Help Petition REAL credit for sanctioned games - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Help Petition REAL credit for sanctioned games

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
vinciente
Feb 18, 2010 1:01:54 Hey everyone, I'm trying to get help petitioning Wizards/RPGA to give participants credit for the full amount of time spent playing sanctioned games. Why sould we get credit for 1 night of play when many times a sanctioned game can take at least 2 nights of play to complete.
The situation occurs when players' & venues' schedules leave them with a 2-3hour window for playing a public game before the store closes, while the Adventures for sanctioning are more like 5+ hours of play time to complete.
The current system requires an organizer to report that the event was canceled, even though it was actually held. Then the same event must be sanctioned again just to be able to complete the Adventure.
My proposed solution is that we be given a way to report how many encounters were completed (or which was the last completed) during the first session, so that participants get credit for playing everytime they play and not just when the Adventure is completed. If a report is submitted stating that the event ended with an encounter before the final encounter; then the organizer would be given a place to set the next date for resuming the Adventure.

Please show your support with...
/sign
(or)
/support

Feel free to include ways to improve on the concept & don't waste time with Troll Comments like "just have longer game sessions".
#2
amysrevenge
Feb 18, 2010 1:09:57

The current system requires an organizer to report that the event was canceled, even though it was actually held. Then the same event must be sanctioned again just to be able to complete the Adventure.

Why does it require that? Just report the event once it's finished - nobody cares what date the event was ordered for.
#3
WolfStar76
Feb 18, 2010 11:16:03
I suppose my first question would be: why?

The current system is configured to give people credit for a completed module - and you seem to grasp that. My question is - why does this system need to change?

Wouldn't this system actually give more benefit/credit to people who play mods that they split up, while simultaneously putting groups/players that play through an adventure in a single sitting at a disadvantage?

Group A - would get 2-3 credits for playing ADVE2-1 because it took them two or three nights.
Group B - would get 1 credit because they played on a Saturday afternoon and got it done in one shot.

They current system rewards DMs for the adventures they successfully run - and to me, at least, that makes sense. To implement your system would actually encourage people to split an adventure into 2+ parts for more credit. I could easily see this being exploited "Oh, time for ANOTHER bathroom break guys, we'll come back for session three of ADVE2-1 in 10 minutes "

If players have limited time in the evenings - and their FLGS has a table open on Wednesday nights, I'd suggest the look into D&D Encounters: community.wizards.com/dungeonsanddragons...
#4
kenobi65
Feb 18, 2010 13:53:50
They current system rewards DMs for the adventures they successfully run - and to me, at least, that makes sense.

Agreed. You're getting credit for playing (and completing) an adventure, not for a "play session", however long that lasts, and I think that's the right way to be doing it.

To go the other direction...if you were to give credit for play sessions, rather than completed adventures, would you only give a DM "one point" for running 3 different adventures during one all-day session?
#5
kenobi65
Feb 18, 2010 13:56:54
Why does it require that? Just report the event once it's finished - nobody cares what date the event was ordered for.

Agreed. The ordering system seems to be far more forgiving than it used to be about having unreported events, as well....just report it when your group completes the adventure*, and don't worry about whether the record reflect the exact date on which the adventure was completed.

* - Assuming they get back to it in a reasonable length of time (within a few weeks). If you somehow had a long gap (months) between starting and finishing, it might make sense to cancel the original event, just so it's not hanging out there in the system forever.
#6
vinciente
Feb 18, 2010 14:11:00 The changes would enable 2 credits total for an Adventure (since they seem to be based on 4-5 hours played time each), and be limited to 2 sessions, in which the first session still required at least 50% complettion. A group running Corm1-1 would have to complete 3 encounters (out of 5) in the first session to be considered as a "legal session" for credit. While a group running Dale1-1 or AGLA1-1 would have to complete 4 encounters for the same credit. Then groups who have completed the total Adventure would recieve the 2nd credit for their progress.
Ultimately, it's about not penalizing people for having Real Life limit the amount of time available to a single sitting.

The D&D Encounters program states...
"D&D Encounters is an in-store weekly mini-campaign played out one encounter per session, with sessions every Wednesday." on this page >>> www.wizards.com/dnd/Event.aspx?x=dnd/4ne...
and
"You can get the encounter done within 1-2 hours, making it easy to finish at a reasonable hour and keeping the DM’s prep time minimal each week." on this page community.wizards.com/dungeonsanddragons...

