Quote from: Old Aegidius on July 05, 2023, 02:08:54 AM

I know how to make this work if I keep 1:1 time restricted to downtime. I just can't make it make sense outside of downtime even though I've heard too many stories of people playing this way for it not to exist.

It doesn't make sense outside of downtime.  And you'll never see such a game being played for long.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 09, 2023, 12:50:03 PM

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.

I don't think it even works in delves.  I have characters spending hours prying gems off statutes, searching rooms and crypts, and then finally hurrying back to town after dark.  Spending 12-14 hours of delve time, 8 hours of travel time from town and back in four hours of real session time.  Furthermore if they decide it would be better to stay the night in the dungeon and barricade themselves in a room, when we pick up the session the next week we're going to begin where we left off and roll for that nights encounters... not pick up 7 days later.

Oh and another DM started a Shadowdark campaign with this rule that torches last one hour of session time, which I thought was silly..   No they last for one hour of game time.  So my player group above is going to go through 12-14 torches during their delve (perhaps more if they get some wet).

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 09, 2023, 12:50:03 PM
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.

To be honest I had just come back from reading this blogpost before my last post:
https://bdubsanddragons.blogspot.com/2021/07/jeffrogaxian-time-keeping-vs-variable.html
So apologies to others who are not retarded dickheads and argue these concepts in somewhat good faith. :-)

Quote from: DocJones on August 09, 2023, 05:57:21 PM
I don't think it even works in delves.

I've been doing it for about 30 years. And it does work.

QuoteI have characters spending hours prying gems off statutes, searching rooms and crypts, and then finally hurrying back to town after dark.  Spending 12-14 hours of delve time, 8 hours of travel time from town and back in four hours of real session time.  Furthermore if they decide it would be better to stay the night in the dungeon and barricade themselves in a room, when we pick up the session the next week we're going to begin where we left off and roll for that nights encounters... not pick up 7 days later.

You may have to go back a page or two, but my initial comment on this thread is you do have to figure out how to adapt the idea to how you play.

For myself, I just don't allow sleepovers in a dungeon. That has nothing to do with feeling like I need to conform to 1:1 time. It's for a completely different practical reason. Namely that in the real world, sometimes players miss a session, and I don't think that should hold up those who showed up. And I don't want to make up weird reasons why a character suddenly isn't with the party. Players often don't like someone else playing their character, especially when something bad happens to the character. And I really don't want another character to control myself. I've got enough to do as DM.

The thing is, when I started insisting on each session beginning and ending in town, I actually noticed player attendance improving. I think it's because players understand that they have a certain obligation to show up for the sake of continuity, and the sense of obligation can sour the fun. And so I find everyone has more fun, myself included, when I insist we always begin and end in town. A lot of the benefits I've heard Jeffro attribute to 1:1 time I actually think is more accurately attributable to always begin and end in town. End of side bar.


But if I were running delves more like you're doing it, I wouldn't advance the clock 7 days while the PCs are sleeping in the dungeon. I'll wait until they're completely finished with the delve and then tack on those 7 days to downtime between adventures. So if you played on Aug 5th, ended the session in the dungeon, then end up finishing it up on Aug 12 and head back to down, the campaign clock will move forward 2 weeks during the time between the Aug 12 session and the Aug 19 session.

QuoteOh and another DM started a Shadowdark campaign with this rule that torches last one hour of session time, which I thought was silly..   No they last for one hour of game time.  So my player group above is going to go through 12-14 torches during their delve (perhaps more if they get some wet).

*shrugs*

For a couple of years I was doing a "multi-player solo dungeon"--this involved all players running their own solo game using DMG Appendix A with the twist being that we're all doing it on the same map. So we can party up, split up, et cetera. It allows a lot of freedoms that aren't so practical in standard play. In order to keep everyone coordinated time-wise, everyone used a hand-counter, one click for each round of activity. And the table also has a sand-timer. It was a 15-minute timer, in which everyone got 30 clicks. When you got to 30, you had to stop and wait for everyone to catch-up. But if you don't use your 30 clicks before the sand runs out, you lose the rest. The idea is so no one gets too far ahead in time, and no one holds the entire group back too much in time.

These time intervals worked usually worked out pretty smoothly. Obviously you're not going to resolve a 10-round combat in just 5 minutes. But your very next action might be searching the room, which is a 10-round action resolved in a single die roll, and so it usually balances out.

The torches had a half-hour burn time in-game. So every flip of the sand-timer (every 15 minutes real time) used up a torch. Instead of a 1 in 6 chance of a wandering monster every hour, we did a 1 in 12 chance for each half-hour of game time (15 minutes of real time). It made everything really easy to track.

Now this has absolutely nothing at all to do with 1:1 time which only applies between sessions, not during. But it does share the same stated purposes as the section in the DMG on timekeeping where 1:1 time is mentioned.

