Quote from: Venka on July 05, 2023, 05:29:46 PM
I'd love to know how many normal two-to-six player campaigns happen with 1:1 time.  I can't imagine it is all that many.  I'd also love to know how many of them happened back in the day- that number also seems low.  By contrast, teams of people who run megacampaigns likely run this sort of thing.  Those are rare, but this is about the only way to do it right.

I've been using it since ~1993, and I don't recall ever being involved in a campaign with multiple groups or multiple game days or anything like that. I was running "normal" campaigns.

Now I think average group size has gone down over time. 2-6 may be normal range for a group today, but I feel like 4-8 players (plus the DM) was more the norm back then. There was significant shrinkage. I just want to be clear up front in case it comes up later on that I'm using "normal" to refer to 4-8 players. 2-3 players was regarded as more of a pick-up game back then that wasn't to be taken seriously and would render much of this discussion moot. If you've got 2-3 players and 1 doesn't show up one week, putting the campaign on pause seems like the most obvious solution, whereas it would be pretty lame if you tried doing that with 7-8 players. So there is qualitative weight to this bickering of the exact number range.

Was 1:1 time a common thing back then? Nope. Before BrOSR came about, I literally heard about no other groups at all (other than the ones we imagined Gary running) that were doing it. But I don't think lack of utility was the reason for disuse. Because it absolutely has utility in "normal" campaigns, some of which I alluded to in my earlier comment here. I think the reason for disuse has a much simpler explanation. Because the vast majority of gamers are mentally obese slobs who are too fucking lazy to read the same goddamn books they obsess over. And included in this number are a huge chunk of the industry's brain trust--designers, bloggers, critics, and other assorted forum loudmouths. They frequently have no clue what they're blabbering about.

I think that was main part of the allure to the BrOSR's of the 1:1 rule. I think Jeffro has even literally said he felt he rediscovered a rule no one knew about. So that's really the key. Gamers just didn't know. They should have. But they didn't. And Jeffro managed to grab some clout because of it.

Quote
Here's why I'm not sure there's much honest conversation about this topic.

1- A lot of people are going to associate 1:1 timekeeping with the "BrOSR".  These guys advocate this (and several other things, but this one is likely the most obvious and impactful rule change).   Since this group is effectively a highly-online, highly-political group, much of what's discussed in favor of them and opposed to them is going to be determined by real world politics.  This means that a lot of opinions and interpretations are going to bleed over very heavily.

I don't actually know anything about BrOSR's politics. I could take a guess. And I'm extremely confident my guess would be correct. But it would still be just a guess. Because as someone who hasn't been obsessively pro- or anti- BrOSR, someone who hasn't cared enough to track down everything they're saying, just a regular gamer who happens to be paying attention, their politics have never actually been mentioned any place where I would normally come about them. And I've had some interactions with a few of them. It may be enough on their sleeve that you can defend your assertion impressively. But it's not enough on their sleeve that people who don't really give a shit know about it. I'll also say I've seen their ideas heavily criticized by personalities that whose politics (as far as I can guess) are fairly aligned.

I do, however, think that BrOSR being an identity does carry a lot of baggage with it. I think that 1:1 time is a huge part of that identity. I think they've adopted a handful of items simultaneously, and I don't even think it's the 1:1 time that's behind all the positive experiences they cite. I think it's one of the other things they adopted. But those other things don't seem nearly as archaic or odd as the 1:1 time. I think people who want to rag on someone else's jam finds a lot more meat to chomp on with the 1:1 time than the other things that make the BrOSR style work. A lot of what's happening there is style over substance. Heap big smoke but no fire.

Quote2- I've not seen anyone recommend a constant, non-1:1 timekeeping scale.  For instance, if every day in the real world is a week in the game world, then the world will progress through decades rather quickly, with character aging and passing inheritance from PC to PC would come up too.  Sounds kinda interesting right?  And a player would need to quickly describe what is going on for their character's month-long downtime, for instance.  Or the reverse, a game where each real world day simulates only a few hours in the campaign world, allowing for a detailed treatment of a specific important time in the campaign.

I don't know there's any pressing need. 1:1 is sort of a ratchet. Time elapsed from end of session 1 to the end of session to is AT LEAST 1:1, but not necessarily 1:1. Session 2 we all decide to take 2 months of downtime to do training, make some potions, recruit henchmen, etc, then time elapsed from the bottom of Sesh 1 to the bottom of Sesh 2 is 2 months and a week. You can always go faster. You can't go slower. Except intra-session. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the net effect of this in my experience has been that time flow tends to be 5-10 times faster than real world time, 6-7 being most likely. Mileage may vary.