Considering the willingness to give credit for 1-2 hours of playing in a D&D Encounters event; I don't really see where the issue would be in giving credit for 2+ hours of play within reasonable guidlines similar to what I suggested.

**EDIT**
The changes also allow for the organizer to "continue" the Adventure & have the sanctioning # be reflected on the Event Finder system for the new/next date when people are looking for games to join.
DMs can always make a place for a new party member to be added, by having them discovered (while tied across the room from their gear, or whatever fits) by the party.
#7
kenobi65
Feb 18, 2010 14:36:27
Ultimately, it's about not penalizing people for having Real Life limit the amount of time available to a single sitting.

I think it's unfortunate that you see it as "penalizing". The RPGA tracks adventures played, not sessions played. I don't understand why you see it as a "penalty" that you're not getting double points for it taking 2 different play sessions to finish the adventure.

The changes also allow for the organizer to "continue" the Adventure & have the sanctioning # be reflected on the Event Finder system for the new/next date when people are looking for games to join.
DMs can always make a place for a new party member to be added, by having them discovered (while tied across the room from their gear, or whatever fits) by the party.

Letting a new player enter an RPGA adventure partway through isn't supported by the rules (though, I suppose you might argue it isn't disallowed, either, but I think that's a pretty spurious argument).

And, as you've proposed it, this wouldn't be a case of an extra player sitting down at the table a little late, maybe missing the first encounter (which happens all the time at conventions), but after at least half of the adventure has been completed.

RPGA adventures are written for one group to play "all the way through" (even if they have to break up actual play over multiple sessions).

This really feels like you're trying to get the system changed to allow for your particular corner-case.
#8
vinciente
Feb 18, 2010 16:56:08 So a DM who oversees an adventure sanctioned as 12345, and is unable to finish the adventure because the venue only has table time open for the last 2+ hours they are open, deserves to get the same credit for devoting his time 2x in order to complete an adventure, as a DM who does not have to take the "left-over" table time.

I will admit that my motivation for this is based on the circumstances at the venue I sanction games for.
***Please take note that Magic: The Gathering (which is another WotC game) events are being run/played by much larger groups on almost every night***

However, it does not make the request to improve the system for anyone with similar time restraints any less valid.
#9
kenobi65
Feb 18, 2010 17:12:07
So a DM who oversees an adventure sanctioned as 12345, and is unable to finish the adventure because the venue only has table time open for the last 2+ hours they are open, deserves to get the same credit for devoting his time 2x in order to complete an adventure, as a DM who does not have to take the "left-over" table time.

It sounds like you see it as "devoting 2 evenings" to DM a complete adventure (even though it sounds like you're finishing an adventure in 4-5 hours, which is, after all, what it's taking everyone else to do so). But, at a certain level, I see your point, esp. if you factor in travel time, etc.

I'll note that I've been playing (and DMing) RPGA games online for nearly a decade. My group almost always splits playing an adventure over two evenings -- we normally aren't able to start until around 9pm Eastern, and we try to quit by midnight eastern. Playing in a chat room tends to be slower than playing face-to-face, and so, it does usually take us 5-6 hours of play, over two evenings, to finish an adventure.

So, I *do* understand your situation...but, even so, I don't agree that it warrants changing how the RPGA gives "credit" for play. It takes us longer to finish an adventure than the "standard", so be it. :shrug:

I also wonder what's driving your concern about getting "proper credit" for the time you're putting in. Note that, under the new DM Rewards system, they mail out rewards twice a year, to every DM who's accumulated at least 5 "points" during the period. Getting more points than 5 doesn't lead to more rewards.

Even if it takes you 2 nights to finish an adventure, and earn a "point"...if you're DMing once a week, you're *still* earning 13 points per "period". Even if you miss some, you're in no danger of missing out on any sort of reward.
#10
vinciente
Feb 18, 2010 18:15:51

I also wonder what's driving your concern about getting "proper credit" for the time you're putting in. Note that, under the new DM Rewards system, they mail out rewards twice a year, to every DM who's accumulated at least 5 "points" during the period. Getting more points than 5 doesn't lead to more rewards.

Even if it takes you 2 nights to finish an adventure, and earn a "point"...if you're DMing once a week, you're *still* earning 13 points per "period". Even if you miss some, you're in no danger of missing out on any sort of reward.

