Something that 4e's designers overlooked? -aka is KM correct?

[pemerton]

Here's one way of doing it: Say you have a Gothic-themed campaign, in which the powers of evil rise with the setting of the sun. Monsters in this setting are mostly quiescent during the day - they'll fight back if attacked, and might go after prey that walks right up to them, but they don't go out and actively do stuff. Night is when they come alive.

In such a setting, PCs in a "trouble spot" after sunset can expect to endure a siege of terror until dawn. Even if they quit the field during daylight, the monsters will either spend the night preparing traps and ambushes, or else leave the dungeon and hunt the PCs into the wilderness. So there's a major incentive to go in, do whatever you've got to do, and get out while the sun is in the sky.

I haven't played a game like this. It sounds interesting.

I did GM a game in which time mattered in a slightly different way - at different phases of the moon, magic became more or less powerful. Combining this feature of the world with an otherwise fairly standard fantasy RPG led to the players taking time seriously, but not necessarily in a good way. They would optimise their activities around the cycles of the moon, and spend as much time as possible at home base when the moon was bad (the availability of teleport without error helped a lot with this). In the end I don't think it really added very much to the game.

To make time a resource, other features of the game that make the PCs able to manipulate time, or at least manipulate their exposure to time-sensitive effects, need to be re-considered.

 

[pemerton]

In an RPG the players aren't generally competing with each other - they're cooperating and if they're competing with anyone it's the GM. That's a competition they can only win if the GM allows it, since the GM is also the person setting the parameters of the competition and can always twist those parameters to create the result he/she wants.

The implication of this is that, if time is to be made a meaningful resource in D&D, then the game rules have to constrain the GM's ability to use time to the advantage of the monsters and NPCs. If we think of it in terms of respawning or rebuilding, the rules have to stipulate fair rates of respawn/rebuild for monsters, dungeons, NPC hit points and items, etc. Presumably these would have the same status as encounter building guidelines - a GM who disregards them is not cheating provided the appropriate XP are awarded, but needs to be aware that departing from those parameters has the potential (in the view of the designers) to impact adversely on the gameplay experience.

 

[Hussar]

But, "Various nefarious plots advance over the span of time of the campaign" isn't a resource. Or, rather, it's entirely a DM resource.

Unless the players have a great deal of knowledge about everything going on in the campaign, they can't make informed decisions on how long they have before Plots X, Y and Z expire. Without being able to make informed decisions, how can they expend the resource?

I thought the idea of time being a resource was to make it just like any other in game resource - something the player's expend, not as a prod to make players go on this or that adventure.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, "Various nefarious plots advance over the span of time of the campaign" isn't a resource. Or, rather, it's entirely a DM resource.

Unless the players have a great deal of knowledge about everything going on in the campaign, they can't make informed decisions on how long they have before Plots X, Y and Z expire. Without being able to make informed decisions, how can they expend the resource?

I thought the idea of time being a resource was to make it just like any other in game resource - something the player's expend, not as a prod to make players go on this or that adventure.

That's because "Various nefarious plots advance over the span of time of the campaign" isn't a player resource; "The time required to deal with various nefarious plots advance over the span of time of the campaign" is.

Time is a resource players spend only when it is not unlimited (the GM keeps track of time spent) and valuable (it would be nice to spend it doing other things).

Your point could just as easily be applied to spending gold pieces:

Unless the players have a great deal of knowledge about everything going on in the campaign, they can't make informed decisions on what is worth spending their gold pieces on. Without being able to make informed decisions, how can they expend the resource?

Obviously, the GM must ensure that the PCs have, or have reasonable access to, information. It then becomes up to the players to decide what is important, and what is not.

I will note that, when one plays this way, henchmen become important as a means of allowing a player to (in effect) be more than one place at the same time!


RC

 

[Scribble]

Nothing... except for how rarely this occurs.

Not only does it occur rarely, but there are two other aspects to consider. First is how often the time aspect is subverted. You know how it works: you get to the Master's Altar at the very point the sacrifice is to take place because it fulfills the need for Dramatic Tension.

Well, ok.

I was mainly commenting on the idea that it wasn't present in the game at all. It is- although as you say, how much so is dependent upon the specific DM/Group... I've done both... Sometimes in the same campaign. (IE I'll make number of days important, but won't track it down to the minutes it takes to get through the dungeon or something... As long as they get there on the right day, and don't say decide to set up camp the moment they get there, they'll make it to the sacrifice at the "nick of time...")

The second aspect is this: How often do the characters have meaningful choices about what direction to take next, whilst being aware of the time consequences of that action?

DM specific- I mean isn't this essentially like asking how often characters encounter skill challenges?

Although a time-sensitive campaign is fully possible, it does require the DM to do extra work; not only in running the campaign, but in calculating in advance how long actions should take. After all, there's no point in designing a "sacrifice the maiden after a week" adventure if it takes 10 days for the characters to even arrive at the volcano with the proper maiden... I'm sorry, have I got the roles of PCs and villains reversed again?

If you do run such a campaign (or adventures) where time-management is an important issue, please let us know!

Sure- I can think of a couple of examples off the top of my head.

1. Just a few months ago in my previous 4e campaign. (Now defunct because I moved across the country.)

In the campaign the kingdom the PCs lived in was going though somewhat of an upheaval. The crown had been stolen by the true kings younger brother. Those loyal to the true king, after having lost a civil war, had gone underground as a gorilla organization known as the "Grey Wolves."

