Campaigns v. One-Shot Adventures

[Gaiwecoor]

I've recently come to the realization that it can sometimes be difficult to arrange regular gaming sessions necessary to have a meaningful campaign, what with life and all that. Since I've only ever played or ran games in a campaign sense, how does everybody feel about one-shot games as opposed to full campaigns?

I see advantages to both: including the ability to be more flexible in time for the one-shot (since there's no continuous storyline, it doesn't matter if there are months between session) and the satisfaction of seeing a character through the levels for a campaign.

So for the general discussion - particularly including those with busy lifestyles, but open to all: what kind of games do you all prefer? What makes it the most enjoyable experience?

[Leadfeathermcc]

I prefer campaigns, if you do also but don't have the time to devote to it you might consider a campaign like the West Marches.

[Dorizzit]

I like campaigns, simply because I really get attached to characters I make.

[Crow]

You can always run it Conan-style.

Every session, it's a few months or years later. The characters are someplace totally different from where they were before. They may start out locked in a prison, or onboard a ship bound for a far-off port...even in the midst of a great battle as mercenaries. Each session should bring something new and unexpected.

The key is to start the session by telling them how they got there, and why they were involved. Embellish the tale and make it larger-than-life, then do the same with the adventure itself. Dangle a carrot that the players can't pass up (It may just be gone when the next adventure begins anyways). Then let them run it from there.

I find this style to be an ideal mix between one-shots and campaigns. Your milage may vary.

[Icewalker]

I have primarily played in strings of one-shot adventures with no tie-in with each other, other than being the same characters in the same world. Things happen, they go stop them. It works well.

[Pronounceable]

I have primarily played in strings of one-shot adventures with no tie-in with each other, other than being the same characters in the same world. Things happen, they go stop them. It works well.

Same here, except they don't stop them. They mainly survive them. Still, it works well.

[Fuzzy_Juan]

just don't make it like some video games where the party is apparently waylayed en route to an undiscovered country (that happens to be bigger and better than the previous with more things but noone knew about for no reason in th eprevious adventure) by an army of wights that stopped attacking once everyone had negative levels = to their level -1...then through DM fiat they failed all saves and had to abandon all equipment only to find themselves in some strange new land in a region that is suprisingly low level oriented despite the fact that they had been seeking more high level adventure...

happens way to often in sequals

[leperkhaun]

I prefer campaigns, but some times thats just not possible. Another option would be to keep using the same characters, just make sure you can wrap it up in one session. That way people can play the same character, but dont have to remember what happened a month ago.

[Thamir]

Campaigns are great but if you don't have the time a one shot is better than nothing.

[Grynning]

I'm terrible at keeping up with my DM duties in long running campaigns (which is why I rarely DM), but I love running and playing one-shots. One shots are great when for one reason or another part of the group can't make it, or when people want a break from the main campaign and want to try out new characters that they might never get to play in a regular game, and it gives the regular DM a chance to take a break and play for once. I think they work best mixed in between campaign sessions, and they're good for people like me who can come up with great material for one session, but can't follow through with a whole campaign.

[SoD]

I've always prefurred full length campaigns (however long they turn out) to one shot sessions. With one shot, there's not so much room for character development.

[Kompera]

If it's not a campaign, then I'd prefer a 2-4 session run time. That allows for more meaningful adventure than you can really squeeze into a single 4 hour play session, and allows the players to get used to and treat their characters better than they might in a single run game.

[Brom]

As a player I prefer one shots because I have a hard time enjoying the same character for a long time.

[Gaiwecoor]

Thanks, all... sounds like we have a lot of people that enjoy both. I like the idea of recurring character episodic adventures (a whole bunch of single adventures using the same characters). How much material do you usually plan for a one-shot? Suppose there's something you want to get done in a four hour session... how would I make sure I don't over plan and end up with something that would last much more than that?

[Ethdred]

I always used to play 'linked one shots' when I started - we'd all have a stable of characters and then whoever wanted to could DM and everyone picked which characters they wanted. We could run multiple characters, so there was always enough for a party. Now it's all campaign based, because I'm just in one group that meets regularly.

But I've never got through a whole adventure in one session - except for one 24 hour session we ran.

