1 to 1 time in a campaign?

[Acrux]

Thanks to Desiderius and his retardation to remind me about asking this!

The original DMG had a rule suggesting that non-session time should run at a 1-1 rate with real time (so, if the group meets once a week, then one week of time would happen in the game world as well).

Game time is of the utmost importance...YOU CANNOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT...It is best to use 1 actual day = 1 game day when no play is happening.

Does anyone here play this way? Especially with games that are mostly play by post, or chat? Right now, my players are geographically spread out so live sessions are rare. It ends up making a lot of things work for downtime, training time costs, making leaving dungeons have risk - e.g. monsters will prepare/repopulate, etc.

https://jeffro.wordpress.com/2021/07/11/real-time-play-vs-variable-timekeeping/

I can see this working really well, especially for our intermittent group, but the main people talking about it right now* also tie in really closely with Patron stuff, which I'm not really interested in and I feel like it's causing confusion - for me anyway.

https://jeffro.wordpress.com/2021/07/17/how-do-you-do-patron-style-play-in-dd/

*As an aside, I didn't know how controversial this was until looking into it a while back, and apparently there's some fighting between OSR and nuDND about this.

 

[Desiderius]

Thanks to Desiderius and his retardation to remind me about asking this!

The original DMG had a rule suggesting that non-session time should run at a 1-1 rate with real time (so, if the group meets once a week, then one week of time would happen in the game world as well).

Game time is of the utmost importance...YOU CANNOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT...It is best to use 1 actual day = 1 game day when no play is happening.

Does anyone here play this way? Especially with games that are mostly play by post, or chat? Right now, my players are geographically spread out so live sessions are rare. It ends up making a lot of things work for downtime, training time costs, making leaving dungeons have risk, etc.

https://jeffro.wordpress.com/2021/07/11/real-time-play-vs-variable-timekeeping/

I can see this working really well, especially for our intermittent group, but the main people talking about it right now* also tie in really closely with Patron stuff, which I'm not really interested in and I feel like it's causing confusion - for me anyway.

https://jeffro.wordpress.com/2021/07/17/how-do-you-do-patron-style-play-in-dd/

*As an aside, I didn't know how controversial this was until looking into it a while back, and apparently there's some fighting between OSR and nuDND about this.

Tortoise wins the race, brother.

 

[JamesDixon]

No, I pause time between sessions because it wouldn't make sense to have a combat one week then a week passes before continuing on with the adventure.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Context matters.
If you ended the session in the middle of something, pick up where you left off. If you ended the session while traveling or resting, it's fine to fast forward time and even gives you a reason for new events to occur.

 

[Alex]

No, I pause time between sessions because it wouldn't make sense to have a combat one week then a week passes before continuing on with the adventure.

I don't think that's what this was about, but rather, how downtime was computed. Personally, I wouldn't like to DM this way; But I suspect the reason this was suggested was that many of those old D&D campaigns had multiple groups playing them, which meant both that time keeping had an extra importance beyond the usual. Also, you had to manage downtime in a way that wouldn't send one group into the future while another was still in the past.

 

[Acrux]

Yes, I think you're exactly right, Alex. I think a lot of these people have multiple groups. The main reason I was wondering if it might work is because my group meets infrequently, but there's more opportunity for in-between downtime actions because of that and the nature of mostly online play. If we met more frequently, I'd probably be less interested.

 

[JamesDixon]

No, I pause time between sessions because it wouldn't make sense to have a combat one week then a week passes before continuing on with the adventure.

I don't think that's what this was about, but rather, how downtime was computed. Personally, I wouldn't like to DM this way; But I suspect the reason this was suggested was that many of those old D&D campaigns had multiple groups playing them, which meant both that time keeping had an extra importance beyond the usual. Also, you had to manage downtime in a way that wouldn't send one group into the future while another was still in the past.

No, I understood what was said bud.

In downtime I advance it as needed like when there needs to be training done etc... I use the optional training rules where it takes time to learn stuff.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

The original DMG had a rule suggesting that non-session time should run at a 1-1 rate with real time (so, if the group meets once a week, then one week of time would happen in the game world as well).

Game time is of the utmost importance...YOU CANNOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT...It is best to use 1 actual day = 1 game day when no play is happening.

Original D&D already mentioned this issue, which was explained in more detail in the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide. However, it seems the people currently advocating for its use as being "true D&D" have completely missed the context of why this mattered to Gary Gygax. In the original Greyhawk campaign, there were a large number of players, with some varying subset of them showing up to any given session. They would select characters available and suitable to a common party, then venture into Castle Greyhawk and explore some part of it before exiting the dungeon and ending the session. Since there were a multitude of characters in different parties exploring the same dungeon, it was imperative to Gygax to avoid contradictions by carefully keeping track of the passage of time for each party, and when events occurred in Castle Greyhawk. The example he gives in the DMG is fairly simple but shows the need to avoid conflicts from the separate sessions of two separate parties.

