Hi all,
I have never written a "formal" adventure for a LARP style game before. I have played in them before and they seemed more spontaneous (little preparation beforehand.)
So, let me describe how I am approaching this. The 'adventure' that I want to write is for a game I am creating. It is meant for a 'first session' game. The prologue isn't the setting for my game (it's one of a myriad of possibilities for a 'gods game.')
I am writing in down in scenes. For instance, scene one is a prologue illustrating a battle between two brothers that are gods. They both die of mortal wounds and their blood splashes onto the shell of the celestial turtle. (Don't ask about the turtle; that's pretty much what mythtellers say when they use myths of this nature to explain creation.) From the blood, all life springs forth (including the players.) At this point, it should be known that some of the brothers' blood mixed together and some of it didn't. The blood that mixed formed all the mortal life while the drops that didn't mix formed other parts of the universe, including all of the various immortals.
Prompt: players can now describe the universe and their connection to each other. They make the discovery that they are literally related by blood (pure droplets that hit the same part of the turtle.) They see that there are other beings like them, some potential allies and some that are enemies.
Moving forward: Pseudo-Medieval Period (Mortals)
event - end of a ball...
My question is how much detail would you want for an story written LARP style. Assuming they have rules, understand them for the most part, and have characters made. Should I just write loosely connected scenes with a few stats for NPCs? What else should be included?
*Sigh* I am trying not to make this a poll thread but I want to make sure I am using a structure that will work well for writting LARP style adventures.
Hi Sean,
It's hard to say without knowing more about your motivation and the games social contract. I can infer a few things from your post but would rather be certain. So let me ask a few questions.
Why are you writing a LARP adventure? To support a game you have created? For fun? Other? All of the above? What are some details of the game? Is it a continous game or are you making a one-shot adventure? Are the players expecting you to have a heavy hand in scene framing and plot generation?
This is a classic issue of situation design, vis a vis prep v. improvisation; and LARPs (I believe) make it most obvious, because of their large play areas and relatively little direct GM control.
I posit that there are two general types of situations: event sequences, which players may or may not discover and redirect/stop; and conflict framing, which will eventually drag in any interested players.
Event sequences - Modules, the master villain's plan, the invasion of the hoard. Basically, anything which will start, have stages, and could end if unchecked (usually in a lot of death and a change of in-game authority).
Conflict framing - Factionalism and scarcity of critical resources, requirements to be clandestine and means of discovery, conflicting morality and a forced alignment with one. Basically, anything which will drive players to take sides on an issue and then work to resolve it to their own satisfaction.
In my opinion, it is easier to do conflict framing than event sequences, for many reasons. Primarily, event sequencing takes more prep, a tighter schedule, more GM-to-GM communication, and more railroading or coercion (or cooperative player whimsy) to encourage participation. However, event sequences can be an interesting way to establish or resolve conflict framing (and, then, move to a new scarcity or moral divide). Once players present a "plan to invade the evil master's crypt" or "quest to find the source of unobtanium and stop this foolish war" or "decide to go overt and start dropping the hammer" then the GMs can set up more of a event sequence to lead players through.
At such times, the players have usually wound down on their own in-fighting, and they will be encouraging some final resolution. This means (a) they are ready to attend to the GMs, rather than continue to run around doing their own things, (b) they will be easier to collect together without force or heavy-handed clue-dropping, and (c) they will have solidified their factions or groups and will be wanting to stick together for The Big Push.
At such times, the clash of the original conflict framing against the clustering effect of event sequencing can be AWESOME. Consider how cool it would be if the Three Families all staggered through event sequences (modules) to reach the final resting place of The Goal of Being, and saw each other across the field? Automatic all-out war! Or a final resolution and lasting peace! (Or both: the dead sleep peacefully.) LARPs, by dint of their huge player base, offer great flexability in how to set up conflict framing, let it run itself using player input for inspiration, and resolve with more proscribed event sequences which ALSO work to bring the factions together even if they have stayed at arm's length out of prudence or fear.
I may have more... I am currently working on a LARP system, and a BIG part of my current thoughts is how to establish situation for games. I think I could be accused of long-winded thread-jacking, if I tried to get every point about this I have into one post. ;-)
More to come...
David
My wife and I write a LARP every year for about 60 players. It's a short one-time event, played out over about 5 hours. This year and last year, we played the LARP in a large ball room at a hotel. Years prior to last, we used rooms and hallway of the hotel we stay in, since the entire floor was taken up by "our people."