Having this pointed out to me helps a great deal. I had at some point gotten the misconception that the rewards were based more on how many total points were gained during a given timeframe. Thus if DM1 gained 10 points then he would recieve significantly less than DM2 who earned 15 points in the same time frame.
With my newly aquired understanding; I would like to say that the point/credit system would not need to be changed as I had previously felt necessary. I do still feel that having a way to "continue" the same event for the following week's day/time slot could still be useful in letting players see if an event is fresh or a continuation; when viewing the Event Finder's results for the area they are looking for games in.
#11
kenobi65
Feb 18, 2010 20:47:58
I do still feel that having a way to "continue" the same event for the following week's day/time slot could still be useful in letting players see if an event is fresh or a continuation; when viewing the Event Finder's results for the area they are looking for games in.

I don't think that's necessary. As several of us have pointed out, don't schedule a new "event" for the continuation of the adventure; if the only thing that you have show up on the Event Finder is "part 1", it won't be an issue.
#12
vinciente
Feb 18, 2010 22:09:27 So then you are saying it's better to have
ww2.wizards.com/StoreAndEventLocator/
show D&D games at a venue every other week & possibly lose out on some exposure to new players?

Do people not consider that the game is also a product, and that Wizards would want there to be greater availability to their customer base? Which means giving them a reason to go to a FLGS more often?

IMHO, this is becoming more of a discussion about why should Wizards make anything better, when they can waste time on things that are amusing for a few keystrokes and mouse clicks & then will be forgotten about as being "not as useful as I thought".
Check out this example...
www.wizards.com/dnd/Tool.aspx?x=dnd/4new...

Honestly how many hours were wasted putting that together? Could not have those hours been spent improving the system for RPGA organizers who often find DCI info that is irrelevant to RPGA events &/or sanctioning? How is it going to help expose D&D to people? How much easier will a DMs prep-time be by having a name generator as opposed to a dungeon builder?

It has also turned into a debate about why making the changes would be of any use, when the purpose & benefit have been stated before. This serves only as a means to curb the original intent of the thread which was to simply give a means by which people who would support the change to do so by "signing a petition".
#13
kenobi65
Feb 18, 2010 22:33:54
So then you are saying it's better to have
ww2.wizards.com/StoreAndEventLocator/
show D&D games at a venue every other week & possibly lose out on some exposure to new players?

Well, here's the thing. (And, honestly, I *am* trying to be helpful here...)

How big is your "weekly" event? Is it just you running one table?

What you've made it sound like, up until now, is that it is, and that you start the adventure on week 1, and finish it on week 2.

If that's the case, then, in the interest of "exposure to new players", I'd highly recommend that you only show up on the event calendar for "week 1", when an adventure starts, since that's when a new player would be able to sit down and join you. If you're on the event calendar for your "week 2", and a new player does happen to come into the FLGS, looking to play in a game, you're going to need to turn him away that week (because you really cannot bring him in halfway through the adventure, as pointed out earlier).

On the other hand, if it's more than just you DMing (and, thus, your event has multiple tables going on any particular week), and you're interested in maximizing exposure in the event calendar (which it sounds like you are), you should think about staggering your offerings, so that, every week, you have an adventure that's just beginning, and thus, open for a new player to join.
#14
WolfStar76
Feb 19, 2010 6:42:46 At the risk of ganging up, I have to say that Kenobi has said exactly what I'm thinking of the situation - and done so more completely than I could have done (the multiple tables being staggered, for example).

While I get that you want to have credit for each *night* of play - organized play program across the board (including other companies) just don't work like that in my experience.

If I'm playing and we don't complete the sanctioned event in a timely manner, results aren't reported twice giving players more than one set of points for the event. Instead the event is put "on hold" until the players can reassemble (or drop out - usually if they weren't playing so well) the next day or week.

In that respect, D&D Organized Play is doing the same thing. Crediting a DM for an event. Be that event a short D&D Encounters game, or a longer LFR game. It's the event as a whole that matters.

I think anyone that's run a 2 (or 3!) part adventure will agree that - sometimes it would be nice to get something extra for those marathon sessions - but keep in mind that DM Rewards are the frosting on the cake.

The game itself is the cake - it should be the main reason you're DMing - because you enjoy D&D. The rewards are just WotC's way of saying "thank you" for helping 6+ players have a good time with Dungeons and Dragons. How much time is spent doing that isn't as relevant as to how many experiences (adventures) you've given them - and even then the threshold is pretty low for getting a bonus.

This isn't, by any measure, proof that you're "wrong" for proposing a change - I just don't think it's a proposal that's going to get a lot of traction. The system works the way it is now, and it measure what WotC wants to know - who's playing what adventures. I don't think there's a strong interest on WotC's half to know how many sessions it takes to complete a game - or how many encounters a party got through in a single session.

