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?