously if the system relies on treasure for quick healing, then you can't do the same kind of adventuring if the treasure haul doesn't support it.

Yes, that's definitely so - sorry, I can't comment simply because of lack of familiarity, but if you're buying your healing, you would need to estimate how much you can make from a fight vs how hurt you'd get in winning it. Any fight where you'd need to pay more than the estimated reward, is a fight to be avoided.
That much I can say without any familiarity.

 

[Edgewise]

Edited to add: ...wait, that's a Google Drive link!?!?!?!?
Oh, 75 pages - thank you, that's exactly what I wanted! Now I'm off to read, expect me to comment in a day or two, after I've not only read it, but mulled it over!

FWIW I now feel that the contest adventure (which I linked to) falls so far short of the more complete version that's in-progress. If you end up finding Death-Maze to be worth your time, I'd be glad to share a link with its big brother. (Aside: I'm not giving its name here because (a) it's just a working title, and (b) it's a spoiler, and some of the playtesters are here on the pub.)

And if you like it, feel free to run it in any system you like, steal ideas from it, etc. I'd be flattered either way!

 

[Skarg]

...

Some of the TFT problem was the way the campaign was run. Obviously if the system relies on treasure for quick healing, then you can't do the same kind of adventuring if the treasure haul doesn't support it.

Yeah, the GM and the situation can make all the difference. TFT does not encourage GMs to balance for the players to necessarily prosper, or even survive. It suggests putting things that make sense at adventure locations, leaving it up to the players to figure out what to do, how to do it, how large a party they need to bring, how long to rest, etc.

And that can certainly include situations where the PCs are going someplace where they'll get repeatedly chewed up and be lucky to live let alone prosper. It's also quite possible to bring enough NPCs but have agreements to share/pay them so much that the expenses eat up the PCs' share of the loot, or whatever.

Of course, it's also entirely possible for the GM to make plenty of loot and healing potion available, with not all that much danger.

Also, having to retreat and heal for a couple weeks, doesn't need to take particularly more table time than taking a D&D "long rest" in a dungeon. (Unless you happen to get attacked before you've rested up, or something.)

And, we often try to have enough NPC companions that we can guard our camp/wagon/etc., and so that if people get wounded, they can rest under guard while a party of other people go out again. Which can be crucial, since whoever we're raiding can and often will respond to being raided, e.g. with reinforcements, hunting for the raiders, and/or relocating. Which IMO is wonderful and much more interesting than a static situation where the foes just wait in place for attackers to heal & come back.

 

[AsenRG]

FWIW I now feel that the contest adventure (which I linked to) falls so far short of the more complete version that's in-progress. If you end up finding Death-Maze to be worth your time, I'd be glad to share a link with its big brother. (Aside: I'm not giving its name here because (a) it's just a working title, and (b) it's a spoiler, and some of the playtesters are here on the pub.)

And if you like it, feel free to run it in any system you like, steal ideas from it, etc. I'd be flattered either way!

OK, feel free to send me a PM link. I was hooked as soon as I saw the name Krarth, my Mythras Classic Fantasy characters have no idea what I've got in store for them...

 

[ffilz]

Yes, that's why I said "analogous" spells and gave the example of a Mythras/RQ6 Animist. Is it Area of Effect and liable to take out of combat a group of low-level enemies? Then it might as well be fireball, if it softens them up, or sleep if a successful save prevents all effect...

If we're going to require analogous magic, I guess that would apply across the board... So yea, I guess more lethal systems that can do analogous magic to that assumed for D&D by a given dungeon reduces things to whether the time it takes to do the dungeon given the system is reasonable.

By that, ColdIron, and I think RuneQuest 1/2 are essentially removed from this comparison. Because there are magic assumptions that are way different than D&D, they are not good candidates for running the kinds of large dungeons that are possible with some versions of D&D (D&D 3.x doesn't do them so well either, though there is more similarity in magic).

Whatever the kind of dungeon you're talking about is, of course!

OK

Just to double-check, what year was that published in?

1986

...I'm more than 100% sure that those would all be doable with Mythras characters, though. Is there a catch?

Oh, all of those dungeons worked well. Rainbow Mounds and Lair of the White Wyrm are smallish dungeons, but still took several rests to clear out. Eye of the Serpent is an outdoor adventure with some <10 room "dungeons" so rests were easy. The Dyskund Caverns encounter area was a major temple with two rune priests but the PCs were able to leverage the limits on rune magic to an extent that made the situation eventually winnable. Also, the PC party was rejuvenated a few times by new players joining.

