TheRPGSite

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.

Listen to the wisdom of the Cookie Monster: "Cookies are a sometimes food." :D

Honestly it can be great fun for group tension, coordinating players under stress, teaching players how to tactically coordinate before such stress, and a lively challenge to jaded GMs. But it is a 'sometimes food.'  8) If your players are treating a game like disposable fluff, or are not feeling at risk with their PCs, or want the extra rush of squad tactics twitch muscle memory unit cohesion, then yeah go for it!

If not, then you are the weakest link and deserve naught but a beating with the badwrongfun bat.  ;D I keed, I keed...  ??? or do I?

Downtime, smuchtime

Are you guys telling me you NEVER RP when the PCs are in town? I mean I get not roleplaying some parts of it, like shoping, but going for a few pints at the local watering hole is an oportunity for RP, same if you go visit some favourite merchant, you hear things, people ask for your help...

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 10, 2024, 10:43:18 AM
Downtime, smuchtime

Are you guys telling me you NEVER RP when the PCs are in town?

I usually do that in text chat during the downtime, what was called "blue booking".

From yesterday, Friday (live games are Tuesdays):

Player:
In the morning before the group separates, Malen asks if the group is still in possession of the bloodstones? He mentions his plans to visit Lykonios and says "If the old wizard says we can fashion it into a weapon, I think that could benefit you Sharan. We could also use them to barter and maybe get you a special weapon for an affordable price." He then asks Draye if she would like to accompany him for a visit to Threshhold to see Lykonios the Grey.
Malen says to Sharan. "Well, we have made a respectable sum of gold in the short time we have spent together, more than I have had in my lifetime. I would be willing to contribute to the new sword fund. You have put yourself in harms way to protect us, your family has been a gracious host, and I am grateful for you risking your life to preserve ours. I will look for you at the smiths forge once business has concluded with Lykonios."

Me, GM:
The door to the Old Mill Tower is opened by a pretty young woman in courtly dress. "Good morning. I am Anna Halaran, Apprentice to the Wizard Lykonios. How may I help you?" She listens to Malen's request and frowns. "Lykonios is not receiving visitors. I'm sorry."
Player:
Malen gives a respectful bow and wishes her well with her studies. He walks off visibly frustrated.

(Player had failed a Persuasion check to meet the Wizard)

Actual live session time is generally seen as too scarce to spend on shopping & suchlike.

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.

Man this is the actual reason for 1:1 time (or really "proportional time"- each real world week could equal an in-game day or an in-game year).

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

Definitely not.  When you are doing downtime in some city, some other group doesn't get to go gank you.  The DM would simply say no to this, as this easily supercedes whatever he's doing by using 1:1 time.  Now, a more complex issue does arise if the groups are competing over something, say, at the domain level of play- but that seems pretty theoretical for most tables, and groups are hardly ever at odds, and pvp is almost never present.

Running multilple groups in the same world is basically the reason for 1:1 time, or any kind of setup like that.  It's extremely tough to do this any other way- one group will be operating in the past, and the number of things they can do will be greatly shrunk as a result.

Quote
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.

Ok, but what if you only want one world?  That's a pretty important detail, because you end up with one single history that represents all the players and their deeds, instead of two or three vastly diverged universes.  Maybe you like that; many do not. 

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

Is this common?  World of Darkness had what amounted to real time-ish stuff for years, and I never heard of anyone losing a character to PvP while off screen, and those guys did have pvp-ish stuff from time to time.

I'd never consider your concern to rise to any meaningful level.  No one is ganking you while you are afk, either no one or no normal people are running a pvp MMO like this.

I'm actually writing a post about my experience with 1:1 time over the last year. Why I recommend it and who I recommend it to.  I doubt it will convince people who don't like it but I think there are interesting things to say. No matter how much idiots like me try to explain how it works and importantly WHY it works, there are going to be naysayers who don't want to understand or discuss it in good faith. If you don't want to do it, don't do it. And stop trying to tell people who actually have experience with it that it somehow doesn't work immediately after we tell you several times how it does work with examples. Move on.

I have never run a game with 1:1 time.  I don't know anyone who did.  I don't see much point to it outside of a very particular edge case that will never be relevant to me.  I'm not even sure how it's supposed to work.  If the PCs do something that takes an hour, do we sit here looking at each other for an hour or make in-character small talk?  If they sleep for the night, do we hang around for 8 hours?  If we end a fight and then stop for the week, have the PCs been hanging around at the scene of the battle for a week?  Doing what?  Do you have to end every session in town?  They just hang around?  What if there is a time crunch in game?  It just doesn't really make any sense to me for an ongoing campaign.  Maybe for one-shot tournament style scenarios.  I don't run those though.

Quote from: King Tyranno on February 10, 2024, 05:03:14 PM
I'm actually writing a post about my experience with 1:1 time over the last year. Why I recommend it and who I recommend it to.  I doubt it will convince people who don't like it but I think there are interesting things to say. No matter how much idiots like me try to explain how it works and importantly WHY it works, there are going to be naysayers who don't want to understand or discuss it in good faith. If you don't want to do it, don't do it. And stop trying to tell people who actually have experience with it that it somehow doesn't work immediately after we tell you several times how it does work with examples. Move on.

I have been seeing this conversation play out a bit on twitter. The problem isn't really 1:1 time. Like I said, I use it sometimes. If people find a use for it and want to recommend it, I don't think anyone would object. But the conversation I have seen (and granted I am only catching glimpses of it when the algorithm decides its something I should look at) comes off as "if you aren't using 1:1 time you aren't even really playing AD&D". It reminds me of the crowd people used to call the OSR Taliban. I think you get way more people to hear what you are trying to say, if you show them why it is good, instead of attacking people for not using it or not agreeing with you (not saying that is what you are doing, just that is the general tone I see in the conversation). Also I rarely see people explain what they mean by 1:1 time in these sorts of posts, so half the time I think most people don't even know what the person is advocating for.

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 11, 2024, 04:02:45 AM
If the PCs do something that takes an hour, do we sit here looking at each other for an hour or make in-character small talk?  If they sleep for the night, do we hang around for 8 hours?  If we end a fight and then stop for the week, have the PCs been hanging around at the scene of the battle for a week?  Doing what?  Do you have to end every session in town?  They just hang around?  What if there is a time crunch in game?  It just doesn't really make any sense to me for an ongoing campaign.  Maybe for one-shot tournament style scenarios.  I don't run those though.

Yes, every game session starts and ends in town. Also every game session takes place within a single game day. 1:1 does not apply to time within the game session, only outside of it (and since the game session covers a single day of activity and is run in one RL day, 1:1 is preserved in the overall scheme). The 1E DMG covers what happens if one or more PCs decide to do something that takes many days (travel a long distance overland, craft a magic item, etc).

Obviously this only really works with a base ('town') and one or more dungeons a short walk away so the various parties can get to the dungeon, walk around inside it and get back to town all in the same day.

That seems really restrictive and stilted for no particular benefit that I can see for the great majority of campaigns.

At the time all of this was devised, there were only 2-3 campaigns and they all ran on this setup. The 1E DMG is, in large part, Gary's insights from running his campaign. It works very well for that kind of game-club campaign.

The game-club hasn't been the standard campaign for a very long time. Instead you have the story-arc campaign, in which the players each have a single PC and they play through the sequence of adventures leveling up together. I agree with you that none of the above makes sense for this kind of game.

To be clear, I was explaining how the setup works, I wasn't saying that it's the only way or best way to play.

Greetings!

Yeah, this whole breathless promotion of 1:1 Real Time, embracing multiple groups of adventurers, all operating in the same region of the game world sounds nice, but ultimately it is unnecessary, and generally not even very useful or appropriate.

It reminds me vividly of the various groups we had running amongst us at Junior High and High School.

In such an environment, with large groups of players, and many players coming and going on a daily basis, some of which not being reliable from one day to the next, again, embracing such an approach is useful.

*Newsflash*--That environment was forty and more years ago. Most people nowadays--whether older, seasoned vets, or even newcomers to the hobby and a likely gaming group--are not in this kind of environment, and are not playing this way.

Most people are involved with one or two groups, each composed of a small number of players, that show up regularly every week, same time, same channel.

I'm not involved with playing with groups of frenetic kids in Junior High school. I have five or six grown adults that show up promptly every week, ready to play. There is no need to begin and end every adventure in a town. Narratively, how stupid is that? Like watching a film, wherever and whenever the game session ends, people take notes of the scene, what their characters are doing, and the 'pause" button is pressed. The game continues next week, right where we left off. Furthermore, in my campaigns, Player groups often embark upon crazy, epic journeys way the fuck out in the primordial wilderness, where the group may be weeks or months away from anything remotely resembling a "Town."

I still don't get why some of these gamers promote this approach like it is some religious experience of searching for the "Holy Grail." It isn't. If you are somehow involved with a game club of frenetic kids in Junior High, then such an approach is useful. If you aren't, well, it is pointless, and not congruent with how regular game groups meet together and play.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 11, 2024, 04:02:45 AM
Do you have to end every session in town? 

That's the intention, though not always possible. Between session time is in a non-adventuring environment.

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on February 11, 2024, 08:56:20 AM

I have been seeing this conversation play out a bit on twitter. The problem isn't really 1:1 time. Like I said, I use it sometimes. If people find a use for it and want to recommend it, I don't think anyone would object. But the conversation I have seen (and granted I am only catching glimpses of it when the algorithm decides its something I should look at) comes off as "if you aren't using 1:1 time you aren't even really playing AD&D". It reminds me of the crowd people used to call the OSR Taliban. I think you get way more people to hear what you are trying to say, if you show them why it is good, instead of attacking people for not using it or not agreeing with you (not saying that is what you are doing, just that is the general tone I see in the conversation). Also I rarely see people explain what they mean by 1:1 time in these sorts of posts, so half the time I think most people don't even know what the person is advocating for.

The ones I spotted in passing on Reddit once were pushing that you had to play everything freaking 1:1. which fermented my distaste.

