PDA

View Full Version : One-shots - underutilized?



Quertus
2018-09-21, 04:38 PM
One-shots have a lot of value that I feel often goes unrecognized, and, thus, underutilized. The purpose of this thread is to provide a place to describe and discuss the diverse range of ways in which one-shots can benefit the gaming experience.

One-shots are good fillers. Players of key characters can't make it for game day? GM feels he's in a rut? One-shots to the rescue.

One-shots are good for calibration. GM says that they want to run a political campaign? Well, not everyone may be in the same page as to what those words mean. One-shots help you calibrate expectations, and the meaning of vocabulary.

One-shots are good for tests. Want to see what happens if you make all spells into "at will" abilities, without risking ****ing up the campaign? Try it out in a one-shot.

One-shots make great auditions. You can find out what range of characters people can play, what range of games GMs can run, and which of those everyone enjoys.

One-shots do not require large commitments. Not sure whether you'll enjoy this character, this system, or whether you really want to be spending time with these people? One-shot.

Session zero lets you make decisions about a game; one-shots let you make informed decisions about a game.

Jama7301
2018-09-21, 05:09 PM
One-shots make great auditions. You can find out what range of characters people can play, what range of games GMs can run, and which of those everyone enjoys.

One-shots do not require large commitments. Not sure whether you'll enjoy this character, this system, or whether you really want to be spending time with these people? One-shot.


These are the precise reasons why I stopped planning a D&D campaign and switched to outlining a bunch of one-shots that I'm hoping to start running before the end of the year. I didn't have the mental energy to come up with stuff to fill a campaign, so I'm using one shots to try different story types, genres, and different game systems to see what I like. I went from stonewalled after the first adventure in a D&D game, to having a near completed one in Dungeon World, and outlines for stuff in 4 other games.

Quertus
2018-09-22, 07:40 AM
These are the precise reasons why I stopped planning a D&D campaign and switched to outlining a bunch of one-shots that I'm hoping to start running before the end of the year. I didn't have the mental energy to come up with stuff to fill a campaign, so I'm using one shots to try different story types, genres, and different game systems to see what I like. I went from stonewalled after the first adventure in a D&D game, to having a near completed one in Dungeon World, and outlines for stuff in 4 other games.

That would sound like the burnout / in a rut issues, were it not for the difference in level of GM prep time required for different systems. I'm glad that the change of pace was beneficial for you.

Cluedrew
2018-09-22, 09:03 AM
My favourite campaigns have been two-shots. Probably had around 10 hours of game play to them each. And part of what made them so great was the fact that we could just tell the story we wanted to. No need for filler or artificial complications.

And we could just let things fall the way they would. And I don't mean "that if things don't work out we can drop it", I mean the natural progression of plot some times meant we couldn't continue the story. The bombs went off and most of the party is dead. In a longer game we might have to dodge around that and make sure there is a thread to continue the plot. But in this case we got to bask in the glory of setting it all on fire.

Jama7301
2018-09-22, 10:24 AM
That would sound like the burnout / in a rut issues, were it not for the difference in level of GM prep time required for different systems. I'm glad that the change of pace was beneficial for you.

I'd be more inclined to believe this, if I haven't run more than one session of a game in almost 8 years, haha. I had the hankering to set things up for awhile, but a change in work that took hold last year has just killed my mental energy for making something that spans a lot of sessions.

Darth Ultron
2018-09-22, 12:33 PM
One shots are great, and I do them often.

With a game a week, I expect a typical adventure to take a month or two. Then the next game will be a one shot, often the exact opposite of the adventure in some way. Some players have one shot characters, some like to make new ones each time, and some do a mix.

I often use one shots as a ''Game 0".

A lot of players will want to play some ''type'' of game, and the worst ones will whine about it all the time. So it is often best to get it out of a players system. And one shots work great for that...as most of the time players find they don't ''like the type of game as much as they thought they would".

They are also great at exposing the ''real" player. All too often before a game, a player will say something about themselves or the game that they like or dislike or such. Then, not five minutes into the game play, it will seem what they said was not true at all.

Some players are one shot players. Once upon a time a guy gamer told me how much he liked the game in the past, but did not like the huge story and character focus of the modern game play. So I found some other older players and started up a Sunday one shot. It was amazing the number of people that came out of nowhere, once they heard about the game. Soon I had dozens of players that wanted to do the one shot game.

BWR
2018-09-22, 01:14 PM
For clarity's sake: what do people mean by a 'one-shot' here?
A single adventure that may take a couple of sessions or a single session thingy which may or may not see whatever situation(s) that arise resolved?
The former is OK now and then, usually when we want a break from D&D though we usually prefer if it lasts a goodly while. The latter is at best an emergency measure when the main DM cancels last minute for a planned gaming trip or if you're at a con. I'm not overly fond of the latter - it feels too brief and rushed and unfulfilling unless you play something like Lasers & Feelings or something minimal like that and those are not fun more than once in a long while (as in I played it once and that was enough).