Our approach has been to set up relationships, goals, and secrets for each character. The last two years, we've added in the idea of knowledge hidden from the player. For example, in Act 1 you might be told that you went to the conservatory and it was empty, but in Act 2, we tell you that, actually, you met a woman there and exchanged words. This is the approach that How to Host a Murder Mystery takes, but we take it to the nth degree. Breaking down the information into three chunks by Act helps the players digest it better, too.
A character's sheet is a page of background information, including descriptions of important relationships; then a page for Act 1, a page for Act 2, and a page for Act 3. We stuff the background and Act 1 page into an envelope with any separate props. Act 2 goes into a second envelope labeled for that character, along with additional clues and props. Act 3 gets its own envelope, and occasionally more props.
Information for an Act is in two columns: "Reveal" and "Don't Volunteer." The Reveal information must be revealed by the player in that Act. This is what drives the plot forward. Yes, this is highly railroaded in some ways, but it's a great deal of fun. The Don't Volunteer information is stuff that is potentially damaging to the character's case (generally, there are multiple crimes or acts of treachery that must be solved or hidden). The rule about Don't Volunteer information is that if you are asked a direct question about something in that column, you may not lie about it. You can dodge, mislead, or fail to answer, but you cannot state a lie.
With 60+ players, the number of possible relationships becomes unwieldy. We partition the problem into tables of about 8 people each. Players start the LARP at a table of people with a common starting place. Their plots and secrets wind together. After the introductions and some "Reveals," players get up and start talking to players at other tables. Their sheets inevitably lead them to branch out and trade information with other people.
Every player gets additional goals every Act. Players usually have at least 6 goals, and sometimes as many as 15.
We use a custom card system as our only game mechanics. We create 'power' cards that are usable only once during the game. Each card has a power like "Advanced Liver: You drink so much that toxins don't affect you much. If you are poisoned, play this card to counteract all ill effects." We pick suitable cards for each character and 6-10 of those go into the envelopes for Act 1. Sometimes players get more cards in later Acts.
We also print out a bunch of Best LARPer cards that have a line on which to write a name. We give each player 6 of these and they write their choices for best LARPer for each Act and toss them into a convenient basket or bowl. We tally them up at the end and tell everyone who got lots of votes and who got the most votes. There is no prize other than a pat on the back.
At the end of Act 3, we get everyone back at their table then do the Big Reveal. Our murder mysteries are full of twists and turns and red herrings and misinformation. We lead them through the plotlines, asking specific players for input along the way with a prompted, "and what happened with that?"
FWIW, I hate (with a passion) the approach that Adam takes, having tried it.
Trying to play a character without knowing essential information that your character would have known means that the little creations you make as part of playing the game have a substantial (bordering on 100%) chance of being invalidated by the mechanic, which is insanely frustrating, and rewards boring and uncreative play. It's possible it can be done in a fashion I'd find fun, but I'm doubtful. I've played a murder-mystery-style LARP with phased rounds, and found the mechanic very harmful to roleplay; this is from limited experience, not speculation. Basically, by my lights, this is an interesting party game, but it's not a LARP, it's not a roleplaying game; it's not even a story game. The players have no agency.
Now, playing games where the characters (not the players) have knoweldge that they learn during the game, like the all amnesiac subgenre (one game of which, Jamais Vue, I've rewritten once and helped run twice), is fine -- sure, what you said last hour wasn't true, but that's because your character didn't remember it yet, so it's all golden.
Oh, following the topic:
Hi, I'm Joshua Kronengold -- I've been involved in the theatre style LARP community since about '93, working on an ever-unfinished game since '96 or so, and have been running games (some my own, some other people's) since 2000ish.
What I think works best is having some set situational events, but not scripted beginnings and endings.
For example, you could write a race game where the overplot went something like:
time -1: intro, time to read character sheets, put players into starting locations, etc.
time 0: game begins
time 1: the king dies.
time 2: enter: the inquisitor (played by the same player as the king).
time 3: announce that the (NPC) book is taking bets on the big race.
time 4: the big race begins.
time 5: the villains plan becomes visible if it hasn't been stopped earlier.
time 6: announce that it's 15 minutes to game wrap
time 7: announce that it's 5 minutes to game wrap
Everything in between -- what the players do, where the big sequences are, etc is up to the players -- the GM's contributions are nudges (especially to players who need guidance or to stop things from crashing to a halt) representing events external to the game, and keeping things at a tempo such that things are likely to feel more or less satisfying by the time they come to a close. But script things more than this, and you're likely to end up with unsatisfying players...unless you're running an adventure game (for players expecting this) where all the "baddies" are NPCs whose timing you have total control over.
