One-off Problems
Jan. 13th, 2003 03:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lathanySince I was eleven, I have run table-top roleplaying games. I started with D&D (what else ?), then progressed to the White Wolf system (running both Mage and Vampire). In recent years I have run my own systems for a variety of games from the traditional sci-fi game Copas Team to the more original Postcards. These days I am using Swordsmaster for my Lathany and Athory campaigns. The system was created by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bateleur, the worlds by me.
These campaigns have mostly worked quite well. Vampire - Brockwood Hall was probably the best (closely followed by Lathany / Athory) whilst Witchcraft and Postcards - London posse were probably the worst (although for Postcards this was for session scheduling reasons). However I have regretted doing none of them.
The same is really not true of the one-offs I have run. Some of them have worked well and been enjoyable (a jointly-run ghosts game withsmiorgan springs to mind), but mostly they really have not been of comparable quality.
Why not ?
I have trouble coming up with concepts which work better in a one-off than in a campaign and even more trouble "setting" them properly. I like involved plots with several threads, detailed worlds and tend to use a cast of thousands. These are campaign things. One-offs (in my view) tend to be more about interesting ideas, compact plots, standout characters and taking risks with new stuff which would damage a long term campaign (such as a game where the entire party could end up dead). As an aside - this is also why I have found writing a 100,000 word book much easier than writing short stories.
If I run a one-off I want it to specifically to include something which I could not equally use in a campaign. This is rarely the easy bit. I tend to eventually get there, though and it is just a question of ideas. However, there is a lot more to it than that :
i. Which system to use (or go systemless) - I usually run systemless. I have come to the conclusion that this is a mistake. I think that the answer is to come up with a short, but workable system and then make sure that it is accessible so that the players can use it with a minimum explanation. Alternatively, to use a well-known system (or to mimic one).
ii. How much detail to apply to the world - I have once run a game where every room was pre-detailed by myself and my co-GM. It was an incredible amount of effort and the resulting game (Lindisfarne - very average) was simply not worth it. I think the solution is to use the existing world, with twiddles, and to only detail background where it is absolutely necessary. Having said that, I am planning a game which needs silly-hours of preparation - although not so much on world background as on plot and character.
iii. the PCs - I either over-detail them or leave the players to design them without providing enough clues as to what might work. I still have not come up with a solution to this. However, I current think producing pre-generated characters with a little room for personalisation (ie. stats but little background) might be the best way to go.
This year I want to plan and run a few one-offs. If I can make a success of just one of them, I will be happy.
bateleur, the worlds by me.These campaigns have mostly worked quite well. Vampire - Brockwood Hall was probably the best (closely followed by Lathany / Athory) whilst Witchcraft and Postcards - London posse were probably the worst (although for Postcards this was for session scheduling reasons). However I have regretted doing none of them.
The same is really not true of the one-offs I have run. Some of them have worked well and been enjoyable (a jointly-run ghosts game with
smiorgan springs to mind), but mostly they really have not been of comparable quality. Why not ?
I have trouble coming up with concepts which work better in a one-off than in a campaign and even more trouble "setting" them properly. I like involved plots with several threads, detailed worlds and tend to use a cast of thousands. These are campaign things. One-offs (in my view) tend to be more about interesting ideas, compact plots, standout characters and taking risks with new stuff which would damage a long term campaign (such as a game where the entire party could end up dead). As an aside - this is also why I have found writing a 100,000 word book much easier than writing short stories.
If I run a one-off I want it to specifically to include something which I could not equally use in a campaign. This is rarely the easy bit. I tend to eventually get there, though and it is just a question of ideas. However, there is a lot more to it than that :
i. Which system to use (or go systemless) - I usually run systemless. I have come to the conclusion that this is a mistake. I think that the answer is to come up with a short, but workable system and then make sure that it is accessible so that the players can use it with a minimum explanation. Alternatively, to use a well-known system (or to mimic one).
ii. How much detail to apply to the world - I have once run a game where every room was pre-detailed by myself and my co-GM. It was an incredible amount of effort and the resulting game (Lindisfarne - very average) was simply not worth it. I think the solution is to use the existing world, with twiddles, and to only detail background where it is absolutely necessary. Having said that, I am planning a game which needs silly-hours of preparation - although not so much on world background as on plot and character.
iii. the PCs - I either over-detail them or leave the players to design them without providing enough clues as to what might work. I still have not come up with a solution to this. However, I current think producing pre-generated characters with a little room for personalisation (ie. stats but little background) might be the best way to go.