Yes, that's definitely so - sorry, I can't comment simply because of lack of familiarity, but if you're buying your healing, you would need to estimate how much you can make from a fight vs how hurt you'd get in winning it. Any fight where you'd need to pay more than the estimated reward, is a fight to be avoided.
That much I can say without any familiarity.

I think the GM had never run a TFT dungeon before... And we hadn't played before... What I learned from TFT is:

1. There is a lot of nice stuff in the system, but I'd rather invest my time in playing RQ or Cold Iron.

2. The assumptions of the system require consideration of how to structure a campaign. Changing up some assumptions of play, without changing the system itself would have resulted in a more enjoyable campaign.

 

[Skarg]

...

I think the GM had never run a TFT dungeon before... And we hadn't played before... What I learned from TFT is:

1. There is a lot of nice stuff in the system, but I'd rather invest my time in playing RQ or Cold Iron.

2. The assumptions of the system require consideration of how to structure a campaign. Changing up some assumptions of play, without changing the system itself would have resulted in a more enjoyable campaign.

Yeah, if you take four starting TFT characters, especially one fighter, one magic user, one thief, and one cleric (LOL), and send them into a dungeon with dozens of roomfulls of monsters, expecting to slaughter your way through, you're probably going to have a "bad" time.

 

[Baulderstone]

I love all of this except the part where it's not published! Instant gratification, man, gimme my insta-gratification, because for this thread, anything that's only going to be published "in a few months" might as well not exist...

You want instant gratification? Edgewise has two adventures out already that I will plug on his behalf. I played in both of them when he ran them, and they were both enormously fun.

The Magician's House is dungeon crawl though the dimension-sprawling home of wizard with a deadline to beat. I'm linking the DCC version, which I believe was the version I played (it was years ago now). It's also available for 5E, LotFP and Lark.

Peril in Olden Wood is a sandbox adventure written for OSE that managed to keep us busy for most of a year of weekly sessions.

They are more than enough to keep you busy until his new adventure comes out.

 

[Jerry_B]

When I ran a homebrew Call of Cthulhu game a few years ago for novice players, the average play session was about 4 hours. When I ran a homebrew Star Frontiers game about 10 years ago, 3-4 hours was pretty normal. In both cases we didn't play for longer simply because there was either work the next day or everyone involved started playing after finishing their work day. We could easily have played for longer. TBH time flies in these situations for me as the referee/Keeper/DM. A few times we've played over a weekend; pretty much 6 -7 hours per day. Sometimes we play a different rpg each day, which is something we also used to do back in the 80s when we were kids.

 

[AsenRG]

You want instant gratification? Edgewise has two adventures out already that I will plug on his behalf. I played in both of them when he ran them, and they were both enormously fun.

The Magician's House is dungeon crawl though the dimension-sprawling home of wizard with a deadline to beat. I'm linking the DCC version, which I believe was the version I played (it was years ago now). It's also available for 5E, LotFP and Lark.

Peril in Olden Wood is a sandbox adventure written for OSE that managed to keep us busy for most of a year of weekly sessions.

They are more than enough to keep you busy until his new adventure comes out.

Well, the instagratification part might have been a joke:goosecry:! What I wanted is something I can read before the thread has run its life...

I have The Magician's House and was going to run it for Mythras once, but that game failed for OOC reasons* before the PCs even got close, and I never came back to it.
In fact, I suggested to Edgewise he should publish it with the system he uses, Lark, and bought it for his system (BTW, Lark is both interesting and simple)...

What I don't know is whether it qualifies as the kind of dungeon that he is talking about in this thread, despite it having DCC and 5e versions...yes, I remember there was a DCC version, I very nearly got that one for the Patrons - but then I reasoned that Lark's version is probably still going to be easier to "translate" to a skill-based system!
So, Edgewise, would it be a good example? I can start work on that dungeon immediately. (I'd suspect it's not high-level enough, but I might be wrong, of course).




*Let's leave it at it, it was a bad period.

 

[ffilz]

Yeah, if you take four starting TFT characters, especially one fighter, one magic user, one thief, and one cleric (LOL), and send them into a dungeon with dozens of roomfulls of monsters, expecting to slaughter your way through, you're probably going to have a "bad" time.

Makes sense.

Hmm, Starbeard might want to chime in on his impressions of the campaign too...

 

[Bourbonjack]

these days, I can devote a 4 hour block to my gaming sessions. Since that is total time, VTT has been a Godsend.

I had mostly given up on gaming for several years prior to the pandemic, as my gaming group required a 45 minute commute. Back when I (and the group) could give a full Saturday afternoon & evening to the game, it was no problem, but as demands on my time increased, I couldn’t compress a reasonable game into the time available.