Quote
3- I've not seen anyone recommend real time timekeeping (or constant scale timekeeping as in (2)) for certain sections of the campaign, then freezing time until every group has gone, then unfreezing after an event, etc.  I would expect this to come up pretty early in these sorts of things.

I'm not really tracking what you mean. I mean in my multi-player solo adventure mode of play, we keep time coordinated among players by having each individual use a hand counter while there's also a sand-timer for the table. In AD&D 1E, you've got 15 minutes on the sand timer to play out 3 turns/30 rounds. If you use up your clicks, you have to stop until either all the other players use up their 3 turns, or until the sand runs out. It's enough time that 80% of the time the various activities average out just right (combats a lot of real time relative to in-game time, searching for secret doors take a lot of in-game time relative to real time). This is also the burn-time of a torch, making those bad boys easy to track.

Quick, active players will get more done than dawdlers and cross-talkers, but this difference is reasonably bounded. So as far as this goes, though, every hour of real time actually represents 2 hours of in-game time. It's sort of by design. But it's also sort of this ratio is the one that works given how long it takes to actually play things out. So it's not exact a dial you can just set to whatever you want. It's grounded in the reality of the mechanics. Ratios might vary according to the rules you're using, but if you're going to do something like this, you have to figure out what the right rhythm is. And there *is* a right rhythm.

Quote4- This is an MMO.  Everyone doing this is building an MMO.  Maybe it's a "private server" for just a 4 man party or maybe it's a megacampaign for a hundred dudes.  Really it's a MUD- a non-electronic Multi-user Dungeon.

I don't think so. As I say, 1:1 time is a ratchet. It's not consistent 1:1 flow, which is why I hate that we've adopted "1:1 time" as the shorthand for the actual rule. You can move faster, but not slower. MUD times run consistently.

Quote5- I don't see people bringing up the world of darkness campaigns that ran throughout the mid and late 90s, all of which covered just TONS of people and told stories, some of the geographical areas having links to each others.  This was effectively also a MUD.  Wouldn't we hear from the storytellers of this golden age of WW LARP?  There's a lot of conceptual bleed-over right?  Unlike taking a line about downtime and building an online identity about it, why not take a lot of input from these leftwing wiccan-adjacent 40-50 year olds who actually ran something very successful for over half a decade?

Not to stir up shit, I actually have a lot of respect for the WoD stuff, but part of their success was massive appeal to people who didn't actually game. Also with the rise of yammering on the internet via usenet, during a decade in which the hobby was at a low, I think there was a massively disproportionate level of talking about the game far in excess to actual play. Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people did a lot of stuff. But I don't think that happened in WoD commensurate with it's overall success or popularity.

You also had 2E snark. If you know the 1E books forwards and backwards like I do, then you read the 2E manuals, you'll find it's loaded with passive-aggressive digs against 1E. And to this day, I see certain memes that emerged from that still mouthed word-for-word by gamers who genuinely think they're expressing their own opinions. Not using the disease tables saying it has no place in heroic fantasy is one of those things. But most of them tend to rag on any sort of meticulous obsession with anything having to do with the game that is not in your face. Story, stats, and combat are in your face when you're playing the game. Meticulous timekeeping is not. Even though if you're serious about logical consistency in your campaign, that is something you obviously want to do. The WoD culture was 2E culture on steroids. If they're happy using a half-ass game system, if they're not even requiring full-ass mechanics, they're not going to sweat the absence of meticulous timekeeping.

QuoteAnyway I think the 1:1 timekeeping discussions are an exciting way to try to run a large campaign for some people, but many discussion participants are using them as a proxy for real world politics.

I don't know about real world politics. But they are definitely using it as a proxy for identity, and it does represent style of substance.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 05, 2023, 08:25:49 AM
Unless you're running multiple tables in the same shared setting, then there's really zero point to 1:1 time.

I do sometimes run multiple groups in the same region simultaneously, and 1:1 time basically necessary to handle that (had a campaign crash and burn when I wasn't using it). I don't think the benefits are purely restricted to multiple groups - 1:1 time creates a time budget for downtime which makes time a more valuable resource. If the book says it takes 3 months to build a castle (just an example), then in 1:1 time you'd need to actually wait a while IRL to see the fruits of your labor. In the style which I'd say is more common, you could hypothetically fast forward to the completion of the castle and it'd be up to the GM to introduce events which happen in the meantime to enforce a sense of natural pacing (or just tell the players no).