(Crossposted with Joshua K.)
Opinion noted. It sounds like you don't enjoy this kind of thing. Others do. Like the five exhausting hours of fun packed into five hours kind of fun.
Call it a party game if you want. There's tons of role-playing and, from discussion with the 70 players from last year, it was tons of fun. People really liked the information-hiding structure. Recall that this is a one-time, 5-hour game and not an serial LARP, too. We get a big bang in a little amount of time. If we were going to run a serial thing, we'd set it up differently.
I've played in two different How To Host a Murder Mystery games: one was a professional name-brand package and the other an amateurish package purchased off the net. Neither of these games felt like a role-playing game. We talked in voices, we revealed information when it seemed appropriate, and that's all. There were no decisions to be made, so if you're thinking that I'm describing one of those games, I can see how you'd think it's not an RPG or a LARP. Our game borrows from that structure and sets up enough situation that players have to make choices. Do I tell the prince that his sister is sleeping with my brother? If I do, I'll get my brother into trouble. I love my brother, but I also want the prince to appoint me head of the noble household, not him. But I'm in love with the prince's sister, myself. I don't want to get her disowned. Until I find out that she's been dissing me to everyone.
I disagree that the players have no agency. Players are forced to make countless decisions throughout the game. Decisions with teeth. They decide how to respond to things and make many really tough choices. We're dictating situation and players are tossed into a very dynamic relationship map. I'll try to take some notes this year (LARP is May 27) and post some Actual Play. Maybe I can convince some of the players (who are almost all very non-theory people; many aren't even tabletop gamers) to respond with their own comments, too.
Yes, players have to adjust from Act to Act as they get new information about what happened and what they did. Our players seemed delighted by the surprises. The mechanism is designed to protect pacing of the revelation of the various background plotlines so that a player doesn't resolve everything in Act 1.
Yes, it's absolutely railroading and cramming a plot down people's throats. The players are well aware of how it all works. Call it Participationism.
Is it a role-playing game? Depends on your definition and I really hope to avoid semantic arguments. Please read charitably. Or tell me why you think this LARP structure is not a role-playing game with some made up examples. I mean, we know they're role-playing, or talking in-character, but I don't think that's enough to settle the question.
To determine if it's a role-playing game, I guess the question is, "What of value can players introduce into the fiction?" Right? We are forcing players to make hard decisions about their situation, with consequences for every decision.
What about all the retconning that, you complain, destroys role-play? Imagine a Dogs tabletop game. You go to town and learn from Brother Enos that Sister Constance is cheating on her husband. You and the other Dogs confront her. Now, for the sake of argument, I as GM do something I'd never do in a real Dogs game: I tell you that your character is the one sleeping with Sister Constance. Did that take away some of your agency? Yes. Does it require some quick rearrangement in your head to satisfy continuity? Yes. Does it strip you of all agency? No. As a player, I'd say to myself, "Shit! I did that? I'll say that I confronted her because I didn't want the other Dogs to know it was me. She didn't implicate me because she figured I had to go along with this." But now, if one of the Dogs wants to haul her into the street and shoot her, you might have something different to say about it.
Remember that all the LARP characters are created lock, stock, and barrel by me and my wife. Players can't say, "But my character wouldn't do that! I didn't create her that way!" Yeah, they would act that way, and we hid from you what they did as a technique for drawing out a particular kind of story. It's a kind of "monkey wrench" we toss into every player's gearworks. There are broad grins on everyone's faces as they read their new sheets in Acts 2 and 3.
We front-load the story and situation in a big way. We've tried single-act structures and they do work, but this works better for us.
Can you tell me if the kinds of events you are running are one-shots or serial games? How many major plotlines and subplots would you create for 60-70 person LARP? Are you willing to post a sample character or plotline? I assume that the example you gave is oversimplified. The LARP we run is incredibly complicated in terms of story structure.
We also use some scripted events. For your "game begins" part, what are the players doing? What creates conflict for them? Are you using GMs for the villains and king? (We don't use any NPC characters.) Essentially, NPC characters are played by players with little agency, no?
Quote from: Clyde L. Rhoer on May 19, 2006, 08:42:47 AM
Hi Sean,
It's hard to say without knowing more about your motivation and the games social contract. I can infer a few things from your post but would rather be certain. So let me ask a few questions.