Even if just going with downtime and travel. Exactly how many times will a travel time or idle time use up exactly one week? It works when you are hole up stuck in bed recovering from being brought to 0 HP. But little else seems to be readily applicable.

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 11, 2024, 09:54:59 AM
That seems really restrictive and stilted for no particular benefit that I can see for the great majority of campaigns.

That is because it is really restrictive and not even remotely practical.

I think 1-on-1 time came from Gygax's campaign where he had different groups going into the same megadungeon. I'm sure it seemed the way to go at the time (maybe very competitive groups?) but really it's not that hard to fudge things about and make it work. Probably far easier in fact than keep strict time records.

Also there is the Shadowdark 1-on-1 where an hour game time is an hour in the world for torches and stuff. I've not tried it but that seems daft as combat is unlikely to follow any kind of strict times.

Exactly. Some people take freaking forever to do a single combat encounter, or even a single round.

1:1 time seems like the sort of thing WotC would be pushing for its new subscription VTT environment.

Habituate daily log-ins (with the latest "limited time special" microtransaction popping up when you do so) and offer paid "speed ups" for things so you don't have to leave your character parked for a week on some needed downtime activity (crafting, spell research, etc.).

Quote from: SHARK on February 11, 2024, 11:33:21 AMMost people are involved with one or two groups, each composed of a small number of players, that show up regularly every week, same time, same channel.

Campaigns where every player shows up to every session are a minority of RPG campaigns. Most people would benefit from a system that didn't punish the other players when someone misses a session.

QuoteThere is no need to begin and end every adventure in a town. Narratively, how stupid is that? Like watching a film, wherever and whenever the game session ends, people take notes of the scene, what their characters are doing, and the 'pause" button is pressed. The game continues next week, right where we left off. Furthermore, in my campaigns, Player groups often embark upon crazy, epic journeys way the fuck out in the primordial wilderness, where the group may be weeks or months away from anything remotely resembling a "Town."

The situation where every new session starts from the relatively same point is exactly how the vast majority of TV shows work. Each episode, the crew of the Enterprise are starting off on a new adventure. It's advantageous for RPG sessions to work that way as well.

Yeah, the 1-to-1 timing is impractical for most things beyond immediate effect choices. Social and exploration are definitely a part of the game, and yet so much also defers to dithering that may not want to be played out in full. I love night watches when adventuring in the wilderness, but I am not going to do literal hour by hour for each leg of a watch, let alone we stare at each other for 8 hours night sleep. Similar with routine social conversations where an opportunity is not present (even basic conviviality to build relationship is an opportunity, if the player wants it, so just ask them). Even combat, blow by blow is too slow for 1 minute rounds, and for other games 6 second or 1 second rounds are too fast. To hold it as an immutable and ever-present rule is insane and asinine to promote such impossibility.

It really is a means to build tension and cut dithering. Once your players can immerse in the tension and stop thinking they can brain fart their way through it, then I have a good headspace to build a shared dream at the table. But I'm not gonna expect someone to choose between letting their PC die or pissing themselves at my table because sacred 1-to-1 timing. For fuck's sake, human sanitation takes priority, go do your business and come back. There's always an asshat who can't human very well and expects extremes, and that applies to life beyond gaming too.

Quote from: Omega on February 11, 2024, 12:10:00 PM

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on February 11, 2024, 08:56:20 AM

I have been seeing this conversation play out a bit on twitter. The problem isn't really 1:1 time. Like I said, I use it sometimes. If people find a use for it and want to recommend it, I don't think anyone would object. But the conversation I have seen (and granted I am only catching glimpses of it when the algorithm decides its something I should look at) comes off as "if you aren't using 1:1 time you aren't even really playing AD&D". It reminds me of the crowd people used to call the OSR Taliban. I think you get way more people to hear what you are trying to say, if you show them why it is good, instead of attacking people for not using it or not agreeing with you (not saying that is what you are doing, just that is the general tone I see in the conversation). Also I rarely see people explain what they mean by 1:1 time in these sorts of posts, so half the time I think most people don't even know what the person is advocating for.

The ones I spotted in passing on Reddit once were pushing that you had to play everything freaking 1:1. which fermented my distaste.

Sounds similar to some of the posts I have seen on twitter

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?

You are correct, there would be 0 fun in basically anything happening to your character while they're on auto pilot. That's why 1:1 time is only a good tool for specific kinds of games.

The problem with the solutions that you're talking about is that none of them solve the problem of how to run that kind of game, but rather amount to "don't play that kind of game". The reason I want to run a game with shared players in a concurrent world is that in open up opportunities for players to interact over time across sessions. Here's an example of such interation only possible in such a game. One party encounters a moster that's too high level for them, one of the characters makes a noble sacrifice in holding the monster off while the rest of the party flees, and lands a lucky shot injuring the beast, but still dies in the process, allowing the rest of the characters to get back to town. There, they tell of the beast, it's location and that it was injured. Within days, a group of more powerful adventurers, possibly even including a higher level character of the player that made the sacrifice in the first place, go back to where the beast was encountered, track it back to it's lair where it is trying to heal, and manage to slay it, in no small part because of the injury it had already sustained, and avenge the fallen character. That kind of emergent story woulnd't be possible if they weren't playing in a shared world.

I'm running an opentable westmarches, and 1:1 time is helping keep the players organized well. The most important rule that's foundational to the westmarches format is that the town is safe. You get back to town at the end of every session, then the character is totally safe until you play again and take them back out. This does mean that you have to enforce that sessions end with the characters back in town, but if you structure sessions around that limitation, it's remarkably easy to keep to it, and in the worst case scenario, a return roll can adjudicate issues on the way home.

I agree though, a lot of RPG bros selling 1:1 as a panacea are just huffing the hype. But it is a tool with some legitamate use cases. And if I was playing in a game with 1:1 time, and I got a text message from the DM that one of my characters was killed in his bed between sessions, my response would be a resignation from the campaign.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 12, 2024, 03:18:19 AM
The problem with the solutions that you're talking about is that none of them solve the problem of how to run that kind of game, but rather amount to "don't play that kind of game".

P.S. Sorry if I'm totally reiterating something from earlier in the thread, I only skimmed it and wanted to drop my 2 cents.

1:1 time as in Game Time to Real Time is an overkill for most practical purposes, IMHO. If you are tracking (https://vladar.bearblog.dev/strict-time-records/) when and where each character is and what they are doing, you will be OK even with multiple groups exploring the same locale. Just don't forget to never end the session inside the dungeon.

  I don't know where the best place to find information and discourse on 1:1 time is--it's not something that's ever terribly interested me, and much of the surrounding discussion has left me uncertain that the D&D line of games is a good tool for what I'd want to do--but I can safely say that wherever it is, it is not Twitter/X.  :) I catch some of the discussion there, and there are certain factors and parties that make having a discussion of the matter frustrating and counterproductive.

That is because it is a made up overstatement of what 1:1 was meant to do.

Tim Kask even noted it was not used for every damn thing. These idiots are just trolling people, again.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 12, 2024, 08:31:20 AM
  I don't know where the best place to find information and discourse on 1:1 time is

This video by Questing Beast, Early DnD was a open-world tabletop MMORPG (https://youtu.be/slBsxmHs070), is a decent on ramp for the topic. Note that the title doesn't mention 1:1 time, but rather a particular style of play. I think this highlights the biggest reality of 1:1 time that alot of people, especially those evangelizing it as a TTRPG panacea, completely miss. 1:1 time isn't a good rule for all games. It's good for the specfic kinds of games that Gygax had in mind when he wrote it, which Ben goes over pretty well in that vid.

1:1 real time is stupid.
In an RPG I play, combat and some other events get broken up into 6-second intervals.  There's no way I'd make the characters play that out in real time, with die rolls and all.

Quote from: Cathode Ray on February 12, 2024, 08:09:46 PM
1:1 real time is stupid.
In an RPG I play, combat and some other events get broken up into 6-second intervals.  There's no way I'd make the characters play that out in real time, with die rolls and all.

That's not what is meant by 1:1 time. 1:1 time refers to time between sessions, not during.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 12, 2024, 09:28:39 PM
That's not what is meant by 1:1 time. 1:1 time refers to time between sessions, not during.

Since time still happens in session at any speed, these two are not actually separable. It's really confusing to me that people miss this.

As others have noted, the only way to avoid this is to restrict in-session time to being a fixed interval (e.g. "1 day"), which of course limits the options that players can actually experience during play.

I'll just leave this here.

If that's how you like to Play "Masks...", well, good luck to you.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGI2dnyWQAAano1?format=jpg&name=small)

One thing I'll add is that many 1:1 defender include the idea that you MUST finish every session in town (or you'll spend a week inside the dungeon, or die, etc.)

This might be a cool challenge/mini-game, but taken to the extreme, dissociates players choices from PC choices. This is "anti-RPG", as you're no longer thinking as your PC, but as an outside observer, since your PC has no concept of "game session". This is more story-game/boardgame/wargame than RPG.

It breaks immersion, forces meta-gaming. There is no in-world reason to leave the dungeon because it's dinner time in real life.

Quote from: Zalman on February 13, 2024, 06:58:14 AM

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 12, 2024, 09:28:39 PM
That's not what is meant by 1:1 time. 1:1 time refers to time between sessions, not during.

Since time still happens in session at any speed, these two are not actually separable. It's really confusing to me that people miss this.

As others have noted, the only way to avoid this is to restrict in-session time to being a fixed interval (e.g. "1 day"), which of course limits the options that players can actually experience during play.

There's more than one way to handle that.