I stated VTT during the pandemic, and it has been fantastic. Sit down at my PC and 5 minutes later I’m gaming. Finish the session, and walk upstairs to be back with
the family.

 

[Starbeard]

Makes sense.

Hmm, Starbeard might want to chime in on his impressions of the campaign too...

My observations mirror ffilz pretty much exactly. It's a fun game with some interesting system interactions, but it requires rethinking what it means to have a "campaign." If you just play D&D dungeon crawls using TFT, you'll end up slogging through things pretty slowly and probably just die; and also never progress your character quickly enough to actually get any better at dungeon crawling before that happens.

The way characters are set up, I think you really need to be thinking of the high level and long term stuff as your base line. Get a job, plan your weekly or even monthly routines and activities, and occasionally that zooms into specific encounters or adventures that you can play out round by round.

 

[Acmegamer]

Yes, I'm using the quote buffer, indeed!

lol! You don't use Quote Buffer, you abuse it! I swear I heard Quote Buffer whimpering in a corner after you went by.

 

[Edgewise]

OK, feel free to send me a PM link.

Incoming!

I was hooked as soon as I saw the name Krarth

Oh, this guy gets the reference! Then you might be very pleased to know that Death-Maze of the Sorcerer Kings was directly inspired by my favorite 80s British fantasy influences. Deathtrap Dungeon and Khare: Cityport of Traps are probably the two most prominent

@

Edgewise has two adventures out already that I will plug on his behalf. I played in both of them when he ran them, and they were both enormously fun.

You are too kind! So sad that Peril ended with a TPK...there was at least another month of sessions we could have gotten out of it.

So, @

Edgewise, would it be a good example?

Magician's House and Peril In Olden Wood are adventures I am at least a little proud of (especially the latter), but they're not aimed at high-level D&D. I feel like they would both do just fine when converted to other systems, since they aren't laser focused on dungeon crawling.

To be honest, Death-Maze of the Sorcerer Kings and [Name Redacted] are not pure dungeon crawls, but the titular Death-Maze is a no-joke big-boy-pants high-level dungeon. It's stocked with several classics from the oh-no-not-one-of-those school of D&D. For instance, if you linger in the dungeon too long, one of the potential wandering monsters is

Spoiler: honor system: players don't look

an air elemental filled with dust of sneezing and choking.

There's also an encounter with a

Spoiler: honor system: players don't look

beholder and eight gargoyles, the beholder using his anti-magic beam to disable spells and magic items so as to make the gargoyles invulnerable to the party's weapons.

 

[Telok]

That's like the most GM thing ever.

To be honest I started tracking because I keep seeing people loudly and repeatedly claim they get five or six "hard" fights in a 3 hours D&D session with the fights taking less than half the session and only lasting three rounds. Then they say the game's wonderful and everyone who thinks D&D combat is a dull hit point slog are incompetent or lying.

So I've started tracking stuff for myself. The game I'm GMing its so I can roughly try to see where I might want to spend more time or streamline more. Its really very simple to do, just jotting down start and end times of game & combat, tracking how many rounds combat takes (which you're likely pretty close to doing anyways if there anything with rounds duratiins going on). As a player I have more free time (in D&D anyways) between turns to track my turn time closely.

 

[opaopajr]

I love a good marathon session of fun.

Alas! it is true: the spirit is still willing, yet the flesh now is weak. Memories of excess, like tears in rain.

I am not that much of a fan of online gaming, however. Something is lost in translation, it tires me even quicker, like a conference call. In-person is better for me to receive and convey non-verbal cues. The charismatic performance presence is constrained all to voice and description. It's like video gaming's shift to 'all 3D, all the time', and with my motion sickness thereof, being left behind. However, the lack of commute in bad weather is a plus...

 

[ffilz]

My observations mirror ffilz pretty much exactly. It's a fun game with some interesting system interactions, but it requires rethinking what it means to have a "campaign." If you just play D&D dungeon crawls using TFT, you'll end up slogging through things pretty slowly and probably just die; and also never progress your character quickly enough to actually get any better at dungeon crawling before that happens.

The way characters are set up, I think you really need to be thinking of the high level and long term stuff as your base line. Get a job, plan your weekly or even monthly routines and activities, and occasionally that zooms into specific encounters or adventures that you can play out round by round.

One problem with the Jobs Table is anything that has less than an 18 for danger, especially 16, but even a run of the mill job with an 18 nets an expected value of 4 years between significant danger. Another problem with the Jobs Table is finding a decent job you qualify for. For my main PC, the Jobs Table didn't have anything significant despite him having a pretty decent skill set, but he didn't have quite the right skills for any jobs that fit his general concept (basically a ranger type).

