New WotC column by Mike Mearls talking about one of the aims for the core of the new game system: the one-hour D&D game session/adventure.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120319

I'm...  not sure I like where this XP budget idea is going.

The XP Budget doesn't sound any different than the various recommendations in older D&D including OD&D, and AD&D 1st (treasure type, n/a per level, XP per HD, etc).

The devil will be in how it is presented in their supplement. If it is presented as an iron law rather than a guidelines then that will cause issues rather than the numbers and rules themselves. The best way of doing that is to make sure there are a handful of published adventures that don't follow the numbers but make sense in the context of the location or plot.

I like the idea of the 1-hour adventure. However, this can be done with every version of D&D in existance as long as the DM follows the KISS principle. The downside of the 1-hour adventure is that it is too short of a time to get a lot of depth in unless you concentrate on only one or two encounters, it is like speed dating for RPGs.

Quote from: estar;522371The XP Budget doesn't sound any different than the various recommendations in older D&D including OD&D, and AD&D 1st (treasure type, n/a per level, XP per HD, etc).

The devil will be in how it is presented in their supplement. If it is presented as an iron law rather than a guidelines then that will cause issues rather than the numbers and rules themselves. The best way of doing that is to make sure there are a handful of published adventures that don't follow the numbers but make sense in the context of the location or plot.

I agree. The big problem with this (whether it is xp budget or the cr/el guidelines in 3E) is it encourages too much uniformity from able to table. If it can easily be ignored tyat is great. But i think it is much better to provide gms with a thorough explanation of encounters and challenging pcs over the course of a chapter, than reduce it to some wonky formula.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;522387I agree. The big problem with this (whether it is xp budget or the cr/el guidelines in 3E) is it encourages too much uniformity from able to table. If it can easily be ignored tyat is great. But i think it is much better to provide gms with a thorough explanation of encounters and challenging pcs over the course of a chapter, than reduce it to some wonky formula.

What if they complemented the "XP budget" guidelines with random encounter tables as well, and leave the choice of method completely up to the DM from there, with tips and advice too, of course?

Quote from: Benoist;522389What if they complemented the "XP budget" guidelines with random encounter tables as well, and leave the choice of method completely up to the DM from there, with tips and advice too, of course?

I think that wouldbe fine. I would really like them to give an overview of the various methods for handling encounters and what playstyles each one works best for. A nice section on how to properly manage random encounters and why you might want to use them (beyond just supplying encounter charts) is a good idea. Not taking  sides but giving a good account of the various schools of thought. Either approach can work depending on what you like,  but alot of people just assume a balanced encounter is the only real viable option these days, when there are some valid reasons to allow for overwhelming and underwhelming encounters.

 my worst experience was during 3e when too many gms were structuring their entire adventure around the CR chart in the dmg. That really sucked the life out of the game for me.

My sense is mearls gets this though. He seems to be someone who grasps that there are different styles of play out there and one spot where 4e went wrong was pushing a single approach to the game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;522387than reduce it to some wonky formula.

4E tried doing this by reducing encounters down to a precise XP budget formula, but fell short for the most part.

With each post by Mearls and Cook, I am becoming more interested in the new Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG from Goodman Games.  

I had an email chat with GG a few months ago and he said that DCC was written for him alone and if other people enjoyed it, that's cool. There is something far more engaging in that concept than WotC's attempts to please everyone.

The D&D fan community is screaming "Dance Monkey Dance!" and the WotC bosses are screaming "Sell Fucker Sell!" so I don't envy Mearls in the slightest.

This is bullshit. I play 1E AD&D on a regular basis and you can't even complete a satisfying encounter in an hour. For a solid adventure I would guess at least 4 hours. No less.

Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;522476This is bullshit. I play 1E AD&D on a regular basis and you can't even complete a satisfying encounter in an hour. For a solid adventure I would guess at least 4 hours. No less.

My 2E encounters can run fifteen minutes or less. I would be hard pressed to do a whole adventure inside an hour, but i could certainly run several encounters back to back in that time. Of course some threats will simply take longer than others.

Quote from: Benoist;522363New WotC column by Mike Mearls talking about one of the aims for the core of the new game system: the one-hour D&D game session/adventure.

While I think it is great to be able to play a session in an hour if one wants to, this makes it sound like 5e is going to be like 4e, mainly designed around the needs of D&D Encounters-like play instead of around campaign play. The more it is aimed at meeting the needs of non-campaign play, the less likely it will be useful to those of us who have no interest in that style of play.

Quote from: RandallS;522480While I think it is great to be able to play a session in an hour if one wants to, this makes it sound like 5e is going to be like 4e, mainly designed around the needs of D&D Encounters-like play instead of around campaign play. The more it is aimed at meeting the needs of non-campaign play, the less likely it will be useful to those of us who have no interest in that style of play.

As a building block of reference I don't mind speed of play accomodating the one hour adventure. If the resource management is so structured then its borked and I won't like it.

Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;522476I play 1E AD&D on a regular basis and you can't even complete a satisfying encounter in an hour.

It depends on the players.

Most of my 0e/S&W combats run at least 1/2 hour, but I run convention events so the players don't know each other and many have little experience with Classic D&D or haven't played in years.

I think it's a good concept for designers and GMs to keep in mind without necessarily taking it too literally. I personally would jump at the chance to play an episodic campaign or series of one-shots with structured sessions clocking in around two hours.