Even in the early years of Dungeons & Dragons, it was typical for a Dungeon Master to have a set group of players who would all (or nearly all) show up for each session and play the same character (replacing a PC only upon death, or perhaps retirement). Even if such a campaign is based around a megadungeon similar to Castle Greyhawk, there would be no reason to insist upon any strict rules for advancing game time; if the party is traveling somewhere, or resting for an extended time in order to heal, or training to level up, or whatever, time in the campaign can immediately be advanced past this and normal play can be resumed. Moreover, most campaigns did not revolve around megadungeons, so there was less likelihood for contradictions even if multiple parties existed in the same campaign setting.

Note that according to the testimony of those who played in Gygax's campaigns, he did not bother with advancing time according to any strict rule, much less 1 day of real time being required to pass 1 day of game time, but simply advanced game time as much as he could while avoiding contradictions.

 

[Desiderius]

The original DMG had a rule suggesting that non-session time should run at a 1-1 rate with real time (so, if the group meets once a week, then one week of time would happen in the game world as well).

Game time is of the utmost importance...YOU CANNOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT...It is best to use 1 actual day = 1 game day when no play is happening.

Original D&D already mentioned this issue, which was explained in more detail in the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide. However, it seems the people currently advocating for its use as being "true D&D" have completely missed the context of why this mattered to Gary Gygax. In the original Greyhawk campaign, there were a large number of players, with some varying subset of them showing up to any given session. They would select characters available and suitable to a common party, then venture into Castle Greyhawk and explore some part of it before exiting the dungeon and ending the session. Since there were a multitude of characters in different parties exploring the same dungeon, it was imperative to Gygax to avoid contradictions by carefully keeping track of the passage of time for each party, and when events occurred in Castle Greyhawk. The example he gives in the DMG is fairly simple but shows the need to avoid conflicts from the separate sessions of two separate parties.

Even in the early years of Dungeons & Dragons, it was typical for a Dungeon Master to have a set group of players who would all (or nearly all) show up for each session and play the same character (replacing a PC only upon death, or perhaps retirement). Even if such a campaign is based around a megadungeon similar to Castle Greyhawk, there would be no reason to insist upon any strict rules for advancing game time; if the party is traveling somewhere, or resting for an extended time in order to heal, or training to level up, or whatever, time in the campaign can immediately be advanced past this and normal play can be resumed. Moreover, most campaigns did not revolve around megadungeons, so there was less likelihood for contradictions even if multiple parties existed in the same campaign setting.

Note that according to the testimony of those who played in Gygax's campaigns, he did not bother with advancing time according to any strict rule, much less 1 day of real time being required to pass 1 day of game time, but simply advanced game time as much as he could while avoiding contradictions.

The casual condescension really isn’t appropriate here. They go into quite a bit of depth as to their approach and how it plays out and why they do it.

“Well I guess they’re just ignorant idiots” doesn’t do it justice, nor does your unsupported assertion that the way they’re doing it is the opposite of the Gygax approach. Seems pretty similar from the perspective on this non-PnPer.

One big thing they talk about is that one of the main features of gaining levels in the original D&D was the ability to attract and maintain a following of men-at-arms which would naturally take time to train and replace between campaigns (corresponding to sessions within one setting). When I did play D&D PnP as a kid in the 70s player death was a pretty common thing (like busting out on poker night) but the DM would put his thumb on the scale somewhat if someone did manage to get a character all the way to lvl five. Gaining expendable men-at-arms as you lvl is a more realistic way to achieve the same goal.

 

[Desiderius]

According to them (and I'm not biased here because they think I'm a Tolkien phag or whatever in their Howard worship) that wasn't the only reason Gygax was careful with the passage of time/used a much longer scale.

Take it up with them. I'm sure they'd be happy to abuse you as well and you both might learn something. I'm just happy people are interested.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't see how any of this matters as it has very little to do with actually running a campaign. I don't think timekeeping like this adds or detracts from the game at all and really it seems more like a nuisance than anything.

 

[Desiderius]

I don't see how any of this matters as it has very little to do with actually running a campaign. I don't think timekeeping like this adds or detracts from the game at all and really it seems more like a nuisance than anything.

Then read the fairly voluminous literature they've generated on the question. Interesting read if nothing else. Seems kind of Warhammerish but I don't know much about 40k either.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't see how any of this matters as it has very little to do with actually running a campaign. I don't think timekeeping like this adds or detracts from the game at all and really it seems more like a nuisance than anything.