This year I want to plan and run a few one-offs. If I can make a success of just one of them, I will be happy.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
You're too hard on yourself!
Date: 2003-01-13 09:04 am (UTC)Lindisfarne in particular, IIRC, was an impressive feat of GMing (if it actually *was* the two parties on the same island at the same time but in different worlds game that I think it was).
I think one-offs are probably judged by players (this player, at least) on their ideas more than their execution, and that it's the other way round with campaigns, whereas GMs are more likely to judge themselves on execution, so may rather miss the point ;-) (I've just invented that theory, in a rush, and have to go now, so it might not bear up to closer scrutiny, but it's a start!)
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 09:26 am (UTC)I have a hopefully-clever approach to the character generation issue, which I'd like to try out if I ever have the energy. I have no idea how new it is, but I haven't consciously ripped it off from anyone. It does bear some similarities to some games that I've known of...
The idea is to find 8-10 players (I currently have the luxury of knowing more than 10 people I'd like to run a game for, so maybe I should get on with it before I start losing touch with them), have them create characters, and run preludes or similar.
After this stage, I'd introduce some of the characters to each other, and after *that* I'd think about which ones would work well as a PC group around whom a significant plot could form in a satisfactory way. That's the players, and potentially I'd also get the plot itself for free if something became obvious as the Best Thing To Do.
The downside is that I either have to run more stuff for the others (solo games, or another group, or dropping in and out of the main plot), or else I have to find players who are willing to commit to a campaign but wouldn't mind if I dumped them for no better reason than that their character didn't fit well with enough of the others. Hmm.
Characters and Plot
Date: 2003-01-13 10:23 am (UTC)I think that the last part is a really difficult thing, unless you came up with two different groups. After all, once someone has invested a certain amount of time (and often love !) into a character they don't tend to be terribly chilled about being excluded from the campaign. Plus it tends to knock the self-confidence a bit; you may talk about being "suited" to a particular group, they will see it in terms of being or not being "good enough".
I don't agree about the plot side though; but then, as I've commented before, I'm a "plot" person rather than a "character" person. I personally enjoy advancing "character plot" in a game, even at the expense of "grand plot", but it usually works even better (for me) when the latter is also present (and the two are inter-linked). A game without grand plot tends, to me, to feel very self-absorbed as it tends to be written to take the players on an emotional rollercoaster. It will often divide the players into those that will rave about it until the cows come home, and those that claim they've had more fun watching paint dry.
But perhaps I feel that way because I've mostly fallen into the latter category. I once took part in a game when I was closer to being in the former category and I still remember the experience as being rather painful and a great deal more personal than I usually like to share with fellow roleplayers. A little like confiding in people (or sleeping with people) - there's a limit to how much I want to do and I like to choose who I do it with.
And I am now a long way from your original point. So I'll stop waffling. Immediately.
Re: Characters and Plot
Date: 2003-01-14 03:10 am (UTC)I don't agree about the plot side though; but then, as I've commented before, I'm a "plot" person rather than a "character" person.
It should still be possible to tailor this method to a "grand plot" style of play. The GM could write the grand plot before any of the preludes starts, and still choose the characters that will work best in the context of each other and of the grand plot.
Plus it tends to knock the self-confidence a bit; you may talk about being "suited" to a particular group, they will see it in terms of being or not being "good enough".
That's one reason why it'd be important for any potential players to know what's going on. For example, I could make the scheme more familiar by mentioning it on a BBS ;-)
A game without grand plot tends, to me, to feel very self-absorbed
I can't say for sure, but this might be because the players we know who don't get all that excited about grand plot tend to be the traumacoaster riders. I don't fall entirely into either camp - I think that the main plot of the campaign should be personally relevant to the PCs, and I usually do this by design of the plot rather than by design of the characters. I'm happy for the main plot not to be the grand plot of the world, iyswim. And while I really like having lots of complicated character interaction, I don't have a requirement that it be traumatic.
. It will often divide the players into those that will rave about it until the cows come home, and those that claim they've had more fun watching paint dry.
This is another good reason for me handpicking players with the campaign in mind.
One-offs
Date: 2003-01-13 10:12 am (UTC)Also, I think it makes a difference whether the one-off games are live action or tabletop. Live action one-offs tend to be very successful, in my experience, since pretty much everyone involved puts in a disproportionate amount of effort.
