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.
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 !