Quote from: Jason Coplen on April 10, 2022, 09:06:44 PM
"Explain it to me like I'm Venger" 

Because Venger prefers succinct and understandishable communication!

QuoteThat's what I thought.

Sounds like a great idea, for anyone who doesn't have a life outside of AD&D.

Even if I can play 8 hours every day as dayjob for 20 grand a month, I'd never limit myself in such terrible fashion.

QuoteHe's a guy who's an AD&D RAW purist, saying you need to play 100% by the book AD&D to play true D&D, that this is what Gygax intended and what leads to the best games.

I hate him already.

Quote from: Wrath of God on April 12, 2022, 03:18:21 PM

QuoteThat's what I thought.

Sounds like a great idea, for anyone who doesn't have a life outside of AD&D.

Even if I can play 8 hours every day as day job for 20 grand a month, I'd never limit myself in such terrible fashion.

20 grand a month? That amount of money might make me dance to their tune, but not for long.

I saw the first hour of the video and I thought to myself that that guy has got to be kidding and it has to be a parody.

That Jaffo guy would be horrible to game with.

Quote20 grand a month? That amount of money might make me dance to their tune, but not for long.

I mean I'm in Poland, so it's worth closer to 60 grand in actual buyer power. STILL. NOT. ENOUGH

Quote from: Wrath of God on April 13, 2022, 12:09:27 PM

Quote20 grand a month? That amount of money might make me dance to their tune, but not for long.

I mean I'm in Poland, so it's worth closer to 60 grand in actual buyer power. STILL. NOT. ENOUGH

I'm not saying that I can be bought. I'm just saying that I can be rented for the right price.

Well yes, but is there really difference between rent and bought in Jeffro system.

I think the only time I have seen 1:1 time system working is way back in the late 70's when people were playing D&D every chance they could get (every day at school for me). Multiple groups playing at different times - one group play once a week and another groups plays once every two weeks - would be a nightmare to keep in sync. I would only do it if I could put those groups on other sides of the world were I knew they couldn't interact with each other. The rest of stuff sounds like he is grandstanding at playing a purer form of AD&D than anyone else. It's kind of pointless, since Gygax dumped the AD&D rules and went back to his house rules. Plus, some rules for things like unarmed combat and morale are just garbage. He is still stuck in the same mindset as us kids back in the 70s and 80s. If we read the rules just one more time , if we just used as many rules as possible, then the magic would happen.   

Quote from: zend0g on April 13, 2022, 08:10:16 PM
I think the only time I have seen 1:1 time system working is way back in the late 70's when people were playing D&D every chance they could get (every day at school for me). Multiple groups playing at different times - one group play once a week and another groups plays once every two weeks - would be a nightmare to keep in sync. I would only do it if I could put those groups on other sides of the world were I knew they couldn't interact with each other. The rest of stuff sounds like he is grandstanding at playing a purer form of AD&D than anyone else. It's kind of pointless, since Gygax dumped the AD&D rules and went back to his house rules. Plus, some rules for things like unarmed combat and morale are just garbage. He is still stuck in the same mindset as us kids back in the 70s and 80s. If we read the rules just one more time , if we just used as many rules as possible, then the magic would happen.

It's definitely unfeasible unless you're like, in a college dorm or something and everyone can just come play all the time whenever.

But I am doing something similar that reaps the same benefits, but without being as intense -- just move time forward 2 weeks after every session and have players tell you what they do in between. Some people might be in the "future" but the others will catch up eventually.

With the understanding that my interest is only with core 1E (I'm not a fan of UA, weapon specialization, and so forth), I will put my BtB fu against literally anyone in the world. I actually did take the time to sit down and read the 1E DMG repeatedly when I was a teen, and I took the time to understand it, before ever even being exposed to the internet. So now I've been running core 1E BtB for 30 years.

I think I probably usually agree with Pundit, and based on what I've heard about Jeffro, I was inclined to disagree with him. But as for as what was discussed here, I'm probably leaning 80/20 in favor of Jeffro. 1E rules actually are a great set of tools that if you choose to use them can improve your game a lot. When Jeffro repeats the line about being as much fun as possible for as many people as possible for as long a time as possible, I'm in agreement insofar as the importance of that line. That's the one line I would say sums up the mission statement of 1E. Pundit's "history" view of 1E being for tournament play is bogus, and I'm glad jeffro pushed back on that, and I think on that point at least Jeffro articulated it very well.