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 05, 2023, 08:59:58 AM
Well, what are you really trying to achieve?
...
In the context of my singular, weekly group, we're not stopping after 15 minutes.  We only get 4 hours on the one night a week it works.  So 1:1 game time would be a detriment...
...
If you want to make time important, there are much more effective ways to do so.  Limiting rests and healing, creating events at predictable intervals (so players can't just decide to rest willy-nilly), giving no experience for wandering monsters or only for "mission-based" activities (think about it before you reject it out of hand, as it's really worked at my table), etc.

My current campaign is winding down and my next campaign will likely start this winter and will be derived from Greg Gillespie's Dwarrodeep. I usually play with 3-8 players at the table and it's possible that splitting the groups into 2 groups of 4 might make it easier to schedule games. I've also considered recruiting a friend to help run a table and we can blend the outcomes of these events and share notes. Given the setup I'm prepping for the campaign, it seems quite plausible that these two groups will come into conflict or try to align with different factions and their conflict needs some kind of mediation that can happen without gathering everyone at a table. I've been thinking through how to manage it, and 1:1 time does a decent job during downtime. However, I've heard of other playstyles which suggest that 1:1 can apply outside of pure downtime. The descriptions I've heard never made sense to me unless I had several strong assumptions (close proximity to dungeon, every session ends back in town, players cannot fast forward within a session to the next day -at all-). These seem like extreme restraints from what I'm used to, so I'm trying to understand how this could work.

The reason why I'm thinking about repairing bridges, procedures for crawling a hex, etc. is because this is the kind of thing you might plausibly be doing in the game. If they come across a ruined bridge, and wanted to construct a crossing that could bear weight, that's going to be something you'd need to spend time in town organizing. I'd normally let them return (random monsters etc), recruit their people, go back, and then deal with whatever dangers might await them for the duration of the construction. But we'd do that in the span of maybe an hour or so at the table, depending on how the dice were looking and how complex of a task they're trying to accomplish. Repairing a 15-foot span seems more straightforward than a 50-foot span. If I were playing with 1:1 time at the session-level, then these kinds of procedures would have to be delayed until the end of the session. If they came across a chasm they couldn't cross personally, they'd have to explore alternatives and just make a note that they might want to do something about that crossing. I see the appeal in that but it also seems like a major hassle for the players who are used to having more control over returning to town and coming back with a plan.

I agree the idea of just stopping playing after 15 minutes is a non-starter for me too. I want at least 4 hours to game or else I start to wonder if it's worth the organizational overhead. I already have my systems in place to keep resources relevant (many of them are the rules you've indicated, some are my own procedures). One thing I've learned is that changes to structure and organization sometimes enable innovations in procedures. So if 1:1 time could rework my structure without breaking down my expectations and playstyle, maybe I could further improve my procedures.

As a concrete example, I rewrote my time tracking structure for my table so I can essentially pre-roll and prep a session from top-to-bottom so I'm not doing any rolling or table/rules lookup during the game, but still react as the players make different choices. That kind of thing is only possible if you change assumptions about how you resolve something like a wandering monster - from pure chance at set intervals to (in my case) certainty of events with an uncertain time of arrival. This has also enabled me to grant players more satisfying access to magic spells that can see the future, for example.

Quote from: King Tyranno on July 05, 2023, 04:21:00 PM
Basically 1:1 is a wonderful way to schedule things and give the players responsibility. I guarantee you will avoid the dreaded "that day isn't good for me" if you use 1:1 time correctly. Your players play when it's good for them to play. If it's not, they can't travel until it is. Simple.

I'm not sure why the alternative isn't just that nobody steps up to take responsibility and the campaign dies. That feels just at least as likely to me, given how much of a headache it can be to deal with scheduling. I feel like it might be more successful to just designate somebody as the "scheduler" similar to the caller/mapper roles but non-fictional.

Quote from: Venka on July 05, 2023, 05:29:46 PM
I'd love to know how many normal two-to-six player campaigns happen with 1:1 time.  I can't imagine it is all that many.
...
1- A lot of people are going to associate 1:1 timekeeping with the "BrOSR".