QuoteTo be honest I had just come back from reading this blogpost before my last post:
https://bdubsanddragons.blogspot.com/2021/07/jeffrogaxian-time-keeping-vs-variable.html
So apologies to others who are not retarded dickheads and argue these concepts in somewhat good faith. :-)

Yeah. I mean, hey, I think these guys are having a lot of fun with how they're playing. It sounds like they've drummed up some good excitement and energy, and I'm 100% in favor of that.

I do think it's a bit disingenuous when they insist their interpretation of 1:1 time is *the* interpretation. I think Jeffro read the section, was inspired, did his own thing, and then did a post-hoc justification.

I also think whether it was intentional from the jump or something he just stumbled upon, he's aware that he's getting attention by painting a bullseye around 1:1 time and insisting it's BtB. He views 1:1 time as something he uniquely rediscovered. And he's correct to a degree. Even though I've been using it for 30 years, I don't recall anyone else ever talking about it before Jeffro started talking about it. It's good casting in terms of having an obscure and arcane rule to hang your hat on. It does generate recoil from gamers who haven't thought it through--and almost no one has.

And playing strictly by the book itself is weirdly a hot-button issue. I play 1E exactly by the book because I happen to really like every last bit of it. And I frequently get reactions from other gamers that by my merely enjoying the rules as written that I'm somehow telling others how to play. It's such a strange disconnect, it only ever comes off like stinking of insecurity and envy. And that insecurity and envy is really low-hanging fruit for generating heat.

Jeffro's problem is that he comes across not so much as "here's a good way to play," or even "here's the best way to play" or "here's the One True Way to Play", but "here's the Only Way to be a gamer, a contributor to Western Civilization, a good Christian, and a human being."

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 10, 2023, 12:51:42 AM

I've been doing it for about 30 years. And it does work.

So, start of gaming session:

PC's: "we want to ride to Moronberg about 50 miles away.:

DM:  "Ok, we'll meet up to play again in 2 days and 6 hours from now."

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 10, 2023, 09:21:30 AM
Jeffro's problem is that he comes across not so much as "here's a good way to play," or even "here's the best way to play" or "here's the One True Way to Play", but "here's the Only Way to be a gamer, a contributor to Western Civilization, a good Christian, and a human being."

Maybe. I don't really follow the guy. The thing of it is, I see claims by gamers that others are telling them how to play far, far, far, far more often than I ever see anyone actually saying you have to play a certain way. So I'm inclined to not believe this without receipts. And for all the bitching about this guy I've seen, I haven't seen receipts. Maybe this guy is one of the rare weirdos who do this shit. If this guy is really that bad, it shouldn't be that hard to find and post clear receipts without any murky context.

Quote from: Scooter on August 10, 2023, 09:52:53 AM
So,

No.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 10, 2023, 11:12:04 AM

Quote from: Scooter on August 10, 2023, 09:52:53 AM
So,

No.

Exactly my point.  HUGELY restricted game play.

Quote from: Scooter on August 10, 2023, 09:52:53 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 10, 2023, 12:51:42 AM

I've been doing it for about 30 years. And it does work.

So, start of gaming session:

PC's: "we want to ride to Moronberg about 50 miles away.:

DM:  "Ok, we'll meet up to play again in 2 days and 6 hours from now."

You don't need a whole session just to do that. The DM simply messages the players asking what to do on your chosen internet messaging platform. The players respond. And everyone knows they need to turn up IRL or on Discord in 2 days time. It's really simple. If you know you're only going to be in a place for a little while you don't schedule a whole session around it you just do some messages on Discord to tell each other what you want to do. It works when you understand it's a sandbox world with dynamic player choices and the consequences of those choices. And real time = game time. The end. Not complicated.

It's frustrating that the only people who are adamant it doesn't work are those refusing to even try it. To the point of making up scenarios that "prove" it doesn't work.  I've been running a real time game for around 6 months now with 10 rambunctious and very intelligent kids ranging from 8 - 16 years old. They get it. They don't need it explained multiple times. They understand that they need to manage their time in sessions. They clocked on that they needed multiple characters without me even telling them. They're even planning a castle siege as we speak to get rid of the goblins who've taken the Keep on the Borderlands. It's been very cool and rewarding to see them get into the swing of sandbox play with 1:1 time. I'm telling you all from experience that it works and doesn't need any tinkering to go well. But people without experience of this are telling me that 1:1 time is terrible and doesn't work.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 10, 2023, 02:08:40 PM

You don't need a whole session just to do that. The DM simply messages the players asking what to do on your chosen internet messaging platform.

LMAO!  No, that's cheating and moving the goal posts.  HUGE fucking fail.  AT THE FUCKING TABLE is where it is tested to work or not.  Get it, or are you really this stupid? And who the fuck knows if the players are only going to be somewhere for a few minutes?  You don't.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 10, 2023, 02:08:40 PM
It's frustrating that the only people who are adamant it doesn't work are those refusing to even try it. To the point of making up scenarios that "prove" it doesn't work.

I don't need to actually stick my hand in a blender to know it's not a good idea. There are fact patterns where it's perfectly reasonable to not even try.

