Suitable for one shots, not so much for campaigns?

#21

Not to rehash all these lumpy heads. I have been playing RPG’s since 1979 and played so many systems I have forgotten more than I remember I think.

Any system is agnostic to campaign length. It is what you make of it. I introduced my gaming group to ICRPG with a 5 room dungeon (I posted here on this forum). We had so much fun they wanted to keep playing. So a few random encounters and some experimentation, 8 months in we played the first Age of Snakes session last week.

I think it is unfair to make a generalization about any system. I think ICRPG’s simplicity lends itself well to one shots and introduction to the rpg world, I think that is more a function of speed of character creation, but there are no barriers to long term campaigns.

Some of you older lumpy heads like me might remember TFT (The Fantasy Trip and Wizards). That system was D6 based and you only had three attributes STR, Dex and Int. And each book was a 20 page pamphlet. Back in the day, we played a two year campaign.

At the end of the day, create collaboratively with the players and have fun in the system that gets you there.

#22

Well said @Dragonlair.

#23

ICRPG has a massive advantage over other systems when it comes to running one shots(prep time being the big winner), but none of this advantage comes at the expense of campaign utility.

Not to repeat many of the excellent points above, but if all else fails consider this: a campaign is a bunch of one shots.

#24

You may be right, but at the moment (gut reaction) I am not sure I can disagree more with the statement.

It’s like saying a novel is no more than a bunch of short stories. While true at its most base, very wrong when talking about good novels.

That said, many campaigns and novels have too much filler and should simply have been shorter stories.

That said I am getting sick of 15 book stories that are just about the bad guy/calamity of the week. When the story has already been told.

Trilogy’s are about my length. Or translated 70ish hours of reading. A good campaign is probably the same, you might revisit the characters again later.

While there is no disadvantage for quick character creation. There is no advantage to it if your group plays 10~50 session story lines, where flexibility and depth might add something.

Hero system and savage worlds come to mind with session 0 being about character creation as much as anything.
Once characters are made, the systems are simple.
But honestly not my flavor at this point.

#25

I don’t think I disagree with any of your points. A novel isn’t a bunch of short stories, but it does have chapters that isolate consumable events/narratives.
A campaign that has the party hunt down and fight a ‘big bad’ every session would get old sometime during the second session(especially for experienced gamers). But there is something each session should have, namely a dramatic arc, whether it takes the form of a battle, espionage, or obtaining a crucial piece of info, etc. Those individual arcs/sessions are very similar for the DM as far as how the table is run. They have identifiable progression of some sort that ideally requires, or at least involves, the contribution of each PC.

I believe that every advantage ICRPG lends to one shots also applies to campaigns. I honestly wasn’t implying anything more than that.

And of course, none of those points apply to a session zero. You’ve got me there. It never crossed my mind.

buys shots of Tullamore Dew for the house

#26

I’m throwing my two cents at this to say that YOU CAN have a campaign made of a series of one-shots (autoconclusive chapters), but for it to be a campaign it would also need some kind of long-term development of some plot, characters, lore, etc. Warp Shell i.e is basically Star Trek meets guardians of the galaxy for me.

When you prep for a one-shot, you don’t take anything exterior to the session into consideration. A series of one-shots then, only make a campaign if they are all inter-connected and for each one-shot you consider either the same setting (changed by the previous sessions) or the same characters…

#27

I think all you folks chiming in about story structure have missed the point.

Getting back to the original topic of whether ICRPG is better suited for one-shots or campaigns, the point is that mechanically, a campaign really is just a series of one-shots tied together by story elements. I run three maps a session, whether I am running one or 30 sessions. If I string enough of those together, I have a campaign (story elements aside). All I have to add in mechanically is steady progression during and in between sessions, and I have a campaign.

Crafting a decent story, with a good hook, a good plot, dramatic elements, character development, dramatic tension, resolution, and denouement, that’s a huge topic for another post.

In terms of what has to happen mechanically, ICRPG is perfectly well-suited to running campaigns. Indeed, again, perhaps better suited because it keeps the numbers small.

#28

Hey all,

This is a topic that seems to come up every few months, and after quietly reading the majority of those posts I think I’ve finally nailed what the core issue is.

Codified Rules.

In the absence of specific, explicit rules for long-term progression, some people conclude that the system is not designed for that. Whether you are correct or not depends on what you define as “long-term”, as many have noted.

There are no hard-written, codified rules for when, how, where, and why you provide progression to your players because the spirit of ICRPG is the DIY aspect of gaming. “You and your group will know when.”