Personally, I prefer getting involved in long-running stories where I can see the characters grow and evolve, interact with the setting properly, and learn who they really are. But you can grow into that from the meaningless drivel of essentially stand-alone adventures.
Case in point: at the end of 2011 I was feeling rather bummed because I had tried running a pre-planned SW campaign that ended up rather lackluster because I had no clear concept of what I was doing and how to make events properly build up to the climax. So I decided to go back to basics: plain ol' D&D, characters with little to no backstory, minimal setting information other than the basics (Thunder Rift is wonderful for beginning adventures), plain hack'n'slash and if the players wanted to play broken murderhobos, fine by me. I was not going to plan anything more than an adventure at a time, I wouldn't even attempt a story or overarching plot or continuity - just the simplest of D&D: go to a place, kill monsters, take the treasure. We started in January 2012 and I figured this would give me a few months of relaxation before I decided on the next Big Thing I wanted to run. Fast-forward to 2018 and everyone is 20th, they are past the first hurdles towards Immortality, three of the characters have been there since the beginning and there is a ton of history and plot and character development, I still have at least a year's worth of material from the PC's plans, and we decided to play a campaign of legacy characters after this: they get to play the first young worshippers of their ascended PCs (given that they actually succeed). Letting essentially a series of one-shots grow naturally and unplanned led to a great campaign.

We've had interludes of HSHC (8 sessions), Laundry Files (6 months of more or less stand-alone adventures) and FFG SW (0+3 sessions) during this time because people want a break from D&D now and then, but seeing the characters grow, succeed and fail, the drama, the humor, the epic situations and all the rest of this vast, sprawling saga...it's the best. All my best RPing experiences, bar one V:tM campaign, have grown in this way. The one-shots aren't memorable or important to any significant degree.



To rudely argue against the OP:


One-shots are good fillers. Players of key characters can't make it for game day? GM feels he's in a rut? One-shots to the rescue.

Takes too much time to prepare a character on the spot in many systems. I've done this exactly once as a GM and half a dozen or so times as a player. It was fun twice, not so fun the others.



One-shots are good for calibration. GM says that they want to run a political campaign? Well, not everyone may be in the same page as to what those words mean. One-shots help you calibrate expectations, and the meaning of vocabulary.

Isn't this basically what session 0 is for?




One-shots are good for tests. Want to see what happens if you make all spells into "at will" abilities, without risking ****ing up the campaign? Try it out in a one-shot.

Possibly, but IME most things need several sessions to determine if they work or not. First impressions and all that.




One-shots make great auditions. You can find out what range of characters people can play, what range of games GMs can run, and which of those everyone enjoys.

IME, if I used single sessions to judge players/GMs like this I would get a very inaccurate picture of what they can do and who they are. Some people need a little coaxing and coaching to show what they are capable. Some people need a little time to adjust to a new group or a new idea.



One-shots do not require large commitments. Not sure whether you'll enjoy this character, this system, or whether you really want to be spending time with these people? One-shot.

True, one-shots do not require commitment, but sometimes you need a little time to determine if you'll work well with people. Goodness knows if I had decided to to play/not play with people from my groups on the basis of first impressions I would have not have half the awesome players/friends I have now.

SuperFerret
2018-09-23, 07:37 AM
I exclusively run one shots at this point in my life. Scheduling constraints, parenthood, and the lack of a consistent group makes campaigns impossible. Game days are few and far between, and tend to be more like a party than a regular game would be.

Most of the players are new to TTRPGs, so I run Dungeon World, since it gives the D&D feel while being easily picked up and played. Character creation is quick, and I'm working on putting together a bunch of adventure starters so I can basically just pull the binder off the shelf and start a game.

Regarding one shots in general, it's also important to note that a lot of newer, and typically smaller, games are geared towards that sort of play. I'd imagine that something like Honey Heist, Everyone is John, or Dread would be difficult to put together a long-term campaign for.

Knaight
2018-09-23, 10:28 AM
The vast majority of my GMing for the past year or so has been in what I call One Shot Club, and organization that I made to solve logistical issues of getting the same people to the same place reliably. It solved said logistical issues, which is another major point in favor of the structure; though it's still comparably logistically intensive.

Beyond that I'd really emphasize the fun that comes from getting to try out a whole bunch of things, from new systems to more experimental game structures that could either work or blow up and are thus too risky for a whole campaign. Those experimental structures working well correspond to some of the most fun GMing I've had, and according to players some of the best games they've had, up there with the best sessions of the best campaigns I've run.

