Real world time

[Jutang]

I’m trying to budget time for designing a public game at my FLGS and was curious what people are experiencing in the way of how much real world time should a round take.

[GnomeBoy]

I've never worried about that.

My rule of thumb for many years has been based on how many "events" can happen in an hour. "Events" could be a fight with a monster, exploring a room known to have a secret passage, interrogating a captured hobgoblin, etc.

In DCC, it's gotta be at least 3 or 4 things fit in an hour, sometimes more...

Have you previously run some of the published adventures? It'd be easier to discuss with a common frame of reference.

[Jutang]

I have run published adventures for AD&D 2ed Dragon lance, Pathfinder 1.0, and Starfinder society but the round times for each ranged with AD&D rounds taking the longest and Starfinder taking the least. I've read quite a few DCC modules to get a feel for how to make and run an adventure but haven't run an actual game from them yet. I much prefer to write and run my own adventures so that's why on taking this route.

[thogard]

I'm not sure "should" figures in. What affects time for a round in an RPG: Do the players know what they're doing when their turns come up? Can the Judge quickly rule (if needed) and describe the action and then move on to the next thing?

One feature more DCC-specific is lookup time. Spell rolls, crit or fumble results, these can irregularly add real time to combat. Keep tables handy, and have players responsible for checking results.

[GnomeBoy]

I think looking at it in rounds is probably the most difficult way to do things.

If you know how much time you have, walk through your adventure and work out what's the most likely *mid-point* in the session. If you've got a 4-hour slot, than that's more or less where you "should be" after about 2 hours. Halfway from that back to the start would maybe be the 1 hour mark... Similar analysis for the 3 hour mark. I this way, you know if you're wildly off on your timing or not -- but only actually playing through it will reveal how well you've estimated.

But I'd focus more on what's fun. Sometimes a really entertaining part of an adventure can take more time than it otherwise might seem to need. I wouldn't rush players... "hey, stop having so much fun -- we've got more adventure to play through..." seems pointless. The whole point of playing an RPG is to have fun. Keep things moving and if they are enjoying a section don't rush over it to make a deadline, just minimize some later aspect.

That's my 2¢.

[Jim Skach]

I think looking at it in rounds is probably the most difficult way to do things.

If you know how much time you have, walk through your adventure and work out what's the most likely *mid-point* in the session. If you've got a 4-hour slot, than that's more or less where you "should be" after about 2 hours. Halfway from that back to the start would maybe be the 1 hour mark... Similar analysis for the 3 hour mark. I this way, you know if you're wildly off on your timing or not -- but only actually playing through it will reveal how well you've estimated.

But I'd focus more on what's fun. Sometimes a really entertaining part of an adventure can take more time than it otherwise might seem to need. I wouldn't rush players... "hey, stop having so much fun -- we've got more adventure to play through..." seems pointless. The whole point of playing an RPG is to have fun. Keep things moving and if they are enjoying a section don't rush over it to make a deadline, just minimize some later aspect.

That's my 2¢.

This is great advice.