From: Andrew O. Mellinger (andrew@crashbox.com)
Date: Wed 02 Jan 2002 - 20:18:23 EET
>>I also just saw a campaign where the GM gave the players 17 weeks for
>>training. How much time do most of you let your players train between
>>'adventures'? Granted, it would let the players specialize a character
>>more... It just seems that there's always a bunch going on in the
>>campaign I set up - it just logically follows the last scenario.
>
>In the rules for RQ3, it is suggested that the game world advance
>four weeks per each one week of the players. If the players had
>about four weeks between sessions, then seventeen weeks would be
>just about on target.
Many games mention things like this, but I've never bought into it.
The flow of time in the game world is very important to the story and
should be tied to some real-world schedule. IMO, trying to create
some sort of synchronicity between the two is crippling to story
telling.
If the characters were travelling through the woods when a session
ends up, and the group only plays once every two weeks, do the
characters spend 8 weeks in the woods?
The events in the session took longer than expected and the session
ends two days before the big tournament. The next game session (a
week later) the characters missed it because 4 weeks passed in their
world?
What would be the benefit of trying to create this sort of synchronicity?
-Andrew
-- /*----------------------------------------------------------------- mailto:andrew@crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com -----------------------------------------------------------------*/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:36:22 EEST