Why do so many campaigns have strict time limits?

[Endarire]

Greetings, all!

Why the love of strict time limits from GMs/module authors? I can understand certain things being on a strict timer (like 'stop the ritual before the full moon' or 'the culprit will be pronounced pardoned in 3 days'), but I've experienced it (and seen it on these very boards) that so many games have strict timer after strict timer.

Sometimes, this is fun. Sometimes, this is done for perceived balance reasons. Sometimes, this is done for reasons of verisimilitude/world building. (I'm not saying this practice is bad in general, but I felt like it was overused.)

What say you?

[Inevitability]

Because games need something to keep the plot going, especially online games. A session where the PCs have no quests and just get drunk/go shopping/rob a few people can be fun in RL, but online it takes up several weeks (if not months).

[Eldariel]

A goal-oriented campaign needs something to keep things together and to force the PCs to move forward. Without a sense of urgency, the campaign easily bogs down and the PCs who can just spend time gaining power through crafting or followers or divination/prep spells or whatever.

Without a schedule, the PCs will end up doing irrelevant side quests just before the world ends Final Fantasy-style, because seriously, the world truly wouldn't have gall to end while they aren't watching. Campaigns like Expedition to the Demon Web Pits ran as written completely destroy any semblance of verisimilitude and feel more like watching a movie than actively participating in a living world.

Of course, a sense of urgency can be built in any number of ways. The key isn't really a schedule but a living world; you can't just put X off because you aren't the only active participant. If you want X, once its existence comes to light others will want it too. If you tarry, it may not even be there by the tine yoy move. If you need to defeat X, X will consolidate power becoming ever harder to defeat and if aware of the threat, probably try and hinder the party/muster forces to defeat them in turn. And so on and so forth; in an active world, momentary opportunities tend to be momentary and thus the most important resource becomes time, which it has to be to make any given choices meaningful trade-offs. A sandbox needs to have an active world too, but that doesn't prevent downtime; just gives it a meaningful cost.

[AlanBruce]

It depends on the module/ DM's setting.

In order to make the game organic, things happen while the party is idle. I believe some of the earlier low level modules do tell you that "X happens if the party doesn't do Y in Z time.""

Depending on the plot and what the party has achieved, deadlines can be relaxed a bit. I do give my players the option to retrain for a semi large amount of time IC after a major arc. However, I make it clear that things don't stand still: events transpire, big and small, but the option is up to them.

In the end, ask your players: do they like being rushed from point A to B, or is downtime a thing they are comfortable with?

[daremetoidareyo]

This is a technique to avoid the 15-minute adventuring day, where the Wizards and clerics go spend all their spell slots and take the rest of the party home for the night and then they come back the next day and go through one or two encounters until they're out of spell slots. This "technique" is more common than you think. And players tend to revolt if you reasonably have the dungeon produce countermeasures against their daily insurgent spellcasters.

By putting the players on a timeline, it forces those limited resource casters to be more frugal with their resources. Also you don't have the players mad at you because of the dungeon being more difficult in response to their own selfish playing style. Legitimate or not, the 15-minute adventuring day limits fun for all participants, by either steamrolling the DM's plans over the course of a week or smashing the players' poor strategic planning with reasonable NPC responses. The time limit avoids both these pitfalls. It can be overdone, however

A good campaign will also have opportunities for free time on an average of once per level or every other level. More time if there's item Crafters in the crew. It's a difficult balance because the disparity between a Bard with Brew potion and an artificer is leagues apart.

[Psyren]

Sometimes, this is fun. Sometimes, this is done for perceived balance reasons. Sometimes, this is done for reasons of verisimilitude/world building. (I'm not saying this practice is bad in general, but I felt like it was overused.)


Given that you've answered your own question, I'll turn it around. With all the advantages you just listed, why do you think it's overused?

[flappeercraft]

Probably to avoid the party going Nova on every encounter.

[Segev]

Indeed, in a system with per-time-period limited uses, a time limit is the only way to make that a finite resource.