I'm obviously aware of the connection to the BrOSR, but importantly, I've seen this trend both before I even knew what the BrOSR was (or likely anyone else), and I've seen it outside of typical RPG spaces or wherever the BrOSR would plausibly have any influence. The term "1:1 time" was not often used, but there was definitely some kind of playstyle out there in the wild which assumed some stricter adherence to the passage of time in the real world. Recently, in a wargaming facebook group I lurk, I saw some people recruiting for the equivalent of an online west marches hex-crawl and it seemed like there was a 1:1 time system implied to negotiate the outcome of contested actions and the pace of activities like raising armies, but the posters closed down invites before I could get any answers. Whereas before, when I saw people talking about this style, I dismissed it as a curiosity, I'm more interested in learning how in the world this is supposed to work.

As for me personally, I don't play strictly with 1:1 time, but I have tried it out before for downtime and it worked reasonably well. I will pause fictional time however if letting time pass is unreasonable (they're still camped out in the wilderness, whatever else). The idea of having a group camp in the woods for 2 weeks straight with no forward progress seems unreasonable. But when the players were in town, time between sessions passed at the real-world rate. I let players fast-forward their activities, within reason, so a single session could span 2 months of time, whereas there was only a week-long IRL gap between the previous session and this one. The fast-forwarding was especially necessary when someone got beaten nearly to death, because one person would spend a month bedridden while others went about doing their downtime stuff they got for free, essentially. If somebody nearly dies in the first encounter in the session, I just figure it's not worth it to slam on the brakes and reconvene in another week or two. I want to play everything out for at least a few hours, and that means there needs to be a way to hit fast-forward (which seemingly destroys the concept of 1:1 time outside downtime).

It's also worth mentioning that ShadowDark has me thinking a little more about the relation of real-world time to fictional time. I don't personally like the torch mechanic in that game and won't be using the ruleset for my campaign, but I think it's worth considering that there may be a broader trend than just what one tiny faction is pushing.

So it seems the consensus position is that 1:1 time is indeed best restricted to downtime and while the players are at the table, they can have longer spans of time pass than a single day. I'm still curious how in the world some of these people are playing out there that I've seen in passing, but for now I think that 1:1 time can be kept to downtime for my upcoming campaign.

If Group 1 & Group 2 are playing on alternate weeks, Group 1 can have days 1-7 in session time, Group 2 Days 8-14, Group 1 Days 15-21, and so on. Just don't let them overlap if you can possibly help it.

Quote from: S'mon on July 06, 2023, 07:06:49 AM
If Group 1 & Group 2 are playing on alternate weeks, Group 1 can have days 1-7 in session time, Group 2 Days 8-14, Group 1 Days 15-21, and so on. Just don't let them overlap if you can possibly help it.

How would you integrate a single party session adventures with Domain play being run with other players that cannot make the regular sessions during 1:1 downtime?

I'd think that you'd have to give the weekly session PC's precedence in any potential time-paradox situation.

i.e. The domain game players would occasionally lose time vs. the PC's.

PC group adventures for 7 days in the session, then there are 6 days of 1:1 downtime before the next PC game session.

Theoretically 13 days for the domain players to act, but in order to avoid paradoxes with the PC group they may be fast-forwarded in time and lose the days that could cause a potential paradox with the PC group...

The GM would have to make a judgement call how many of those days the domain players can use that wouldn't clash with the PC groups.

So the domain players may only get 2-3 days added to the 6 days of 1:1 time between sessions just to avoid possible paradoxes.

So the domain players would only get to use the last 9 days out of the 13 setting days to act to avoid paradoxes.

Does that seem like a viable solution?

Quote from: Jaeger on August 02, 2023, 06:18:00 PM

Quote from: S'mon on July 06, 2023, 07:06:49 AM
If Group 1 & Group 2 are playing on alternate weeks, Group 1 can have days 1-7 in session time, Group 2 Days 8-14, Group 1 Days 15-21, and so on. Just don't let them overlap if you can possibly help it.

How would you integrate a single party session adventures with Domain play being run with other players that cannot make the regular sessions during 1:1 downtime?

I'd think that you'd have to give the weekly session PC's precedence in any potential time-paradox situation.

i.e. The domain game players would occasionally lose time vs. the PC's.

PC group adventures for 7 days in the session, then there are 6 days of 1:1 downtime before the next PC game session.

Theoretically 13 days for the domain players to act, but in order to avoid paradoxes with the PC group they may be fast-forwarded in time and lose the days that could cause a potential paradox with the PC group...

The GM would have to make a judgement call how many of those days the domain players can use that wouldn't clash with the PC groups.

So the domain players may only get 2-3 days added to the 6 days of 1:1 time between sessions just to avoid possible paradoxes.

So the domain players would only get to use the last 9 days out of the 13 setting days to act to avoid paradoxes.