The Jobs Table made a pretty boring way to run a mostly in town life with occasional reasons to adventure. And the only profitable adventure we did was trying to capture wild horses. Trying to upgrade to griffons ended up with us in a pickle where we ended the campaign before my PC blew himself up (with MAYBE some of the other characters escaping). Basically we ended trying to hold an advanced tech base against an overwhelming force. The only not totally lose situation was to blow the place because letting bad guys get it...

But I do lay a lot of the blame on the campaign, not the system. I think adventures ARE intended to be more profitable.

It's also frustrating that the revised rules from my perspective don't ever let you get a PC that might remotely consider fighting a dragon. Or even a bear ( Starbeard how many PCs did the bear kill?). Goblins were fucking dangerous enough...

I guess I also am not super charged about game systems with complex combat systems where the ultimate goal is to never fight. Sure, you can fight unfair, but how much fun is it to whip out the hex grid and lay out a combat which is going to end in one or two rounds of clever action on the PCs part (if the GM doesn't prove more clever)?

Sorry, thinking about that TFT triggers my grumpy side...

 

[Baulderstone]

Yeah I noticed this cause we started an in person game for the first time in a few years recently, and I didn't realize how much I liked being able to just stand up and stretch my legs occasionally during the game.

I like to pace when I think, and I take a long walk every day when the whether allows it. My life has largely revolved around avoiding jobs where I need to be seated all day.

 

[Starbeard]

ffilz That bear did take out quite a few.

I don't think the system bothered me quite as much, I'd be willing to give it another go, but I think your gripes are all pretty accurate based on my experience. For all the options it gave, it was pretty difficult to find any character "build" (other than always just maximizing your swordfighting and armor) that wasn't a liability to the party.

If you are running squads of simple characters, or wargamey set-piece combat scenarios, then the bean-counting tactical mechanics that err on the side of deadly and risky can be fun. But for a traditional RPG where you are trying focus on prolonging your character's adventures as long as possible, it's a whole lot of tactical overhead for a game that encourages you to avoid having to use the rules if you want to succeed.

 

[Skarg]

One problem with the Jobs Table is anything that has less than an 18 for danger, especially 16, but even a run of the mill job with an 18 nets an expected value of 4 years between significant danger. Another problem with the Jobs Table is finding a decent job you qualify for. For my main PC, the Jobs Table didn't have anything significant despite him having a pretty decent skill set, but he didn't have quite the right skills for any jobs that fit his general concept (basically a ranger type).

The Jobs Table made a pretty boring way to run a mostly in town life with occasional reasons to adventure. And the only profitable adventure we did was trying to capture wild horses. Trying to upgrade to griffons ended up with us in a pickle where we ended the campaign before my PC blew himself up (with MAYBE some of the other characters escaping). Basically we ended trying to hold an advanced tech base against an overwhelming force. The only not totally lose situation was to blow the place because letting bad guys get it...

But I do lay a lot of the blame on the campaign, not the system. I think adventures ARE intended to be more profitable.

It's also frustrating that the revised rules from my perspective don't ever let you get a PC that might remotely consider fighting a dragon. Or even a bear ( Starbeard how many PCs did the bear kill?). Goblins were fucking dangerous enough...

I guess I also am not super charged about game systems with complex combat systems where the ultimate goal is to never fight. Sure, you can fight unfair, but how much fun is it to whip out the hex grid and lay out a combat which is going to end in one or two rounds of clever action on the PCs part (if the GM doesn't prove more clever)?

Sorry, thinking about that TFT triggers my grumpy side...

Sorry to hear you guys had a hard time with TFT. It's interesting to hear about what thoughts your experiences left you with.

I started with just the Melee arena combat starter game, at age 11. I enjoyed playing out arena combats with different types of fighters and seeing what happened, and hoping some of them survived long enough to get more capable. Not many did, and they could and did tend to die after not too long.

Then I got the programmed adventure Death Test, and played it with my dad, and we got wiped out within a few rooms. We tried again and died again. But then we decided to get a little arena experience, and design a group with some tactics in mind, and sent them in. And they made it all the way through, by using some tactics we'd learned by this point. We then sent them through Death Test again, and made it through again without anyone dying. Then we did it again (there are different paths to take, and randomized enemies, so we weren't just doing the same fights over and over). Now we did have some quite experienced fighters, and more importantly, we had effective tactics. This group of four fighters had gone through over twenty battles without losing anyone.

So we got Death Test II, designed to be much more challenging, and trounced it a few times with the same party. And the harder sequel, Orb Quest. We also tied Security Station and Grail Quest, with different parties, and got defeated.

