One-off Problems
Jan. 13th, 2003 03:51 pmSince 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
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.
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
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.
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 !