*looks nervously both ways* anybody else...not like one shots very much?

[funkaoshi]

I think one shots can be fun, and at a convention are a good way to play a game when you might not have been able to do. But, I also feel most games become more interesting the more time you invest with them. The choices you make each session become more meaningful. You end up caring about the characters more. With a lot of OSR games people start of playing generic adventure person that will slowly evolve through sessions into an actual character. I think campaign play is often the most compelling aspect of an RPG. And the RPG games I look back on most fondly have all been parts of longer campaigns.

Trying to make games that work as compelling one shots seems like a good goal, because people often don’t have the time to play a long campaign. A lot of D&D adventure I have seen in recent years seem built with the idea you could play them in a convention sized slot. (Basically everything from DCCRPG for example.) Many indie games seem built this way as well. I think games that purposefully try and come to a nest conclusion work better here. Otherwise you just leave wanting more. Maybe not the worst way to feel after a game, though.

[Airk]

I’d rather leave a game wanting more than thinking “Thank goodness we’re finally done with that.” which, alas, has been my sensation after several campaigns. On the other hand, it was also my sensation after a one shot of classic Traveller, and similarly a one shot of The Dark Eye, so clearly one-shots aren’t immune from this.

Anyway, one of the fun things about one shots is that you don’t HAVE to stop (well, unless it was a con game). If you play a oneshot and everyone goes “That was AMAZING! I really want to go back and see what happens next!” it’s usually a possibility that you can do just that.

[DeReel]

@Tuirgin Regarding these “long term moves”, or simply character arcs, reading Chuubo’s quest is good inspiration.

The general idea in Chuubo’s that I try to imitate in my design is this : instead of a chain of conflicts, make a mesh of them. That is, like in a TV series, allow conflicts to be in an intermediary state of “being soon resolved”.

I believe this overlapping of actions makes the “dramatic tissue” robust and adjustable to the local conditions at the table and in the fiction. It’s not just a question of when or how we resolve a question, but also : what aesthetical choices direct the weaving of the various themes and dramatic threads.

This doesn’t have to be long or slow at the table. It’s a question of diversity, diversifying resources (as in BitD, where you can dig for romance, credits, politics, etc.) and scales (as in the following example).

Fast playing months of a relationship or slow-motionning through a round of glances are possible in a game, only, both are not equally possible depending on the system you use. Speaking of long term play is often speaking of a system that only uses “lego blocks” moves. Theoretically, systems with better maneuverability allow competent players to build a beautiful (?) form in little time. In practice, this precision in story building is not everyone’s fun.