Over in the Twatter someone told me 1:1 time is good because you need it to run several gaming groups in the exact same world, at the exact same period of in-world time and in the exact same in-world location.

Else you'd need to put the game time on hold until next session...

Now, I might be missing something but doesn't that mean that some asshole PC/NPC could just kill my PC between gaming sessions?

Also, if that's why people are using 1:1 time then it's a "solution" for a problem of their own making, one that has several other solutions, from the top of my head:

Run different worlds for each group
Run the same world but really distant locations/time periods for each group
Run different instances of the same world, multiverses where each group is in the same world in a different universe so they don't interact with each other ever.

There might be other solutions beside those that don't involve having the PCs atg risk of being killed while the player isn't there.

Do people really find that play style fun?

If you do, care to explain exactly where is the fun in having your PC murdered while you're not there?

Or having the GM run YOUR PC as an NPC while you're not there so it can get killed?

If necessary I depart from 1:1 time to avoid this sort of thing. Eg last week it was the end of the session and there were bandits in a farm with a captive, a time critical mission, so I froze time for a week* to the next session. Then two game weeks pass in the current real week to catch up.

I mostly do it because it makes timekeeping a lot easier for me. It also gives an appropriate sense of time passing, and it makes time a resource for PCs to use, or not. Deciding to spend 20 weeks crafting a powerful item becomes a significant decision.

*For that group. In multiple group campaigns I might need to freeze one group in time to resolve an adventure while the others stay on 1:1 time.

Quote from: S'mon on February 09, 2024, 06:51:51 PM
If necessary I depart from 1:1 time to avoid this sort of thing. Eg last week it was the end of the session and there were bandits in a farm with a captive, a time critical mission, so I froze time for a week* to the next session. Then two game weeks pass in the current real week to catch up.

I mostly do it because it makes timekeeping a lot easier for me. It also gives an appropriate sense of time passing, and it makes time a resource for PCs to use, or not. Deciding to spend 20 weeks crafting a powerful item becomes a significant decision.

*For that group. In multiple group campaigns I might need to freeze one group in time to resolve an adventure while the others stay on 1:1 time.

Yeah, which is why game time should be elastic: Nobody wants to spend 20 gaming sessions "crafting", so time is compressed between sessions where the other members of the party were doing something else, also of cammera and nobody was bored to death.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 09, 2024, 06:17:50 PM
Over in the Twatter someone told me 1:1 time is good because you need it to run several gaming groups in the exact same world, at the exact same period of in-world time and in the exact same in-world location.

Else you'd need to put the game time on hold until next session...

Now, I might be missing something but doesn't that mean that some asshole PC/NPC could just kill my PC between gaming sessions?

Also, if that's why people are using 1:1 time then it's a "solution" for a problem of their own making, one that has several other solutions, from the top of my head:

Run different worlds for each group
Run the same world but really distant locations/time periods for each group
Run different instances of the same world, multiverses where each group is in the same world in a different universe so they don't interact with each other ever.

There might be other solutions beside those that don't involve having the PCs atg risk of being killed while the player isn't there.

Do people really find that play style fun?

If you do, care to explain exactly where is the fun in having your PC murdered while you're not there?

Or having the GM run YOUR PC as an NPC while you're not there so it can get killed?

When I was doing Vampire LARP it was this, and when I look back at it, it's kind of a fucking nightmare because people were playing the game, outside of the game.

In the old "Camarilla" (Now called "The Mind's Eye Society") every LARP was connected which allowed you to travel between cities and play the same character. The downside of this was the fanatics who 'played the game' even when the Game wasn't technically being run. Sure, we might only meet twice a month on Saturday for our Specific area... but between those sessions you'd have secret email lists and people having "In character" phone calls to progress plots and other such nonsense... Meaning the people who didn't have real life responsibilities, but who could afford the time to more or less have the entire game take over their real lives, would do "Better" at the game, than those who put the fake fangs away outside of the in person meet ups to do things like... Yaknow, Work or take care of their kids.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 09, 2024, 07:01:53 PM
Yeah, which is why game time should be elastic: Nobody wants to spend 20 gaming sessions "crafting", so time is compressed between sessions where the other members of the party were doing something else, also of cammera and nobody was bored to death.