The thing about this one is, if it makes sense to you and I, and if we use it and it works, then it makes sense, period. It works, period. Those are objective facts. When people claim it doesn't make sense, that only means they lack the ability to understand it. When people claim it doesn't work, that means they don't know how it works. There is no argument that can refute it when there are observable instances of it working with an internal logic. The only tact a dissenter has left is to pretend what's happening isn't happening.

Which is why it's not just made up scenarios. When I think a rule is really cool, I welcome oddball cases to put it to the test. That's not what these people are doing. They are making up scenarios while also insisting on how they must be resolved. All that does is show just how desperate and weak the con position is.

It doesn't mean they have to like it. They just need to be honest enough to say it's a great rule even if it's not how they prefer to play. I don't get what the big deal is.

QuoteI've been running a real time game for around 6 months now with 10 rambunctious and very intelligent kids ranging from 8 - 16 years old. They get it. They don't need it explained multiple times. They understand that they need to manage their time in sessions. They clocked on that they needed multiple characters without me even telling them. They're even planning a castle siege as we speak to get rid of the goblins who've taken the Keep on the Borderlands. It's been very cool and rewarding to see them get into the swing of sandbox play with 1:1 time. I'm telling you all from experience that it works and doesn't need any tinkering to go well. But people without experience of this are telling me that 1:1 time is terrible and doesn't work.

Glad to hear you're all having fun.

And that's just it. People act like 1E is full of obscure and mysterious rules. The fact is, me and millions of other people played this game as kids. If that many kids can figure it out, it's really not all that hard to understand. Gamers just too often allow their pettiness to get in the way of seeing clearly.

Quote from: Scooter on August 10, 2023, 04:25:49 PM

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 10, 2023, 02:08:40 PM

You don't need a whole session just to do that. The DM simply messages the players asking what to do on your chosen internet messaging platform.

LMAO!  No, that's cheating and moving the goal posts.  HUGE fucking fail.  AT THE FUCKING TABLE is where it is tested to work or not.  Get it, or are you really this stupid? And who the fuck knows if the players are only going to be somewhere for a few minutes?  You don't.

It's been a while since I've read the 1e DMG. Since you've clearly read it more than I have, if you could just point me to the part of it that says you aren't allowed to use 1:1 time via mail and have to do absolutely everything on the table I would be most grateful.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 13, 2023, 01:12:41 PM
It's been a while since I've read the 1e DMG. Since you've clearly read it more than I have, if you could just point me to the part of it that says you aren't allowed to use 1:1 time via mail and have to do absolutely everything on the table I would be most grateful.

In AD&D 1st edition it took on average 3 days to send and receive mail.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 13, 2023, 01:12:41 PM
It's been a while since I've read the 1e DMG. Since you've clearly read it more than I have, if you could just point me to the part of it that says you aren't allowed to use 1:1 time via mail and have to do absolutely everything on the table I would be most grateful.

I think what you're missing is that it was a trick question all along. Pay close attention to the details. He was saying he wanted to travel to Moronberg. Obviously he's already there.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 10, 2023, 09:21:30 AM
Jeffro's problem is that he comes across not so much as "here's a good way to play," or even "here's the best way to play" or "here's the One True Way to Play", but "here's the Only Way to be a gamer, a contributor to Western Civilization, a good Christian, and a human being."

Theres a rather scathing commentary on this now.

https://archive.ph/0ZxRN

Quote from: DocJones on August 13, 2023, 07:45:10 PM

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 13, 2023, 01:12:41 PM
It's been a while since I've read the 1e DMG. Since you've clearly read it more than I have, if you could just point me to the part of it that says you aren't allowed to use 1:1 time via mail and have to do absolutely everything on the table I would be most grateful.

In AD&D 1st edition it took on average 3 days to send and receive mail.

I was just generalizing. I watched the Blackmoore documentary and even though it didn't mention 1:1 exactly, from what I understand back in the 70's there was a lot of correspondence between RPG players through telephone and some mail. I also recently met up with my very first GM for the first time in nearly 15 years and he did a 1:1 game many years ago. So he's been telling me some tricks they learned to correspond with each other before the Internet.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 13, 2023, 10:54:30 PM

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 13, 2023, 01:12:41 PM
It's been a while since I've read the 1e DMG. Since you've clearly read it more than I have, if you could just point me to the part of it that says you aren't allowed to use 1:1 time via mail and have to do absolutely everything on the table I would be most grateful.

I think what you're missing is that it was a trick question all along. Pay close attention to the details. He was saying he wanted to travel to Moronberg. Obviously he's already there.

I understood it was a trick question. But I still don't understand by what rules and logic I "cheated" when I said that posting messages on discord is a perfectly valid way to reduce unnecessary sessions. I realize I'm just dealing with a troll trying to "catch me out" with standards they keep changing until eventually they are proven right. But I feel the more I explain things and the more I ask questions they can't answer in good faith, the more they are exposed as Billy Bullshiters arguing in bad faith. But I still feel the need to have good faith conversations about 1:1 time. I find the concept so fascinating and love to hear people's opinions even if they disagree. Because through those disagreements I can learn what I previously didn't see that doesn't work with 1:1 time and needs adjusting.