That said, Jeffro is most certainly wrong on the 1:1 thing. It's the DMG that has the sentence in all caps emphasizing the importance of time-keeping in the campaign. But in that very same section it spends a lot of time spelling out an example where the campaign is clearly not running on 1:1 time. There's nothing about what Jeffro is doing that is expressly against the rules either. Near as I can tell, he's certainly running a campaign that fits under the umbrella of RAW. But it's definitely not the only RAW way to play.

For me, I do use what the "1:1" passage actually suggests--when there is no active play, I assume 1 game day passes (at least) for every actual day. I've done this since 1992 because that's when I read that in the book, not 2020 when Jeffro claims to have coined the term after discovering this long-lost concept because I don't follow him at all. The reason I've done this is because I want to keep time flowing. During actually play, in a session, you could easily bang out a month+ of game time. As Pundit suggests, if everyone is caught up temporally and engaged in activity that takes an extended amount of time, we can and do fast forward to the point where those characters can play again.

I go with the flow, but what I like to see is roughly time flowing at a longrun average rate of at least 5 game days for every 1 real day. There's a reason I try to do this. And it has to do with the rules as written. Ask yourself--and Jeffro should be asking himself this for sure. Why did Gary plot out all the different lifespans of the different races, including tables for starting age and effects of aging? Gary has Grey Elves living ~2000 years. No one ever has, and I'm assuming no one ever will, run a campaign that lasts 2000 years of real time. So what's the point? When could this ever possibly be used if game time weren't meant to flow substantially faster than real time?


The #1 point I would speak on, though, is the meaning of the afterward in the DMG. I feel as though the hierarchy on which Jeffro hangs his hat--the game first, campaign second, players third. I do not think that actually means that the rules presented therein must come first, the DM's opinion mattering only second.

Rather, I think the reading is more like this: Let's say, fine. I concede. Every DM can do whatever they want. We set that issue 100% aside. You can no longer respond "muh game muh rulez." We're taking this entire debate off the table by conceding the point. The inevitable question becomes, Okay, tough guy. So how exactly are you going to run your game? How are you going to run things in such a way that it doesn't instantly break down? How are you going to run it so it has broad enough appeal to captivate the diverse assortment of players and opinions that you mgiht find present at your game table? How are you going to run it that also maintains your own interest, so you don't suffer from DM burnout? How are you going to run it that people will actually want to come back to play it again and again for the long term?

There's not going to be any one single right answer to these questions. But as every DM who has ever had enough respect for their players to actually try to improve on their game surely knows, it is a lot easier to do it wrong than it is to do it right--there may not be a one right way, there are many, it's just the number of possible wrong ways (in the "if you're not having fun you're playing wrong" sense of wrong) is far greater. So if you manage to even find one out of several possible right answers, that is no trivial thing. That would be worth putting down in a book, and it would be worth adhering to for most people if they know what's good for them.

I'd put this question to Jeffro and those who agree with him. He's conceded that sometimes the DM must make rulings--that there are areas where the rules are silent. So no matter where you fall on this debate, everyone is in the same boat of having to adjudicate at some point. So how do you do it?

I know for me, if a player wants to try something that isn't in the rules, the first two things I'm thinking is, on the one hand, I don't want to be so generous as to the results that they do this again and again and again to the point of abuse. But nor do I want to be so much of a naysayer that a perfectly reasonable sounding thing never works, or that players are discouraged from being creative. So I want to make sure that if allowed this won't dominate everything, but that it won't be restricted to the point of being pointless either. Next, ask myself how I can rule in a way that is thematically appropriate. It should fit the tone, mood, and style of the overall campaign. If after this I have any question on what is the most reasonable call, I tend to side with what would make the players the most happy as my third tier of consideration.

If this seems reasonable to you, or if on reflection you realize this is pretty much the same thing you do, or what any reasonable DM would do, congratulations. You just adhered to the Gygaxian Holy Trinity. You put the game first by making sure the thing wasn't too overpowered or too underpowered. You put the campaign second by making sure the ruling has the right feel. And you put the players third by considering their desires if your ruling was still unclear at that point.