Then read the fairly voluminous literature they've generated on the question. Interesting read if nothing else. Seems kind of Warhammerish but I don't know much about 40k either.

seems more like people boasting over doing dumb shit that doesn't matter though

there's no good reason to track time 1-to-1, and I don't consider "Because Gygax Said So" to be a good reason without him giving an explanation as to why it's something worth doing.

 

[Acrux]

I don't see how any of this matters as it has very little to do with actually running a campaign. I don't think timekeeping like this adds or detracts from the game at all and really it seems more like a nuisance than anything.

I think it could potentially add to my campaign, which is why I was asking about it here. Again, mainly because we don't get to have sessions very often, and we're mostly PBP, so this might add an interesting dimension to play if people can be doing some things while not "at the table". If you're running regular sessions, I agree it seems like busywork.

The guy who's written the most about it is really over the top in his "this is the only legitimate way to play D&D and if you don't you're a woke 5E new-fag", but he has shown some interesting ways it can work well.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I think it could potentially add to my campaign,

How?
If the campaign's not running, the campaign's not running. At worst, this is on par with the DM deciding my character did something without my approval.

 

[Acrux]

Because we meet so infrequently, anything at the table that ends up being focused on one player for a while seems like it's cheating the others out of precious play time.

So, as an example, I've got a magic user who wants to create an item. Instead of him describing and planning that at the table, it happens offline (and might actually take a few IRL days to happen - maybe it won't be ready before the next session).

I've got a player who's character is an archer with a fletcher profession. Now instead of "okay, you made 50 silver (or whatever)" from fletching, he can do some of that during the week. Maybe a customer comes to him and needs something, opening a new adventure progression that he can talk about in the next session.

That kind of thing. Yes, those could be done at the table, I'm thinking it adds a *possible* new dimension. I'm not committed to it, I'm just wondering if people have tried it and if they have, how did it work. Sounds like no one is doing this except for a few of the OSR guys.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Because we meet so infrequently, anything at the table that ends up being focused on one player for a while seems like it's cheating the others out of precious play time.

So, as an example, I've got a magic user who wants to create an item. Instead of him describing and planning that at the table, it happens offline (and might actually take a few IRL days to happen - maybe it won't be ready before the next session).

I've got a player who's character is an archer with a fletcher profession. Now instead of "okay, you made 50 silver (or whatever)" from fletching, he can do some of that during the week. Maybe a customer comes to him and needs something, opening a new adventure progression that he can talk about in the next session.

That kind of thing. Yes, those could be done at the table, I'm thinking it adds a *possible* new dimension. I'm not committed to it, I'm just wondering if people have tried it and if they have, how did it work. Sounds like no one is doing this except for a few of the OSR guys.

I don't see why any of this would require such timekeeping though, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the problem.
Why can't your player talk to you now and inform you that he wants to create an item? Or do you mean create it and have it finished by the next play session?

 

[Desiderius]

I don't see how any of this matters as it has very little to do with actually running a campaign. I don't think timekeeping like this adds or detracts from the game at all and really it seems more like a nuisance than anything.

Then read the fairly voluminous literature they've generated on the question. Interesting read if nothing else. Seems kind of Warhammerish but I don't know much about 40k either.

seems more like people boasting over doing dumb shit that doesn't matter though

there's no good reason to track time 1-to-1, and I don't consider "Because Gygax Said So" to be a good reason without him giving an explanation as to why it's something worth doing.

Which they do at sometimes nauseous length. I still don’t get the appeal of beclowning yourself talking about shit you know nothing about.

“Because Gygax says so” is both ironic and unironic (as one has to be in current_year) because authoring something with the unquestioned influence of the D&D ruleset earns one the legitimate authority to merit attention.

It’s the only thing that does.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't see how any of this matters as it has very little to do with actually running a campaign. I don't think timekeeping like this adds or detracts from the game at all and really it seems more like a nuisance than anything.

Then read the fairly voluminous literature they've generated on the question. Interesting read if nothing else. Seems kind of Warhammerish but I don't know much about 40k either.

seems more like people boasting over doing dumb shit that doesn't matter though

there's no good reason to track time 1-to-1, and I don't consider "Because Gygax Said So" to be a good reason without him giving an explanation as to why it's something worth doing.

Which they do at sometimes nauseous length. I still don’t get the appeal of beclowning yourself talking about shit you know nothing about.

“Because Gygax says so” is both ironic and unironic (as one has to be in current_year) because authoring something with the unquestioned influence of the D&D ruleset earns one the legitimate authority to merit attention.

It’s the only thing that does.

sounds gay
would you take a cock up your ass because gygax told you to?