The way I handle that in my westmarches, Characters leave the safety of town on the day that lines up with the calendar, in game and in world. The adventure can take as long as it needs to, usually at least 2 days, depending on how far the destination they were looking for is from town. At the end of the session, the characters return to town, this obviously happens in the future relative to IRL time, so I wait to announce the characters return in the IC chat until the day that they return. Basically, in session character travel into the future, and then when 1:1 time catches up to them is when they get back to town. It's been working alright, although I will need to be careful when I have multiple parties out at the same time, since the first party didn't meet them, I'll need to steer the second party away from being able to meet them. I think it's worth the tradeoffs in the case of my campaign

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 13, 2024, 07:59:34 AM
One thing I'll add is that many 1:1 defender include the idea that you MUST finish every session in town (or you'll spend a week inside the dungeon, or die, etc.)

This might be a cool challenge/mini-game, but taken to the extreme, dissociates players choices from PC choices. This is "anti-RPG", as you're no longer thinking as your PC, but as an outside observer, since your PC has no concept of "game session". This is more story-game/boardgame/wargame than RPG.

It breaks immersion, forces meta-gaming. There is no in-world reason to leave the dungeon because it's dinner time in real life.

That's all true, it does add an element of metagaming. For the game I run with it though, I like that the structure of the game adds that additional goal element to it, every session being a self contained outing from town gives a structure to the gameplay that I like. While it does hurt immersion a bit, I've found it to be worth the trade offs.

This is another reason though that the guys hyping 1:1 time as a panacea for all games are high on their own exhaust. To say 1:1 games don't come with tradeoffs to consider is ludicrous, and some campaigns are definitely better off without them, those games of Masks you were talking about for example.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 13, 2024, 10:53:19 AM
That's all true, it does add an element of metagaming. For the game I run with it though, I like that the structure of the game adds that additional goal element to it, every session being a self contained outing from town gives a structure to the gameplay that I like. While it does hurt immersion a bit, I've found it to be worth the trade offs.

This is another reason though that the guys hyping 1:1 time as a panacea for all games are high on their own exhaust. To say 1:1 games don't come with tradeoffs to consider is ludicrous, and some campaigns are definitely better off without them, those games of Masks you were talking about for example.

Metagaming gets a bad rap.  Not all metagaming is created equal.  But that's yet another example of how being dogmatic 1:1 time is not the way to go.  It's like anything else.  There are pieces of it that can be useful in certain circumstances, and you need a cost/benefit consideration to decide if it helps more than it hurts.  It is *exactly* the same dynamic in that respect as "Armor as Hit Avoidance" with AC (albeit on a much smaller scale).  Does AC exactly track with the way things work in the setting?  No.  Does it get the job done for many people, in many situations, efficiently and easily?  Heck yeah!  You take the good with the bad, and it's not like the alternatives don't also have trade offs.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 13, 2024, 11:23:18 AM
Metagaming gets a bad rap.  Not all metagaming is created equal.  But that's yet another example of how being dogmatic 1:1 time is not the way to go.  It's like anything else.  There are pieces of it that can be useful in certain circumstances, and you need a cost/benefit consideration to decide if it helps more than it hurts.  It is *exactly* the same dynamic in that respect as "Armor as Hit Avoidance" with AC (albeit on a much smaller scale).  Does AC exactly track with the way things work in the setting?  No.  Does it get the job done for many people, in many situations, efficiently and easily?  Heck yeah!  You take the good with the bad, and it's not like the alternatives don't also have trade offs.

There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 13, 2024, 12:12:10 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 13, 2024, 11:23:18 AM
Metagaming gets a bad rap.  Not all metagaming is created equal.  But that's yet another example of how being dogmatic 1:1 time is not the way to go.  It's like anything else.  There are pieces of it that can be useful in certain circumstances, and you need a cost/benefit consideration to decide if it helps more than it hurts.  It is *exactly* the same dynamic in that respect as "Armor as Hit Avoidance" with AC (albeit on a much smaller scale).  Does AC exactly track with the way things work in the setting?  No.  Does it get the job done for many people, in many situations, efficiently and easily?  Heck yeah!  You take the good with the bad, and it's not like the alternatives don't also have trade offs.

There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.

Exactly! 1:1 time, "finish in town", etc., are cool tools to learn, but it all depends on your needs, players, campaigns, etc.

The "one true way" fans make this conversations difficult to have (and are turning my twitter into a nightmare).

EDIT: some of them are good people. I'm trying to engage with good faith. Let's see how it goes.

Personally, I don't object to 1:1 time as a way to play.

I don't even object to the idea that it was the style of play the AD&D rules was written for and makes the most sense out of things that start feeling out of place otherwise.

I start getting irritable when people start claiming that AD&D 1E RAW with 1:1 is the Only Game Worth Playing.

:)

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 13, 2024, 01:34:16 PM
The "one true way" fans make this conversations difficult to have (and are turning my twitter into a nightmare).

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 13, 2024, 02:28:56 PM
I start getting irritable when people start claiming that AD&D 1E RAW with 1:1 is the Only Game Worth Playing.

Exactly. Those people are the problem here. They're insistence that 1:1 is a panacea induces a psychological reactance, because it's very easy to identify time 1:1 time should not be used, so it's easy to disprove that it should always be used, which makes it easy to conclude it should never be used. That's what I'm pushing back against.

I can see it being useful for a certain sort of game but I don't run that sort of game.  I see no point in it for the sort of campaign that I actually run.  I don't care if other people use it in their campaigns.  I don't care about what people do in campaigns that I am not involved in.  I don't see any reason why I should.  One of the things I have always found off-putting about the OSR in general is the amount of dogmatic OneTrueWayism.  If you aren't running a sandbox hexcrawl campaign, you're doing it wrong.  If you don't use 1:1 time, you're doing it wrong.  If you aren't running AD&D 1e and running it the way I say you should, you are doing it wrong and a bad person.  I just find this sort of thing to be really tedious.  I avoided the OSR for years because of all of the OSR people like this who act like the way we played games in the 70s and 80s is the only right way to do it and you are a bad person and a bad DM who is doing it wrong is you play any other way. 

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 13, 2024, 04:51:34 PM
I can see it being useful for a certain sort of game but I don't run that sort of game.  I see no point in it for the sort of campaign that I actually run.  I don't care if other people use it in their campaigns.  I don't care about what people do in campaigns that I am not involved in.  I don't see any reason why I should.  One of the things I have always found off-putting about the OSR in general is the amount of dogmatic OneTrueWayism.  If you aren't running a sandbox hexcrawl campaign, you're doing it wrong.  If you don't use 1:1 time, you're doing it wrong.  If you aren't running AD&D 1e and running it the way I say you should, you are doing it wrong and a bad person.  I just find this sort of thing to be really tedious.  I avoided the OSR for years because of all of the OSR people like this who act like the way we played games in the 70s and 80s is the only right way to do it and you are a bad person and a bad DM who is doing it wrong is you play any other way.

I use to feel this way.  And I still think the OneTrueWayism gets out of control in all kinds of areas.  Guess I feel it from all sides, because I seldom fit in anyone's box, pro or con.  However, there's a danger in taking that natural reaction too far.  Sure, there's some idiots out there, and it's not worth digging through their piles of nonsense to find the one bone with some meat on it.  There's a lot of other people pretty dogmatic about things because it is what works for them  When I can get past that, I might learn some trick I can adapt and use in my own style. 

Unfortunately, as much as the internet has done to make it easy to find things, it's also made it easy for people with no understanding to grab hold of something and run onto the rocks.  The problem wasn't with the old ship; it was with the one sailing it.

Yea, it's real easy to point out false concerns ("my player will get ganked by another group") and point to the times when 1:1 time (or really *proportional time*, where each day not gaming causes downtime events to execute- be it one day's worth or one weeks worth).  Anyone opposed to all manner of real time tracking hasn't studied it enough.

But usually what these threads are really about, is some BrOSR ninnies from twitter getting ants in their pants and making wild claims, like AD&D is meant to be played this way, etc.  And I'm seeing the half of the conversation pissed at those guys.

If I was running two groups in the same campaign world- and I might be later this year, though I'm trying to avoid it- I would definitely use some form of proportional time, even if sometimes I have to deal with one group being freeze-framed mid-combat a month in the past.  I wouldn't be trying to run the same groups through the same dungeon as allegedly was the in thing in the late 70s- I'd put them on different continents and integrate their events into the timeline as it occurs.

Quote from: Omega on February 12, 2024, 07:40:51 PM
That is because it is a made up overstatement of what 1:1 was meant to do.

Tim Kask even noted it was not used for every damn thing. These idiots are just trolling people, again.

I feel you are probably right. It's more likely website hangouts (Something Awful, 4Chan, etc.) troll fuckery. They get bored easily and try to repeat the already proven tragic truth of propaganda that some pudding heads somewhere will buy anything.  :-[

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 13, 2024, 07:34:44 AM
I'll just leave this here.

If that's how you like to Play "Masks...", well, good luck to you.

Yeah see my "this feels like trolling" comment earlier.

Travelling 3 miles takes a week in between sessions? Because thats also a problem of 1:1 idiocy. It falls completely apart aside from some very niche elements.

One example was a module in Dragon that was set up so events played out in real time. Looked good on paper. But in practice it became a problem.

Can you imagine an Elite Dangerous style D&D game? That's a neat idea on paper, but I can't see it working long run.

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on February 14, 2024, 08:46:10 PM
Can you imagine an Elite Dangerous style D&D game? That's a neat idea on paper, but I can't see it working long run.

What don't you see working?

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?

"Do people really find that play style fun?" Yes, in fact. I do because it's basically playing Survival Mode: TTRPG Edition, and I like that style of play.

I'm guessing you were talking to Jeffro Johnson or someone like me who has noticed the BROSR and likes their ideas, so I'll post with that in mind.

Most of what you're implying in general is false or easily solved with a different way of thinking, not just from the players but the DM as well.

Your claim that a PC can die between sessions? Sure, if you purposefully stop playing in a dangerous area. You may not have a choice when traveling the wilderness, sure, but in the AD&D books, there are six times when a check is made for an encounter per day, those chances being 1/20, 1/12, or 1/10 depending on how many people live in that area, and the times to check for an encounter depend on where you are. Plains, Hills and Deserts have 3 checks, Mountains have 2, Scrubs have 4, and Forests and Swamps have 6.

