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}
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.