But can you think of anything that isn't on a timer, IRL or in games and fiction, and is still a reasonably interesting thing to read about or play through?

Sports and other competitive games have either a strict time limit (seconds on a clock) before the end of the game, or have a definite victory condition towards which the players are racing (creating a time limit based on the progress of one's opponents). The same must be true for any conflict worth resolving in an RPG; if nothing else, with no deadline, what pushes you to complete the goal?

So I think the poster who suggested turning this around has the right ideas. Can you give examples of a fun plot to pursue where time is not limited?

[Psyren]

Can you give examples of a fun plot to pursue where time is not limited?

Before anyone answers this, I'll chime in quickly - I'm sure there are several examples of plots where time limits aren't a factor. But even if most of them have time limits, I don't think it's an overused trope, because most of them should, for all the great reasons given in this thread.

With that said, I'm sure examples of compelling yet non-time-sensitive plots are good to list, to give the OP ideas they can suggest to their GM if nothing else.

[Segev]

Before anyone answers this, I'll chime in quickly - I'm sure there are several examples of plots where time limits aren't a factor. But even if most of them have time limits, I don't think it's an overused trope, because most of them should, for all the great reasons given in this thread.

With that said, I'm sure examples of compelling yet non-time-sensitive plots are good to list, to give the OP ideas they can suggest to their GM if nothing else.

Certainly!

Heck, I'll give one that is a common example as to why people on boards like this RECOMMEND time limits. It's the cause of the 15-minute adventuring day: a classic dungeon crawl. Done as a static location with rooms to plunder that fail to react to external stimuli, it has no time limit. Explore at your leisure.

Now...whether that's a "good" one is...debatable, at best. But still, it's there.

I'd be interested in compelling ones, too. So if anybody has them, please list away. (They will require some difficulty be overcome in keeping 15 min. adventuring days from becoming a norm for dealing with them, though.)

[Psyren]

The other way to stop the 15 min adventuring day is simply to make resting in the dungeon difficult. Even if you have all the time in the world to explore it, a an effect like Forbiddance will keep Rope Trick and Teleport from working, and then routine patrols can prevent resting. This can be useful for an infiltration mission of some kind where the party doesn't know how long they need to be down there.

[icefractal]

The problem I have with "time limit to prevent going nova" is that it only works on a micro-level, not a macro one. Three days to reach the inner sanctum and stop the ritual - sure. Three months to find the Emerald Skull before the BBEG does? Logistics of how travel / searching / investigation are done are going to outweigh battles/day by a long shot.

For example, if you find a way to skip a side trip that would normally take a week, that should be like seven times you can have a 15 minute workday with no problems. Or inversely, making an unnecessary side trip could doom you to failure, even if you do everything right after that.

This is seldom the case. Usually what it /really/ means is "you get there in time (exactly in the nick of time) if you 'hustle' enough for the GM's taste." And /that/ is BS that makes me stop caring about the campaign. Because time usage is actually an interesting factor to consider, but making it "speed of plot" just ruins it.

So TL;DR - I think time limits can be good in theory, but most times I've seen it I didn't like the implementation.

[Eldariel]

The problem I have with "time limit to prevent going nova" is that it only works on a micro-level, not a macro one. Three days to reach the inner sanctum and stop the ritual - sure. Three months to find the Emerald Skull before the BBEG does? Logistics of how travel / searching / investigation are done are going to outweigh battles/day by a long shot.

For example, if you find a way to skip a side trip that would normally take a week, that should be like seven times you can have a 15 minute workday with no problems. Or inversely, making an unnecessary side trip could doom you to failure, even if you do everything right after that.

This is seldom the case. Usually what it /really/ means is "you get there in time (exactly in the nick of time) if you 'hustle' enough for the GM's taste." And /that/ is BS that makes me stop caring about the campaign. Because time usage is actually an interesting factor to consider, but making it "speed of plot" just ruins it.

So TL;DR - I think time limits can be good in theory, but most times I've seen it I didn't like the implementation.