If you're following the rules in a compacted sense, you just make those checks again and again until you reach your goal or something happens. If you're using 1:1 Timekeeping and something happens, then it's up to the DM to let the players know and get their inputs. That can be done with social media or group text chat systems these days.

Running several campaigns at once? It's possible, but difficult if there are very few Downtime activities that a PC can partake in that don't eat up lots of that downtime. Crafting magic items, running part of a guild, etc. If that's an issue, stick with one campaign with the 1:1 rules in play.

EDIT: The 'running multiple campaigns' reminds me a bit of the RPGA (Role-Playing Gamers Association) from when I heard Spoony talk about it. It's a shared world setup, though far as I know, there's no intermingling between groups, just general progress along the campaign at set times.

As for the 1:1 Timekeeping System itself, those days when you're doing nothing? So long as you have a handful of minutes to spare, you can make plans for multiple days, contact the other players and make plans with them, tell the DM you're using some Downtime to shop for supplies, etc. Like I said before, we have social media and group chat services galore these days. Doing stuff like this is child's play compared to when Gary and Dave were designing D&D and had to use phone tag and snail mail.

Just because you're 'away from the table' doesn't mean you can't control your character in some small ways, and when you are at the table, 1:1 Time is not absolute. If it takes two hours to get to a location, and you fast forward that during a session, that's fine. Time is flexible then. It's when you're away from the table and something similar happens that you no longer have the leeway to zip ahead. You have to wait.

Example from my own game system: One of my players is working their in-game job, a Downtime thing, for 8 hours, say 8-4, on the same day when the other two players have in-game days off. Those two go scouting a location at 1 pm, which is a mini-session that the DM oversees. When everything is done, the player who was working gets filled in on what they found or achieved.

He couldn't take part with them because he was working at the same time they went scouting. That could change if he walked out mid-shift, but if he did do that, he'd be punished for it.

I think the idea comes for a war-game mentality.

Things like 1:1 time (in all its forms) and the idea that "you must end the session in town" are typical meta-game concerns. The players are asking themselves if they can play next week or if they have to finish in a couple of hours, instead of how many torches the PCs have.

This thinking is not typical of "pure" RPGs, but come from earlier formats.

On the other hand, metagame challenges are often fun to include in RPGs (for example, using a stopwatch for random encounters), especially when they help the players to get into the PC's mind.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/02/wargames-storygames-and-rpgs.html

Quote from: RPGer678 on February 11, 2024, 09:50:18 AM

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 11, 2024, 04:02:45 AM
If the PCs do something that takes an hour, do we sit here looking at each other for an hour or make in-character small talk?  If they sleep for the night, do we hang around for 8 hours?  If we end a fight and then stop for the week, have the PCs been hanging around at the scene of the battle for a week?  Doing what?  Do you have to end every session in town?  They just hang around?  What if there is a time crunch in game?  It just doesn't really make any sense to me for an ongoing campaign.  Maybe for one-shot tournament style scenarios.  I don't run those though.

Yes, every game session starts and ends in town. Also every game session takes place within a single game day. 1:1 does not apply to time within the game session, only outside of it (and since the game session covers a single day of activity and is run in one RL day, 1:1 is preserved in the overall scheme). The 1E DMG covers what happens if one or more PCs decide to do something that takes many days (travel a long distance overland, craft a magic item, etc).

Obviously this only really works with a base ('town') and one or more dungeons a short walk away so the various parties can get to the dungeon, walk around inside it and get back to town all in the same day.

So no mega dungeons, wilderness travel (or handwaving it) or any other adventure that would require multiple game sessions?

Am I understanding this right?

Quote from: King Tyranno on February 10, 2024, 05:03:14 PM
I'm actually writing a post about my experience with 1:1 time over the last year. Why I recommend it and who I recommend it to.  I doubt it will convince people who don't like it but I think there are interesting things to say. No matter how much idiots like me try to explain how it works and importantly WHY it works, there are going to be naysayers who don't want to understand or discuss it in good faith. If you don't want to do it, don't do it. And stop trying to tell people who actually have experience with it that it somehow doesn't work immediately after we tell you several times how it does work with examples. Move on.

Who are you talking to/about?

Something else I missed:

20 weeks to crat a mcguffing... Okay, no problem with that

So, let's see if I understood correctly:

I need 20 in-game weeks to craft it, since absolutelly NO ONE wants to spend 20 game sessions with me explaining HOW I'm crafting it a solution is needed, that's crystal clear.

Now, on game day what? my PC stops crafting to go adventuring? doesn't that add a day to the crafting? so it would be more like 23 weeks of IRL time?

How come he can just stop crafting for a day (or more if he gets injured) and nothing ever happens to the mcguffin?

I'm sure there's something I'm missing somewhere.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 02:59:50 PM
I'm sure there's something I'm missing somewhere.

Multiple PCs per player.

1:1 is a troll 9/10.  It adds nothing to the game and creates all manner of issues. It is also deeply impractical as it leads to the sort of issues brought up in the OP.  The very early D&D groups that did this  A) were running dozens of simultaneous groups and it was a nightmare to coordinate, and B) it was the early days of the hobby and it was all new ground. They tried a lot of things, many of which proved to be stupid in retrospect.

People who preach this are just dick swinging and shit-talking. I'd bet 95% of them don't really do it and the 5% that do run the most crap games imaginable.

Example of 1:1 play:

GM: "Okay, you board the ship and set sail for the new world!  See you guys in six months."

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 18, 2024, 03:16:04 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 02:59:50 PM
I'm sure there's something I'm missing somewhere.

Multiple PCs per player.

in the same party?

What guarantees the party still has a spellcaster?

Quote from: DocFlamingo on February 18, 2024, 03:56:17 PM
1:1 is a troll 9/10.  It adds nothing to the game and creates all manner of issues. It is also deeply impractical as it leads to the sort of issues brought up in the OP.  The very early D&D groups that did this  A) were running dozens of simultaneous groups and it was a nightmare to coordinate, and B) it was the early days of the hobby and it was all new ground. They tried a lot of things, many of which proved to be stupid in retrospect.

People who preach this are just dick swinging and shit-talking. I'd bet 95% of them don't really do it and the 5% that do run the most crap games imaginable.

Example of 1:1 play:

GM: "Okay, you board the ship and set sail for the new world!  See you guys in six months."

Except you have to end the session at home base... So no sailing to the new world or you handwave travell time, it was always perfect weather, no pirates and good winds.

I mean, multiple dungeons within a couple hours of home town? I can see that, what happens once any party cleans one? At some point all dungeons will get cleared, then what?

The monsters attack the town? No can do cuz it "must be safe"... How come no monsters ever attack the town?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 02:59:50 PM
Something else I missed:

20 weeks to crat a mcguffing... Okay, no problem with that

So, let's see if I understood correctly:

I need 20 in-game weeks to craft it, since absolutelly NO ONE wants to spend 20 game sessions with me explaining HOW I'm crafting it a solution is needed, that's crystal clear.

Now, on game day what? my PC stops crafting to go adventuring? doesn't that add a day to the crafting? so it would be more like 23 weeks of IRL time?

How come he can just stop crafting for a day (or more if he gets injured) and nothing ever happens to the mcguffin?

I'm sure there's something I'm missing somewhere.

1. I use the 5e XGTE 'work weeks' where a week is 5 days of crafting etc, 2 days of anything else you want, including adventuring.
2. In my example this is the human Fighter-20 (Battlemaster) deputy leader of the Temple of Yig, his boss the Yuan-Ti Fighter-20 (Eldritch Knight) high priest of Yig also a PC. They're basically Rexxor & Thulsa Doom. They have a vast temple complex across the upper reaches of Stonehell, with dozens of snake monsters and hundreds of human cult fanatics. They're not too worried about theft (until Conan shows up, I guess!).

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 04:18:22 PM
Except you have to end the session at home base... So no sailing to the new world

I think 1:1 time is probably not suited to really long range exploration, though I'm not certain. With a week between sessions, an adventure per week of travel time is basically the Wagon Train/Star Trek way. Or 'Monkey' - I can certainly see a game like Paizo's Green Regent functioning with 1:1, though I'm not sure it would add enough benefit to be worthwhile. The greatest benefits are in relatively small scale sandbox games with a more or less static home base.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 04:18:22 PM
The monsters attack the town? No can do cuz it "must be safe"... How come no monsters ever attack the town?

While West Marches makes the town safe, this is not an inherent feature of 1:1 time.

Quote from: S'mon on February 18, 2024, 04:48:39 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 04:18:22 PM
The monsters attack the town? No can do cuz it "must be safe"... How come no monsters ever attack the town?

While West Marches makes the town safe, this is not an inherent feature of 1:1 time.

So, in general, monsters can attack the town...

How come they never attack while the party is there? (meaning the players aren't) We've established that the PCs are in town only between sessions, so any active party isn't there.

Is this why YOUR game makes the town safe?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 05:02:49 PM

Quote from: S'mon on February 18, 2024, 04:48:39 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 04:18:22 PM
The monsters attack the town? No can do cuz it "must be safe"... How come no monsters ever attack the town?

While West Marches makes the town safe, this is not an inherent feature of 1:1 time.

So, in general, monsters can attack the town...

How come they never attack while the party is there? (meaning the players aren't) We've established that the PCs are in town only between sessions, so any active party isn't there.

Is this why YOUR game makes the town safe?

I've had the town attacked while the PCs are there. I don't understand why this is even an issue. By default if it's 2 weeks since we last played, the monster attack on the town also happens two weeks later in game time. Occasionally for some reason it has to happen earlier, in which case 1:1 time is suspended, same as during a session, only to catch up later.

Quote from: S'mon on February 18, 2024, 06:21:29 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 05:02:49 PM

Quote from: S'mon on February 18, 2024, 04:48:39 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 04:18:22 PM
The monsters attack the town? No can do cuz it "must be safe"... How come no monsters ever attack the town?