Does that seem like a viable solution?

Respectfully, you are over-complicating things. It's real time WHEN PLAY IS NOT HAPPENING. Domain play does not count as "play". Domain players aren't playing full sessions of DnD. They mostly order other pieces around similar to a wargame. The DM messages the patron to ask what they want to do. And then the patron responds. This takes seconds. And is great for people you want to involve in your games who otherwise wouldn't have the time.

Example:
The PCs raid a tomb that was occupied by the forces of Overlord Tim the Lawful Evil Wizard patron. This counts as a full session of DnD. The DM calculates that the raid on the tomb took roughly 3 hours real time. After the session, the players decide to go to a nearby town and leave. Play stops and real time play resumes. It takes the party 4 days real time to get to the village. And once they are there they can message the DM what they want to do next to arrange another session. Overlord Tim is informed his tomb has been raided. And orders his army to attack the PCs who are in a nearby town. It will take 7 days real time for the army to reach the town. The players do not know this. When the PCs arrive, they message the DM they want to go somewhere else for their next session. This takes 3 days real time. And that will be the date for their next session. Meanwhile Tim's army arrives and sacks the village. Finding no players. He finds out that they went north. During the next session of PC play, by coincidence, the travel times of the PCs and Tim's army overlap. PCs run into Overlord Tim's army and fight. The players win and flee. The DM informs Tim that his army was beaten and asks what he would like to do next. And so the game continues.

That's how patrons interact with the game. It's not complicated. Make notes and keep track of everything. If things overlap that's just how it's got to go. Like in real life.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 03, 2023, 11:07:58 AM
Respectfully, you are over-complicating things.

Quite possibly. Hence the brainstorming questions.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 03, 2023, 11:07:58 AM
It's real time WHEN PLAY IS NOT HAPPENING. Domain play does not count as "play". Domain players aren't playing full sessions of DnD. They mostly order other pieces around similar to a wargame. The DM messages the patron to ask what they want to do. And then the patron responds. This takes seconds. And is great for people you want to involve in your games who otherwise wouldn't have the time.

For me this is the big hook idea - to get people I know involved in a campaign that cannot regularly make a weekly game session.

I think that the multi-tier level of interaction would open things up situationally in the campaign that I as a GM would never do. It has the added bonus of being transparently "fair" as well. The weekly PC's would know that there are potential PvP patrons out there in the wild, so they are aware of the potential consequences.

I'm looking to dip my toes into the Multi-Tiered campaign pond using the players that I currently have.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 03, 2023, 11:07:58 AM
Example:
The PCs raid a tomb that was occupied by the forces of Overlord Tim the Lawful Evil Wizard patron. This counts as a full session of DnD. The DM calculates that the raid on the tomb took roughly 3 hours real time. After the session, the players decide to go to a nearby town and leave. Play stops and real time play resumes. It takes the party 4 days real time to get to the village.

So here's a difference for me.

I would count the travel time to the safe haven of the town as part of the PC game session, advancing the game calendar accordingly, and only trigger 1:1 real time play when the PC's hit town.

As the weekly session will be on the same day each week; so the 1:1 down time between my weekly sessions would be regular.

It's accounting for potential paradoxes that is the only real concern.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 03, 2023, 11:07:58 AM
And once they are there they can message the DM what they want to do next to arrange another session. Overlord Tim is informed his tomb has been raided. And orders his army to attack the PCs who are in a nearby town. It will take 7 days real time for the army to reach the town.

The players do not know this. When the PCs arrive, they message the DM they want to go somewhere else for their next session. This takes 3 days real time. And that will be the date for their next session. Meanwhile Tim's army arrives and sacks the village. Finding no players. He finds out that they went north.

While I get that Domain players would be doing most of their travel/movement in 1:1 time.

Does the PC's travel all have to occur in the 1:1 downtime interval?

If one has a regular weekly session, a lot of travel would invariably be done during the variable game time session.

I have outside commitments - PC play has to occur at the scheduled time. The weekly session time cannot be a variable for me.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 03, 2023, 11:07:58 AM
During the next session of PC play, by coincidence, the travel times of the PCs and Tim's army overlap. PCs run into Overlord Tim's army and fight. The players win and flee. The DM informs Tim that his army was beaten and asks what he would like to do next. And so the game continues.

I agree this is absolutely straight forward.

Patron players must be willing to be run by the GM as NPC's when inevitable overlaps occur.

I'd assume they could give the GM some short notes on how they might act in specific situations - but must ultimately relinquish control when they cross paths with PC's during the weekly game session.