Somewhere in there, I also found some other TFT players, and introduced some other friends to TFT, and started a TFT campaign. Since I'd learned some tactics, and that having a large enough party was crucial, the death rate in those other games was not too bad.

Your notion that TFT was about avoiding combat, did not describe our playstyle. Players were generally eager for combat, and we had tons of it. Many comrades were lost along the way, but most of them were NPCs, and some PCs survived for years and became quite capable and well-off.

 

[ffilz]

Sorry to hear you guys had a hard time with TFT. It's interesting to hear about what thoughts your experiences left you with.

I started with just the Melee arena combat starter game, at age 11. I enjoyed playing out arena combats with different types of fighters and seeing what happened, and hoping some of them survived long enough to get more capable. Not many did, and they could and did tend to die after not too long.

Then I got the programmed adventure Death Test, and played it with my dad, and we got wiped out within a few rooms. We tried again and died again. But then we decided to get a little arena experience, and design a group with some tactics in mind, and sent them in. And they made it all the way through, by using some tactics we'd learned by this point. We then sent them through Death Test again, and made it through again without anyone dying. Then we did it again (there are different paths to take, and randomized enemies, so we weren't just doing the same fights over and over). Now we did have some quite experienced fighters, and more importantly, we had effective tactics. This group of four fighters had gone through over twenty battles without losing anyone.

So we got Death Test II, designed to be much more challenging, and trounced it a few times with the same party. And the harder sequel, Orb Quest. We also tied Security Station and Grail Quest, with different parties, and got defeated.

Somewhere in there, I also found some other TFT players, and introduced some other friends to TFT, and started a TFT campaign. Since I'd learned some tactics, and that having a large enough party was crucial, the death rate in those other games was not too bad.

Your notion that TFT was about avoiding combat, did not describe our playstyle. Players were generally eager for combat, and we had tons of it. Many comrades were lost along the way, but most of them were NPCs, and some PCs survived for years and became quite capable and well-off.

One consideration here, we were playing revised (from the Kickstarter) which dramatically slows the XP progression. I think that actually has a significant impact on the ability to engage in combat.

 

[arjunstc]

* Me reading the title of the thread and wondering if this is really about RPGs or some other aspect of life that ageing has affected... *

 

[Skarg]

One consideration here, we were playing revised (from the Kickstarter) which dramatically slows the XP progression. I think that actually has a significant impact on the ability to engage in combat.

Legacy Edition certainly limits access to high-attribute characters.

And, some of the new talents tempt some people into taking lower-strength fighters so they can start with some advanced combat talents. Which can tend to make them less able to survive, in some cases.

But even in original TFT, we had to engage in and survive a lot of combat, to get to the point where we had a major edge going head to head, one on one, with most people. The way you survive a lot of that, is through a combination of tactics, prudence, having enough allies with you, and so on. Survival in TFT tends to be much more about numbers, tactics, and what specifically happens, choices, etc., than it is about just having a character who's able to brute force overpower everyone - at least, until you get a lot of experience and/or magic.

That's one of the main differences I see between TFT & D&D. In D&D, winning is much more about just having higher-level characters and keeping your hitpoints high, and then special monsters & magic. You can get through a ton of combat in TFT too, but you need to use tactics and have enough people, and instead of a pile of hitpoints on a few high-level PCs, you have comrades and all of you have a mortal number of hitpoints, so some people will get killed or seriously hurt and you need to manage those situations.

 

[AsenRG]

lol! You don't use Quote Buffer, you abuse it! I swear I heard Quote Buffer whimpering in a corner after you went by.

It's a lie! I never promised Quote Buffer marriage, just some fun!

Incoming!

Oh, this guy gets the reference! Then you might be very pleased to know that Death-Maze of the Sorcerer Kings was directly inspired by my favorite 80s British fantasy influences. Deathtrap Dungeon and Khare: Cityport of Traps are probably the two most prominent

Got it. And yes, I thought of Deathtrap Dungeon, Khare and Battlepits of Krarth...

I used to say that "knowing the reference" is my special skill when dealing with gamebooks, and part of the reason why I've had so few characters dying.

Magician's House and Peril In Olden Wood are adventures I am at least a little proud of (especially the latter), but they're not aimed at high-level D&D. I feel like they would both do just fine when converted to other systems, since they aren't laser focused on dungeon crawling.

Thank you.
I've bean reading Magician's house last night and think my PCs might encounter it in Mortavallon...

To be honest, Death-Maze of the Sorcerer Kings and [Name Redacted] are not pure dungeon crawls, but the titular Death-Maze is a no-joke big-boy-pants high-level dungeon. It's stocked with several classics from the oh-no-not-one-of-those school of D&D. For instance, if you linger in the dungeon too long, one of the potential wandering monsters is

Spoiler: honor system: players don't look

an air elemental filled with dust of sneezing and choking.