While West Marches makes the town safe, this is not an inherent feature of 1:1 time.

So, in general, monsters can attack the town...

How come they never attack while the party is there? (meaning the players aren't) We've established that the PCs are in town only between sessions, so any active party isn't there.

Is this why YOUR game makes the town safe?

I've had the town attacked while the PCs are there. I don't understand why this is even an issue. By default if it's 2 weeks since we last played, the monster attack on the town also happens two weeks later in game time. Occasionally for some reason it has to happen earlier, in which case 1:1 time is suspended, same as during a session, only to catch up later.

So you only use it when and if it's convenient/the right tool...

Care to expand on situations where it is and it isn't?

Quote from: S'mon on February 18, 2024, 04:47:10 PM
I think 1:1 time is probably not suited to really long range exploration, though I'm not certain. With a week between sessions, an adventure per week of travel time is basically the Wagon Train/Star Trek way. Or 'Monkey' - I can certainly see a game like Paizo's Green Regent functioning with 1:1, though I'm not sure it would add enough benefit to be worthwhile. The greatest benefits are in relatively small scale sandbox games with a more or less static home base.

It is not suited for much of anything really unless you really restrict your play.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 06:53:56 PM
So you only use it when and if it's convenient/the right tool...

Yes.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 06:53:56 PM
Care to expand on situations where it is and it isn't?

To summarize this thread, 1:1 time is useful for managing an open table campaign. It is not as useful for a campaign with regularly defined players, as such a campaign doesn't require a tool to keep the characters organized in time in a shared world.

So much for the end game of building a castle. 2-10 years? never mind.

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 19, 2024, 11:12:18 AM
So much for the end game of building a castle. 2-10 years? never mind.

That is a limitation of playstyle. If you want to play that kind of game you shouldn't use 1:1, and those BROSR guys saying you still should are delusional.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 06:53:56 PM
So you only use it when and if it's convenient/the right tool...
Care to expand on situations where it is and it isn't?

Gygax said it - use it when no adventuring is taking place. I finished a 2 session Cyberpunk game today that started 11/2 in world and IRL. It ended 12/2 in-world. Now there's downtime and the next game will start 25/2 in world and IRL. This saves me having to roll or decide arbitrarily when the adventures take place, and saves a lot on record keeping, which becomes important running lots of games at once.

Quote from: S'mon on February 19, 2024, 09:00:28 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 06:53:56 PM
So you only use it when and if it's convenient/the right tool...
Care to expand on situations where it is and it isn't?

Gygax said it - use it when no adventuring is taking place. I finished a 2 session Cyberpunk game today that started 11/2 in works and IRL. It ended 12/2 in-world. Now there's downtime and the next game will start 25/2 in world and IRL. This saves me having to roll or decide arbitrarily when the adventures take place, and saves a lot on record keeping, which becomes important running lots of games at once.

Weird, it's almost like 1:1 time is actually way easier to do than detractors would have you believe. And far more intuitive than those people give it credit for. Because it's just Time. But tracked in a game.

Quote from: S'mon on February 19, 2024, 09:00:28 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 06:53:56 PM
So you only use it when and if it's convenient/the right tool...
Care to expand on situations where it is and it isn't?

Gygax said it - use it when no adventuring is taking place. I finished a 2 session Cyberpunk game today that started 11/2 in works and IRL. It ended 12/2 in-world. Now there's downtime and the next game will start 25/2 in world and IRL. This saves me having to roll or decide arbitrarily when the adventures take place, and saves a lot on record keeping, which becomes important running lots of games at once.

Right, so why would the party need to be back at home at the end of the session? Adventuring continues, we remain in stasis inside the dungeon and time resumes next session.

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 19, 2024, 11:12:18 AM
So much for the end game of building a castle. 2-10 years? never mind.

I get where you're going but your example doesn't work, your PC isn't going to build the castle himself, he's going to hire people to do so.

Quote from: King Tyranno on February 19, 2024, 10:32:28 PM

Quote from: S'mon on February 19, 2024, 09:00:28 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 06:53:56 PM
So you only use it when and if it's convenient/the right tool...
Care to expand on situations where it is and it isn't?

Gygax said it - use it when no adventuring is taking place. I finished a 2 session Cyberpunk game today that started 11/2 in works and IRL. It ended 12/2 in-world. Now there's downtime and the next game will start 25/2 in world and IRL. This saves me having to roll or decide arbitrarily when the adventures take place, and saves a lot on record keeping, which becomes important running lots of games at once.

Weird, it's almost like 1:1 time is actually way easier to do than detractors would have you believe. And far more intuitive than those people give it credit for. Because it's just Time. But tracked in a game.

Especially if there's ZERO megadungeons, long travelling by land, sea or air, etc. If you throw those away then it's super easy.

You get snark because that's all you've "contributed" to the thread.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 19, 2024, 10:57:33 PM
Especially if there's ZERO megadungeons, long travelling by land, sea or air, etc. If you throw those away then it's super easy.

First, you absolutely can have megadungeons in a 1:1 time open table game. You just can't end sessions in the dungeon.

That said, long distance travel would be unfun to implement in a 1:1 game, which is why sane people don't. As basically everyone in this thread in favor of 1:1 time has said, it's a tool with particular uses for particular games with its own tradeoffs. It isn't useful in a globetrotting campaign and shouldn't be used for such. If you want to argue with the fart huffers that think 1:1 time should be used for all games, go to twitter where they are, because people here aren't making the arguments you seem to be railing against.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 19, 2024, 11:27:49 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 19, 2024, 10:57:33 PM
Especially if there's ZERO megadungeons, long travelling by land, sea or air, etc. If you throw those away then it's super easy.

First, you absolutely can have megadungeons in a 1:1 time open table game. You just can't end sessions in the dungeon.

That said, long distance travel would be unfun to implement in a 1:1 game, which is why sane people don't. As basically everyone in this thread in favor of 1:1 time has said, it's a tool with particular uses for particular games with its own tradeoffs. It isn't useful in a globetrotting campaign and shouldn't be used for such. If you want to argue with the fart huffers that think 1:1 time should be used for all games, go to twitter where they are, because people here aren't making the arguments you seem to be railing against.

So I can never clean the dungeon, thus why have it at all? Furthermore, it doesn't need to be a mega dungeon, just a 20 room dungeon would do, meaning you can't clean it, thus why have it?

It's the exact same than long distance travel, no sense in having it if you're using 1:1 time so you don't do one or the other.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 12:02:39 AM
So I can never clean the dungeon, thus why have it at all? Furthermore, it doesn't need to be a mega dungeon, just a 20 room dungeon would do, meaning you can't clean it, thus why have it?

You don't have to clear the dungeon in one delve.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 12:02:39 AM
It's the exact same than long distance travel, no sense in having it if you're using 1:1 time so you don't do one or the other.

Correct.

Quote from: King Tyranno on February 19, 2024, 10:32:28 PM

Quote from: S'mon on February 19, 2024, 09:00:28 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 18, 2024, 06:53:56 PM
So you only use it when and if it's convenient/the right tool...
Care to expand on situations where it is and it isn't?

Gygax said it - use it when no adventuring is taking place. I finished a 2 session Cyberpunk game today that started 11/2 in works and IRL. It ended 12/2 in-world. Now there's downtime and the next game will start 25/2 in world and IRL. This saves me having to roll or decide arbitrarily when the adventures take place, and saves a lot on record keeping, which becomes important running lots of games at once.

Weird, it's almost like 1:1 time is actually way easier to do than detractors would have you believe. And far more intuitive than those people give it credit for. Because it's just Time. But tracked in a game.

It gets used alot more than one would think at tables. Just not in the over the top idiot ways some out there have been pushing.

As said earlier. It works in really niche situations unless you are bending over backwards to accommodate it.

Like those rare times when you actually DO end a session in town and nothing is pending. The DM might say "Hey, if you have any downtime stuff want to get done we can say a week passed when we start next session?"

As opposed to say whatever mental gymnastics you have to jump through to reconcile travelling 60 miles to another town which will take 3 days, vs 7 days 1:1 time. Or what if you have to travel more than 7 days worth of travel?

1:1 time breaks down left and right if you try to use it like some are claiming you have to.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 20, 2024, 12:07:17 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 12:02:39 AM
So I can never clean the dungeon, thus why have it at all? Furthermore, it doesn't need to be a mega dungeon, just a 20 room dungeon would do, meaning you can't clean it, thus why have it?

You don't have to clear the dungeon in one delve.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 12:02:39 AM
It's the exact same than long distance travel, no sense in having it if you're using 1:1 time so you don't do one or the other.

Correct.

So, I clean the first 5 rooms of the dungeon and go home...

What magic is preventing the monsters of the lower levels to move to the cleared rooms?

Are you trolling?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 01:09:27 AM

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 20, 2024, 12:07:17 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 12:02:39 AM
So I can never clean the dungeon, thus why have it at all? Furthermore, it doesn't need to be a mega dungeon, just a 20 room dungeon would do, meaning you can't clean it, thus why have it?

You don't have to clear the dungeon in one delve.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 12:02:39 AM
It's the exact same than long distance travel, no sense in having it if you're using 1:1 time so you don't do one or the other.

Correct.

So, I clean the first 5 rooms of the dungeon and go home...

What magic is preventing the monsters of the lower levels to move to the cleared rooms?

Are you trolling?

Yes. These 1:1 advocates all seem to be trolling.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 01:09:27 AM
So, I clean the first 5 rooms of the dungeon and go home...

What magic is preventing the monsters of the lower levels to move to the cleared rooms?

Nothing. But then they wouldn't be in the later rooms or lower levels. What magic are you relying on to fully respawn the monsters in a dungeon if you don't kill them all at once?

Partially clearing and then returning to dungeons has been part of the game forever.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 01:09:27 AM
Are you trolling?