Why are you writing a LARP adventure? To support a game you have created? For fun? Other? All of the above? What are some details of the game? Is it a continous game or are you making a one-shot adventure? Are the players expecting you to have a heavy hand in scene framing and plot generation?
Let's start off by answering some questions. The adventure is to support a game I've created (download of the rules for my WIP available at site.) I am also doing this to use some ideas from some of my short stories. The game itself support continious play but the adventure is a one-shot.
From reading the posts and following my own instincts...There will be different scenes but the players can do what they want (certain things happen if they don't follow certain events). This particular LARP idea is trying to serve as an introduction as well.
Here's what I have planned so far (also dependent on number of players in group)
Scene 1: Prologue
(Insert creation myth chosen by group beforehand.)
Scene 2: "Present Day"
Event: Party or ball of some kind (if small LARP, mortals only plus they will have a "god" character...if large LARP, then some are mortals and some are "gods/divinities.") At end of party, one of the mortals is lured away (presumably for 'after-hours activities', 'activities' happen but creature actually drains all emotions from them, leaving them alive but devoid of all emotion. Draining emotions allows infected to have emotions for x period of time.
Scene 3: Fervent Prayers
They hear the prayers of a town, desperately asking for help. Presumably, they are curious enough to check things out.
Scene 4: Both groups try to find out what is going on...a "rogue" divinity has granted its worshipers the ability to drain emotions...the divinity seeks to destory existence by denying worshipers to any and all other divinities
Scene 5: Discovery
Hopefully, one or both groups have found out what's going on (at least knowing about the problem and current people 'infected' In one night and several afterward, one infected becomes 2, 2 becomes 4, etc.
Scene 6: End
Are they satisfied merely containing the problems or do they take a proactive approach and try to fight back? They can explore what happens if problem not figured out to some degree.
This is not the backdrop of my game; it's merely one of many possibilities with the Divinity game. I'll expand upon it more and once done, I will make adventure available on website.
Thanks,
Sean
Hi Sean,
I like the thing about the creation myth being chosen by the group. That's very nice.
It looks as though your structure is flexible, which I think is a good thing. The problem with LARPs is that players will always break your game by doing something unexpected (e.g. joining the worshipping cult).
One comment: at the moment, it looks as though most of the opposition is provided by NPCs. That may mean that your players spend a lot of time bugging you (because you represent the NPCs). One thing I've found useful is to make the PCs provide opposition to each other: for example, perhaps have one of the players play the Rogue Divinity or its worshippers. That way, they interact with each other rather than with you.
I hope that's of some help. What areas do you want feedback on?
Graham
Quote from: Graham Walmsley on May 19, 2006, 08:03:12 PM
Hi Sean,
I like the thing about the creation myth being chosen by the group. That's very nice.
It looks as though your structure is flexible, which I think is a good thing. The problem with LARPs is that players will always break your game by doing something unexpected (e.g. joining the worshipping cult).
One comment: at the moment, it looks as though most of the opposition is provided by NPCs. That may mean that your players spend a lot of time bugging you (because you represent the NPCs). One thing I've found useful is to make the PCs provide opposition to each other: for example, perhaps have one of the players play the Rogue Divinity or its worshippers. That way, they interact with each other rather than with you.
I hope that's of some help. What areas do you want feedback on?
Graham
Actually, as I initially thought about making this adventure up, I was worried about the number of players. What you said about the other players is a good idea. I know some LARPs have a number of assistants that roleplay the NPCs. Another possibility would be to have two different groups answering the prayers of the mortals. i.e. both group want more worshipers and both groups want to do the right thing (or not). There's room for intraplayer conflict, never mind setting personal goals if you are playing the mortal or god.
As an aside, I have rules for the "Divinities." Even as I work on "Divinity", I am writting another game related to this called "Mortals."
Adam, do you want to create a new thread for this? I'm a bit worried about hijacking this one.
That said:
I also run one shot games with GM-written characters. Our games tend to be 4ish hour games for 13-25 characters, not 70. The long-in-development full weekend game we've been writing for a good long while has about 60 PCs.
And yes, we don't use NPCs for major roles -- we'll have a GM or a player who asked for such a role take on minor roles that end up being needed (or that are scripted in -- "at some point, the kraken will attack", frex), but if there's a villain or a king, it generally be a PC.
What I was listing was a (somewhat, but not absurdly simplified) tiimeline for "external events", ie, one separate from things frontoaded into character sheets.