This I 100% agree with; "speed of the plot" or in general, blatant, predictable handwaving makes the game feel stagnant and predictable and makes it feel less like cooperative storytelling and more like DM telling a story we're watching. Doubly so if it feels like the DM is pulling punches or afraid to kill us - I want my character to leave a mark in the story and to make a difference, not just be an extra brought in to watch the fireworks and press the pre-determined buttons to reach the pre-determined outcome like in most video game RPGs. The very advantage of PnP is that this doesn't need to be the case; a living, real, human DM is capable of much more, including improvisation and adapting. And human players are capable of creativity.

[Psyren]

It's easy to keep it at the micro level though, no matter how big the threat is. The bad guy's plan usually happens in phases.

For a familiar example, let's look at one of the most generic fantasy villains of all time - Dragon Age Inquisition's Elder One. (Spoilered for those who have yet to play):


- First the bad guy tries to rip open the Fade (spirit world) right at the big meeting between the templars (church) and the mages. This was the Inciting Incident for the whole game. He fails, and in so doing, empowers the protagonist and the rest of the PCs to stop him.

- His next phase is to take over both the mages and templars and turn them into his unstoppable army. The PCs have just enough time to save one but not both, with the other becoming his henchmen for the rest of the game.

- His next phase is to trick the world's most elite fighting force into becoming an army of demons and abominations under his control. The PCs have just enough time to stop him from doing that before his next phase, which is:

- To assassinate the Empress of key neighboring nation Orlais and implicate her chief rival, throwing the Orlesian Succession into utter chaos, and rendering them incapable of resisting him no matter what size army he has available. The PCs have to save her via careful political intrigue rather than sheer brute force, which basically gives them the one night of the party to unmask the assassin.

- With all avenues to win via a massive army thwarted, the Big Bad becomes desperate, and decides to destroy everything rather than conquer - so he tries to power up the artifact in his possession via a much more dangerous means. The PCs must lay claim to his power source before he can.

- The Big Bad now has little hope of winning conventionally, but he is still immortal and impossible to kill normally. Left alone he will probably come up with some other way to win or destabilize the world, or simply run out the mortal clock and try again once the PCs are no longer an issue. The PCs therefore have to find a way to kill him that bypasses all his many horcruxes so that he stays dead for good. No real time limit.

Compare this to a rather bad example - the Blight in Dragon Age Origins. The Darkspawn smash you at Ostagar and kill the king because you were betrayed - and the general who betrayed you is now trying to clean you up as a loose end (inciting incident). But after that initial battle, the Darkspawn themselves are content to lurk out of sight until you amass the army needed to beat them, a task which you have all the time in the world to do. In DAI, gameplay-wise you have no real time limit either, but there's still at least some sense of urgency. With DAO, there is none, so the stakes feel that much more vague.

[Doctor Awkward]

The ticking clock plot element is one of the oldest and most widespread tropes in all of fiction. It's an easy way to create a sense of urgency with regards to the main character's mission, and thus create drama to keep the audience engaged.

Here's a few noteworthy examples:

Around the World in 80 Days- The Jules Verne novel, Phineas Fogg has to circle the globe in 80 days in order to win a bet.

Brewster's Millions- Another novel from 1902 that's been adapted several times as a movie. The protagonist will inherit a huge sum of money, provided he can completely waste a much smaller sum within a small period of time.

Star Wars: A New Hope- The Rebels must stop the Death Star before it destroys their home base.

Aliens- The marines have to figure out how to escape the atmosphere processing plant when they discover the reactor is going to melt down.

Labyrinth- David Bowie gives Jennifer Connelly 13 hours to solve the maze or her baby brother becomes a goblin forever.

The Fifth Element- Dallas has 48 hours to get the elements to the temple before the giant ball of evil destroys the Earth.

It happens a lot in crime dramas too, which is a result of spilling over from real life. In most police investigations, a suspect can only be detained for a certain length of time without being charged. Investigators have that much time to gather and consider evidence, or risk losing their suspect.