It also theoretically lets you vary who is GMing and who is playing and get different games from different styles of GMs, though that never really happened much.

Quertus
2018-09-23, 11:26 PM
Beyond that I'd really emphasize the fun that comes from getting to try out a whole bunch of things, from new systems to more experimental game structures that could either work or blow up and are thus too risky for a whole campaign. Those experimental structures working well correspond to some of the most fun GMing I've had, and according to players some of the best games they've had, up there with the best sessions of the best campaigns I've run.

Any love for running a while bunch of characters? Any character reuse?


For clarity's sake: what do people mean by a 'one-shot' here?
A single adventure that may take a couple of sessions or a single session thingy which may or may not see whatever situation(s) that arise resolved?
The former is OK now and then, usually when we want a break from D&D though we usually prefer if it lasts a goodly while. The latter is at best an emergency measure when the main DM cancels last minute for a planned gaming trip or if you're at a con. I'm not overly fond of the latter - it feels too brief and rushed and unfulfilling unless you play something like Lasers & Feelings or something minimal like that and those are not fun more than once in a long while (as in I played it once and that was enough).

Point. There are different things that fall under the umbrella I'd things that people call "one-shots" that are often better suited for different purposes.


Personally, I prefer getting involved in long-running stories where I can see the characters grow and evolve, interact with the setting properly, and learn who they really are. But you can grow into that from the meaningless drivel of essentially stand-alone adventures.

Largely agree, although, IME, longer campaigns are much more likely to be "meaningless drivel" than more concise, thought-out one-shots. Characters getting to grow merely requires that the characters be played - which can happen in one longer campaign, or several shorter ones. In fact, if the several shorter ones are under different GMs, they are more likely to have a wider variety of content, and, thus, IME, are more likely to trigger such growth and self realization.

Interacting with the setting "properly"... depending on what you mean by this, yes, deep dives and recurring NPCs are difficult with having a new GM every session.


To rudely argue against the OP:

Or to give the OP a chance to better explain his position. :smallwink:


Takes too much time to prepare a character on the spot in many systems. I've done this exactly once as a GM and half a dozen or so times as a player. It was fun twice, not so fun the others.

Who said anything about on the spot? You may know 6 months ahead of time that this is on the docket. And/or you may be playing an existing character in the one-shot.


Isn't this basically what session 0 is for?

Maybe, but, if so, they do a really bad job of it compared to how well actually playing the GM's idea of a "political game" with the players' ideas of "Bucky, but evil", "James Bond meets Flash Gordon", and "humble civil servant" does explaining exactly what everyone means by those words.


Possibly, but IME most things need several sessions to determine if they work or not. First impressions and all that.

Depending on the change, that can be true. Also, I've been fortunate enough to have several players (myself included) who are really good at pushing the bounds of systems, which makes me expect shorter testing times than most groups would need.


IME, if I used single sessions to judge players/GMs like this I would get a very inaccurate picture of what they can do and who they are. Some people need a little coaxing and coaching to show what they are capable. Some people need a little time to adjust to a new group or a new idea.

This bit here really misses the mark of what I intended. So, to try to clarify what I intended... it doesn't have to be just one one-shot. In fact, it almost certainly shouldn't be. By playing, say, 5 different one-shots, with 5 different characters, it gives people a better idea of the range that one can play. I've played with people who played functionally the same character each time, and two who even gave the characters the same name. Seeing everyone's ranges, comfort zones, etc, it's much easier to get together and plan out a party, both capability and personality, that might actually work together.

As for the "new idea", yeah, it's best if some of the characters have less history than others, so that people can see the difference between "new character" and "established character".

And, getting to run multiple characters in the group, well, hopefully that helps cover both the "time to adjust to the new group", and the time to try out coaching / coaxing.


True, one-shots do not require commitment, but sometimes you need a little time to determine if you'll work well with people. Goodness knows if I had decided to to play/not play with people from my groups on the basis of first impressions I would have not have half the awesome players/friends I have now.

Again, multiple one-shots, until you feel (everyone feels?) that y'all have enough information to make informed decisions about what would be fun.

Knaight
2018-09-24, 01:07 AM
Any love for running a while bunch of characters? Any character reuse?
No reuse, apart from the occasional 1 shot that grows into something bigger (the metroidvania dungeon crawl, the magical sorority girl genre, a couple of others)*, and I haven't run a one shot with a bunch of characters per player yet - which is a shame, as I have a homebrew system at least partially aimed at that.

You know we don't see anywhere near eye to eye on the subject of bringing in existing characters from other campaigns.

*Which doesn't really count.

Satinavian
2018-09-24, 02:01 AM
Any love for running a while bunch of characters? Any character reuse?Nearly every single character is bound to a setting. Family, friends, goals, responsibilities, titles and ressources, allies and enemies etc.