They know that, on average, an LFR mod takes 4-5 hours. So they simply account for that when you finish your reporting.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 vinciente Feb 18, 2010 1:01:54	Hey everyone, I'm trying to get help petitioning Wizards/RPGA to give participants credit for the full amount of time spent playing sanctioned games. Why sould we get credit for 1 night of play when many times a sanctioned game can take at least 2 nights of play to complete. The situation occurs when players' & venues' schedules leave them with a 2-3hour window for playing a public game before the store closes, while the Adventures for sanctioning are more like 5+ hours of play time to complete. The current system requires an organizer to report that the event was canceled, even though it was actually held. Then the same event must be sanctioned again just to be able to complete the Adventure. My proposed solution is that we be given a way to report how many encounters were completed (or which was the last completed) during the first session, so that participants get credit for playing everytime they play and not just when the Adventure is completed. If a report is submitted stating that the event ended with an encounter before the final encounter; then the organizer would be given a place to set the next date for resuming the Adventure. Please show your support with... /sign (or) /support Feel free to include ways to improve on the concept & don't waste time with Troll Comments like "just have longer game sessions".
#2 amysrevenge Feb 18, 2010 1:09:57	The current system requires an organizer to report that the event was canceled, even though it was actually held. Then the same event must be sanctioned again just to be able to complete the Adventure. Why does it require that? Just report the event once it's finished - nobody cares what date the event was ordered for.
#3 WolfStar76 Feb 18, 2010 11:16:03	I suppose my first question would be: why? The current system is configured to give people credit for a completed module - and you seem to grasp that. My question is - why does this system need to change? Wouldn't this system actually give more benefit/credit to people who play mods that they split up, while simultaneously putting groups/players that play through an adventure in a single sitting at a disadvantage? Group A - would get 2-3 credits for playing ADVE2-1 because it took them two or three nights. Group B - would get 1 credit because they played on a Saturday afternoon and got it done in one shot. They current system rewards DMs for the adventures they successfully run - and to me, at least, that makes sense. To implement your system would actually encourage people to split an adventure into 2+ parts for more credit. I could easily see this being exploited "Oh, time for ANOTHER bathroom break guys, we'll come back for session three of ADVE2-1 in 10 minutes " If players have limited time in the evenings - and their FLGS has a table open on Wednesday nights, I'd suggest the look into D&D Encounters: community.wizards.com/dungeonsanddragons...
#4 kenobi65 Feb 18, 2010 13:53:50	They current system rewards DMs for the adventures they successfully run - and to me, at least, that makes sense. Agreed. You're getting credit for playing (and completing) an adventure, not for a "play session", however long that lasts, and I think that's the right way to be doing it. To go the other direction...if you were to give credit for play sessions, rather than completed adventures, would you only give a DM "one point" for running 3 different adventures during one all-day session?
#5 kenobi65 Feb 18, 2010 13:56:54	Why does it require that? Just report the event once it's finished - nobody cares what date the event was ordered for. Agreed. The ordering system seems to be far more forgiving than it used to be about having unreported events, as well....just report it when your group completes the adventure, and don't worry about whether the record reflect the exact date on which the adventure was completed. - Assuming they get back to it in a reasonable length of time (within a few weeks). If you somehow had a long gap (months) between starting and finishing, it might make sense to cancel the original event, just so it's not hanging out there in the system forever.
#6 vinciente Feb 18, 2010 14:11:00	The changes would enable 2 credits total for an Adventure (since they seem to be based on 4-5 hours played time each), and be limited to 2 sessions, in which the first session still required at least 50% complettion. A group running Corm1-1 would have to complete 3 encounters (out of 5) in the first session to be considered as a "legal session" for credit. While a group running Dale1-1 or AGLA1-1 would have to complete 4 encounters for the same credit. Then groups who have completed the total Adventure would recieve the 2nd credit for their progress. Ultimately, it's about not penalizing people for having Real Life limit the amount of time available to a single sitting. The D&D Encounters program states... "D&D Encounters is an in-store weekly mini-campaign played out one encounter per session, with sessions every Wednesday." on this page >>> www.wizards.com/dnd/Event.aspx?x=dnd/4ne... and "You can get the encounter done within 1-2 hours, making it easy to finish at a reasonable hour and keeping the DM’s prep time minimal each week." on this page community.wizards.com/dungeonsanddragons... Considering the willingness to give credit for 1-2 hours of playing in a D&D Encounters event; I don't really see where the issue would be in giving credit for 2+ hours of play within reasonable guidlines similar to what I suggested. EDIT The changes also allow for the organizer to "continue" the Adventure & have the sanctioning # be reflected on the Event Finder system for the new/next date when people are looking for games to join. DMs can always make a place for a new party member to be added, by having them discovered (while tied across the room from their gear, or whatever fits) by the party.