The reason why it still works well is because it's been played with so many different times. Are the heroes going to make it? What happens if they don't? Can they still find a way to win? Do they have a trick up their sleeves to pull out a victory at the last moment? It's the many countless and simple variations that keep it from becoming cliched.

[Zanos]

I use it when it makes sense for the story. If bandits are raiding nearby villages, they will continue to do if nobody stops them. Actually, make someone else will stop them. Or maybe they'll die and get killed(I roll for this). But I generally have periods of downtime between any serious timers, and I like to avoid making the PCs the absolute chosen ones without which the world will be cast into everlasting darkness or something. Ticking timebomb of forced plot over and over for 10 levels is not fun.

The world keeps moving without you, but it's not centered around you, either.

[Andrian]

I use it when it makes sense for the story. If bandits are raiding nearby villages, they will continue to do if nobody stops them. Actually, make someone else will stop them. Or maybe they'll die and get killed(I roll for this). But I generally have periods of downtime between any serious timers, and I like to avoid making the PCs the absolute chosen ones without which the world will be cast into everlasting darkness or something. Ticking timebomb of forced plot over and over for 10 levels is not fun.

The world keeps moving without you, but it's not centered around you, either.

I have to say I agree with this approach. I think it's important to have timers and have events move forward, but I've also found that if a game doesn't at least have some time for the PC's to breathe, it just gets exhausting for everyone. It's nice for the PC's to win an encounter at some point and then have a chance to relax a little - spend some time training or crafting or buying things with all their loot, and during that time, the next part of the plot is winding up.

In real life, I find there's a lot of times that I end up having to wait for things to happen. Waiting isn't always fun, but if there's a significant amount of time your players have to wait for something related to the plot, that's time they can devote to something else.

The legendary dwarven smith has to craft a magic sword which will be able to slay the demon king. Your players have gathered all the resources needed to craft this sword, but it will take several weeks, during which they can reasonably expect there to be no immediate danger. They must be careful not to let the demon king grow suspicious of what they have planned, and thus it will be best for them not to engage his army until they are ready to face him. This gives them time to prepare for the coming battle. The Bard chooses to spend time in the tavern, performing and carousing, and she hears rumors of a back way into the demon king's lair. The Wizard goes to the library to expand his repertoire of spells, and while he is there, he comes across a dusty tome that explains the history of the demon king and how he rose to power. The Paladin goes to the temple to train with the battle clerics who worship there. One of them tried to fight the demon king in the past, but has sustained an injury that will not heal, and he is able to warn the Paladin of the demon king's abilities. The Rogue decides to spend her time gambling in places of ill repute, and during that time runs across a member of a cult that is trying to lend power to the demon king. Perhaps before they go to face him, the party should try to find out what this cult is up to and put a stop to them.

[Elder_Basilisk]

So two reasons.
1. Verisimilitude.
2. To create tension and challenge within a game system that can become too easy if unlimited resting is permitted.

There are other ways to achieve 2 when a time limit does not make sense (though some mechanisms like responsive monsters can amount to a de facto time limit even if they are not a time limit per se). However number 1 is generally appropriate and applicable and a strict timeline avoids the "speed of plot" problem that eldariel noted from Dragon age origins.

In fact, strictly defined timelines are on of the better way to avoid speed of plot and other artificial restrictions. An example of how this works in a different setting can be seen in the contrast between original xcom (and the long war mod for the new one) and the updated xcom by 2k games. In the original xcom, when aliens launched terror missions, you had a certain amount of time to shoot down the ufo and if you didnt, a certain amount of time to send a squad/platoon to deal with the alien attack. If your best guys were injured or on another mission you might have to go with the B team or you might not be able to complete it. If there was another mission at the same time, you might be able to send a B team to deal with it or you might have to let it slide, but regardless of the actual result, the reason was going to be that you either did or did not have enough time to complete all the missions before the aliens accomplished what they wanted and went home. In the base version of the new xcom, on the other hand, you get multiple terror missions per month and can only complete one regardless of how many soldiers you have available. It's a blatantly gamist element that is equivalent to the speed of plot approach just not in the player's favor and which serves the see purpose of creating challenging decisions in order to increase the tension/challenge level. What's important is to note that the strict timeline approach is the OPPOSITE of the speed of plot approach rather than an example of it.

