Greetings! I recently realized I liked RPGs largely for the continuity factor. I tend to play fewer, longer, save-and-continue games, and, as such, prefer saved progress.
1: How long in hours do you generally most like your games to last?
2: Do you prefer traditional one-shot games like Monopoly or continuous games like D&D?
-EE
I prefer games that can be played in 2 hours or less, so that we can play two different games during our weekly gaming night.
I have played RPG's in my teens, but nowadays I simply don't have enough time to play them anymore. That's why I prefer shorter games that need less investment and preparation.
I also don't tend to think of RPG's as "games". In my opinion they are more of an activity, since the goal of an RPG is not to win the game and beat the other players, but to try to create a cool story as a group. At least, that's how I think RPG's should be played. Some people seem to have other ideas about RPG's though.
I played D&D a few years back and one guy in the group saw the DM as the "enemy" whose plans must be foiled, rather than a facilitator and stroyteller. He also managed to find obscure rules in obscure handbooks and tried to take advantage of them and min/max his character with those rules. I don't blame him, that was his idea of what was fun about RPG's, but it didn't fit with my ideas about RPG's. So, that kind of soured the RPG experience for me. I do still have fond memories about our early days of RPGing, though.
- René Wiersma
Greetings!
Welcome!
I recently realized I liked RPGs largely for the continuity factor. I tend to play fewer, longer, save-and-continue games, and, as such, prefer saved progress.
1: How long in hours do you generally most like your games to last?
Depends on the game. I think that what's most important is that the game's length match its scope and its substance. With respect to the latter, what I generally mean is that the longer a game is, the deeper and richer it should be; you wouldn't want to play Tic Tac Toe for 2 hours, because it just isn't deep enough. However, sometimes, a game's scope requires a longer play time, and this can offset a lack of depth. For example, Axis and Allies takes several hours to play, yet the outcome rests heavily on the luck of the dice, making it somewhat "lighter" than a "pure" strategy game. But, because the "scope" of A&A is big (fighting out WWII!), the length is appropriate.
In general, though, I tend to like games that come in at under 90 minutes. A 2-3 hour game has to be pretty special, or else I find myself thinking "I could have played 2 1 hour games in the time it takes to play this one and still gotten the same level of depth of gameplay."
2: Do you prefer traditional one-shot games like Monopoly or continuous games like D&D?
I prefer "one shot" games, but not games like Monopoly. There's a whole big world of board games out there, you should explore it! www.boardgamegeek.com is a good starting point, or check out this site.
Out of curiosity, what's the basis for your question? Are you working on a game design? I do think that blending the "progressive" or "replay" nature of RPGs with the fixity of board game mechanics could be a cool idea; something someone should take on at some point -- at least one guy here is working on such a system, I know.
-Jeff
Endarire wrote:
1: How long in hours do you generally most like your games to last?
Depends on the game. I think that what's most important is that the game's length match its scope and its substance.
Yep, a game should last as long as it needs to last. This is something that some designers understand and others don't (regardless of how good their games are!)
In answer to the original question, I like good games and I don't like bad games. I don't care how long the good games last, if they are good - and I don't care how long bad games last because I rarely get to the end of one :-) (and games that outlast their welcome are rarely good games, but there are some honorable exceptions.)
I've played a game that lasted 1 minute and the next lasted 45 minutes (Fluxx). I've role-played non-stop for 72 hours (I still get flashbacks) and once, foolishly, played The Great Dalmuti for about 10 hours straight (I'm now very, very good at it ;-) But in all of those cases I was having a good time, so the length of the game was immaterial.
That's not a very useful answer however. So I will say that these days I find that a game has to be exceptional if it's going to take more than a couple of hours to play (but I'm excluding intentional "epic" games here.)
I prefer "one shot" games, but not games like Monopoly.
OK, I'll rise to this one Jeff. Monopoly is a tense trading game with a surprisingly sophisticated economic model and a certain amount of risk/probability calculation (and with a board that rewards understanding how 2d6 actually works...)