I think the category question is irrelevant, aside from determining goals. That said, I reflexively bring it up anyway, mostly when something conflicts with my personal goals of play. Caveat emptor.
I do things there are mechanisms to protect pacing that don't mess with the character internal narratives. Sometimes you do stuff like the amneiac game (really, style of games; there are a lot of them) I was referring to. Sometimes you set things up with things tuned to go off at about the right time and they just work out (tying things to external events can help). And sometimes...things just get resolved early, or don't resolve; you can design/run things such that even when things don't go as planned, there's still an interesting/fun game there.
That said, I think there are some things we could use to impove our games, and some of them are things you're doing as a matter of course (in particular: one thing we were advised when we started writing stuff was that every character should have a unique and useful power or ability of some sort; something other people have to interact with them for and which makes them unique, which is more or less true...but every character should also have some moral or situational choices to make; should be at some sort of crux point, and while that's something we've often designed into particular characters, it's never been a major design goal (someting I'll push when next we start work on a game)). But I wonder if your games would be improved or hurt if you could work the act 2/3 revelations into the internal structure of the game itself, rather than having them be an exterrnal "you just remembered" force. In the same way, I find that as my skills as a player have improved, I've become much more revealing about by game secrets and information, as that tends to make my games more fun, more interesting, and even, from a pure gamist perspective, tends to make my characters more successful, but while I suspect your "must reveal"/don't volunteer mechanic (borrowed, directly, from murder mystery games, obviously) forces certain types of play, it also pushes in a certain style of force that I doubt I, pesonally would find fun.
Hi Sean,
Quote from: sean2099 on May 19, 2006, 08:26:52 PMActually, as I initially thought about making this adventure up, I was worried about the number of players. What you said about the other players is a good idea. I know some LARPs have a number of assistants that roleplay the NPCs. Another possibility would be to have two different groups answering the prayers of the mortals. i.e. both group want more worshipers and both groups want to do the right thing (or not). There's room for intraplayer conflict, never mind setting personal goals if you are playing the mortal or god.
Yeah, that sounds as though that would work. That's a classic LARP set-up: have two groups and send them both after the same thing. And concentrating on goals for players is always good.
Anything else you want to talk about, regarding this game?
(Adam and Joshua, I'm interested by what you're saying and I'd like to discuss it, but I'm worried about hijacking this thread too. If you move it to another thread, I'll gladly join in.)
Graham
Sigh...*browser crash at end of post*
Quote from: Graham Walmsley on May 20, 2006, 04:54:49 AM
Hi Sean,
Yeah, that sounds as though that would work. That's a classic LARP set-up: have two groups and send them both after the same thing. And concentrating on goals for players is always good.
Anything else you want to talk about, regarding this game?
(Adam and Joshua, I'm interested by what you're saying and I'd like to discuss it, but I'm worried about hijacking this thread too. If you move it to another thread, I'll gladly join in.)
Graham
Quite a bit actually.
In short...maturity issues with disparate power levels (would it be a big problem getting people to play mortals if some are playing gods?) Power levels (use of higher level powers as presented in Divinity in a LARP),
Actually, that was it...only shorter (at least for now)
Sean
Sean: Disparity of power levels is fine. It's important that everyone's got enough power to be influencial in their own circles (or at least some of them), but if some people are divinities with enough power to operate fairely in divine circles, and some are mortals with just enough power to operate inlower circles (with multiple circles of mortals, even), it's all good -- what you want to avoid is someone feeling irrelevant; having other players who are a little more powerful, or are relevant on an entirely different scale, is fine as long as they have enough to do on their scale that they're less likely to take over the lower ones.
You can mix characters of different power levels if you have a mechanism for keeping the really powerful characters from stomping on the fun of the weaker characters. We've run LARPs where gods walk among men. We just had to limit the god characters a great deal.
Thanks for all of your answers. While I do not want to close this thread formally, I will be working on writing out the basic layout for this LARP adventure. If I run across any problems, I'll be sure to post here.
Just thought I'd add one brief comment... From my experience, there are really one major thing to keep in mind when planning a LARP: Plan Loose. LARPs generally have far more people than sit-down games, so you've got that many more wildcards - this effect is much stronger if there are people you don't know all that well (or at all) involved. The more detail you stick in, the more likely you are to get messed up by somebody deciding to get creative... or stupid.
Never underestimate the power of raw, directed stupidity.
