💾 Archived View for ttrpgs.com › gen › realtime.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 02:43:09. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
RPG Vloggers chatting about Gygax note on real-world time-synchronization have got me thinking about really using this rule. In case you haven't heard the idea - Gygax demanded that every day which passes in the real-world, one day passes in the game. The troupe starts and ends their games somewhere safe, like a tavern in town.
RPG Vloggers chatting about Gygax note on real-world time-synchronization
It sounds like a bizarre concept at first, but when you view it from another angle, it makes perfect sense.
When I think about this the unintended (but workable) side-effect of solving schedule-faff, it makes perfect sense. Besides 'problem players', getting five people to arrive at the same time every week may be the most common and pernicious problem in RPGs.
Instead of having a dedicated group who always work together, the group heads out for a mission depending upon what happens at the table.
Let's say the cast of Friends join an RPG game (with Gunther as the DM). On week one, all the players arrive, make characters, and begin some short mission in town.
With different characters wandering in and out of the spotlight, it becomes clear why Gygax was keen on time-keeping. His quote in full (from Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 37):
Game time is of utmost importance. Failure to keep careful track of time expenditure by player characters will result in many anomalies in the game. The stricture of time is what makes recovery of hit points meaningful. Likewise, the time spent adventuring in wilderness areas removes concerned characters from their bases of operations – be they rented chambers or battlemented strongholds. Certainly the most important time strictures pertains to the manufacturing of magic items, for during the period of such activity no adventuring can be done. Time is also considered in gaining levels and learning new languages and more. All of these demands upon game time force choices upon player characters and likewise number their days of game life...YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT.
I've never played a game which uses these rules, but I really want to. Even if it has problems, I want to see those problems. Until then, I can only guess at the problems, and solutions.
Sometimes a session simply has to end. If the party finds itself imprisoned, caught deep underground, or simply too engaged in their current task to retreat, they may simply not be able to venture forth. I few solutions present themselves:
At the very least, players should all clearly understand that they have limited time, and must return to safety soon or risk real consequences.
Real Downtime fits in rather nicely with characters who need to research, investigate, or do other things, but some things require more Downtime. Characters can't be expected to grow, learn, and gain awesome magical powers if the Campaign only lasts four months. The game needs longer Downtime periods here and there.
I don't think this poses a challenge - the DM can simply call for a longer Downtime when everyone in the Campaign seems ready. If opportunities present rarely, that doesn't seem much of a problem - two stints of 'two years pass', within a four-month Campaign means that the Campaign lasts four and a half years.
Alternatively, I don't see why a group couldn't use '1 week real time = 1 month game time'. It means a troupe can decide to sit, and rest, for a week or two in the middle of a game.
┌───────────┬───────────┐ │ Real Time │ Game Time │ ╞═══════════╪═══════════╡ │ 1 week │ 1 month │ ├───────────┼───────────┤ │ 3 weeks │ 3 months │ ├───────────┼───────────┤ │ 6 months │ 2 years │ ├───────────┼───────────┤ │ 1 year │ 4 years │ └───────────┴───────────┘
Real-time passing between sessions means that sessions will lose their dramatic cliff-hanger endings (at least if things according to plan). I simply don't see a problem here. If each session is good, players will return. If someone doesn't feel invested in the Campaign as a whole, the cliffhanger won't save it.
I suspect this old-school time-keeping will subtly change group dynamics. With various characters switching here and there in order to go on different missions, they won't feel so tied together. They will be less 'family on the road with a single, common, goal', and more 'professional treasure-hunters who team up whenever they have to'.
A lot of my BIND games simply began, and continued. The players already had a solid idea of what they needed to do to continue their missions. But with a bunch of randomers meeting in the tavern all the time, it seems that each session must begin anew with a plot-hook. Clearly, the 'old man in the tavern gives you a mission' trope will have to see some resurgence if every session demands a new, shiny, hook.
Of course, this doesn't solve groups not showing up entirely. Some minimum must arrive - and personally I couldn't see myself running a session with fewer than three people.
The systems clearly worked for Gygax' A,D&D Campaigns well enough, but what about other systems?
Could a Vampire: The Masquerade Chronicle play out with a heap of players running around in a city, coming together for easy missions? I think this would work out fine. Each troupe would talk and coordinate. Coteries could not be so close-knit, but as long as each group of Cainites maintains enough common-interest to work with each other, I don't see a problem. And plenty of common-interest hooks present themselves - Sabbat incursions, common sires, encroaching garou, or elders imposing strict laws which affect all neonates.
It looks like a promising move. I still don't know how it might interact with my 'Story Weaving' style of writing, but I think it could do well. I feel like organizing a new Campaign just to see how it turns out.