Also note that stictly defined timelines don't necessarily mean "you can't waste any time." Red Hand of Doom is one of the best/most notable examples of a strict timeline adventure but the timeline is actually very forgiving. Typical adventuring parties finish with several weeks to as much as a month remaining (at least in my experience and in most of the story hour/game journal threads) and one of the big parts of the Red Hand of Doom thread is "what do do while we're waiting for the siege of Brindol."

[VoxRationis]

A non-time-sensitive game would include a domain-building campaign of conquest. Even if there are significant enemies to be fought, there's no real hard time limit on a war. Sure, you might have to bring troops back for the harvest, but you can just bring them up again the next season, potentially repeating the process for more than a human lifespan. On the other hand, dilly-dallying would still invite the opponents to gather strength and/or make attacks unopposed.

[skunk3]

Time limits force PCs (especially casters) to be more frugal with their casting, use of potions, wands, limited daily abilities, etc. It also can impose other conditions such as fatigue, poisons, quick-acting diseases, etc. It also can add a psychological element to what is going on. In our campaign, a few sessions ago we had built up to what was known as "portal day" afterwards in which many portals opened up across our city and devilish forces poured out. In that 24-hour period (in game) we spent 3 sessions playing with no rest stops, no trips to the 'magic mart' and by the end we were RAGGED. We had to flee from combat several times. We aided NPC wizards and city guards. I play an Eldritch Disciple and my spells were all used up on spontanous healing, as well as my gift of the divine patron uses (healing blast), and I think we went through pretty much every potion we had plus used who-knows-how-many uses of healing from wands. I like time limits sometimes, as well as encounters that last a really long time because it becomes more about basic survival, being clever, and conservation... and knowing when to run! One of our PCs died (our rogue) and we had to stash her in a handy haversack until the end of the day. Thankfully, the leader of our city arranged for a true resurrection as a token of thanks for our efforts in defending the city.

[Eldariel]

Time limits force PCs (especially casters) to be more frugal with their casting, use of potions, wands, limited daily abilities, etc. It also can impose other conditions such as fatigue, poisons, quick-acting diseases, etc. It also can add a psychological element to what is going on. In our campaign, a few sessions ago we had built up to what was known as "portal day" afterwards in which many portals opened up across our city and devilish forces poured out. In that 24-hour period (in game) we spent 3 sessions playing with no rest stops, no trips to the 'magic mart' and by the end we were RAGGED. We had to flee from combat several times. We aided NPC wizards and city guards. I play an Eldritch Disciple and my spells were all used up on spontanous healing, as well as my gift of the divine patron uses (healing blast), and I think we went through pretty much every potion we had plus used who-knows-how-many uses of healing from wands. I like time limits sometimes, as well as encounters that last a really long time because it becomes more about basic survival, being clever, and conservation... and knowing when to run! One of our PCs died (our rogue) and we had to stash her in a handy haversack until the end of the day. Thankfully, the leader of our city arranged for a true resurrection as a token of thanks for our efforts in defending the city.

And this right here is why hotspots of activity and long days are important - they're memorable and awesome! The high point of RHoD too is the Battle for Brindol generally simply because it's such an awesome setting for such a marathon of a day culminating in an enormously impactful and awesome fight. It's much like this. There's no intensity and excitement in having all the time in the world - being occasionally forced into a marathon to accomplish your goals is a key for a memorable and enjoyable experience.

[Zanos]

There's no intensity and excitement in having all the time in the world - being occasionally forced into a marathon to accomplish your goals is a key for a memorable and enjoyable experience.
Operative word, there. I've been in campaigns where it was just time crunch after time crunch, to the point where I was about to just say "Actually, screw this kingdom. I need to go scribe some spells and get some items crafted. And maybe sleep in a real bed." When I said 10 levels of constant time crunch I wasn't kidding, that's actually happened to me before.