The PCs had previously saved a member of the Grey Wolves (Lord Winterhaven) from being executed, and were traveling "north" to take him to a safe location.

Long story short, they had to leave Winterhaven in a temporarily safe location while they dealt with other matters... During this time they were separated (got themselves transported to a demiplane city in my campaign...) from Winterhaven, and had to try to find a way back. They met up with another member of the Grey Wolves who told them he had several ways to help them get back to the material plane.

Option 1 was a traveling caravan that would take them close to their intended location. It was leaving the next day. If they chose this option he would be able to travel with them, and lend support.

Option 2 was a ship leaving in 3 days. It would land them several miles north of their intended destination. If they chose this option, they wouldn't be able to travel with them- he would try to meet up with them on the other end but would only be able to wait for at most a week.

(They had some things they needed to finish up in their current location, so they chose the second option.)


2. A little more simple, I set up a room with a locked door. The lock on the door had to have a number of successful pick lock attempts before it was actually opened.

Each round a piece of the floor dropped away into a really deep pit.

So- Open the door before the floor is entirely gone.


3. In my old 3.5 campaign, at one point the characters had a limited time (it's been almost 5 years so I don't remember specifics) to be in different locations...They basically had to find a number of artifacts and get to a certain location before the Slaracians invaded... (Modified Scarred Lands campaign.)

(They ended up deciding the easiest way to do this would be to split into two groups... Since we had several PCs of "questionable" alignments they kind of split into the evil group and the good group... Everyone then made a separate character which ended up joining the group opposite the one they originally split into, and we ended up basically bouncing back and forth from week to week... The evil group actually started working against the good group at a point... But it ended up actually being too much work... Basically two high level 3.5 campaigns at once.)

 

[Scribble]

Not much.

I think it's possible to be a little more "pro-active, interesting rules elements" with time. My experience, like Merric's is that time is rarely used as an actual resource, and more as a description.

It's not something that players can choose to use on Task A or Task B, each of which has a different chance of accomplishing Goal 1 (or whatever).

I think this works because it helps create a new, adventure/dungeon-specific resource that can be used on certain things.

And I think, though it may exist informally, adding a formal element to it encourages use and variety, which is what I'd love to see.

I agree it could be suggested a bit more. Especially with the quest system now...

I think the quest system is great for giving players "time" sensitive choices. (IE Quests that are only available for a limited time.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

Unless the players have a great deal of knowledge about everything going on in the campaign, they can't make informed decisions on how long they have before Plots X, Y and Z expire. Without being able to make informed decisions, how can they expend the resource?

Certainly, they should make informed decisions. Scribble mentioned the quest system -- maybe in order to finish Quest A, they need to give up on finishing Quest B, because by the time they get back from Quest A, Quest B will have already been failed. They can't do both, because both have time limits: if you go to Pirate Island, then the volcano nearby will erupt. If you go stop the Volcano God, then the pirates of Pirate Island will kidnap the mayor's daughter. You can't really be in both places at once, and either one is a valid choice, but perhaps the characters' abilities play into it (the party druid likes aquatic animals, and no one is resistant to fire, so they go to Pirate Island).

The specifics probably need a lot of ironing out, but the idea is that, in order to achieve your character's goals, avoid Bad Stuff, or get phat lewt (or all three) you need to make a pro-active choice as a player to choose Option A over Option B. It might be a quest, but it might also be a decision to rest, or a decision to gather resources, or a choice about which path to take in the dungeon. Whichever options you choose, the other one becomes unavailable, and you can't "go back" to correct a mistake. Whatever happens, time is consumed, and if too much time is consumed, you fail: you don't accopmlish your goal, bad stuff happens, and you loose out on phat lewt.

This idea probably needs a forked thread, but I am crazy late for work, so I'll leave it to others.

 

[LostSoul]

The implication of this is that, if time is to be made a meaningful resource in D&D, then the game rules have to constrain the GM's ability to use time to the advantage of the monsters and NPCs. If we think of it in terms of respawning or rebuilding, the rules have to stipulate fair rates of respawn/rebuild for monsters, dungeons, NPC hit points and items, etc. Presumably these would have the same status as encounter building guidelines - a GM who disregards them is not cheating provided the appropriate XP are awarded, but needs to be aware that departing from those parameters has the potential (in the view of the designers) to impact adversely on the gameplay experience.

This is something I'm doing with my 4E hack.

 

[MrMyth]

If you do run such a campaign (or adventures) where time-management is an important issue, please let us know!

I've taken an interesting approach in my most recent game. The party is part of a larger alliance, trying to stop a Primordial from coming to power, etc, etc. In the pursuit of this, they are given a choice of various missions to pursue. Some might be more important to the plot, some might be more important to certain PCs, some might help in other ways... they get to prioritize.

And if they don't do a mission one week, they have the opportunity to do it the next, and so on. But if they keep avoiding one mission for long enough... and it might have already ended badly.

This works out relatively well because I don't necessarily have to track purely how much time passes, but can instead just pay attention to which missions they keep ignoring, and eventually decide when the mission is lost.

Admittedly, I'll also occasionally have outright time-sensitive things, but it requires more book-keeping, so happens much less often.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Also, Red Hand of Doom has a timeline of bad guy activities that the PCs race against as well as disrupt.