Reusing the character for many people is only appealing when combined with reusing the setting. I know that is somewhat less true for you with your world-hopping heroes trying to avoid any attachments to campaign worlds, but that is a rather rare case.

So ye, reusing characters is fine and appealing... if done in the same campaign world, not otherwise.


Largely agree, although, IME, longer campaigns are much more likely to be "meaningless drivel" than more concise, thought-out one-shots. Characters getting to grow merely requires that the characters be played - which can happen in one longer campaign, or several shorter ones. In fact, if the several shorter ones are under different GMs, they are more likely to have a wider variety of content, and, thus, IME, are more likely to trigger such growth and self realization.What is the difference between a campaign and a series of seperate adventures with the same characters in the same world ? Only that the first can make better use of recurring villians, plant hints for later adventures and can better include long term activities/developments.

I would also say that a series of one shots are more likely to include more meaningless drivel. Alone from having to justify every single time why the PCs are where they are and how they are put into the plot. While each of them can't really have long term plans because they all have to be able to put into whatever adventure comes next.

Now it can be done. It can be done even with changing GMs all the time. Some games like Shadowrun are even build around making it easy to provide series of episodic content.

Maybe, but, if so, they do a really bad job of it compared to how well actually playing the GM's idea of a "political game" with the players' ideas of "Bucky, but evil", "James Bond meets Flash Gordon", and "humble civil servant" does explaining exactly what everyone means by those words.You can change your character even in a campaign.

This bit here really misses the mark of what I intended. So, to try to clarify what I intended... it doesn't have to be just one one-shot. In fact, it almost certainly shouldn't be. By playing, say, 5 different one-shots, with 5 different characters, it gives people a better idea of the range that one can play. I've played with people who played functionally the same character each time, and two who even gave the characters the same name. Seeing everyone's ranges, comfort zones, etc, it's much easier to get together and plan out a party, both capability and personality, that might actually work together.I have already played way more than 100 PCs. And i actually like reusing characters, several having seen play for decades (yes, always in the same campaign world). I have no interest whatsoever to play oneshots to learn what kind of characters i like or can play. I know that already. I have even less interest to build new characters with the explicit assumption of playing then only in a oneshot. I like to get attached to my characters during play. During long play.

Five oneshots, each one with different characters who don't know each other, each adventure with a different theme, but short and not too deep so it can be done in a sibgle session. And the characters are meant to be pushing boundaries for players so there will everytime players who don't like that kind of character. ... No. Sounds like a frustrating waste of time and not worth what you can learn.


Again, multiple one-shots, until you feel (everyone feels?) that y'all have enough information to make informed decisions about what would be fun.I always have. And the gist of it is "series of unconnected one shots with different characters each time don't sound fun at all."




There are kinds of episoc play i do like. I don't need big overarching plots each time. And i do encourage rotating GMs (and keepping setting and characters). I am even happy with "everyone has a bunch of characters living in the same area and choosing an appropriate one each time".




So overall, one-shots (with a combination of new chars, setting, system, GM) are good for :

- getting to know a new system
- playing at a convention
- getting a break in a long running campaign that is out of steam
- emergency GM replacement

Pelle
2018-09-24, 05:26 AM
My current campaign started as a one-shot. The players liked the characters, setting and hooks, so they wanted to continue playing. I think it's a good idea to start with a one-shot before committing to a long running campaign, to test out the system, characters etc. It's a bit risky to start prepping for a long game without knowing if the players will be motivated enough.

Only running one-shots can be fun too, but there's some potential issues. You might end the seesion without any closure, because the players spent too long time and they don't get the chance to realize their goal, which can feel unsatisfying. Or, the GM can rush things, and edit the world reality/scenario under way so that the characters reach some conclusion anyhow, but that can also feel a bit unsatisfying. This is just inherent in having a limited playing time, instead of finding out how much playing time is needed to get to an appropriate ending point for the game.

Altair_the_Vexed
2018-09-24, 06:06 AM
All my campaigns are strings and webs of one-shot adventures. They do link up, they're in the same setting, but each one is fairly self-contained. The players start to take hold of threads they find interesting and pursue them. It works well for our group - like a sandbox into which I chuck toys.

Jama7301
2018-09-24, 06:09 PM
For clarity's sake: what do people mean by a 'one-shot' here?
A single adventure that may take a couple of sessions or a single session thingy which may or may not see whatever situation(s) that arise resolved?

My aim is to have a single adventure that can wrap up in one night, but leaves the door open for people to return for something long term if there's interest, and if I can gin something up.

I may find that I like a game like Technoir in principle more than in execution, or people may hate it. If so, I've only wasted a few hours of time, rather than a ton of prep that I'd have to try to retrofit to a new system.