One-shot sessions

[Bob the Fighter]

So I've come across a glut of really neat games lately, and I was wondering what I could do to try 'em all out in relatively rapid succession.

I'm thinking of these RPGs in terms of the way I tend to play board games:
Them: "Let's play Battle Masters!"
Me: "No, we played that, like, the past three game nights. Ooh! Parcheesi!"

I think that once you get away from the standard, rambling, serial-narrative style of mainstream games like Vampire, and move into games that don't focus on long-term PC growth, you could shuffle RPGs around like video game cartridges (well, maybe not THAT fast..) and get a variety of things going on in a fairly small amount of time.

I don't really feel like dedicating months and whole notebooks and day-planners to a single RPG, when I've got at least half a dozen RPGs I really wanna play.

What are some folks' suggestions on how to cap a storyline/victory condition so that you only spend an evening on the game? Thanks!

[Bill Cook]

I think arbitrary limits lend focus. For (what I call) longer campaigns, I make a set number of sessions. Usually four. As you play, knowing that it won't go on forever softens mismatches that you fail to sort out and encourages players to have their characters jump forward! Why not? The opportunity will be gone in a couple more sessions. Also, as a GM, you think things like, sheesh! It's the second session and we've only hit one major milestone. And I haven't yet got so-and-so drawn in deeply.

One-shots are a lot of fun. Pre-gens and one-page rules summaries take you there. I play these in one block of four hours. It tends to require an hour to invest in rapport, bringing the players to the table. I like to make a disclaimer to start: this is something we're just trying out, so let's all learn the system together. And I'll give signals to the middle and end. ("That's two hours in; let's take a break." "We've got a half hour to go. Let's finish this scene, and then I want to go back to these guys, and we'll stop.")

Personally, I haven't been able to get around having to read through the manual less than twice, taking notes and .. well, I call it playtesting, and by that I mean dice rolling through the examples and then solo-playing through fer instances until I get it. That includes playing both sides and free associating through the rules, seeing how long it takes you to page flip to do whatever to call it done.

[Michael S. Miller]

Hi, Bob.

Check out this thread for tips on running My Life with Master or Dogs in the Vinyard in a single session: Running a con game of MLWM or DitV or what?.

For other games, I suggest using pre-generated characters in some sort of established scenario. F'r instance, Sorcerer works well with In Utero from Sex & Sorcery, or my own Urban Squalor (I can send you character sheets if you're interested. Just do a search for "Urban AND Squalor" and see how else it's been run.) Although, Sorcerer doesn't shine nearly as well in single sessions as it does in the 3-to-5-session range it was written for.

I'm pretty sure Luke has a downloadable scenario or two over at http://www.burningwheel.org

Of course, games like Universalis and InSpectres are practically built to pick-up-and-play. If you do InSpectres, I highly recommend doing multiple missions in a single session. The game shines better, I promise.

Did you have particular games in mind? You don't mention any in your post, and each one has its own unique beauties to be preserved in a condescend timeframe.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Using pre-generated characters helps A LOT.  Very good suggestion, Mike.  I'd also add that in certain games with pre-genned characters, it can be challenging and fun to announce the characters' fates before you even start.  For instance, you can say "You are all going to die.  What you accomplish and who you save is what counts.  Feel free to try to escape death, but it will find you none-the-less." or "Only one of you is going to live, who is it?" or lastly, "One of you will become a king, the other will betray his country.  The rest will be forced to choose sides."

If the players know their fates, they can just concentrait on playing the game and not get too bound up in developing their character sheets.  The joy is in the experience of playing- not in an emotional investment in a character's development.  

Just to be clear though, you don't want to do that every time.  Just every now and then to break things up a bit.

Peace,

-Troy

[Danny_K]

I think arbitrary limits lend focus. For (what I call) longer campaigns, I make a set number of sessions. Usually four. As you play, knowing that it won't go on forever softens mismatches that you fail to sort out and encourages players to have their characters jump forward! Why not? The opportunity will be gone in a couple more sessions. Also, as a GM, you think things like, sheesh! It's the second session and we've only hit one major milestone. And I haven't yet got so-and-so drawn in deeply.

Bill, I'm not sure if this is off-topic for this or not, but I'm wondering how you do short-run games.  I get longer campaigns, and I get one-shots, but I'm still trying to get my head around how to run a short campaign that goes for three or four sessions and ends with a sense of closure.  

The only idea I've had so far is to make a setting which already has a lot of intense pre-existing conflicts, so that the PC's can act as catalysts to trigger an intense reaction in only a few sessions of play.

[Adam Dray]

I posted a summary of my one-shot (6-7 hour) My Life with Master game over in Actual Play. Here's a link.

