Oneshot theory and discussion

>>53415044
I never managed to have a game shorter than 6 hours in my entire life and I'm playing and GMing since 2002

Ive had a one shot idea that I havent managed to run yet, but should be interesting.

Everyone is a lvl.1 commoner. They can have up to 100,000 gold worth of magical equipment. The orcs are coming.

I have successfully run one-shots in the past but it felt like a fluke. I don't feel like I properly absorbed how I did it. I am much more prone to serialization. Yet I like the idea of a complete RPG experience in one sitting. I hope this thread enlightens me.

My group rotates GMs as people burn out and/or get ideas for campaigns. One-shots have actually been some of the best sessions we've had. It helps having some kind of gimmick the one-shot is built around in my experience, as it keeps the game focused. For example, I ran a Fate game where everyone had amnesia and started with a blank character sheet. Their sheets got filled out as I gave them compels and they experimented with their characters.

Premade characters also helps get things going, especially if you know the players well enough to give them a character they will enjoy. This might apply less to other people's groups though as my friends have a tendency to take as long as fucking possible to make characters. I ended up giving up trying to run Torchbearer for them because after an entire 5 hour session no one was even close to finishing their character, and you only have to make a few basic decisions to get started in that game.

>>53415826
I've got similar experiences, maybe it's just my group but whenever we try to run something pre-written it takes us 2-3 sessions to get what was intended to be a 1 session thing finished up.

>>53415044
One thing about a oneshot, is that it break up the monotony of tone built up from playing a long campaign.
I remember a story of a quality GM who had just finished a run of a complex, mentally and emotionally involved campaign full of moral ambiguity.
The next game he ran for the group was a one shot shadowrun-ish deal where he intentionally was That GM and oppressively railroaded and made the corporation come down on the players like a ton of bricks, forcing the players into their only option of giving the evil corporation as big of a bloody nose as possible on the way down in a colossal slugfest.
The players didn't realize until near the end that the GM had planned for the one shot to be a sort of catharsis of simplistic raging violence against an obvious evil, even if that evil was him.
Good GM.

I'd say the most important elements of a good oneshot are:
That the adventure is encapsulated within the time allotted.
That there is a clear goal to work towards, even if entirely defined by the players. (aimlessly faffing about in a sandbox is not a great oneshot imo)
That while roleplaying and characterization can be certainly be a big part of it, a major character development arc is an unrealistic focus.

Also, oneshots are great for experimentation with different characters, settings, genres, or systems.

As always, everyone needs to be onboard with the same idea. If the game is intended as a zombie horror. then you need to be on the same page if you're playing wacky chainsaw wielding big damn heroes, tensely driven survivors, or panicked fleeing refugees.
A oneshot leaves you less time to develop a party dynamic.
A oneshot leaves you less time to leisurely explore open-ended plots.
PCs should find excuses to work with the game as intended and take plothooks as offered.

My two cents.

How many fights do you have in a oneshot?
2? 5?

>>53415044
I actually mostly run one-shots these days, because most of my players lack time and commitment for a proper campaign. I like them since they give me an opportunity to try out new things, and some fun mechanics and gameplay styles that wouldn't really work in a longer campaign. Which doesn't mean I don't miss running campaigns though.

File: 88888.jpg (62KB, 748x1024px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 748x1024px

I think that if you're using a one shot to explore a new system, you ought to try to include all of the variety of that system. Try a little bit of everything in your session to show off what it can actually do and what sets it apart from what you've already played. If you just run a typical adventure with some new dice in a new setting, you might as well have just played what you usually do.

>>53419571
>it takes us 2-3 sessions to get what was intended to be a 1 session thing
I've once run a "warm up" game for green players on my group. Supposed time of complition: 3 hours
Our time: 4 meetings, 7 hours each

And honestly, I say it's impossible to run that game below 6-8 hours, no matter what. There is just too much stuff going in it - you have a baron's daughter to rescue and escort, investigation to perform, monster to kill and all this sandwitched with at least 3 combat encounter and one set piece that can't be simply powered through and thus requires planning.

>>53422885
>How many fights do you have in a oneshot?
>2? 5?
It really depends on how combat-focused the game is and how quickly battles go in the system you're playing (and at the level of power the characters are at). For a 5-6 hour session, I'd probably go with 3, possibly 4 if I was expecting a couple of them to be relatively short affairs (weaker enemies go down quickly or cut and run). I'd probably have at least one fight I could drop if time got short, however. With a 4 hour session, I might do 3, with one of them being a quickie. With fewer than 4 hours, I'd probably stick to 2. But mileage may vary considerably.

>>53422885
I always try to split a one-shot three ways between what I see as the Three Pillars of Combat, Exploration, and Roleplaying. Boiled down even more simply to fights, interaction with the world, and interaction with characters. So for a 6 hr one shot, I'd want about 2-3 hours of combat, and then decide how many fights that is based on the game I was running.

>>53421257
>Also, oneshots are great for experimentation with different characters, settings, genres, or systems.
This is why I also play a lot this way. And yes, also to try drawing casuals into my nerddom.
>That there is a clear goal to work towards, even if entirely defined by the players
This is important, but less obvious than you'd think. I've had GMs ending a detective story with following options:
-You kinda saved the day, but you'll never know who was the actual villain, because the system always win and it's an evil world
-You found out all that happened but can't do anything about it because the villain is on the better side of society, system always wins etc.
That might even make sense in a long term campaign, where you can keep trying to get it back to them, but if that's all there is well, it sucks. I put my brains and time into solving your adventure, only for you to tell me it's a dead end. Screw you.
On the other hand, total party kill is always in option for oneshots. If it's spectacular enough, it can make a great ending for a story. In Cthulhu, it works every dam time.

>>53415044
Gladiator tournaments are a really fun one-shot concept. Players are given general characters for different motivations to win, and they have to survive and kill while the crowd reacts or heckles them. Some players can die while fighting, and it'll eventually come down to the Final Match that might be player vs. player, Champion vs. player(s), or an execution match of the players locked up in chains forced to be eviscerated. As long as nobody gets too angry at the table it seems like a safe bet. In theory anyway.