There's also an encounter with a

Spoiler: honor system: players don't look

beholder and eight gargoyles, the beholder using his anti-magic beam to disable spells and magic items so as to make the gargoyles invulnerable to the party's weapons.

OK, now I need to come up with Mythras stats for those, before PCs are of a high enough Rank...

I guess I also am not super charged about game systems with complex combat systems where the ultimate goal is to never fight. Sure, you can fight unfair, but how much fun is it to whip out the hex grid and lay out a combat which is going to end in one or two rounds of clever action on the PCs part (if the GM doesn't prove more clever)?

Speaking from experience with such games?

...though OTOH, we're not exactly avoiding combat in either GURPS, Mythras, Cepheus, or whatever. We're avoiding unnecessary combat!

Sorry to hear you guys had a hard time with TFT. It's interesting to hear about what thoughts your experiences left you with.

I started with just the Melee arena combat starter game, at age 11. I enjoyed playing out arena combats with different types of fighters and seeing what happened, and hoping some of them survived long enough to get more capable. Not many did, and they could and did tend to die after not too long.

Then I got the programmed adventure Death Test, and played it with my dad, and we got wiped out within a few rooms. We tried again and died again. But then we decided to get a little arena experience, and design a group with some tactics in mind, and sent them in. And they made it all the way through, by using some tactics we'd learned by this point. We then sent them through Death Test again, and made it through again without anyone dying. Then we did it again (there are different paths to take, and randomized enemies, so we weren't just doing the same fights over and over). Now we did have some quite experienced fighters, and more importantly, we had effective tactics. This group of four fighters had gone through over twenty battles without losing anyone.

So we got Death Test II, designed to be much more challenging, and trounced it a few times with the same party. And the harder sequel, Orb Quest. We also tied Security Station and Grail Quest, with different parties, and got defeated.

Somewhere in there, I also found some other TFT players, and introduced some other friends to TFT, and started a TFT campaign. Since I'd learned some tactics, and that having a large enough party was crucial, the death rate in those other games was not too bad.

Your notion that TFT was about avoiding combat, did not describe our playstyle. Players were generally eager for combat, and we had tons of it. Many comrades were lost along the way, but most of them were NPCs, and some PCs survived for years and became quite capable and well-off.

Legacy Edition certainly limits access to high-attribute characters.

And, some of the new talents tempt some people into taking lower-strength fighters so they can start with some advanced combat talents. Which can tend to make them less able to survive, in some cases.

But even in original TFT, we had to engage in and survive a lot of combat, to get to the point where we had a major edge going head to head, one on one, with most people. The way you survive a lot of that, is through a combination of tactics, prudence, having enough allies with you, and so on. Survival in TFT tends to be much more about numbers, tactics, and what specifically happens, choices, etc., than it is about just having a character who's able to brute force overpower everyone - at least, until you get a lot of experience and/or magic.

That's one of the main differences I see between TFT & D&D. In D&D, winning is much more about just having higher-level characters and keeping your hitpoints high, and then special monsters & magic. You can get through a ton of combat in TFT too, but you need to use tactics and have enough people, and instead of a pile of hitpoints on a few high-level PCs, you have comrades and all of you have a mortal number of hitpoints, so some people will get killed or seriously hurt and you need to manage those situations.

Unsurprisingly, my approach is closer to that of Skarg - but as is well-known (as in, I've said so), our only differences with him seem to be regarding minor details, like whether a map is necessary...

 

[BedrockBrendan]

In another thread altogether, @EmperorNorton wrote:



It is known!

Back in the hazy and protracted days of uni*, before I had household responsibilities, or a commute, and before I could afford entertainment or "going out", I used to play RPGs about four or five times per week, GMing about two or three weekly games in parallel. And our gaming sessions in those days were usually about four to five hours long. So I got lots of practice GMing, and did it well and fast. The same was true of my usual players. Back in those days I used to reckon that I GMed material at about one third of the rate that it would convert to the screen. That is, in a session about four and a half to five hours long I would get through an adventure about as complicated as, with about as much event occurring, as was typical of a thriller or adventure movie ninety to a hundred minutes long. Whereas I could run an adventure about as substantial as a "network hour" of TV in about two and a half hours.