From the point of view of detail, I can honestly say that the most successful one-off games I've run were influenced by an atmosphere I wanted to create and/or a moral question I wanted to pose, and that the actual detail just 'happened' during the game. This probably wouldn't work for everyone, but most of my world development and plot development is subconscious. It's only when I'm called upon to know what's going on that it becomes apparent to me. My game failures involve too much preparation. Erm... that's probably revealing too much!
Eal.
My thoughts (part one)
Date: 2003-01-13 11:34 am (UTC)The one offs I have run have both suffered from not really being the right length. The first one I ran was just for me to test the session and was meant to be just a tomb exploring dungeon hack type thing. That was the only thing I really had in mind when I started to run. Then we started genning up charaters and playing. After five hours of play they had just about got to the dungeon I had intended for them to explore. This was mainly because I started doing the background of how they met and the setup of the story but rather than dictating I made it intereactive. As a result the game was abandoned at this stage in favour of bed and picked up for another five or six hours the next day.
My second one off went in a similar style. More preparation for this one and it seems that the plot I had lined up just took too damn long. A whodunnit with intricate plots including at least one other major plot indpendant from the main one just meant there wasn't time to find out that the butler did it (closer to reality than I first realised as I typed) before bed and again it got picked up and finished the next day.
What does that tell me? I guess that building up strong characters and having complex plots doesn't work in one-offs as well and that is what I really like about games. I have enjoyed other one offs. Gold team I particularly enjoyed but that was a very different thing again. That was almost an exercise in tactics compared to a roleplaying game. It wasn't about characterisation or anything, it was just about getting the job done in the best way possible and outthinking the bad guys. Damn good fun.
I dare say that at some point I will run more one offs. Almost certainly they will be tied in to my campaigns in some way. As described above I tend to not finish one offs in a single session so they might end up as two session one offs or something like that. I've also never tried running stuff with pre-gens. I'm not sure I am a big fan of pre-gens is the main trouble. If I get given a pre-gen I always worry that I am not going to play it properly and similarly in giving others pre-gens I don't know if I will be able to shake the idea that the player is playing it wrong in some way if they don't play it as I imagined it when genning it.
A possible solution to my pre-gen problem would be to get other people to design a stack of characters so I would see them as character sheets rather than as characters. I wouldn't get pre-conceived notions of a character as I would if genning them myself. That still leaves the problem of not having characters that everybody likes. That is, I suppose, a matter of knowing what sort of characters players like. Something I myself am awful at, mainly because I suppose it is usually that people are happy to play most things and I just worry too much. :)
Anyway, I am getting way off the point here as I ramble my thoughts on on offs.
My thoughts (part two)
Date: 2003-01-13 11:35 am (UTC)As for the three points you list: System - Star wars I run mostly systemless. I have character sheets that use system to make the characters balanced but I run things much more cinematically rather than with dice. Exalted however I run with system. That is mainly to do with what I see the Exalted system to be there for. Not to see if you succeed or fail but to see how much you succeed by. :)
Detail - I usually run most things off the top of my head. I rarely have specifics planned, just the generality of plots. The rest I make up as I go along. I find that as long as I have a good idea of the game world then this really isn't a problem. star Wars I can do this with ease. Exalted not quite as easily but still well enough, I think. For campaigns this leaves more post game work as you write down all the stuff you made up so that it doesn't get forgotten (something I failed to do with star wars which bit me later).
PCs - In the one offs I have run I let the players design their characters. The first game I told them what it was and as they genned up gave them the occasional push or shove away from things that wouldn't work. For the second the characters got genned up before I had a lot of plot in place which meant that the plot was eventually tailored around the characters rather than the other way around. This I could do because I had a separate chargen session which is easy to do when your only two players live in the same place and you can pop round to see them easily in the evening. :)
And I reckon that your one offs are better than you think. I know that my players say they enjoy what I have run for them (campaign and one off) even though I reckon some of it was quite pants. :) I think people are always a lot more critical of what they run because they tend to gloss over the good bits and concentrate on the bad bits whereas players tend to gloss over the bad bits and concentrate on the good. :)
Anyway, far more waffle than needed there. Hope I didn't put you to sleep. :)
It certainly seems that live journal thinks I said too much since it told me so when I tried to post these as a single comment. :)
In response to Chris and Liz
Date: 2003-01-13 02:21 pm (UTC)Incidentally, I hadn't thought of Gold Team - but I felt that one went well. Both of them, in fact !