#7 kenobi65 Feb 18, 2010 14:36:27	Ultimately, it's about not penalizing people for having Real Life limit the amount of time available to a single sitting. I think it's unfortunate that you see it as "penalizing". The RPGA tracks adventures played, not sessions played. I don't understand why you see it as a "penalty" that you're not getting double points for it taking 2 different play sessions to finish the adventure. The changes also allow for the organizer to "continue" the Adventure & have the sanctioning # be reflected on the Event Finder system for the new/next date when people are looking for games to join. DMs can always make a place for a new party member to be added, by having them discovered (while tied across the room from their gear, or whatever fits) by the party. Letting a new player enter an RPGA adventure partway through isn't supported by the rules (though, I suppose you might argue it isn't disallowed, either, but I think that's a pretty spurious argument). And, as you've proposed it, this wouldn't be a case of an extra player sitting down at the table a little late, maybe missing the first encounter (which happens all the time at conventions), but after at least half of the adventure has been completed. RPGA adventures are written for one group to play "all the way through" (even if they have to break up actual play over multiple sessions). This really feels like you're trying to get the system changed to allow for your particular corner-case.
#8 vinciente Feb 18, 2010 16:56:08	So a DM who oversees an adventure sanctioned as 12345, and is unable to finish the adventure because the venue only has table time open for the last 2+ hours they are open, deserves to get the same credit for devoting his time 2x in order to complete an adventure, as a DM who does not have to take the "left-over" table time. I will admit that my motivation for this is based on the circumstances at the venue I sanction games for. *Please take note that Magic: The Gathering (which is another WotC game) events are being run/played by much larger groups on almost every night* However, it does not make the request to improve the system for anyone with similar time restraints any less valid.
#9 kenobi65 Feb 18, 2010 17:12:07	So a DM who oversees an adventure sanctioned as 12345, and is unable to finish the adventure because the venue only has table time open for the last 2+ hours they are open, deserves to get the same credit for devoting his time 2x in order to complete an adventure, as a DM who does not have to take the "left-over" table time. It sounds like you see it as "devoting 2 evenings" to DM a complete adventure (even though it sounds like you're finishing an adventure in 4-5 hours, which is, after all, what it's taking everyone else to do so). But, at a certain level, I see your point, esp. if you factor in travel time, etc. I'll note that I've been playing (and DMing) RPGA games online for nearly a decade. My group almost always splits playing an adventure over two evenings -- we normally aren't able to start until around 9pm Eastern, and we try to quit by midnight eastern. Playing in a chat room tends to be slower than playing face-to-face, and so, it does usually take us 5-6 hours of play, over two evenings, to finish an adventure. So, I do understand your situation...but, even so, I don't agree that it warrants changing how the RPGA gives "credit" for play. It takes us longer to finish an adventure than the "standard", so be it. :shrug: I also wonder what's driving your concern about getting "proper credit" for the time you're putting in. Note that, under the new DM Rewards system, they mail out rewards twice a year, to every DM who's accumulated at least 5 "points" during the period. Getting more points than 5 doesn't lead to more rewards. Even if it takes you 2 nights to finish an adventure, and earn a "point"...if you're DMing once a week, you're still earning 13 points per "period". Even if you miss some, you're in no danger of missing out on any sort of reward.
#10 vinciente Feb 18, 2010 18:15:51	I also wonder what's driving your concern about getting "proper credit" for the time you're putting in. Note that, under the new DM Rewards system, they mail out rewards twice a year, to every DM who's accumulated at least 5 "points" during the period. Getting more points than 5 doesn't lead to more rewards. Even if it takes you 2 nights to finish an adventure, and earn a "point"...if you're DMing once a week, you're still earning 13 points per "period". Even if you miss some, you're in no danger of missing out on any sort of reward. Having this pointed out to me helps a great deal. I had at some point gotten the misconception that the rewards were based more on how many total points were gained during a given timeframe. Thus if DM1 gained 10 points then he would recieve significantly less than DM2 who earned 15 points in the same time frame. With my newly aquired understanding; I would like to say that the point/credit system would not need to be changed as I had previously felt necessary. I do still feel that having a way to "continue" the same event for the following week's day/time slot could still be useful in letting players see if an event is fresh or a continuation; when viewing the Event Finder's results for the area they are looking for games in.
