Bros Are STILL Trying to Defend A Retarded Recommendation

Nearly a week ago I happened across this tweet:

In the very likely case that you don't know what "west marches" is, it's essentially a sandbox campaign for groups with an overabundance of players and free time, and little to no concern for a sense of cohesion. I did a bit of digging and the only mention I could find of ending a session in town was a guy on stackexchange stating that ending in town is something that is to him implied, but not mandatory.

And I think that answers the question: the blog post of the guy that I'm pretty sure invented the whole thing didn't outright state or even mention it, so it was never contested. Other possibilities are that no one gave a shit, and/or the people that would champion the idea of a "west marches" campaign were retarded. Of course, this whole thing started waaay back in 2007, so it's also possible that people did point out how stupid it was but those particular nerd fights have been lost to time.

I find the shift in defense amusing. Normally when arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping is brought up, the Brody Bunch tries to disingenuously defend it by pretending that it's an actual rule, so you point out how it's at best a recommendation, and maybe ask for some unique benefits. Unable to provide any they sperg out, and then accuse you of playing the game wrong because you aren't a retard that thinks rules are recommendations.

Here clerics is trying something different albeit equally moronic because, even if it was championed back in the day, so what? This is like someone criticizing bloodletting as not being necessary or effective, and its defenders declaring, yeah, well, you didn't say something over ten years ago so...yeah, now what? Fortunately, there isn't a statute of limitations on bad ideas, so it's fine pointing them out whenever you happen to notice them.

Anyway, let's check some of the responses:

While the Bordy Bunch made more people aware of arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping (by which I mean they tried to force it down everyone's throats and berate them for merely asking questions or pointing out how absurd it is), it ultimately is the recommendation itself that is the problem: it doesn't make any sense, is arbitrary, and provides no unique benefits over simply playing the game normally.

What's super funny is that the only ones getting mad are the Brody Bunch tourists. They reaaally don't like it when you reject their doctrine, and/or point out how it's all bullshit.

Eric asks some obvious questions and ClericsWearRingmail can't even be bothered to answer most, which I find strange because the Brody Bunch has been banging on about this retarded recommendation for years, so you think they'd have some sort of response, even if it's something like "the game is the most important thing, period, so never ever cut your sessions short".

But cutting a session short is a major issue for normal people with priorities and responsibilities because it could result in a session where the characters could saunter all the way to the dungeon, something comes up, and then the characters immediately return to town. Not for any in-game reason, mind you, but because the controlling player(s) have to leave.

Just imagine NPCs bidding the group farewell on their quest to go slay a necromancer or whatever, but then they just come back a day or two later, maybe even the same day. A peasant is shocked, "Did you kill him already?"

Now the controlling players aren't present, so cannot act in any way (again, as per arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping if the DM so desired they could be killed by a handful of mildly hungry rats), but if they could I imagine one would sheepishly shrug and say no. Even sillier, if pressed as to why they returned the PCs would have no reasonable explanation.

And then, because in arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping land, while the players wait for next week their characters will stand around in town doing fuckall, while the necromancer is free to advance his plans. Even though the characters wouldn't just stand around doing nothing and try to thwart him in some fashion.

But, no, we're operating on MMO logic. So the server keeps running, and everyone else keeps doing stuff, except the characters because the players have essentially logged out for the week.

And this is why playing the game normally is superior: the group is prepared to head out, but something comes up? Whelp, we'll stop for now, and next week pick up with the characters heading off to the necromancer's lair. Or, if it's not too urgent, have the characters travel there and pick up at the entrance. In any case, the necromancer won't get a free week to do whatever, and the characters won't stand around and get devoured by rabid squirrels or whatever.

It's also silly to have every dungeon have multiple entrances solely to accommodate arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1; timekeeping. It makes the world feel even more artificial, something I didn't think was possible using a recommendation that has characters standing around doing nothing while everyone else gets to act.

But, can't log out in town? Just hire mercenaries, as they aren't characters and can still act if you log out in the dungeon. Because that makes sense, right? The NPCs will defend themselves, but your character won't lift a finger to help himself in any way. It reminds me of RPG Pundit's they/themming purse puppy's vapidware trash game, where mercenaries will never ever no matter what carry any of your gear, even if it would ensure their survival.

Heh, this reminds me of the alphabet people making up cisgender in an attempt to criticize and mock normal people. "Pause timing", aka playing the game normally, is great because then characters behave normally, as opposed to standing around and getting killed and/or not reacting to events they otherwise would have solely because the controlling player went "away from table" or essentially "logged out".

No one is "defending it so hard": we're simply asking what the unique benefits of arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping are, to which the Brody Bunch has no answer. Because, if arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping was better than playing the game normally, everyone would just do that. I just don't want to play in a game where the world keeps on turning any my character does fuckall for no reason.

"What do you do if you end in the dungeon?"

Well, if you play the game normally you just stop for the night. If you're in the middle of something like a combat encounter, try and wrap it up. Just find a good stopping point so no one is confused next week whose turn it is, who was doing what, what's precisely going on, etc.

Much better than having to fast track the group back to town for no in-game reason, all so they can stand around doing nothing until the next session, and reacting to nothing. Or hire mercenaries, because they aren't characters and so can defend your characters, who will just remain motionless when combat breaks out. And then next session, assuming you survive, the mercenaries won't even bother asking why the fuck you stood around while they fended off a group of orcs.

Later rulebooks wisely scrapped a lot of really retarded stuff, including actual rules such as training times and XP for gold.

The rules don't even require you to rely on arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping. It was merely a (terrible) recommendation.

That's not the only issue, or even the biggest one. That honor goes to the fact that characters will behave irrationally: monsters show up? They won't fight back or even flee. Just stand there and get massacred. 

It's a terrible recommendation, partially because characters won't do anything at all, partially because everyone else will. This makes it especially terrible for games with other groups, because they can adventure and do stuff while the other groups remain static (even if they wouldn't). Ditto for games with any sort of time-sensitive issues and goals, because days, weeks, or even months will be squandered, even if the characters would have been adventuring the entire time.

It amazes me that you think people would need to bother with such a godawful recommendation just to see all of their valid observations realized. I don't need to play with arbitrary kinda sorta but not really 1:1 timekeeping to know it will add nothing to my game, or that my kids and wife will be annoyed that a week passed in-game and so NPC agendas have similarly advanced, even though they would have been able to hinder or even thwart them.

Or to end a session in a dungeon and tell them that, sorry, they got eaten by a couple of wolves even though their characters could have easily slain or even driven them off.