[bignate]

i prefer something in the middle, i like games that run 5-8 game sessions. i like seeing my character develope but at the same i love coming up with new character concepts. i commonly have 5+ fully made characters with backstory just waiting for the opportunity to be played. that being said, most of the people i play with like full campaigns...like level 1 to 20...so that is usually what we try to do.

on another note though, there is no reason you cant run a campaign because of the gap in time between games. my group it made up entirly of working adults. we generally game once every three weeks and sometimes move it up or back one week depending on schedules and like i said, we mostly play long campaigns...i havent been part of a one shot game in the last 10 years.

something we have started doing in the past year is using a forum much like this one to keep in touch and talk about the game, between game sessions. you can set up a forum at EXboard or many others for free...

[Grynning]

My current CoC campaign manages to finish each adventure in one session, we have a very good GM who plans his campaigns like TV seasons (22 episodes, each self-contained but linked by an over-arching plot). I like that, it gives a nice sense of completion at the end of each session. Generally they last about 4-6 hours including the usual side-tracking and breaks and such.
For a one shot, you need about a day or two worth of encounters (4 per day) and a couple extra challenges (puzzles, traps, or what have you). Generally there should be a single goal (retrieve x item, save x princess, solve x mystery, kill x bad guy, whatever) and everything in the adventure should relate to that one goal (since you're not dealing with sub-plots or a big story). It always depends on your group, though - if you have people who like to RP, you need Diplomacy and Social encounters, if they all like to fight, more combat, etc. It also depends on the experience of your players - generally, more experienced players can move faster through encounters than inexperienced ones, mainly due to everyone's familiarity with the rules and their character's abilities.
The dungeon crawl is the classic one-shot adventure, and it's where D&D has its roots, so that's always a good start. Design a relatively small and simple dungeon/tower (maybe 2 or 3 levels with less than 12 rooms per level) and you can probably get through it one night with a group of 4.

[The J Pizzel]

I'm not really sure what I'm curruntly running. I have usually done these EPIC LOTR SAVE THE WORLD kinda things. However, we finished it and the group dropped to 3 players. So, now I'm doing kinda a fantasy Firefly.

The group has known each other. And they're about to meet a fellow who has a job for them (first session). They'll finish it and become known throughout the city as "the group that gets the job done". From here, every session will be a "mission" that there hired to do by various people. Could be politicians, crimelords, military, upperclass, clergy...you name it. They'll always have a few options as to what they can do.

What yall think, what exactly is that? Campaign or a series of connected "one shots"?

[Star_Rider]

I'm the DM most of the time, and I find it difficult to organize the campaigns for my D&D group, but I found that the more time you put into making personalities and traits for EACH and EVERY NPC there is in the vicinity, the more fun and reactions you get from the game. Campaigns are beutiful when played for a while, but...
Spontaneous "one shots" are fun for experimental purposes. My friend tried to take on a beholder by himself at level 1 once to see if he stood a chance. Hilarity ensued.

[valadil]

I vastly prefer running campaigns as a GM. My style involves a lot of plots. Like, I'll have 10-15 different plots going before I invite players and then I'll give each player 2 or 3 plots of their own based on their backstory. I've tried writing smaller scale games lately and found myself utterly bored.

As a player I like both, provided the game is written as a campaign or a one shot. For example, a one shot game where we enter a dungeon, kill some stuff, find some treasure, and buy some loot would be a wretched waste of time. A good one shot will tell a complete story. Hopefully it'll mean something to the characters. In a game like this I'm fully in favor of the GM handing out premade characters who each have their own part to play in the story.

What I like in a campaign is character growth and watching my character influence the world. The character growth is my responsibility and I can't always guarantee that I pull it off, but the character's effect on the world is up to the GM. One of my recent GMs has had the awful habit of writing and running the game with no interest in which characters are involved. I think he wants it to be the same game for any party. As far as I'm concerned there's no point in playing a game like that. A good campaign will let the game world reflect the characters who are in it.

[Raum]

I've recently come to the realization that it can sometimes be difficult to arrange regular gaming sessions necessary to have a meaningful campaign, what with life and all that. Since I've only ever played or ran games in a campaign sense, how does everybody feel about one-shot games as opposed to full campaigns?

It doesn't have to be an either / or choice. You can run short missions within the context of larger campaign goals. In many ways that's what I prefer, it's certainly what I'm used to running. Having short term goals allows characters to grow and accomplish things without taking a year or more real time. Adding a campaign / overall story arc structure ties the shorter term goals into a consistent whole. And, as long as you're not putting a time limit on the campaign goals, you can still have down time between missions whenever the characters need it. Or when the GM needs it for that matter. :)