#11 kenobi65 Feb 18, 2010 20:47:58	I do still feel that having a way to "continue" the same event for the following week's day/time slot could still be useful in letting players see if an event is fresh or a continuation; when viewing the Event Finder's results for the area they are looking for games in. I don't think that's necessary. As several of us have pointed out, don't schedule a new "event" for the continuation of the adventure; if the only thing that you have show up on the Event Finder is "part 1", it won't be an issue.
#12 vinciente Feb 18, 2010 22:09:27	So then you are saying it's better to have ww2.wizards.com/StoreAndEventLocator/ show D&D games at a venue every other week & possibly lose out on some exposure to new players? Do people not consider that the game is also a product, and that Wizards would want there to be greater availability to their customer base? Which means giving them a reason to go to a FLGS more often? IMHO, this is becoming more of a discussion about why should Wizards make anything better, when they can waste time on things that are amusing for a few keystrokes and mouse clicks & then will be forgotten about as being "not as useful as I thought". Check out this example... www.wizards.com/dnd/Tool.aspx?x=dnd/4new... Honestly how many hours were wasted putting that together? Could not have those hours been spent improving the system for RPGA organizers who often find DCI info that is irrelevant to RPGA events &/or sanctioning? How is it going to help expose D&D to people? How much easier will a DMs prep-time be by having a name generator as opposed to a dungeon builder? It has also turned into a debate about why making the changes would be of any use, when the purpose & benefit have been stated before. This serves only as a means to curb the original intent of the thread which was to simply give a means by which people who would support the change to do so by "signing a petition".
#13 kenobi65 Feb 18, 2010 22:33:54	So then you are saying it's better to have ww2.wizards.com/StoreAndEventLocator/ show D&D games at a venue every other week & possibly lose out on some exposure to new players? Well, here's the thing. (And, honestly, I am trying to be helpful here...) How big is your "weekly" event? Is it just you running one table? What you've made it sound like, up until now, is that it is, and that you start the adventure on week 1, and finish it on week 2. If that's the case, then, in the interest of "exposure to new players", I'd highly recommend that you only show up on the event calendar for "week 1", when an adventure starts, since that's when a new player would be able to sit down and join you. If you're on the event calendar for your "week 2", and a new player does happen to come into the FLGS, looking to play in a game, you're going to need to turn him away that week (because you really cannot bring him in halfway through the adventure, as pointed out earlier). On the other hand, if it's more than just you DMing (and, thus, your event has multiple tables going on any particular week), and you're interested in maximizing exposure in the event calendar (which it sounds like you are), you should think about staggering your offerings, so that, every week, you have an adventure that's just beginning, and thus, open for a new player to join.
#14 WolfStar76 Feb 19, 2010 6:42:46	At the risk of ganging up, I have to say that Kenobi has said exactly what I'm thinking of the situation - and done so more completely than I could have done (the multiple tables being staggered, for example). While I get that you want to have credit for each night of play - organized play program across the board (including other companies) just don't work like that in my experience. If I'm playing and we don't complete the sanctioned event in a timely manner, results aren't reported twice giving players more than one set of points for the event. Instead the event is put "on hold" until the players can reassemble (or drop out - usually if they weren't playing so well) the next day or week. In that respect, D&D Organized Play is doing the same thing. Crediting a DM for an event. Be that event a short D&D Encounters game, or a longer LFR game. It's the event as a whole that matters. I think anyone that's run a 2 (or 3!) part adventure will agree that - sometimes it would be nice to get something extra for those marathon sessions - but keep in mind that DM Rewards are the frosting on the cake. The game itself is the cake - it should be the main reason you're DMing - because you enjoy D&D. The rewards are just WotC's way of saying "thank you" for helping 6+ players have a good time with Dungeons and Dragons. How much time is spent doing that isn't as relevant as to how many experiences (adventures) you've given them - and even then the threshold is pretty low for getting a bonus. This isn't, by any measure, proof that you're "wrong" for proposing a change - I just don't think it's a proposal that's going to get a lot of traction. The system works the way it is now, and it measure what WotC wants to know - who's playing what adventures. I don't think there's a strong interest on WotC's half to know how many sessions it takes to complete a game - or how many encounters a party got through in a single session. They know that, on average, an LFR mod takes 4-5 hours. So they simply account for that when you finish your reporting.