 

[JamesDixon]

Because we meet so infrequently, anything at the table that ends up being focused on one player for a while seems like it's cheating the others out of precious play time.

So, as an example, I've got a magic user who wants to create an item. Instead of him describing and planning that at the table, it happens offline (and might actually take a few IRL days to happen - maybe it won't be ready before the next session).

I've got a player who's character is an archer with a fletcher profession. Now instead of "okay, you made 50 silver (or whatever)" from fletching, he can do some of that during the week. Maybe a customer comes to him and needs something, opening a new adventure progression that he can talk about in the next session.

That kind of thing. Yes, those could be done at the table, I'm thinking it adds a *possible* new dimension. I'm not committed to it, I'm just wondering if people have tried it and if they have, how did it work. Sounds like no one is doing this except for a few of the OSR guys.

I have my Star Wars group that meets once every two weeks. Sometimes there are times it's a month between sessions. I make it clear that we'll focus on one person then move to the next. Everyone gets equal screen time in my games. Just pausing the game between sessions works really well for me.

It wouldn't take that long to role play out those encounters either. Just talk to your players and reach an understanding that you'll be doing x for a little bit before the session continues. Either that or you pull the individual players off to the side to do a 1 on 1 session. This way you are meeting their needs. It's just a bit of extra time commitment from both of you.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

The casual condescension really isn’t appropriate here. They go into quite a bit of depth as to their approach and how it plays out and why they do it.

I had already read those accounts of their approach some time ago, and the person advocating for this prefers to denounce everyone else as "gross nerds" while referring to his movement as the "BrOSR" and generally being as obnoxious and condescending as possible.

As for following Gygax's approach, they are being faithful to the rule as written in OD&D and the AD&D DMG, but they aren't being faithful to Gygax's approach to campaigning in terms of player composition or mega-dungeons, as I mentioned in my previous post. Since they can't be bothered to think about the reason for the rule being included, they are insisting that everyone should follow a rule that is nonsensical and counterproductive in the context of most campaigns. From their own accounts of their campaigns, it doesn't even particularly make sense for them, as they have a fairly stable player base, with largely the same people showing up to each session, and they don't design their campaign around a megadungeon.

Furthermore, this is yet another rule written by Gary Gygax that he himself did not follow in his own campaign. He doesn't appear to have followed any strict rule that a certain amount of time passed in real life should be necessary for a certain amount of time to pass in the game world, much less the 1-1 time mentioned in the rules. Instead, he was careful to keep track of time for each party of player-characters and avoid contradictions but otherwise kept the game moving along as much as possible. Even in a situation where careful timekeeping is crucial, a rule relating real time to game time is unnecessary.

 

[Alex]

I don't see how any of this matters as it has very little to do with actually running a campaign. I don't think timekeeping like this adds or detracts from the game at all and really it seems more like a nuisance than anything.

That depends on how important down time actions might be. I personally like to keep them pretty important, with the possibility of using down time for many useful endeavours such as learning new skills, developing spells, creating magic items, training units, establishing churches, fortifications and castles, etc.

Pendragon has quite a few ideas of how downtime might be used by the players, by the way.

Edit: Of course, PCs aren't the only ones doing stuff during downtime as well, which makes the time keeping particularly important.

Edit 2: Another game with an interesting approach to downtime is GURPS. GURPS has a good system for learning new skills and improving old ones during down time, although it is one that doesn't take in account either the learner's ability or the teacher's. But I think they addressed this to some extent in a Pyramid magazine article. Another good aspect is how you have job rolls to see how your occupation affects your downtime. It might lack some more nuance for the results of the roll, but there is a good framework there.

 

[Desiderius]

generally being as obnoxious and condescending as possible

If that's such a bad thing why would one choose to do so oneself?

Not sure at the end of the day we have much choice in the matter since it's (status-jockeying/shit-giving) characteristic of male spaces not just throughout the species but the kingdom (and even parts of the domain) if you care to look.

Which makes it neither here nor there and leaves the claims made by the various participants to be evaluated on their own merits. Looks like you've looked into it more deeply than I have and from a more experienced perspective. On their face they seemed intriguing to an untrained eye.

 

[Alex]

Maybe I missed something, but I don't see Zed being condescending in his posts (well, unless you take his criticism of whoever this guy is as being condescending, but I took that more as an explanation that this is an old discussion for him, and one where he has a clear side).

 

[JamesDixon]

Maybe I missed something, but I don't see Zed being condescending in his posts (well, unless you take his criticism of whoever this guy is as being condescending, but I took that more as an explanation that this is an old discussion for him, and one where he has a clear side).

Desiderius just needs to change his tampon and take a few Midol to deal with his PMS.