They don't spend any gaming sessions crafting. The crafting happens in the off-camera downtime between adventures/sessions. In the case of my example, they play 20 sessions before they get their 20 week item.

Quote from: S'mon on February 09, 2024, 07:30:10 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 09, 2024, 07:01:53 PM
Yeah, which is why game time should be elastic: Nobody wants to spend 20 gaming sessions "crafting", so time is compressed between sessions where the other members of the party were doing something else, also of cammera and nobody was bored to death.

They don't spend any gaming sessions crafting. The crafting happens in the off-camera downtime between adventures/sessions. In the case of my example, they play 20 sessions before they get their 20 week item.

OH! Sorry, my bad, I missunderstood.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 09, 2024, 06:17:50 PM
Do people really find that play style fun?

If you do, care to explain exactly where is the fun in having your PC murdered while you're not there?

Or having the GM run YOUR PC as an NPC while you're not there so it can get killed?

I've never done it strict 1:1.  However, some of the fun of playing multiple groups in the same world, concurrently, is that indeed your PC could get killed by another PC.  Your evil PC might even kill a good PC or vice versa.  Ideally, there's some shenanigans by the GM or the players to arrange it so that both players are present, though.  The assassin makes a crack at you, but it doesn't get resolved until you can both play it out from the moment your PC becomes aware of the assassin (if any).  Or one PC calls another PC out, and everyone knows when the conflict happens. 

On top of that, this style of play can also be used without the antagonism, but where each player has multiple characters, often of vastly different levels, playing in the same world.  It might only be 10-12 players that form up for parties of 4-8 PCs at a time, but perhaps 3 to 4 times that number of characters (never mind henchmen). 

I'm slowly transitioning my current groups to that style right now.  That's 3 group, currently representing 24 players, with a 4th one starting up sometime this summer with another 5 or 6.  There's some overlap between groups, too  We are only up to about 40 characters, because some are just starting.  Mainly, they are playing different adventures entirely, but it's handy because I only have one world to keep track of, and the players can at least hear of other adventures happening, and then there is some mixing and matching of different characters at different sessions, which is fun.  I'm not using 1:1 time, but I am keeping close track of "weeks" passed, and contriving to have certain things wind off to nearest week.  It helps that I've slowed recovery time down to weeks instead of days to support this kind of play.  I mainly handle the gaps with narration.  If you showing up with your Character Y to play with everyone else's Character X, then after you traveled in the downtime to their location, you've got to wait out the balance of the time for them to meet up.  Since I have meaningful downtime costs, this keeps the players hungry for more action.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 09, 2024, 06:17:50 PM
Run different worlds for each group

For some "open table" campaigns, the point is the groups all share the same world and the same spaces.

I do agree that doing things to/with a character while the player is not there is not good. The character should be in a state of "no touch-ee" until the player returns to the campaign.

When I run multiple groups in the same setting I tend to run time as always moving forward, but never 1:1. It's too much work to have players running different weeks at different times in the same setting. Then I'd be worried about one group lagging a week or month behind the other and having timing inconsistencies.

So lets say I have two groups of players that each play on different days: A plays on Tuesday, and B plays on Friday.

Group A goes into the ruins of Caed Nua and clears a level, taking loot and XP to boot all taking about a week in game time. They return to town at the end of session with the loot and celebrate.

Group B picks up on Friday, at the same game time Group A does. Therefore, they can't trade the loot group A found in the ruins because it hasn't happened yet. If they did, they'd have to wait an in game week before that happens.

No matter what happens, both groups will always catch up to the other before the next round of sessions. So if Group B only spends 2 days in game, time will skip ahead five days to match the other group. I always make sure the two groups know of the difference in time between them, and allow them to use it as needed so it's usually not "wasted" sitting around. It's time to shop, craft, roleplay, etc. No matter what though, time in the game is always moving forward to match the other group so that the game moves forward.