And that's how I take that passage. It's not finger wagging saying, "You better follow all these rules!" To the contrary, the sentence right before tells you not to allow any barracks room lawyer to bully you into putting the letter of the rules over the spirit of the game. Rather, what it's saying is, "Hey, this is one DM to another. We're equal peers, so I know you're going to do your thing. But if you're ever not sure what to do, put the overall game first, your campaign second, and the players desires third and you'll be golden." That shouldn't be controversial. That's just plain good sound advice.


Finaly a point that I always have to bring up when it comes to playing RAW/BtB. The rulebook does specifically instruct DMs that they can add, alter, or abolish rules. And they are specifically given the job of adjudicator. This is no trivial thing. I'm a big fan of SJG's Illuminati Card game. It has a neat optional rule that allows cheating. If you make an illegal move and nobody calls you on it before the end of your turn, it becomes legal. This is an actual rule, and you probably imagine even without playing how that rule would affect the tone and flow of the game. It's not some throw-away thing just because you can't predict how exactly players will take advantage of it. You can't just say it's all a wash. It matters. And so I'd say the same is true when you have this weird sort of game that is the RPG that tells DMs they can make stuff up.

Sure, some DMs will use this unwisely in one way or another. We can't predict that exactly. But what it does tell us if nothing else is that the rules are not sacrosanct. And if nothing else, it's a wise bet that any time the rules make no sense at all for a particular thing that is happening in the game that that's an area the DM is highly likely to adjudicate. So if you know what's good for you, you focus more on having your character behave in a way that is reasonable according to the logic of the situation rather than the one that is most advantageous in the letter of the rules. If this helps get advantage-seeking players to view the game less like a game of chess and more like a game of immersive imagination, all the better. Having those rules-breaking rules serves a purpose. They have a substantial impact on the tone and feel of the game. And any DM who is in derelict of their duty as adjudicator is most certainly violating the instructions of the rules, even if the abdicate that role in favor of running according to the black-and-white text.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 13, 2022, 11:35:44 PMFor me, I do use what the "1:1" passage actually suggests--when there is no active play, I assume 1 game day passes (at least) for every actual day. I've done this since 1992 because that's when I read that in the book, not 2020 when Jeffro claims to have coined the term after discovering this long-lost concept because I don't follow him at all. The reason I've done this is because I want to keep time flowing. During actually play, in a session, you could easily bang out a month+ of game time. As Pundit suggests, if everyone is caught up temporally and engaged in activity that takes an extended amount of time, we can and do fast forward to the point where those characters can play again.

I do this too, and I think Jeffro would say that it's implied in the text by looking at how Gary Gygax actually played the game at home -- he cites a few times the fact that Gygax was apparently doing 1:1 time in his home games back in the day.

Now, I have a question. What do you do if the session ends while the party is in a dungeon or something? Do you freeze the time progression until they get out, do you handwave them leaving, do you do something else? Situations that need to be frozen in time don't play well that way. Or do you just have them escape next time then "catch up" time by skipping ahead the amount that passed IRL?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on April 14, 2022, 03:22:08 AMWhat do you do if the session ends while the party is in a dungeon or something? Do you freeze the time progression until they get out, do you handwave them leaving, do you do something else? Situations that need to be frozen in time don't play well that way. Or do you just have them escape next time then "catch up" time by skipping ahead the amount that passed IRL?

You have to get back to town to "bank" treasure before you get any experience at all (and in AD&D treasure is where almost all your experience comes from), and since you don't know who's coming next week, players typically head back to town. Those people who have enough XP to level then pay for training and spend time training, those who don't have enough XP/GP to train have to go back out to earn more of either or both.

Another reason to head back is that once you've filled your backpacks and sacks with treasure (again, tracking encumbrance is part of the rules, so we keep track of that and the consequences of it add greatly to the game), you have to head back to unload your burdens and either spend it, bank it (if available), or convert it into a light, easily portable form (gems, usually).

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on April 14, 2022, 03:22:08 AM
I do this too, and I think Jeffro would say that it's implied in the text by looking at how Gary Gygax actually played the game at home -- he cites a few times the fact that Gygax was apparently doing 1:1 time in his home games back in the day.