I am much older now. Three hours of GMing is about as much as I am happy doing, especially through the taxing medium of internet chat. Furthermore, I don't GM anything like as much anymore; my skills are rusty and my sessions slow. So it is taking me two and a half to three (three-hour) sessions to get through what used to be a (four-and-a-half to five-hour) evening's amusements. I wonder whether I ought to take that into account by designing the situations for three-act adventures, and then calling a cut on each of the first two sessions when the PCs reach a point of transition from place to place or from matter to matter.

Say for example I were to take a typical James Bond 007 adventure, such as I used to run in one and now struggle to GM in two sessions, and plan from the outset to run it as a three-parter

1. Session the first
   1. Action teaser
   2. Briefing by M, outfitting by Q
   3. "Investigations" in the first Thrilling Location, leading to travel to the second Thrilling Location
2. Session the second
   1. Usual gratuitous sex, violence, and dangerous driving in the Second Thrilling Location
   2. Discover or get abducted to the Major Villain's Secret Lair
3. Session the third
   1. Uncover the Nefarious Plot by exploring the Secret Lair or letting the Major Villain monologue
   2. Action and combat climax
   3. Wrapping up.

---

* Kind of like "college", that is, though here a college is more like an American "dorm".

I find 3-4 hours is good for me these days. I run two games a week and after the third hour, I am much more tired than when I was younger.

 

[ffilz]

Legacy Edition certainly limits access to high-attribute characters.

And, some of the new talents tempt some people into taking lower-strength fighters so they can start with some advanced combat talents. Which can tend to make them less able to survive, in some cases.

But even in original TFT, we had to engage in and survive a lot of combat, to get to the point where we had a major edge going head to head, one on one, with most people. The way you survive a lot of that, is through a combination of tactics, prudence, having enough allies with you, and so on. Survival in TFT tends to be much more about numbers, tactics, and what specifically happens, choices, etc., than it is about just having a character who's able to brute force overpower everyone - at least, until you get a lot of experience and/or magic.

That's one of the main differences I see between TFT & D&D. In D&D, winning is much more about just having higher-level characters and keeping your hitpoints high, and then special monsters & magic. You can get through a ton of combat in TFT too, but you need to use tactics and have enough people, and instead of a pile of hitpoints on a few high-level PCs, you have comrades and all of you have a mortal number of hitpoints, so some people will get killed or seriously hurt and you need to manage those situations.

We did beef up our numbers with second characters, I wound up with three. Our success in combat did improve once we added more characters. My PCs are here:

Khecho Grasli

docs.google.com

My 2nd and 3rd characters are optimized for combat, you can pretty much see how their XP progressed (Talents are in order taken as INT increased).

My first PC wasn't shabby in combat, though clearly designed to have non-combat talents.

 

[ffilz]

Speaking from experience with such games?

TFT is really the only game I've played/ran where I really felt combat needed to be avoided at all costs.

It's also clear that your character either fights, or does something else... Most other games with skills and such allow a PC to fight AND be decent out of combat.

Obviously the thing in TFT is if you don't fight, hire some men at arms to fight for you... :-)

...though OTOH, we're not exactly avoiding combat in either GURPS, Mythras, Cepheus, or whatever. We're avoiding unnecessary combat!

My RQ players definitely look to avoid fights. The Cold Iron players are starting to learn the system enough to figure out when to avoid fights. They also haven't really got into a really serious fight. One PC did die due to ghouls, but that was a mage and they had not yet figured out that a mage who was just a first level fighter had to be protected just as much as a D&D mage...

Unsurprisingly, my approach is closer to that of Skarg - but as is well-known (as in, I've said so), our only differences with him seem to be regarding minor details, like whether a map is necessary...

:-)

 

[Starbeard]

Legacy Edition certainly limits access to high-attribute characters.

And, some of the new talents tempt some people into taking lower-strength fighters so they can start with some advanced combat talents. Which can tend to make them less able to survive, in some cases.

But even in original TFT, we had to engage in and survive a lot of combat, to get to the point where we had a major edge going head to head, one on one, with most people. The way you survive a lot of that, is through a combination of tactics, prudence, having enough allies with you, and so on. Survival in TFT tends to be much more about numbers, tactics, and what specifically happens, choices, etc., than it is about just having a character who's able to brute force overpower everyone - at least, until you get a lot of experience and/or magic.

That's one of the main differences I see between TFT & D&D. In D&D, winning is much more about just having higher-level characters and keeping your hitpoints high, and then special monsters & magic. You can get through a ton of combat in TFT too, but you need to use tactics and have enough people, and instead of a pile of hitpoints on a few high-level PCs, you have comrades and all of you have a mortal number of hitpoints, so some people will get killed or seriously hurt and you need to manage those situations.

