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}
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.