MLwM is especially well suited to a one-shot because it has rules built in for the End Game and Epilogue. Set Reason at 5, Fear at 3, and give each player 2 points of Love / Connections to start. Push for violent and heart-wrenching scenes from the get-go.

One technique I used to speed up the game was to lower Fear one point, mid-game, to reflect the Master losing his grip on the Town. This accelerates things towards the End Game.

Edited: removed stray url tag

[Valamir]

For most of the Forge Games I'd recommend planning 3-4 session mini runs vs. one shots.  Most of the games really come into their own once players grasp the concept of what the mechanics accomplish and how to use them.  First sessions tend to be very much "Tell me how to do X".  But by the third or fourth session players already know how to do X and are now much more likely to come up with "oooo, she just did Y and he just did W...if I pull Z right now it'll wind up...."  In otherwords theres a alot to be said for playing with players who've mastered the system and that typically takes more than a single session (but fortuneately not a lifetime of dedication like Hero).

There are really 2 keys to doing 3-4 session mini runs.  First recognize that most Forge-esque games will accomplish more in a single 4 hour session than the typical D&D campaign gets through in several 8 hour sessions.  The games typically just move faster especially if they use some fashion of conflict resolution.  Second, don't plan on the start as a nobody become a legend paradigm.  That CAN work in TSOY or HQ if you crank the advancement rate up high enough but more typically plan to start with the characters already being bad asses.  In traditional terms what you're looking for is a big scenario rather than a campaign.

[Eve]

We did some one session universalis games, just to try out the system actually. I think it worked well, though the stories turned out to be kind of funny and you of course have more possibilities for an evolving storyline if you take more time for it.

The good thing is though, that you could start right away, with a relatively short preparation phase that's already part of the game (in a way). As characters are made when needed and adapted on the fly to whatever condition you want, this gives you the speed advantage of premade characters, without reducing freedom.

[Bill Cook]

Ralph:

You make some really good points. Different Forge games strike me differently.

One-shot
[*]Great Ork Gods
[*]Mountain Witch
[*]Universalis
[*]Dogs in the Vineyard
[*]Capes

Campaign
[*]Sorcerer
[*]Burning Wheel
[*]Primetime Adventures
[*]The Shadow of Yesterday
[/list:u]

Again, this is just my impression. For one-shot-ish: Universalis, loosely so. Dogs in the Vineyard, strongly so. Switching to campaign-ish: Sorcerer most strongly so, Primetime Adventures strongly so.

Dwelling on Universalis for a moment, I assume there would have to be some player-forwarded initiative to extend play over several sessions. I don't argue for a moment that it can't be done or that the system wouldn't be more strongly revealled/executed; I'm saying that there's nothing in the rules to compel multi-session play. Also, the game's innovative approach distances it from traditional role-playing, lending uncertainty about expectations for campaign play.

More generally, your point about superior play at the level of internalization is very true. To make an example of GM's (in the standard sense of having duties centralized to one player), we who've prepped games know how much better play snaps when we've done some woodshedding with the mechanics beforehand.

[hix]

To follow from what Ralph said, I suspect The Shadow of Yesterday could be quite amazing if you dropped the cost of advances down to 1 or 2 XP.

1. You'd get quite a cinematic development (start as a nobody, become a legend); and
2. You'd probably get closure from the session because characters could easily reach Transcendence.

What else? ... oh, yeah, the game's feel would change though. It'd be much more about having a scene then spending your XP. It'd be like having 2 distinct phases.

[FzGhouL]

I think one shot sessions have the "Fun because I don't have to face the consequences permenantly and I can be a douche" factor.

For example, every one-shot session I've done, the same player stages a coup on the town. EVERY TIME! Its ingenius and hilarious too because, its freak'n ridiculous and awesome.

That same player won't call any of the NPCs stupid in a longer campaign; let alone get into a conflict with them.

In long campaigns my players tend to focus on being superior to their comrades alot more. Short campaigns usually are more...funny and cool.

Honestly, I miss playing short campaigns. Ever since I designed my RPG, I've played... 2-3 short session games. Thats in an 18 month span. For my RPG, we have played probably a total of... 40'ish hours invested in one campaign. And honestly, its only about 25% done. Thats the build up a no one into a legend type game.

With Short Sessions, people tend to remember the game in detail pretty well, and can quote some of it. In long campaigns, players can't pinpoint exact events so much as trends and big plot twists.

A short session is like a movie, a long session is like a book.

I think you gotta play both to enjoy RPGs :D

[Andrew Morris]

Bill, I have to disagree with you on Dogs in the Vineyard. While You certainly can run it as a one-shot, it really shines as a campaign.