Quote from: Jaeger on August 03, 2023, 05:58:58 PM

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 03, 2023, 11:07:58 AM
Respectfully, you are over-complicating things.

Quite possibly. Hence the brainstorming questions.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 03, 2023, 11:07:58 AM
It's real time WHEN PLAY IS NOT HAPPENING. Domain play does not count as "play". Domain players aren't playing full sessions of DnD. They mostly order other pieces around similar to a wargame. The DM messages the patron to ask what they want to do. And then the patron responds. This takes seconds. And is great for people you want to involve in your games who otherwise wouldn't have the time.

For me this is the big hook idea - to get people I know involved in a campaign that cannot regularly make a weekly game session.

I think that the multi-tier level of interaction would open things up situationally in the campaign that I as a GM would never do. It has the added bonus of being transparently "fair" as well. The weekly PC's would know that there are potential PvP patrons out there in the wild, so they are aware of the potential consequences.

I'm looking to dip my toes into the Multi-Tiered campaign pond using the players that I currently have.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 03, 2023, 11:07:58 AM
Example:
The PCs raid a tomb that was occupied by the forces of Overlord Tim the Lawful Evil Wizard patron. This counts as a full session of DnD. The DM calculates that the raid on the tomb took roughly 3 hours real time. After the session, the players decide to go to a nearby town and leave. Play stops and real time play resumes. It takes the party 4 days real time to get to the village.

So here's a difference for me.

I would count the travel time to the safe haven of the town as part of the PC game session, advancing the game calendar accordingly, and only trigger 1:1 real time play when the PC's hit town.

As the weekly session will be on the same day each week; so the 1:1 down time between my weekly sessions would be regular.

It's accounting for potential paradoxes that is the only real concern.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 03, 2023, 11:07:58 AM
And once they are there they can message the DM what they want to do next to arrange another session. Overlord Tim is informed his tomb has been raided. And orders his army to attack the PCs who are in a nearby town. It will take 7 days real time for the army to reach the town.

The players do not know this. When the PCs arrive, they message the DM they want to go somewhere else for their next session. This takes 3 days real time. And that will be the date for their next session. Meanwhile Tim's army arrives and sacks the village. Finding no players. He finds out that they went north.

While I get that Domain players would be doing most of their travel/movement in 1:1 time.

Does the PC's travel all have to occur in the 1:1 downtime interval?

If one has a regular weekly session, a lot of travel would invariably be done during the variable game time session.

I have outside commitments - PC play has to occur at the scheduled time. The weekly session time cannot be a variable for me.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 03, 2023, 11:07:58 AM
During the next session of PC play, by coincidence, the travel times of the PCs and Tim's army overlap. PCs run into Overlord Tim's army and fight. The players win and flee. The DM informs Tim that his army was beaten and asks what he would like to do next. And so the game continues.

I agree this is absolutely straight forward.

Patron players must be willing to be run by the GM as NPC's when inevitable overlaps occur.

I'd assume they could give the GM some short notes on how they might act in specific situations - but must ultimately relinquish control when they cross paths with PC's during the weekly game session.

A big point of 1:1 time is you don't have a weekly session. You have sessions when your characters reach destinations. If it takes 2 weeks to reach the dungeon, then the session in the dungeon is in two weeks time. If you need to leave the dungeon and resupply that is also accounted for. So don't go into big dungeons that are far away from any means of resupply.

What this does is give the players the responsibility to schedule sessions. The players all decide half of them are busy next week so they should go somewhere that takes two weeks to travel when everyone is free. If someone can't make it than that player can be left behind in the village for the session. And the DM asks the PC what their character is doing whilst the player is absent. All the GM does is facilitate the player decisions in the sandbox. Which means players don't bitch at the GM for running the game on a Saturday which is never good for one guy or a Friday which is never good for another guy. The players all decide. The players get to bitch at one another as opposed to the GM and live with the consequences.

The point is, in order to keep things from going weird. Keep to 1:1 time. No exceptions. No abstractions for anyone doing anything. Even when play is happening it should at least roughly coincide with real time. If the session in the dungeon was 3 hours and 45 minutes. That's how much time has passed when they emerge from the dungeon. The rule of "Real time when no play is happening" is more there in the very unlikely chance you do have to abstract time. But I don't think I've ever run into something where I needed to do something. It's always just been real time.