Not yet.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 19, 2024, 10:52:33 PM
Right, so why would the party need to be back at home at the end of the session? Adventuring continues, we remain in stasis inside the dungeon and time resumes next session.

If you have multiple groups in same setting you may need a rule like that. When I had 3 groups in my Faerun Adventures game I definitely encouraged it. But nothing should be absolute - only the Sith/BrOSR believe in absolutes.  ;D Eg my Faerun Barrowmaze group would go home to the village at end of session delve 19 times in 20. It's very much in their interest to rest & heal up. But at the climax of the campaign they were trapped in the dungeon and time froze between sessions.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 20, 2024, 01:20:34 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 01:09:27 AM
So, I clean the first 5 rooms of the dungeon and go home...

What magic is preventing the monsters of the lower levels to move to the cleared rooms?

Nothing. But then they wouldn't be in the later rooms or lower levels. What magic are you relying on to fully respawn the monsters in a dungeon if you don't kill them all at once?

Partially clearing and then returning to dungeons has been part of the game forever.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 01:09:27 AM
Are you trolling?

Not yet.

You mean besides the magic of the BBG?

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 20, 2024, 01:20:34 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 01:09:27 AM
So, I clean the first 5 rooms of the dungeon and go home...

What magic is preventing the monsters of the lower levels to move to the cleared rooms?

Nothing. But then they wouldn't be in the later rooms or lower levels. What magic are you relying on to fully respawn the monsters in a dungeon if you don't kill them all at once?

Partially clearing and then returning to dungeons has been part of the game forever.

Indeed. No one clears a megadungeon in one delve. They always need to rest between delves and resume. Areas may restock, though immediate restock is much more a feature of organised lair zones within the dungeon. And like you said, it's a reshuffle, monsters usually don't spawn out of nowhere. A zone with infinite spawning monsters that needs to be cleared in one go would be a specific challenge.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 02:10:05 AM
You mean besides the magic of the BBG?

What BBG?

I'll say there are a few nice features of 1:1 time. There are the typical features others have already mentioned for specific styles of play (like Westmarches/open table), but even in games without the need for that structure, you get some benefits.

• A natural sense of seasonality - as the winter holidays approach IRL, you get to experience the in-world winter celebrations and roleplay that in a more immersive way. I find it hard to play during the summer IRL and roleplay as if it's winter and everything is supposed to be cold and dark.
• Time is an actually limited resource. In more standard play, paying a 1-2 month downtime tax is mostly about affording the downtime costs so you don't feel the impact to the same extent as 2 months of real time.
• Downtime forces a rotation of characters that produces potentially more interesting and varied party compositions with their own dynamics.
• Forcing downtime encourages players to engage with that aspect of play. It also compartmentalizes downtime so it doesn't detract from the session time better spent crawling the dungeon.
• If you care about the aesthetic weirdness of D&D characters leveling from zero to hero and stopping the big bad guy in the span of like 3 months in-world time, 1:1 time makes it much more likely that the same story will transpire over the course of years and feel more natural.

There are, of course, downsides to the approach and I think it's important to know when it can or cannot be applied, just like any tool. I plan 2 game sessions into the future, and they're usually 1-3 weeks apart depending on everyone's schedule. That makes it easy to allow one session to take those 1-3 weeks up at the table doing whatever people want to do. All that matters is that time doesn't transpire such that we bump into the next session's start date and it will be fine. This avoids the problem with everything having to fit into a day or another arbitrary timeframe - it still needs to fit, it's just no longer arbitrary.

My biggest problem with this approach is that I personally like long overland treks through the wilderness and if two sessions are on adjacent weeks, that can pose a timing problem. I also don't like the de facto requirement to end up in a safe place at the end of each session. It just doesn't always work out that way. It can be accommodated though by just suspending 1:1 time rules in those cases where there's a good reason for ending the session before reaching safety. I don't like the idea of just rolling on a table to determine someone's fate.

I'm mostly curious how these people have the free time to do these 1:1 "must be home in time for bed" games?

I have family and a job and church... my gaming is once a week online for 3 hours and once every other week in person for 4 hours.

Even when we're focused that's maybe three rooms of a dungeon in a session. For bigger more elaborate fights some of the online ones take two sessions just to resolve. We won't even be through a fraction of our resources by then.

Short of being someone with zero social life or adult responsibilities I don't see how 1:1 time can even work as a play strategy; you'd need regular 6-8 hour sessions to accomplish anything meaningful and I don't know anyone except the catpiss men with that type of free time.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 20, 2024, 07:52:13 AM
I don't know anyone except the catpiss men with that type of free time.

I do think you're trolling us now.  :P

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 19, 2024, 10:55:12 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 19, 2024, 11:12:18 AM
So much for the end game of building a castle. 2-10 years? never mind.

I get where you're going but your example doesn't work, your PC isn't going to build the castle himself, he's going to hire people to do so.

Seems by the time you are ready to build a castle, adding another 2-10 years to your campaign in real time (even if the PC lets others build the castle) seems like a campaign thats a bit overly-long.

It is probably worth posting the full quote of the section in question as a lot of the discussions only post short snippets. I would be very interested to see how different people interpret it.

I love the 1E DMG, and I do employ 1:1 time (as I understand it) from time to time in campaigns. But it is also very obvious this section is a bit chaotic and unclear. And there is tons of advice like this sprinkled in the DMG. Treating it as some kind of holy decree is silly. Saying it has no value at all, also is silly. If it works for you, it works for you, if it doesn't, it doesn't.

For me what works is using 1:1 time between sessions when I have multiple groups in a campaign setting.

On dungeon time, I have found the ten minute increment works pretty well. I don't think one needs to be as rigid about it as the text suggests. What I use it for is eyeballing the passage of time and managing random encounter rolls (i.e. a lot of activities you might perform in a dungeon feel right at about a ten minute increment, so it is a handy unit to use, and rolling for encounters every ten minutes can give a dungeon a strong sense of being inhabited).

As to whether strict records must be kept. Most people playing AD&D now have a lot more experience with it than Gary had when he wrote this. I think it pretty obvious the hobby is one where people form their own opinions, ideas, techniques, tools and procedures over time that work for their group. Some people like to keep strict records, some don't. The sky isn't going to fall if you do one or the other. If you don't keep records, and you start noticing inconsistencies, then you might consider keeping more accurate track of the passage of time.

Also just as a general observation, there are way, way more important things to focus on when it comes to consistency. Most people can eyeball times' passage in a campaign or track it generally (I assign one player in most of my campaigns to track the calendar for example). The biggest issue with consistency is tracking history and the events that occur. I am not going to worry if the GM gets a little confused about time. But if a dead NPC suddenly shows up alive and well, not because he has been resurrected but because the GM simply forgot he died, that is a bigger issue (which is why I keep an ongoing list of the living and the dead that includes notes about each persons recent activities).

QuoteTIME IN THE CAMPAIGN
Game time is of utmost importance. Failure to keep careful track of time
expenditure by player characters will result in many anomalies in the game. The
stricture of time is what makes recovery of hit points meaningful. Likewise, the
time spent adventuring in wilderness areas removes concerned characters from
their bases of operation — be they rented chambers or battlemented
strongholds. Certainly the most important time stricture pertains to the
manufacture of magic items, for during the period of such activity no
adventuring can be done. Time is also considered in gaining levels and learning
new languages and more. All of these demands upon game time force choices
upon player characters, and likewise number their days of game life.

One of the things stressed in the original game of D&D was the importance of
recording game time with respect to each and every player character in a
campaign. In AD&D it is emphasized even more: YOU CAN NOT HAVE A
MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT.

Use whatever grouping of days you find desirable for your milieu. There is nothing
wrong with 7 day weeks and 31, 30 and 28/29 day months which exactly
correspond to our real system. On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent you
from using some other system if it pleases you and you can keep it straight. What is
important to the campaign is that you do, in fact, maintain a time record which logs
the activities and whereabouts of player characters and their henchmen.

For the sake of example, let us assume that you begin your campaign on Day 1
of the Year 1000. There are four player characters who begin initially, and they
have adventures which last a total of 50 days — 6 days of actual adventuring
and 44 days of resting and other activity. At this point in time two new players
join the game, one of the original group decides to go to seek the advice of an
oracle after hiring an elven henchman, and the remaining three "old boys"
decide they will not go with the newcomers. So on Day 51 player A's character
is off on a journey, those of B, C, and D are resting on their laurels, and E and
F enter the dungeon. The latter pair spend the better part of the day surviving,
but do well enough to rest a couple of game days and return for another try on
Day 54 — where they stumble upon the worst monster on the first level,
surprise it, and manage to slay it and come out with a handsome treasure. You
pack it in for the night. Four actual days later (and it is best to use 1 actual day
= 1 game day when no play is happening), on Day 55, player characters B, C,
and D enter the dungeon and find that the area they selected has already been
cleaned out by player characters E and F. Had they come the day after the
previous game session, game Day 52, and done the same thing, they would
have found the monster and possibly gotten the goodies! What to do about
that? and what about old A and his pointy-eared chum off to see the oracle?
Some penalty must accrue to the non-active, but on the other hand, the overactive
can not be given the world on a silver platter. Despite time differences,
the activities of the newcomers to the campaign should be allowed to stand, as
Destiny has decreed that the monster in question could not fall to the characters
B, C, and D. Therefore, the creature was obviously elsewhere (not dead) when
they visited its lair on Day 52, but it had returned on Day 56. Being aware of
time differences between groups of player characters will enable you to prevent
the BIG problems. You will know when the adventuring of one such group has
gone far enough ahead in game time to call a halt. This is particularly true with
regard to town/dungeon adventures.