Now, I have a question. What do you do if the session ends while the party is in a dungeon or something? Do you freeze the time progression until they get out, do you handwave them leaving, do you do something else? Situations that need to be frozen in time don't play well that way. Or do you just have them escape next time then "catch up" time by skipping ahead the amount that passed IRL?

If we absolutely must, we freeze time. But I do everything possible to avoid that.

When I was in college, there were tons of gamers around. But everyone had different class schedules, and project due dates and exams and so sometimes players would cancel last minute. That made it really difficult to just stop any old place then pick right up where we left off because one of the players might not be there next time. If it was a really pivotal moment in the campaign and the missing player was super important to the story, we might just have to play something else instead. Nothing unusual hear. Most gamers can tell similar war stories. But I felt it really started to wear on the campaign.

And so to solve for that problem, I said, "Okay. We're getting back to basics. We're going to do mostly dungeon crawls. Every session begins and ends in town. Whoever shows up shows up, and we play." A lot of people scoffed at that because this was the 90's, dungeon crawls were for kids, and everything was about story and "real role playing" back then.

But the darnedest thing happened. Everyone started having more fun. Even those for whom this wasn't their style. Not only that, more and more people kept joining the group. And not only that, suddenly people weren't missing games due to projects or exams. Because it turns out real life doesn't actually get in the way of gaming nearly as much as we think.

In other words, I experienced all the same positive results that Jeffro talks about. But I don't necessarily attribute that to playing RAW per se. And I don't attribute it to 1:1 time at all. I attribute it to the begin in town, end in town motif. I think there are a few reasons for it. First, players feel less obligated to show up. The feeling of obligation can be a terrible thing when you're doing something that's supposed to be fun. Second, players know the game is going to go on regardless. Imagine how much it sucks to pass up the opportunity to do something else to make the game only to find out we're doing Munchkin night instead because a key player didn't show up. How will that affect your decision the next time you have to choose between the game or something else? Third, knowing the game is going to go on, some players are going to wonder what they're missing. In today's social media addicted culture, we've actually got the term FOMO. So this part of it should be more powerful than ever.

I can pretty easily see why Jeffro attributes his success to the 1:1 method. Because if you're strict about the 1:1 and won't ever freeze time, then you're in a way forcing the start in town, end in town motif. And all the good results follow from that.

I caught up and watched the stream.  This whole "BrOSR" thing is new to me so I felt like... maybe going into the stream people might have been expected to know more about it than I did, so I was missing context.  I might browse some forums now and then, but I'm not on twitter and really don't pay much attention to RPGS and the drama around them, outside of listening to some podcasts.

And I did see the blog linked in the stream, but its not like there's a good "FAQ/About" section saying what BrOSR is.  My basic assumption is that it always tries to stick to 1:1 timekeeping and all the rules in the book? I feel like there weren't enough questions going over exactly what it means. Maybe Jeffro should start a youtube channel and just make a video about what it is to be BrOSR.

It also seemed like some things were toung-in-cheek? Or maybe he was serious? It's hard to tell. I do think it would be interesting to have him on again to talk more about it. I think letting players have some control of factions is a good idea.

I saw some people wondering like.. "what do you do when your party is spending 7 days traveling? stop playing and wait until they're there?"   am I the only one who was thinking about alternative things that could be done?  For instance, I know there are games where people have a pool of characters to choose to play with, why wouldn't it also be possible to have 2 or 3 different adventuring groups that players could control?  When 1-2 of the adventuring parties are traveling, 1-2 might be available to actually run an adventure?  That's just one idea of how to keep playing while waiting for 1 group to travel, I'm sure other ideas could pop up.

I think there are probably some good ideas that can be mined for other gaming experiences, probably without such a harsh edge? Although since I'm like.. disconnected I really don't see the harsh edge or understand why people are upset. 

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on April 11, 2022, 12:02:51 AMWhen there's no discussion of the substance of what they're endorsing, there's no debate or understanding. Kinda disappointing.

Yeah. I had to stop 45 minutes in when it was clear that there was no effort being made by the Inappropriate Characters crew to actually try and understand what Jeffro was saying.