I guess in a way this is like 1:1, but it allows groups to catch up and doesn't give the advantage to the group that goes earlier in the week. If the two groups meet, they gotta coordinate how and what they do when they meet, and find a way to get everyone together. For that reason alone I don't let them overlap unless it's in town or something. If both groups wanna go to a ruins, they gotta go as ONE group, to avoid time inconsistences. I'm only 1 DM afterall.

If that sounds like a pain, it's because it is and it's why I don't tend to run multiple groups. I'd rather run one large group.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 09, 2024, 07:41:58 PM
OH! Sorry, my bad, I missunderstood.

It's still a significant cost, playing 20 sessions before they get the item they want, when they could be crafting multiple weaker items and getting them in play. They sure are happy when they get their (eg) +3 Flametongue, though!

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 09, 2024, 06:17:50 PM
Over in the Twatter someone told me 1:1 time is good because you need it to run several gaming groups in the exact same world, at the exact same period of in-world time and in the exact same in-world location.

I am more and more convinced that this whole 1:1 time craze is another Tik-tok or 4-chan fabricated fad. Its just too stupid a spiel to be just the OSR being terminally stupid, again. It feels like trolling.

It could be an interesting TOOL to manage time across multiple groups of PCs (not necessarily players).

But that's about it. This fanatic zeal for 1:1 Time is a shtick people in twitter use to get views. Some of them have no other tools, so everything looks like a nail. "1:1 is the solution for all your problems".

Of course there are other solutions to manage time, from hand-waving to detailed spreadsheets. I don't find 1:1 time particularly important, but then again I usually just play with one group of PCs.

(Of course, the fact that the idea is defende vociferously by people who look mentally unstable and obsessed does not mean it is a bad idea. Again, it can be an useful tool, and I've seem reasonable people defend it too).

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 09, 2024, 06:17:50 PM


Now, I might be missing something but doesn't that mean that some asshole PC/NPC could just kill my PC between gaming sessions?

Also, if that's why people are using 1:1 time then it's a "solution" for a problem of their own making, one that has several other solutions, from the top of my head:

Run different worlds for each group
Run the same world but really distant locations/time periods for each group
Run different instances of the same world, multiverses where each group is in the same world in a different universe so they don't interact with each other ever.

The only time I used 1:1 in my sandbox campaigns is when I am running multiple groups in the same setting and the possibility of their actions impacting one another is on the table. It is a good solution for that particular issue. It is also helpful for things like downtime I suppose. The other time I have used it, is for more episodic, modern campaigns (think X Files monster of the week). Where treating a week between game sessions as an actual week, provides some space for giving the players characters lives between adventures without having to RP the minutiae of their daily experiences (it keeps things focused on the monster hunting, but lends the sense of a wider world). However it also does create a surreal effect I find.

But most of the time I go with the third option on your list. It is just easier, and I find players aren't like fans of Forgotten Realms eagerly awaiting the metaplot. And I think a lot of players have trouble adjusting to 1:1 time, and you can run into other issues doing 1:1 (it is a solution but it is a solution to a problem but comes with its own set of problems).

Also because most of my games now are for settings I publish, I find I have to hit a reset button anyways when I start new campaigns, just so I am not throwing myself too far off from my own published material.

The problem 1:1 time is trying to solve is causality. You can definitely keep cause and effect sorted using real time. But it's obviously not the only way.

I run a regularly scheduled campaign and depending on who shows up, we might run the main party, run side character, or run a new party. Normally it's around the same world time and keeping casualty straight is simple enough. But we have done one shots in the world's past time. We had some one shot characters who were doing a quick job for the local prince. We picked up the main campaign after that, and later one of the one shot characters showed up as a new party member. He conveniently had story to tell about the job and it turned out to be relevant background for the main campaign.

You need a rule that no 'front stage' activities happen when a group is 'in town'. They can level up, heal up, buy things, get gear repaired, charges refilled, hire henchmen, and other off-stage activities. No PvP, among other things. Also, every player should have multiple PCs. The 20-week crafter? His PC is away for 20 weeks so he plays another of his PCs in the meantime. This means different groups won't interact much with each other, although there will be some competition between them as they try to grab the best loot from the dungeon before the others do.

I believe the Westmarch campaign had a rule like that.