Returning to player character A and his trek to visit a far-off source of
supernatural lore, he and his elven companion set off on Day 51, journey across
the land for 11 days, visit the oracle and remain 3 days, then come back in
another 11 days (wonder of wonders!). This comes to a total of 25 days all told,
counting Day 51, so they come "home" on Day 75 and are set to adventure on
Day 77, let us suppose, as a brief rest is in order. Allowing that activity to be not
unusual for a single session of play, then player character A and his henchman
are ready to play about the same actual time as the other players — only A is
at Day 77, B, C, and D are at Day 54, and E and F are at Day 58. The middle
group must go first, and alone, or it can opt to "sit around" waiting for A or for E and F or for both parties, or they can operate alone for another short
adventure in terms of game time, thus taking advantage of their temporal
position. Other options include any of the players singly or in time-related
groups going off on outdoor adventures. In the case of players so segregating
their characters, it then becomes necessary for you, as DM, to inform prospective
participants in a game session that there is a hiatus which will necessitate only
certain members of their number playing together, as their respective characters
cannot locate the others of the separated groups. At this juncture they should be
informed of their options, and if players B, C, and D do not choose to take
advantage of their favored position, then game time will pass more swiftly for
them, as the other participants must be allowed to adventure — in the dungeon
if they so desire. Thus, players E and F would have the choice of awaiting the
return of A or of going on adventures which involved only the two characters. In
effect, player character A is out of it until game time in the central playing area
reaches Day 75, when communications can be made — or until other player
characters contact him on his return from the oracle, let us say, assuming nothing
important transpired during the return trip.

In effect, the key is the relative import of the player characters' actions in the
time frame. Generally, time passes day-for-day, or turn for X number of real
minutes during active play. Players who choose to remove their characters from
the center of dungeon activity will find that "a lot has happened while they
were away", as adventures in the wilderness certainly use up game days with
rapidity, while the shorter time scale of dungeon adventuring allows many
game sessions during a month or two of game time. Of course, this might mean
that the players involved in the outdoors someplace will either have to come
home to "sit around" or continue adventuring in wildernesses and perhaps in
some distant dungeon as well (if you are kind); otherwise, they will perforce be
excluded from game sessions which are taking place during a period of game
time in which they were wandering about in the countryside doing other things.
This latter sanction most certainly applies to characters learning a new
language, studying and training for promotion in level, or off someplace
manufacturing magic items.

At some point, even the stay-at-homes will be forced to venture forth into the
wilderness due to need, geas, quest, or possibly to escape the wrath of
something better avoided. The time lines of various player characters will
diverge, meet, and diverge again over the course of game years. This makes for
interesting campaigns and helps form the history of the milieu. Groups of
players tend to segregate themselves for a time, some never returning to the ken
of the rest, most eventually coming back to reform into different bands. As
characters acquire henchmen, the better players will express a desire to operate
some of theirs independently while they, or their liege lord, are away. This is a
perfectly acceptable device, for it tends to even out characters and the game.
Henchmen tend to become associates — or rivals — this way, although a few
will remain as colorless servitors.

You may ask why time is so important if it causes such difficulties with recordkeeping,
dictates who can or can not go adventuring during a game session,
and disperses player characters to the four winds by its strictures. Well, as
initially pointed out, it is a necessary penalty imposed upon characters for
certain activities. Beyond that, it also gives players yet another interesting set
of choices and consequences. The latter tends to bring more true-to-life quality
to the game, as some characters will use precious time to the utmost
advantage, some will treat it lightly, and some will be constantly wasting it to
their complete detriment. Time is yet another facet which helps to separate the
superior players from the lesser ones. If time-keeping is a must from a penalty
standpoint, it is also an interesting addition from the standpoint of running a
campaign.

TIME IN THE DUNGEON
Keeping track of time in the dungeon (or on any other type of adventure) is
sometimes difficult, but it is at least as important as the accurate recording of
time in the campaign. As has been mentioned elsewhere, the standard time
breakdown is ten one-minute rounds to the turn, and six turns to the hour. All
referees should keep a side record of time on a separate sheet of paper,
marking off the turns as they pass (melees or other actions which result in
fractional turns should be rounded up to make complete turns). It is essential
that an accurate time record be kept so that the DM can determine when to
check for wandering monsters, and in order to keep a strict check on the
duration of some spells (such as bless, haste, strength, etc.). The DM must also
know how long it has been since the last time the party took a rest. A party
should be required to rest at least one turn in six (remember, the average party
packs a lot of equipment), and in addition, they should rest a turn after every
time they engage in combat or any other strenuous activities.

On occasion, a party may wish to cease movement and "hole up" for a long
period, perhaps overnight, resting and recuperating or recovering spells. This
does not exempt them from occasional checks for wandering monsters, though
the frequency may be moderated somewhat, depending on conditions. Toofrequent
interruptions may make spell recovery impossible. Keeping correct
records of duration of these periods is absolutely essential.

Also my interpretation of that passage isn't Gygax saying "1:1 time must be kept" but him saying time records must be kept. Those are two different things. He then talks about how he thinks it should generally be handled. At least that is my reading

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on February 20, 2024, 10:01:04 AM
Also my interpretation of that passage isn't Gygax saying "1:1 time must be kept" but him saying time records must be kept. Those are two different things. He then talks about how he thinks it should generally be handled. At least that is my reading

Mine too.  That's the way I read it 40 years ago, too, with a lot less experience than I have now. 

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on February 20, 2024, 09:49:51 AM
It is probably worth posting the full quote of the section in question as a lot of the discussions only post short snippets. I would be very interested to see how different people interpret it.

We've gotten to the point where I went to google all the talk about 1:1 time just to figure out what exactly we're arguing about.

It does seem that Old Gary was suggesting keeping strict time records, and when the game was not being played, to use 1:1 time to keep things simple. Gary notoriously ran a big group that didn't necessarily all play at the same time together, with a few characters per player to cover play when a character was busy in another adventure.

I'd be surprised to find out that anyone was suggesting 1:1 time during the game session. Though I've been surprised before...

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 20, 2024, 01:29:40 PM

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on February 20, 2024, 09:49:51 AM
It is probably worth posting the full quote of the section in question as a lot of the discussions only post short snippets. I would be very interested to see how different people interpret it.

We've gotten to the point where I went to google all the talk about 1:1 time just to figure out what exactly we're arguing about.

It does seem that Old Gary was suggesting keeping strict time records, and when the game was not being played, to use 1:1 time to keep things simple. Gary notoriously ran a big group that didn't necessarily all play at the same time together, with a few characters per player to cover play when a character was busy in another adventure.

I'd be surprised to find out that anyone was suggesting 1:1 time during the game session. Though I've been surprised before...

And from the proponents of it here I gather they are also running big groups that don't all play at the same time. I had to work hard to form the group I'm playing with and we're down to only 3 of the original players plus one recent addition.

Haven't been able to find players so I can run a spanish speaking game. In the other campaign I'm a player.

So, where the fuck do people find enough players to run such games?

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 20, 2024, 01:29:40 PM

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on February 20, 2024, 09:49:51 AM
It is probably worth posting the full quote of the section in question as a lot of the discussions only post short snippets. I would be very interested to see how different people interpret it.

We've gotten to the point where I went to google all the talk about 1:1 time just to figure out what exactly we're arguing about.

These days I feel this way with every new conversation that comes up. Even if I know the topic, I often don't understand the particular grievance or related blog post that rekindled a discussion about it. I think on twitter especially with this stuff opinions are starkly drawn and rigid because that is what gains traction (it looks like clarity, because twitter needs things to be reduced to their most simple component, but I think it just a kind of tunnel vision)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 02:25:40 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 20, 2024, 01:29:40 PM

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on February 20, 2024, 09:49:51 AM
It is probably worth posting the full quote of the section in question as a lot of the discussions only post short snippets. I would be very interested to see how different people interpret it.

We've gotten to the point where I went to google all the talk about 1:1 time just to figure out what exactly we're arguing about.

It does seem that Old Gary was suggesting keeping strict time records, and when the game was not being played, to use 1:1 time to keep things simple. Gary notoriously ran a big group that didn't necessarily all play at the same time together, with a few characters per player to cover play when a character was busy in another adventure.

I'd be surprised to find out that anyone was suggesting 1:1 time during the game session. Though I've been surprised before...

And from the proponents of it here I gather they are also running big groups that don't all play at the same time. I had to work hard to form the group I'm playing with and we're down to only 3 of the original players plus one recent addition.

Haven't been able to find players so I can run a spanish speaking game. In the other campaign I'm a player.

So, where the fuck do people find enough players to run such games?

1970's Lake Geneva? :D

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 02:25:40 PM
And from the proponents of it here I gather they are also running big groups that don't all play at the same time. I had to work hard to form the group I'm playing with and we're down to only 3 of the original players plus one recent addition.

Haven't been able to find players so I can run a spanish speaking game. In the other campaign I'm a player.

So, where the fuck do people find enough players to run such games?

Run for "friends, family, and co-workers" long enough, it can turn into a small network. A group of 5 that are all individual gamers is great, but it can be kind of fragile to people moving away, losing interest, etc.  When it's Joe + spouse + kid all playing in the same game, it is a different dynamic.  Suddenly, now instead of the player spending time away from their family, they are spending it with their family--and the kid getting some good skills in the mix as well.  I even ran for 3 generations at the same table a few times.  Sure, when that family moves away, you lose a lot.  OTOH, when a major chunk of your group is like that, there's the potential for more players than you can handle. 

To me, the biggest drawback to all that is not how you handle time (or most of the other things that people worry about) but rather that it constrains the kinds of games, not because they can't be done, but but because they won't appeal.  Since I don't mind running in that style, it's not a big deal for me. My games are never edgy or goth or filled with gore or anything else that really pushes the envelope.  So a bright 10-year can play.  An elderly grandmother can play.  It's funny too, because some of the non-standard players that you'd expect to be the most bothered by it are a lot more mature in their handling of things like losing a character or the GM ruling the game and so on. 

No matter who you are or how you run your game, every choice you make constricts your pool of available players.  If you want players, then it becomes important to prioritize what is non-negotiable, what you prefer, and what is only nice to have.  I've dropped an awful long list of nice to have options over the years, and walked away a few times when the pruning got into the higher priority things.   

