I'm really interested in that comment about the let's have fun for 20 minutes out of four hours thing... I'm sure it was made in frustration about the overhead (including mechanics) necessary to keep the game moving forward. So too, are Mike Mearls comments about 4e bashing.

Everyone knows a good game when they see it, after all, A good game is like a very hot chick (or a guy, if you happen to be a girl, or... nevermind, anyway...), and everyone here can remember a time when the GM called it a night, and it was well... like actually... the next day.

"Aww.. but GM... Where did the time go?"

"I haven't even been back to the city yet..."

"We still have to..."

and so on.

This 20 minute statement originated with 3e, as a complaint in that the amount of time it was taking to resolve the mechanics left only 20-30 minutes of Fun play out of a four hour session. Whatever that means.

For a lot of people that meant they were turned off by the bloated mechanics that were taking center stage over the actual fun the players were having. 4e was definitely designed to address that issue by streamlining and even cutting out aspects of the game. 4e is also designed to be modular.

So why not cut out the elements you find displeasing, and keep what works?

 My home games are mostly free of this frustration that Mike Mearls speaks of mostly on account my players have no expectations when it comes to the mechanics. I drive my games with plots, narratives  npc interaction, locales, descriptions, and backstories pretty much the same way as I did back in 1977-1980 when I was originally developing my GM skills, and I work hard to keep the mechanics as transparent as possible.

 My convention games are another matter though. They are an entirely different beast, cut from a different cloth. Once the players generate characters in my home game, my prep time for a session is virtually nil, we just pick up where we left off, and go. Not so with most of my convention games. I have to craft an adventure that fits comfortably into that 4 hour time slot. It has to include characters with authentic back story, and motivations. These constraints alone make a fun game difficult in that the creativity that fuels the imagination of the players is not there. They have no vested interest pre-generated characters other than what they choose to adopt in the fifteen minutes or so allocated for character selection/generation. I do try to add features and benefits to make my pregens worthy of adoption. You know, quirks, faults, special abilities and outlooks, cool equipment and weapons. Like that.

None of this has anything to do with 4e. But it should.

I do share Mike Mearl's frustration, it's just not about 4e though. I don't believe that other folks are really all that disappointed with 4e either. I think the 4e DMG is one of the best DMGs... One that actually helps players learn how to GM.

What folks are disappointed with though, and what is coming through is the continued policies of a leading gaming company that disenfranchises both its players and its GMs. The easiest path of counter-attack is to attack the newest game, which is unfortunate in that the fans are actually attacking the designers and staff who hold the best chance to influence the future direction of where the game goes. This is a counterproductive strategy by the way, that plays right into the hands of the attorneys at Wotc, and their erstwhile supervisors at Hasbro. Divide and conquer, baby!

A centerpiece example of this folly is in trying to bury the open gaming license and killing d20. This is a bad strategic move that has alienated many of the core fans that actually drive the sales of their other games. That doesn't have anything to do with 4e though, or the gamers that designed 4e.

Another example is firing Mike Lescault (Gamer_Zero) and the young lady known on the Wotc boards as Lidda. It was clear by their posts, and by their activity at the last GenCon that they were deeply committed to D&D and simply wanted the best for the fans of the game.

Everyone knows what happens to the bad guys when a battle isn't going their way and they start executing their lieutenants and captains. Instantaneously the rank and file look for opportunities and means to desert the cause on account they become rightfully concerned their head could be the next one on the chopping block.

Next time, if things aren't working out, a lateral transfer disguised as a promotion would probably work out much better, because dramatic moves like firing your champions have repercussions that can and do affect sales. Significantly.

One of the things that healthy game companies do is they embrace their fan base. Wotc does this, measured commensurately to the income that the game produces. I'm ok with this. It's a good bellweather for the true health of a game.

Another thing healthy game companies do is that they grow new gaming companies. Derivatives and spin-offs. This is actually a natural process in any business, with the most successful businesses creating the most wealth for themselves and an entire community of followers (albeit some followers are slower than others, and some take paths not concieved by or in the original company).

Gary, Dave, Bob, Lou, Jim, Tim, Steve, and quite a few others experienced this firsthand as their creations grew larger than life, filled niches that they didn't or couldn't conceive of. From all the obvious evidence, to the extent that a game company limits the access of others to share in its success, it is limited in its growth. At the very least this is something to consider when designing your game sales strategy.

This is something that Wotc has not been doing lately. As a matter-of-fact, they have been doing the opposite, and desperately trying to channel or control the growth of games derived from their original game, even though the infrastructure has already been created that permits derived games to be created. In my opinion this is simply closing the barn door after the horses got out. Now one still has to go fetch the horses if that is even possible and they haven't ran away, and no amount of barn door opening and closing is going to bring the horses back. This has been historically demonstrated as a strategy that doesn't work!

So what does work? Sharing. Creating a game where everyone is equal, and has an equal opportunity to contribute to the game. Letting the entire community as small as one individual decide what is relevant, and how much is relevant for their game. Letting people know you do this in no uncertain or confusing terms.

Most of us know it's not you Mike, Nor is it your game, 4e., nor is it your team, Nor is it your team leader Bill, so don't take it personal, ok?.  Now, I'll return you back to your regularly scheduled programming of watching Uber game designers beating each other senseless World Wrestling Federation (WWF) style!

Booyah!

The premise of your thread is mistaken. It was Ryan Dancey, not Mearls, who wrote that D&D was 20 minutes of fun in 4 hours. And the comment was directed at pre-3e play.

I don't recall who the poster was on another thread but I think they were closer to the point by saying that the reference was to the lack of "action" outside of a few isolated combats.