How is this different from The Settlers of Catan?
Basically, because it is frequently undermined by ill-thought-out house-rules (step forward "fines on Free Parking"), by an elimination mechanic (generally frowned upon these days) and a length issue that is often exacerbated by the afore-mentioned house-rules. Not to mention trading related issues which are a lot more subtle than most players can appreciate. (Most people appear unaware that an auction rule exists in Monopoly, or how mortgaging properties really works, or ...)
And the #1 reason why people think Monopoly sucks: you tended to play it first as a kid, which makes it very difficult to approach as an adult without bringing an awful lot of emotional baggage with you. Play Monopoly with a group of cut-throat gamers, a tight time-limit and - most importantly - according to the rules that come in the box, and it can be a most rewarding experience.
I don't think Monopoly is a great game by any means, but I do think that it deserves an awful lot more respect that it usually gets.
I'm a huge fan of the inbetween of boardgames to RPGs, such as games like HeroQuest, and others like Blood Bowl.
The things I like about these games (especially the dungeon crawlers) is that it's not exactly an RPG (much simpler) but it's also not a board game. It's the fun inbetweener for when you don't want to spend 3 hours making characters and then another 5 hours playing a slow story. I like keeping a hero or a team of players from one game to the other and have them get stronger with each game. Usually an investment of just a couple of hours is good enough to get a game session in. Another thing I like about crawlers is that most of the group works together, and it's sometimes encouraged that you see the game master as the enemy.
I find myself playing these types of games more than others, just because of simple preference. I love these types of games. I also play other traditional board games, but usually only when we're playing with a group of non-gamers (or people who think that playing with "toy soldiers" is geeky).
So to answer your questions in short lines:
1- I like games to last 2-3 hours.
2- Continuous games, but not as complex as D&D.
 | Dymino Monsters Update 4-18-2024 (1) by questccg |
 | Hidden Movement: What Makes it Cool? (19) by larienna |
| Wizardry Legacy: the Forgotten Academy (12) by larienna |
| TradeWorlds — Tactical Core (3) by questccg |
| Introducing, Jacob! (that's me by the way...) (0) by Jacob |
| Chat GPT: Testing as a design assistant (8) by larienna |
| Winner Announced for the Meta Progression Community Challenge! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Hi guys ~ Gameland and Yaofish are officially accepting board game design submissions! (1) by questccg |
| A programmer's dilemma (16) by larienna |
| Qubits: a solo trick taking game (9) by Wobt2 |
| Worker placement, Role selection and Action cards: Is it the same thing? (11) by larienna |
| Site Ads and Google Experiments (0) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg |
| Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (May 24-26) (0) by The Game Crafter |
| How to avoid being blocked at content creation (10) by questccg |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (0) by sirvalence |
| In need of some IDEAS concerning a "Battle" System (15) by questccg |
| How to avoid quarterbacking in an adventure game (7) by larienna |
| How complicated could math get? (23) by X3M |
| Can we have gaming ads on this website (7) by questccg |
| Dice Mitigation Challenge - Winner Announced! (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | Delving! - " That is when it hit me, it was starting to feel like other games" (3) by MarkJindra |
| Game Purchase Contract (0) by MarkJindra |
| Blackboard Boogie Board: a bit of a REVIEW... (2) by questccg |
Hello! I am both a board gamer and an RPGer. I game with a group that meets a few times a week, once to play an RPG and, if we meet again, to play board games. The RPG sessions only last about 2 hours. That's generally enough time to get some plans under way and fight at least one good battle.
When board gaming, we tend to play one short game (about 60 min max) and one longer game (90-120 min).
In general I prefer board games over RPGs, but I do enjoy both (I play with RPG gamers that are SO much more knowledgable than me, that I can only hope to keep up with them so I often feel a little left behind). I prefer games that don't go past 120 min.
I agree that my best experiences with RPG was always when the players and the GM understood that the GM was the facilitator, to the enemy.