Basically, if you can manage and understand the concept of time in the real world, you can plan and GM a 1:1 time campaign.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 07, 2023, 02:19:18 PM
A big point of 1:1 time is you don't have a weekly session. You have sessions when your characters reach destinations. If it takes 2 weeks to reach the dungeon, then the session in the dungeon is in two weeks time. If you need to leave the dungeon and resupply that is also accounted for. So don't go into big dungeons that are far away from any means of resupply.

What this does is give the players the responsibility to schedule sessions. ...

The point is, in order to keep things from going weird. Keep to 1:1 time. No exceptions. No abstractions for anyone doing anything. Even when play is happening it should at least roughly coincide with real time. If the session in the dungeon was 3 hours and 45 minutes. That's how much time has passed when they emerge from the dungeon. The rule of "Real time when no play is happening" is more there in the very unlikely chance you do have to abstract time. But I don't think I've ever run into something where I needed to do something. It's always just been real time.

Basically, if you can manage and understand the concept of time in the real world, you can plan and GM a 1:1 time campaign.

Well, that makes running 1:1 time this way impossible for me.

I have other outside interests and commitments. Game day is game day.

This went from the BrOSR's trying to convince people 1:1 time was RAW (it 'aint - show me the text) to all this BS meandering.

1:1 time IS NOT RAW. Gygax stated in the AD&D 1e DMG preface that the RAW material only applied to tournament play and what we did at our individual tables was up to us. Hell, Gary didn't even play D&D RAW.

And even though this was pointed out on page 1 of this thread ... IT continues. Feels like someone has a BrOSR agenda here 

QuoteA big point of 1:1 time is you don't have a weekly session. You have sessions when your characters reach destinations. If it takes 2 weeks to reach the dungeon, then the session in the dungeon is in two weeks time. If you need to leave the dungeon and resupply that is also accounted for. So don't go into big dungeons that are far away from any means of resupply.

But that's not point of 1:1 time. Your variant maybe but it has little to do with common concept discussed. In 1:1 OSR games, travel happen on session, according to travel rules.
And I think it's way more rational because travel in DnD can be eventful and if you push very eventful travel into time between sessions, that's kinda make travel boring and rules for it useless.
How you gonna react when during day 10 gods of dice will say party meet small army of pinkogoblins if you are scheduled to play in 3 weeks because you counted it takes 3 weeks to take to town.
That seems just castrating opportunities to play and world to live.

Quote from: Wrath of God on August 08, 2023, 10:30:06 AM

QuoteA big point of 1:1 time is you don't have a weekly session. You have sessions when your characters reach destinations. If it takes 2 weeks to reach the dungeon, then the session in the dungeon is in two weeks time. If you need to leave the dungeon and resupply that is also accounted for. So don't go into big dungeons that are far away from any means of resupply.

But that's not point of 1:1 time. Your variant maybe but it has little to do with common concept discussed. In 1:1 OSR games, travel happen on session, according to travel rules.
And I think it's way more rational because travel in DnD can be eventful and if you push very eventful travel into time between sessions, that's kinda make travel boring and rules for it useless.
How you gonna react when during day 10 gods of dice will say party meet small army of pinkogoblins if you are scheduled to play in 3 weeks because you counted it takes 3 weeks to take to town.
That seems just castrating opportunities to play and world to live.

Players: We have decided we are going to travel to the Emerald City.
DM: Okay fellows.  See you in 4 weeks.

Players: We want to build a castle now.
DM: Okay your next session will be in 3 years.

I cannot think of anything more stupid and retarded as 1:1 time.

Quote from: DocJones on August 08, 2023, 12:03:01 PM
Players: We have decided we are going to travel to the Emerald City.
DM: Okay fellows.  See you in 4 weeks.

Players: We want to build a castle now.
DM: Okay your next session will be in 3 years.

I cannot think of anything more stupid and retarded as 1:1 time.

   The assumption is that there are numerous other things happening in the world at that table or other tables, and that players will use other characters while the ones mentioned are in 'time jail.' Like so much of AD&D (at least as read by the BrOSR), it really seems to be built around the large-scale, multi-DM campaigns of the wargaming hobby club era.

   (Note that I have managed to be alienated by much of the BrOSR, Pundit and other OSR members, WotC, Paizo, and numerous others in the hobby/industry. I have no dog in this fight. )

Quote from: DocJones on August 08, 2023, 12:03:01 PM
Players: We have decided we are going to travel to the Emerald City.
DM: Okay fellows.  See you in 4 weeks.

Players: We want to build a castle now.
DM: Okay your next session will be in 3 years.