That trust, from designer to gamemaster, can be jarring when compared to something like 5th edition which is very explicit about what everyone gets, when they get it, how they get it, and why they get it.

ICRPG’s greatest strength is the lack of damage/hp/ability bloat. There is no significant BURDEN on the GM to play at high levels as compared to lower levels (or tiers, etc.). This means the GM can play more, and work less, which leads naturally to longer and more numerous campaigns/games/sessions. And it means you can get wild with your progression and your DESIGN because it’s so finely tuned. It’s okay if your warrior does insane damage - fill the room with lava and ask them what they do. Oh, and they have d4 turns to figure it out.

Twotricks, my sincerest advice to you is as follows: Get a group together, make some characters that feel cool to you, and do away with the illusion of “balance” and unified progression. Let your players be cool - they are not competing against each other like in a wargame. Give them great power, and take it away. Force them to reclaim what they lost, or find something new. That is the power of LOOT based progression.

As a final note, I’ve been playing without loot based progression, instead using normal abilities and powers, since ICRPG came out. It works fine. Roll your dice out in the open, and you’ll see that the bones are a cruel, and sadistic god.

AC

#29

I love this discussion!!!

As to Original Post: ICRPG QUICKSTART 2 provides everything needed progression wise for a standard type of long play table top RPG.

As to ICRPG strengths…

  1. Quick character creation
  2. Incredible flexibility both built in and as a DIY game.
  3. Basic D20 mechanics that are intuitive to learn, and most already familiar with RPGs won’t have trouble with.
  4. Very GM friendly!
  5. Effort!!!
  6. Timers!
  7. Light cognitive load.

None of those detract from long form campaign playing! But they shine in one offs and or short run games.

Is it end all be all??? Probably not, many other indi games have hit that note recently. But ICRPG is probably the best package from a DIY perspective, at least in the ones I have been following.

I am currently enamored with the into the odd system…it hits my 4 rounds of combat note quite well. But DIY for it is not as well explained.

#30

@Paxx

“… it hits my 4 rounds of combat note quite well.”

Colour me curious! please elaborate. And if warranted in a new thread.

#31

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I have an observation I didn’t see already covered. Apologies if I missed it in someone’s reply, there are some lengthy responses here.

I think to a certain extent, the premise here is somewhat flawed. The question of “is ICRPG less suited to long campaigns?” seems to assume that it is common for gamers to play long campaigns. For 5e at least, we know that most people are not playing long campaigns, with only a small number of players making it past level 10.

I would bet most groups in any system are not playing long campaigns.

If you consider a long campaign as one in which the players play the same group of characters, I would even argue that tabletop RPGs in general are not suited to long campaigns. With danger and death as a central component, character death should be the limiting factor on campaign length.

But if you consider a campaign as just a connected world and story, then there’s no reason that any one system would be better or worse in facilitating long term play. Those aspects are really dependent on how long the GM and players stay interested.

#32

@Paxx @Dragonlair

Yes! I have also been loving Into the Odd as well.

In fact, I’ve been putting together a little booklet/hack of Into the Odd and the initial version of Maze Rats for my players.

I was thinking of posting it to this forum, and now that I’ve heard some interest I definitely will. It uses the Into the Odd SRD, so it has all the rules you would need to play. Folks can try out the system and then pick up the Into the Odd book if they like it and want that original content.

#33

This post warmed my heart. It really did. :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

P.S.: I just ordered my copy of ICRPG. Unfortunately I was only able to afford the softcover. But man! I am sooo excited. I can not wait to play with my friends, family. I hope the superhero one-shot I have planned will turn into a mini campaign. Wish me luck :slight_smile:

#34

I 100% agree with this. It all comes down to the players around the table. There has to be full buy in from the party and GM. I have found the majority of campaigns that fizzle out are groups that should have never been formed the get go.

I think the way to really keep a campaign going is to first give the players what they want, meaning don’t be glued to preplanning. Secondly set up campaign aspirations in a session zero. So many groups want to “just start playing” instead of configuring the foundation of an engaging campaign for everyone involved.

I am going to be brand new to ICRPG once my book gets here, and I plan to approach this system the same way I approach all games FUN is always first!

#35

Said perfectly! Fun will always contribute to a campaign’s length to me. There is nothing worse than seeing a group disengage no matter 3 sessions in or 33 in. The player and GM composition always out weighs the system imo. I am looking forward to running ICRPG to keep the fun rolling rather than being bogged down by crunching numbers and thumbing through rule clarifications.