If you’re like me, when you were first explaining roleplaying games to someone, one of the sticking points for them was maybe, “When does the game end?” For me, back then, the answer was always, “Well, they don’t…”
Things are sometimes different today. While most of the biggest name games still have a potential length of months or even years, there are many great games designed to play in a handful of sessions, or even a single “one-shot” session. The thing that gets often ignored, however, is that the design that goes into a game intended to be long-term versus one intended to be short can and almost certainly should be different.
Now, the key word there is obviously “intended.” Because while a game like D&D is ostensibly designed to be a long-term (campaign) game, it certainly can be used for one-shots and other short games. And this has been true since its inception, what with convention games and the like even way back when.
But when you take a campaign game and use it for a one-shot, there are allowances you have to make. Or rather, that the GM has to make. These articles are aimed at discussing game design rather than game mastering, so let’s skip over most of the advice for GMs and concentrate on designing new games focused toward different lengths.
A great long-term game rewards campaign-style play. Characters improve over time, rewards accumulating gradually. Character advancement and mechanical choice encourage players to keep playing, session after session. Likewise, aspects of the game’s story (development of bonds or animosities with other characters, for example) pay off over multiple sessions, both narratively and mechanically.
A short-term game gets right to the heart of things immediately. Characters very likely start out about as capable as they’re going to get. Character improvement isn’t a driving force—it might not even exist within the mechanics. The driving force is the immediate experience. No rewards have a long-term payoff, and abilities with short durations or applications are just as good as those with longer ones. If I drink a potion that lets me fly for a few hours in a one-shot game, it’s mechanically nearly identical to an option at character creation that gives me wings so I can fly all the time.
Likewise, any ability or resource that is limited in use plays very differently in a long-term game. Players need to manage those limited resources carefully—much more so than in a short-term game—where there’s probably little reason not to use everything you have. What are you saving that flying potion for? The next adventure? There isn’t one!
Character death or long-term incapacitation is another major consideration. If a game might last a dozen sessions, for example, what happens if a character dies in session four? Is that player done? Do they get a new character? How is the new character brought in, both in terms of mechanics and narrative? What about if they’re injured and have to spend significant time in a hospital. No big deal in a long-term game perhaps, but in a one-shot? The rules might have just taken that player out of the game altogether. Should the design of the game even allow for circumstances like that to come up very often?
In a short game—particularly a one-shot—even relatively brief periods of a character being taken out of the game have very different implications. If a character has a spell cast upon them that freezes them solid for the rest of the encounter, but that encounter is actually an hour of the four-hour session, that’s a punishing length of time. (Arguably it’s a punishing length of time in any game—it’s just more egregious in a one-shot.)
Even concepts like, “this character is good at this particular kind of challenge,” work better in long-term games. If one player’s character is great at working with computers and tech and another is a martial artist, it’s okay if there aren’t computers or enemies to punch in every single session, because the benefits of their specialization will work out over time if those aspects are in most encounters or scenarios. But in a one-shot, there damn well better be computers and punchable foes in that session, every time. (Or rather, perhaps different—broader?—kinds of character specialization or categorization should be used instead.)
It’s not wrong to think of the various issues in terms of a novel versus a short story, or an ongoing TV series versus a movie. Think about the kinds of things we learn about a character in each, what kinds of events have impact in the different kinds of stories, and the sorts of things characters care about. Characters in short stories and movies rarely worry about their bank accounts, their sick grandmother, or what they’re going to do about that strange noise in their car that is getting gradually louder (unless the story’s main focus is about being out of money, their grandmother, or their car). Characters in a novel might have to worry about all those things.
Characters in a movie don’t often think about what they’re going to do after they complete their current mission. Characters in a television show know there will be another mission after this one.
The designer of a game should have a play length in mind throughout their work on the system. Most of the games I’ve designed previously have all been long-term games. Aside from the aforementioned D&D, Numenera and the Cypher System in general are aimed at multisession campaigns. A Cypher System game works very well as a one-shot, though—it’s just a very different experience than a single session of an ongoing campaign thanks to the ability to use XP for rerolls (occasionally used in a campaign, heavily used in a one-shot). Invisible Sun doesn’t really fire on all cylinders until the second or third session, so it’s not really appropriate for a one-shot ever (short games are okay).
A game I finished last year, however, Stealing Stories for the Devil, is meant to be a relatively short game (ten or fewer sessions) and its theme (heists) really leans into one-shots. Another game I designed last year is Who the Devil Are You? and it’s meant solely for one-shots. So, I had to give various topics a lot of thought. The following lists helped me get started, although any particular game will have its own needs, obviously.
Long-term, campaign-style games need:
• Character growth, development, and improvement.
• Considerations for time effects. (Replenishing consumable resources? Equipment deterioration? Downtime?)
• Space for character background development that matters.
• Mechanics that lean into recurring events. (A non-consumable radiation-proof suit suggests multiple encounters with radiation, in multiple sessions. Likewise, a character particularly susceptible to radiation does the same.)
• Considerations for death or character incapacitation.
• Lots of creative space for the GM to work with, and lots of narrative options for the players.
Short-term or one-shot games need:
• A clear (and probably straightforward) goal.
• Character creation rules designed for immediate capability.
• Considerations for “short-term” effects that are, in actuality, long-term.
• Lots of direction for the GM on the situations involved.
Short term or one-shot games can be hampered by:
• Detailed character backgrounds.
• Focus on expendable resources (like tracking ammunition, food, or other supplies).
• Design that assumes that in a given situation, a single character will dominate the encounter.
• Effects that incapacitate characters for more than a moment or two.
• Too many options for narrative choices.
It’s probably worth noting that players in short-term games sometimes often aren’t as attached to or invested in their characters. Even if you’re a designer that generally avoids frequent PC deaths, in a short-term game they don’t matter as much. In fact, some people appreciate the freedom to end a one-shot with a memorable or heroic death.
I liked very much how you structured those last recommendations. It helps a lot to have those factors in a sort of checklist when designing (already got them on a note file :). I got a bit nostalgic there for a second when you were mentioning the "neverending" aspect of the game. It has become more challenging to sustain those long-term campaigns nowadays.
I appreciate very much how you're leaving a sort of written legacy for TTRPG game designers. Maybe you've noticed I've been reading/commenting on your articles. Aside from tabletop and RPG design for the corporate sector (www.gamechanger.com.hr) we've been working on an educational platform (like the MasterClass of TTRPGs - behindthedragon.com). It'd be awesome to get all these articles in video format up on the platform (tomy.drazenovic@gamechanger.com.hr) - no stalking or advertising, just got excited there for a while with your article.