I cannot think of anything more stupid and retarded as 1:1 time.

Indeed, 1:1 time seems ridiculous to me. And inconsistent: How the hell do you run a round of combat in 6 or 10 or whatever seconds?

If I want to experience 1:1 time in a game, I will go LARPing.

Quote from: DocJones on August 08, 2023, 12:03:01 PM

Quote from: Wrath of God on August 08, 2023, 10:30:06 AM

QuoteA big point of 1:1 time is you don't have a weekly session. You have sessions when your characters reach destinations. If it takes 2 weeks to reach the dungeon, then the session in the dungeon is in two weeks time. If you need to leave the dungeon and resupply that is also accounted for. So don't go into big dungeons that are far away from any means of resupply.

But that's not point of 1:1 time. Your variant maybe but it has little to do with common concept discussed. In 1:1 OSR games, travel happen on session, according to travel rules.
And I think it's way more rational because travel in DnD can be eventful and if you push very eventful travel into time between sessions, that's kinda make travel boring and rules for it useless.
How you gonna react when during day 10 gods of dice will say party meet small army of pinkogoblins if you are scheduled to play in 3 weeks because you counted it takes 3 weeks to take to town.
That seems just castrating opportunities to play and world to live.

Players: We have decided we are going to travel to the Emerald City.
DM: Okay fellows.  See you in 4 weeks.

Players: We want to build a castle now.
DM: Okay your next session will be in 3 years.

I cannot think of anything more stupid and retarded as 1:1 time.

You have two options, don't do something so ambitious and time consuming. Or do it and play as other characters. The only people who really need castles are patrons. And the majority of the time they already have one or more when the game starts. Players can be gifted an existing castle or even get involved in a seige depending on how the game goes. But for the most part, trying to build a castle as a player is a complete non issue. No one does that. Why do detractors consistently seem to think if one character is doing something you can't just make more characters? In something like BECMI it's pretty easy to generate a new character in half an hour. If you know your character is going to be busy for a long period of time it should be obvious to just make new characters.

I get that the BrOSR are a distasteful lot with their twitter antics and obsession with gay porn but 1:1 time works as an option. AN OPTION. I decouple it completely from those closeted and obnoxious men. I don't believe it's "As Gygax intended". Nor the only way to play DnD. Yet people sometimes come into these discussions annoyed that people aren't playing DnD the way they want it. At the end of the day, you really don't have to play with 1:1 time. I won't force you. Nobody can. I just like discussing it as a concept because it's fun and I'm actually using it in a KotBL Savage Pathfinder campaign.   It's a cool idea for multi party campaigns. Lots of dynamic player driven stuff happens that you're just not going to see in regular games. And despite what some of you believe, you won't go for extended periods without playing the game so long as you're willing to make multiple characters. That's it. That's how you sort out the Time Jail. If you're worried players will make dozens of throw away characters, I find at best Players have three characters. No more. They have their main guy and two alts they can slot into when needed. It's not rocket science. It works well as is.

Quote from: DocJones on August 08, 2023, 12:03:01 PM
Players: We have decided we are going to travel to the Emerald City.
DM: Okay fellows.  See you in 4 weeks.

Players: We want to build a castle now.
DM: Okay your next session will be in 3 years.

I cannot think of anything more stupid and retarded as 1:1 time.

Gotta chime in on this one.

Because first of all, the subject of the thread is "How can 1:1 time work during a delve?" The subject is not "What's the stupidest, most retarded way of implementing 1:1 time?" As a technical matter, I take that to mean post something useful. Not post a random negative opinion.

But second, what you describe is just not what is in the rules as written. I realize BrOSR has muddied the waters on this. And that's where this idea of scheduling sessions comes in. It has nothing to do with the actual rule, though. That's just how they (BrOSR or anyone else who chooses to do it that way) manage a large-scale campaign.

1:1 time is a misleading term because the overall flow of time in a campaign is usually not going to be 1:1. You can always slow down and fast forward during play. The 1:1 applies during down time, keeping the flow of time in the campaign moving forward at a certain minimum basis. Adding to that the game-time that passes during play, over the course of playing a campaign for 3 years in real time, I'd expect somewhere around 20 years of in-game time to pass.

If you want to embark on a 3-year castle build--and this is something that actually did come up in a campaign when I was 12--what that actually means is regular adventuring and play for the next 3-8 months real time while the construction is ongoing. Some of those sessions will be the usual adventure stuff. But some of them could also address some need related to the construction. Building a castle provides ready-made motives and challenges.