I avoid the 15 minute adventuring day because if you take time away from an objective then your enemies are going to respond. But between objectives I allow PCs pretty much however much downtime they want.

[Andrian]

I think it's also important to note that at early levels, a 15-minute adventuring day is about all a party can handle unless the dice are being particularly kind. When your fighter's only got, say, 13 HP and your Wizard has 2 spells per day, it's not gonna take long before they're out of resources.

I've sent players against an appropriate CR encounter that wasn't really supposed to be much of a threat to them at all, only to have a near party wipe because the monster rolled a crit. Some people find that sort of thing fun, but personally I don't think it's fun to have characters die early on in an adventure. Give everyone a little time to get to know the characters before you put them in actual mortal peril. That way it's actually a tragedy when they die.

Anyway, the point of that tangent was to say that it's not always ideal to aim for multiple encounters per day, and if you are going to have multiple encounters per day, it's best to be aware of how resilient your party actually is.

Pacing is an important element of good storytelling, and has the ability to set the mood. Too much of a fast pace for too long will just make everyone worn out. Too much of a slow pace will make things boring or will take away from the impact of the events of the story. It's best to vary the pace and the tone of the story.

Here's an example of how you might allow your characters to have some downtime, but at the same time not let them relax:

The party is in a castle which has been besieged by a huge army. They were able to repel the initial attack, but now they must wait as their enemies are camped just beyond the range of bows and siege weapons. They now have time to prepare for the next battle, healing the wounded, improving their gear, or coming up with some way to break this tableau, but at any moment an attack might come, and every day their food and supplies are dwindling.

[Endarire]

Perhaps it's the games I've been in or/and heard about, but they tended to focus on one of the 2 extremes:

-Strict in-game time limits (some with the ability to modify these time limits)

-A video game-like or 'speed of plot' scenario where time was mostly no object, but may have been implied.

Having had a resurgent interest in playing a Druid crafter (who now has Craft Wondrous Item) in a campaign that has a strict time limit (and stricter than I originally expected), I attracted the ire of our party by wanting to craft one Healing Belt for one day. At the time, no one wanted to wait that long, but did so reluctantly. This belt proved very useful in our next adventure against Undead. This same group, now level 3 going on 4, had no hesitance about resting for a day in a convenient spot after using about half their resources on two difficult, cinematic fights that took 2 sessions of real time total, but maybe 10 minutes of in-game time.

For other campaigns, I've often felt that we were on a timer so strict we were being railroaded or, if we weren't, I couldn't enjoy the downtime that was presented me. I have played games with loose timers in general (like being able to safely sleep for weeks in a safe spot in a dungeon or spend arbitrary amounts of time crafting in town), but with strict timers on certain missions, which I have generally preferred.

[Eldariel]

Operative word, there. I've been in campaigns where it was just time crunch after time crunch, to the point where I was about to just say "Actually, screw this kingdom. I need to go scribe some spells and get some items crafted. And maybe sleep in a real bed." When I said 10 levels of constant time crunch I wasn't kidding, that's actually happened to me before.

I avoid the 15 minute adventuring day because if you take time away from an objective then your enemies are going to respond. But between objectives I allow PCs pretty much however much downtime they want.

It's the rule of...everything. For a climax to feel like a climax, it has to be comparatively stronger and more intense than the preceding sections. Generally the full scale from lull to tempest serves best, be it a concerto or a campaign. It's a fundamental law of all sorts of stories; the river needs to be calm most of the time for the floods to be impactful and noteworthy.

[Feantar]

It's easy to keep it at the micro level though, no matter how big the threat is. The bad guy's plan usually happens in phases.

For a familiar example, let's look at one of the most generic fantasy villains of all time - Dragon Age Inquisition's (...)


You might want to omit the name there, it spoils things due to certain plot points in prior games.

[Psyren]

You might want to omit the name there, it spoils things due to certain plot points in prior games.

You find out pretty early on and it's been years, but fair enough, edited