I don't see any reason for burnination — burnination is for tags that are causing problems, and there's no apparent problem the time tag is causing.
The time tag might need splitting, but it needs to be shown that it's needed first. A point of order, a point of perspective, and a practical concern first:
A point of order. Tags aren't for subjects we can be experts in. They are for categorising questions by what they are about, so that they can be more easily found.
One reason we want them to be more easily findable is so that experts can focus on subjects they are interested in, but other reasons include being able to more easily search by subject or combinations of subject, being able to browse by subject, and being able to exclude questions types one isn't interested in. A tag only has to be useful to some of those to be worthwhile. It is not necessary for a tag to be about something we can be experts in for a tag to be worthwhile.
A point of perspective. The time tag is five years old, yet only has 44 questions in it. That's less than a question a month, over five years.
Part of the reason that it has remained undifferentiated is for the same reason that for ages we only had one traveller tag for all five (then six, then seven) editions: multiple even tinier tags weren't needed or useful for slicing up our question database efficiently. Traveller games got more tags recently because suddenly there was an influx of questions about two new editions and the original edition, and it became expedient to have multiple tags.
The time tag may be in need of splitting, but there should be a positive argument for doing so that is now relevant, and that wasn't five, four, etc. years ago. That it could be split isn't a sufficient reason to split it — splitting it should serve a need that has been identified in our question base, or from our askers and answerers.
Also, being a tiny tag currently, there are two ways a tag split could go: it could make the new tags even more obscure and less used, or it could make the new tags more visible and more frequently used. A proposal to split a tiny tag like time should give some consideration to whether it will improve spontaneous tagging or impair it.
This might sound like a “no don't do that!” point. However, if even just “insiders” would use new split tags more, that can be plenty improvement. Even just the expectation of improvement can justify a split — there's no need to prove it beforehand. The point is that the benefit of splitting does need to be considered. Categorical purity isn't by itself a benefit in a folksonomy.
A point of practicality. The low number of questions in the tag make its ambiguity not an (obvious?) problem currently — it's easy to search within the tag and quickly find what you're looking for, which reduces the practical gains of replacing it with two more specific tags.
So to sum, I've been poking at and thinking about this tag for a while. I've been deliberately increasing its use where I can see its application to a question, and yet it's still a very low-use tag. I've considered its ambiguity, and I'm not one to shrink from making changes to tags when I see an advantage, but I hadn't (so far) seen advantage in this case for making two even smaller tags.
That then is the background and context of the current tag, as the top answerer in the tag, and (probably?) the top tagger of the tag. If someone sees advantage in splitting it, that would be great to hear! But that it could be split is a poor reason, and if done without forethought can just result in two tags that are used even less, and give us less organic tags and messier tagging without benefit.
If it was to be split, I think in-game-time and real-life-time would make sense to me. They feel a bit stilted to me, but they're nicely clear. Slightly less stilted might be in-world-time and table-time.
I don't think pacing should be pressed into service to have either meaning though: pacing is a technical term relating to the creation of specific human-perceptual/psychological experiences of the flow of story events and other structural elements (beats, scenes, rising and falling action, or however one subdivides and quantifies them) and stands on its own as a subject and technique. Pacing is larger than time: it uses time, but time is not all it is and isn't even its most important part. (It's akin to comedic timing this way, which is also its own thing.) Even if it were pressed into service to mean time, it would remain ambiguous: does pacing more obviously mean within the game, or within real time? (Spoiler: It's neither, since it lies on the interface between in-game reality and out-of-game dramatic timing.)