Game Time and Real Time

[Quasqueton]

Does strategy/tactics talk happen “outside of” game time?

The PCs are standing outside the BBEG’s chamber. They have their buffs up (few minutes left on the durations). The BBEG is summoning a big bad monster (just needs a few more minutes).

If the Players start discussing strategy and tactics, does game time slow down or stop? If the Players spend half an hour talking out their assault plans, maybe even arguing over it, does game time wait for them? Do their PCs’ buffs stay on? Does the BBEG’s summoning delay? Are the *PCs* quietly paused at the door while the Players hash out the operation?

Or does game time continue when the Players start talking strategy and tactics? Do the PCs’ buffs run out? Does the BBEG finish his summoning? Can the PCs be overheard talking out their plans?

Quasqueton

 

[KB9JMQ]

In that situation the BBEG time is slower relative to the PC's. He will normally have time to finish all his summonings/spells/plans since my PC will argue strategy to the days end.

I don't have their buffs run out or such things but the BBEG isn't bickering around with other people so he is able to actually get stuff done.

Mostly my group gets a buff or two going then discuss then forget to buff more and charge in.

 

[el-remmen]

Not only does time continue as the PCs discuss - but even in the middle of combat - PCs can only speak on their turn and are only allowed about six seconds (10 words or less) of instructions and sometimes I will call for Listen checks to hear what another PCs said if you are in the midst of the heat of battle.

 

[Vorput]

My players aren't trained combat specialists who've fought dragons, faced death together, and work as a seamlessly oiled team.

My player's characters however, ARE. For this reason- I allow quite a bit of strategy to be discussed, basically due to the fact that this is what the PCs eat, drink, and breathe. A wizard with even a 16 intelligence should be able to come up with all the pros and cons of a given plan in a few seconds... and most wizards have a 18+ int. And that needs to be represented somehow. A fighter trains for years on battle tactics- my players work 9-5 jobs. I assume the PCs spend quite a bit of time when they're sleeping, or sitting around the campfire discussing strategy- I'm not going to penalize my players for not gaming 24/7.

Vorp

 

[Quasqueton]

I’ve always assumed, as a DM and as a Player, that when the Players/PCs start talking plans, the game world time was continuing as normal. It never occurred to me that anyone would expect the game world time to slow down or stop. I’ve many times seen Players say, “Hurry up, our spells won’t last much longer.” Or “Let’s move, he’ll get that gate open soon.” I’ve never talked with anyone who seemed to think that game time changed for this situation.

Of course, the game time to real time ratio changes by necessity of working with game mechanics when we get into combat rounds. It also changes when we explicitly fast forward hours, days, or months.

But when the Players/PCs are talking, about strategies, plans, or just gabbing about the weather, game time flows the same as real time.

I’m asking this question because I’ve been told that I was enforcing unexpected “table rules” when I didn’t slow game time down to accommodate the Players talking out plans. (These comments came from this board, not from any of my Players.) I told the Players they had about 30 minutes before a spell duration ended, and then they talked plans for 40 minutes. When I had the spell end (technically, after a one-round warning), bad things happened. And the result of those bad things have been attributed to my “table rules” of game time = real time.

I never thought that considering game time = real time, unless explicitly stated otherwise, was not the norm and expected.

Quasqueton

 

[BlackMoria]

I allow a certain amount of OOC discussion as the players plan, during which 'time' in game is 'suspended'. That is because they are playing characaters, they are not their characters so I make allowances because there is always someone who wants to check a rule or spell description or whatever.

However, once they get a basic plan sketched out, I let them know they are 'on the clock' and that if at that point they wish to continue to debate or discuss their option, they do at the risk of time progressing and the BBEG doing something or another in that time.

Keeps the players focused and once they are the clock, minimizes protracted discussion and argument and the game goes on and doesn't bog down.

 

[el-remmen]

I’m asking this question because I’ve been told that I was enforcing unexpected “table rules” when I didn’t slow game time down to accommodate the Players talking out plans. (These comments came from this board, not from any of my Players.) I told the Players they had about 30 minutes before a spell duration ended, and then they talked plans for 40 minutes. When I had the spell end (technically, after a one-round warning), bad things happened. And the result of those bad things have been attributed to my “table rules” of game time = real time.

I never thought that considering game time = real time, unless explicitly stated otherwise, was not the norm and expected.

Quasqueton

Well, I am the same way and my players expect as much.

The only exception is I will fudge the time equation for people looking up rules/spells. I mean, I am not sitting there timing it out to the second - but I am keeping a rough track of time in order to say things like "Your buffs expire" or "the sun is now going down", etc. . .

 

[Dragon Mage]

I want to encourage my players to think and use strategy, so I never hamper them in regards to time. However, there are instances where any certain characters may not be able to communicate with other PC's so those situations are enforced.

It's all about having fun, and if the players enjoy the time to plan (or argue) then it's all good. I know I sure enjoy listening to their strategies that are often based on incorrect assumptions.

 

[Quasqueton]

The only exception is I will fudge the time equation for people looking up rules/spells. I mean, I am not sitting there timing it out to the second - but I am keeping a rough track of time in order to say things like "Your buffs expire" or "the sun is now going down", etc. . .

Me too.

And that's why in my example that prompted this poll, I gave 40 minutes instead of a strict 30 minutes. Such things are a feely art than a measured science.

Quasqueton

 

[Finster]

I voted "Sort of".

I try to estimate the time elapsed during discussions like this. I do this because there is a certain lack of "being there" or a disconnect between players and characters. I would rather err on the side of the players in cases like the one described.
Let me explain:

As thorough and complete as I would like my descriptions to be there is really no substitute for actually being in a situation. For example; I used to work in a factory. During the summer it became extremely hot. I found that no matter how emphatically I described the heat, I could not get anyone to ampathize. That is, until my friend got a job in a similar factory. Then he understood what I was trying to describe to him. Perfectly.

I will allow a certain amount of "time mush" to simulate the benefit of being there. If the discussion begins to drag on, then a reminder that time is passing is in order. After all, the game must flow.