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 20, 2024, 05:23:16 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 02:25:40 PM
And from the proponents of it here I gather they are also running big groups that don't all play at the same time. I had to work hard to form the group I'm playing with and we're down to only 3 of the original players plus one recent addition.

Haven't been able to find players so I can run a spanish speaking game. In the other campaign I'm a player.

So, where the fuck do people find enough players to run such games?

Run for "friends, family, and co-workers" long enough, it can turn into a small network. A group of 5 that are all individual gamers is great, but it can be kind of fragile to people moving away, losing interest, etc.  When it's Joe + spouse + kid all playing in the same game, it is a different dynamic.  Suddenly, now instead of the player spending time away from their family, they are spending it with their family--and the kid getting some good skills in the mix as well.  I even ran for 3 generations at the same table a few times.  Sure, when that family moves away, you lose a lot.  OTOH, when a major chunk of your group is like that, there's the potential for more players than you can handle. 

To me, the biggest drawback to all that is not how you handle time (or most of the other things that people worry about) but rather that it constrains the kinds of games, not because they can't be done, but but because they won't appeal.  Since I don't mind running in that style, it's not a big deal for me. My games are never edgy or goth or filled with gore or anything else that really pushes the envelope.  So a bright 10-year can play.  An elderly grandmother can play.  It's funny too, because some of the non-standard players that you'd expect to be the most bothered by it are a lot more mature in their handling of things like losing a character or the GM ruling the game and so on. 

No matter who you are or how you run your game, every choice you make constricts your pool of available players.  If you want players, then it becomes important to prioritize what is non-negotiable, what you prefer, and what is only nice to have.  I've dropped an awful long list of nice to have options over the years, and walked away a few times when the pruning got into the higher priority things.

Love my wife with all my heart but RPGs are MY time, the time/place set aside for me.

My boy is too busy with university.

Nobody in my family is remotely interested in it, and my friends... Lost track of them with moving out, changing jobs, etc. We never shared geeky interests anyway.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 20, 2024, 02:25:40 PM
So, where the fuck do people find enough players to run such games?

The Internet. All my players were recruited off the Internet (or partners/friends of recruits), except the one I procreated, and I met his mother on the '90s Internet. Oh and one old friend from school plays online weekly.

I can go on Roll20 and get players any time I want, even for pretty obscure stuff. IRL takes longer, I built up a stable of good players over the pre-Covid years and many are the wives, husbands and friends of the original recruits. Eg Philippe brought in Jelena, Kimberly brought in Tony, Matt brought in Kermit and Gus.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 20, 2024, 05:23:16 PM
Run for "friends, family, and co-workers" long enough, it can turn into a small network.

Indeed. I play with a my brother-in-law and two nephews, aged 13 and 19. Each of the those three has brought 1-2 other players into the game ... so far. Our weekly table is 6-8 players now, and the bigger it gets the more interest it seems to garner.

Quote from: S'mon on February 20, 2024, 07:01:11 PM
I can go on Roll20 and get players any time I want, even for pretty obscure stuff. .

Would love to read a run-down or video on how that actually works and what to expect.

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 21, 2024, 11:13:46 AM

Quote from: S'mon on February 20, 2024, 07:01:11 PM
I can go on Roll20 and get players any time I want, even for pretty obscure stuff. .

Would love to read a run-down or video on how that actually works and what to expect.

I am not on roll20, but I use discord and Skype for a lot of gaming. Presently I have 2 groups each week and an occasional third Saturday group. It is pretty easy when you open up your table to the world (two of my players are in England, one is in Canada, the rest are mostly local and we used to have a player who lived in China). The hardest part is coordinating schedules when you have players spanning that broadly.

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 21, 2024, 11:13:46 AM

Quote from: S'mon on February 20, 2024, 07:01:11 PM
I can go on Roll20 and get players any time I want, even for pretty obscure stuff. .

Would love to read a run-down or video on how that actually works and what to expect.

Sometimes it's great, sometimes it's a nightmare. Usually there's a lot of early attrition from people who weren't really into it. I was blindsided that two players quit my Cyberpunk game because I rolled their initiatives for them.  :-\

Quote from: S'mon on February 21, 2024, 06:29:30 PM
I was blindsided that two players quit my Cyberpunk game because I rolled their initiatives for them.  :-\

Bro if Cyberpunk is anything like Shadowrun I would be grateful to have the DM roll my init. That stuff's loads of bookkeeping.

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on February 20, 2024, 09:49:51 AMTreating it as some kind of holy decree is silly. Saying it has no value at all, also is silly. If it works for you, it works for you, if it doesn't, it doesn't.

Thence why the "1:1 time must be used for everything!" group is trolling.

It had its rare uses. But trying to stick to it like a religion is crackheaded.

While the 1:1 time paradigm is way too rigid for my taste, when you run multiple gaming groups in one region, you surely need some rules to avoid time paradoxes and conflicts.
I've tried to summarize my thoughts on it here (https://vladar.bearblog.dev/group-sync/).

TLDR, basically, that's the guidelines I try to follow:

Rule 1. First come - first served
The first group active during the particular in-game day establishes the timeline. Others must comply with what has already happened in previous gaming sessions.
As a consequence of this, the second group cannot explore the given locale on the same in-game day or before the first group started exploring it.

Rule 2. Go home when you are done
At the end of the gaming session, the party must return to the civilization or at least to their base camp.
This is important because it allows other groups to explore the same place without risking the encounter with an "offline" group camping there.

Rule 3. Plan last, play first
Before you conclude the session, ask the players what they plan to do during the downtime and where they want to venture next session. The stated downtime plans should then be resolved at the start of the next session, before the adventuring.
Not only this approach will help you to plan for the upcoming game, but it also will give you a reference of how much time the other groups would have in the reserve before catching up to the activities of the current party.
This reserve time should be at least equal to the real-world interval between the sessions (if the planned downtime takes less time or isn't planned at all). E.g. one in-game week for a weekly game, two weeks if the group plays every other week, and so on.

Rule 4. The world moves on
If one group's timeline fell behind others, this group must continue their adventures starting from the in-game date where the other groups ended. The in-game interval between their previous adventure and the time of resumption can be spent on any downtime activities. Alternatively, they could leave the town and travel to another region where no play went on during this in-game time.

I just ran a session yesterday in the game I use 1:1 time in, and wanted to share how I handle it.

First, the date we played was March 7th, which in game corresponds to the 19th of Iatree. After we started playing though, I realized that the weather I had rolled for that day was a severe windstorm. I use a spreadsheet someone made based on an old dragon magazine article to roll up a whole year of weather ahead of time. Since it wasn't at all adventuring weather, we skipped ahead a day to the 20th, which was calm. I described to wind damage and they made a few preparations in town, and left with a farmer that was going to show them the where something interesting had happened previously. It took most of a day for them to reach the farmer's home, and he promised to show them the point of interest the next day, and started repairing the damage from the storm. One of the PCs went hunting to get some extra rations, and I rolled a random encounter. A bad one. He was ambushed by the Dire Boar. The other PCs came running, and by fleeing up trees they were able to hang onto life and eventually ward off the boar, suffering severe injuries all. Being too injured to go on to find what they'd been looking for in the first place, or even risk the potentially dangerous trek home, but having plenty of rations from hunting and the felled boars, they negotiated to stay in the safety of the farmer's cellar in exchange for helping him with the repairs. They rested for 6 days, healing up their injuries (Knave 2e has a not particularly slow healing mechanic), and headed back to town, the only random encounter a distant passing of some deer, making it back before sundown on the 26th of Iatree.

Today, I made the daily update to the game's IC chat, giving the weather for today and noting that their characters left town with the farmer. I've scheduled another message which I'll post next Thursday, which announces their return. If those players want to play a game before then, they'll need to make a new character and use that one. There are some limitations to the format, for example, since the session got started a bit late and the dire boar encounter took a fair while, they wanted to head back into town rather than investigate what they were there for in the first place. And obviously the game is set up around a particular location, so there isn't any long distance travel which would make the 1:1 time more of a bother. But I'm quite enjoying the campaign. the constant pressure of time passing in world along side real time makes me think about how things are changing in world, and especially in reactance to what the PCs are doing. And the daily weather blurbs make the world feel much more real, and the fact the seasons pass in time with real seasons helps that too.

uhhh. So you did not really use 1:1 time? You "skipped ahead" as you pleased?

Quote from: Omega on March 09, 2024, 12:03:35 AM
uhhh. So you did not really use 1:1 time? You "skipped ahead" as you pleased?

I use 1:1 time to manage the passage of time off table. Within a session, PCs can do whatever they want, and can get ahead of realtime. Then time between sessions wil catch back up to the PCs, hence the scheduled announcement of their return to town I'm going to make next week. That is how I use 1:1 time to manage my opentable westmarches.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on March 09, 2024, 02:27:37 AM

Quote from: Omega on March 09, 2024, 12:03:35 AM
uhhh. So you did not really use 1:1 time? You "skipped ahead" as you pleased?

I use 1:1 time to manage the passage of time off table. Within a session, PCs can do whatever they want, and can get ahead of realtime. Then time between sessions wil catch back up to the PCs, hence the scheduled announcement of their return to town I'm going to make next week. That is how I use 1:1 time to manage my opentable westmarches.

Me too (& Gygax three)  ;D
I like 1:1 time for the reasons you give (the constant pressure of time passing in world along side real time makes me think about how things are changing* in world, and especially in reactance to what the PCs are doing), and use it much the same way. It is for when no play is taking place, as EGG said, not normally for restricting what happens in play - if the players demand a 1 week rest during a session I do reseve the right to say "OK, see you next week". Much more commonly an adventure takes place over 2 weekly sessions, so then we move ahead 2 weeks instead of 1 week.

I do think 1:1 time is a very powerful tool when used correctly. It shouldn't be a religion. 

It's March IRL & I've been prepping a 'Spring Break' adventure for my Cyberpunk game that should take place next month IRL & in-game.