I will say that I've always really enjoyed playing Melee/Wizard, so the rules per se weren't the issue for me. It was specifically that we were constantly underpowered for everything, unless we brought in loads of guys (which slows the combat system quite a bit, and I could be misremembering but I think we or the GM were sort of hoping to keep it to a small party, so it felt a bit like trying to sneak characters in without making it seem like we were just trying to cheat the system).

And when I tried comparing my new TFT characters to what they'd have been in classic TFT, I felt like they would have done much better in the old rules.

The really slow and improbable progress in the new system was really the big hampering point. I tried a martial arts character a few different ways, and maybe I was doing it wrong, but it seemed impossible to create a new character that was capable of going head to head against a starting standard fighter, and getting to the point where you could required levels of advancement you'd likely never reach. Realistic maybe, but then why put all that effort into having martial arts in the first place. We're supposed to be tripping on fantasy here!

 

[AsenRG]

TFT is really the only game I've played/ran where I really felt combat needed to be avoided at all costs.

It's also clear that your character either fights, or does something else... Most other games with skills and such allow a PC to fight AND be decent out of combat.

That part is rather surprising, since yes, usually you can be both in skill-based games.

Obviously the thing in TFT is if you don't fight, hire some men at arms to fight for you... :-)

Why either-or?!?

My RQ players definitely look to avoid fights. The Cold Iron players are starting to learn the system enough to figure out when to avoid fights. They also haven't really got into a really serious fight. One PC did die due to ghouls, but that was a mage and they had not yet figured out that a mage who was just a first level fighter had to be protected just as much as a D&D mage...

Well, system familiarity definitely helps. Though my Mythras guys aren't looking to avoid fights, so player personality probably has a lot to do with it as well.

 

[xanther]

...Another issue is length of time to run a combat slows the pace down.

Hear yah. This one was a major impetus for me to do my own rules, in the past if wanted anything quick had to sacrifice all depth. My current benchmark is if a system can't provide options to attack-defend-move (e.g. make use of terrain, hold a door. etc.) for a "massive" battle with at least 6 rounds of back and forth (preferably 12), say 4 PCs and 24 "monsters" all in less than hour (preferably a half an hour); it's not for me.

... We completed that dungeon poorer than when we started...

I kind of like that, but the simple solution is just to add more treasure. Now I can see if one wants to compare games and modules as written, but find such things as amount of treasure are really a setting thing and not a rule systems thing. Heck, I might even use non-combat talents/skills to up the treasure value...where a PC recognizes these mere copper coins are rare ones from X and to the right buyer worth far more than their weight in gold.

 

[xanther]

...Also, I'd be really curious where I can see an example of your idea of "higher level dungeoncrawl", if you can come up with any published titles. Preferably sandbox ones, for easier comparison....

For D&D there are many, Against the Giants G1-G3 is levels 8-12; and Dark Tower is levels 7-11 (but...for 6-10 PCs).

 

[xanther]

TFT is really the only game I've played/ran where I really felt combat needed to be avoided at all costs.
....

Traveller is the same way.

Combats in TFT are very different than D&D or even RQ. Using the fairly simple and straightforward tactical rules is key. Running into range and attacking is pure suicide in TFT (generally) but the way many play it seems in D&D.

Good to recall TFT started off as a tactical/arena combat game with Melee and Wizard. Flanking position, movement, pushing, coordinating PC actions are all key if you want to engage in combat, along with the ole' gather intelligence first to lead you opponents into ambushes or advantageous positions (for you).

Played OD&D this way as well (although the system did not support such tactics well) because few HP, like to play MUs, and it was just the way we did it, always scouting, always cautious. TFT supports this because every character can start with Stealth, and probably should.

I was never a fan of oh' just hire people to go with you.

 

[xanther]

Never did answer the OP...for me 4-6 hours these days is best. I find this allows you to really make some progress as their is always friction (wasted time) at the start and wrap up, that is the same weather the session is 2 hours or 12. With 4-6 hours you get a good solid 3-5 hours of play, with time to chat, get drinks & snacks and wrap up without a rush.

 

[Skarg]

It's a lie! I never promised Quote Buffer marriage, just some fun!

You younglings with your references to whatever Quote Buffer is! (Is it that bird? No, don't tell me.)

...though OTOH, we're not exactly avoiding combat in either GURPS, Mythras, Cepheus, or whatever. We're avoiding unnecessary combat!

After advancing a few points, our PCs tend to start racing their comrades to get to the enemy first . . .
A couple more points, and they're stalking NPC parties for loot and experience . . .

Unsurprisingly, my approach is closer to that of Skarg - but as is well-known (as in, I've said so), our only differences with him seem to be regarding minor details, like whether a map is necessary...

AKA "essential" details, but yes.