Calendar Overhaul

[º Gamer9726 º 6]

 I've been aging my characters once a week, so I think that the 7 month system is great.

[FlareGunCalamity 213]

30.4 Would be the easiest for players to adjust to and seems to most logical to me. After all, it's the calender system i've been (trying to) using. Its also the most similar to the common year (at least where i'm from..) seeing as how its based on 3. Also, this way, we can implement seasons, like near the end of the year it snows everywhere, at the beginning there are flowers and tall grass everywhere, and in the middle days are longer.

[The Best Basileus 97]

Option two is the best. It simplifies the smaller units, yet keeps the actual rate of aging by years the same. It also includes a 12-month year, which is what we all have. The balance it strikes between slow and rapid aging is great. I support 2!

[ĔṀĔŔĨĨČĶ 519]

Option 4, it is what I've been using for all my characters.

[Bucky_24 132]

I'm going to post this before looking throughout all the pages because I don't have the time right now. But in the since of Human's or more specifically the Human 'fighters'. They only live to like 100 which with option 2 would be 2 years. From birth. Now most people skip twenty years ahead which would be like losing roughly 5 Months of Role Playing with your character! Now realistically you wouldn't have 50+ year old soldiers fighting would you? Maybe in a support but not a backbone troops. This means that 'fighter' characters are really effective for about 7.5-5 months total for their character to be realistically pursuing their profession. I like to take a week+ to design my characters, then create a wardrobe for them, and try to get into their mindset before introducing them. Then for them to only be playable for about 5 months versus the 10 from option 3 or even the 8 from the first 2 options. 

In my opinion option 4 will just be an excuse to make everyone be an Elf just so they can survive a year of game-play! That's too fast for my liking. I like version 3 because it is good for the Human's that I play all the time, but it might be too slow for Elves or Dwarves. It really depends on the situation as each option is better for each race.

[Elindor 666]

I just read over my genius again for why a 'season' is such a long time and the Krugmar backstory. Man those were fun days when you could just write something on the wiki and it would become canon. :D

[Falconaire 0]

I'd personally go for option 4, seems the easiest to pick up, even though 52 years does seem like a bit much on paper realistically it seems the appropriate time period for a character on LoTC to have fully matured.

[Ender_Panda13 78]

i like number four

remember you have to consider the elves and other long-lived creatures in Lotc. I mean, do they really want to wait 4+ years for their character to age considerably?

 

Then again 1 irl year = 52 ic years, so for most humans they would live like, one and a half years the most.

 

I bet it all depends on how long a person is willing to keep a character.

[FlareGunCalamity 213]

Wow, 30.4 seems really outvoted.

Did you know the ancient greeks went on lunar time and had about 26 months ina single year? makes you think, people back then had a much different perception of time then we did now. You might want to take those ideas into consideration.

[Ventusyr 233]

Option 4 is probably the easiest to remember. I'll go with that.

[Quiet Kitten 37]

No matter what you choose time pretty much is irrelevant, seeing as half the people are going to age at their own discretion, which makes no sense, and conversations/events that are 3 hrs IRL, which is fairly common, will continue to last 3 days IG. Which also makes no sense.

 

Also, any special day IG would only last 1 hr IRL, and as for seasons, if 1 week IRL = 1 yr IG then seasons would only last a couple days at a time... Kinda quick imo.

[Leafwind 38]

It's "without further ado." Ado means fuss. Adieu means farewell.

[Aren Whitestorm 65]

Option 4. Others are just too slow.