Quote from: sean2099 on May 20, 2006, 07:35:44 AMIn short...maturity issues with disparate power levels (would it be a big problem getting people to play mortals if some are playing gods?)
There's a few answers to this particular sort of question, and they are influenced by the type of game and player expectations.
The GoodIf you are running the game as a short-term LARP (or one-off) then people will happily accept different power levels, even without checks and balances between the two "ranks." Obviously, the mortals will need to be empowered to be more than pawns, but they needn't be empowered more than, say, the prey in a predator's domain: necessary to the predator's survival, adaptable to aid its own survival (i.e. the prey's), and presented with interesting challenges between those two extremes.
The BadIf, however, the game will run longer than a session or two, or if the game will include individual advancement and the ability to gain new efficacy, then the players will (I imagine) quickly become discontent with the role of pawn/prey/peon. Even if you limit the gods in some way, I think you will find that folks will want to play the "fun" power level, whatever that is, and you might struggle to keep a sufficient number of the "other" power level. Basically, the longer the game runs, the more critical the checks and balances need to be.
The UglyIf the game runs long-term, and you have a necessary limit on the number who play the "fun" power level, then you are setting up for totally lame play: new players will have less interesting characters and will be slotted into roles that serve the interests of older characters. But for a long-term LARP, new players are the life blood; they must be satisfied or the game will become little more than a clique meeting to play dress-up. If anything, newer players need a means to be made equal to older players in short order (but not immediately: everyone's gotta earn their stripes). And I don't mean equal in terms of power level, but equal in terms of points of contact, empowerment to participate, and influence on game events.
In summary, the longer the game runs, the less stable your different power levels will become. In my opinion, "power level" should be a meaningless term, for a long-term LARP; and the god v. mortal distinction should be reduced to different--but equivalent--means of impacting the game world.
Quote from: Daemonworks on May 24, 2006, 03:58:13 AM
Just thought I'd add one brief comment... From my experience, there are really one major thing to keep in mind when planning a LARP: Plan Loose. LARPs generally have far more people than sit-down games, so you've got that many more wildcards - this effect is much stronger if there are people you don't know all that well (or at all) involved. The more detail you stick in, the more likely you are to get messed up by somebody deciding to get creative... or stupid.
Never underestimate the power of raw, directed stupidity.
I have been planning loosely because I have encountered this as well. I have scenes written where a few things happen but it will (hopefully) be up to the players to decide where the story goes.
For David:
I have a couple of ideas about that. One idea is already there but in tabletop terms and one is something I was toying around with. The first idea, which is the one I am toying with, is making each player have one mortal character and one divine character. Then, each would have to spend the same amount of time with each character (if you spend one hour as a divine, then you need to spend one hour as a mortal)
Advantage: Everyone gets to experience from both sides. Perhaps with a mechancism where the actions of one can help advance the actions of another.
Disadvantage: Awkward transitions from one character to the next. Some people would chafe at restrictions on character.
The other idea, modified from my rules, would have it so that a certain number of worshipers is needed for each power level. i.e. you need more worshipers to freely use level 3 powers than level 1 powers. If the 'divine' player ticks off mortal players, then they start to lose the basis for their power. Therefore, with number modifications, the mortals can give and take power away while the gods are able to use it. Therefore, the "divine" ones have to be careful not to tick too many people off but the divine ones can also punish mortals.
In other words, does giving mortals the ability to give or take power from the "divine ones" (who are able to use it) balanced or not?
Of course, feel free to replace "power level" with abilities or whatever term suits you better.
You're there, dude. :)
Each player is a god and a mortal and must play equal time - I think this could be a hell of a lot of fun! There's even multiple ways to approach it:
A) The mortal is the god incarnate - Leverage this play rule by making the mortal abilities reflect the god abilities, but in a different context or location. For instance, you must be in god-mode to get into "Elysium," which is where you can use your god powers. Conversely, you must be in mortal-mode to get onto "Earth" and use your mortal abilities. Makes for an interesting choice for players as to where and how to effect change in the game situations.
B) The mortal is the god's "favorite" mortal - Using the same "influence zones" as above, but the mortal is not the god, per se, nor should the mortal play as if they are a god's favorite unless the player... uh, tells himself that he is... hmmm. OK, maybe this one is sort of wonky....
C) The mortal and god have nothing to do with each other - This merely means that the mortal and god do not have an intrinsic relationship of identity (incarnation) or of favoritism. Yes, there are ways to do this (see Great Ork Gods below).
As for "same amount of time" in each form: maybe so, maybe not. If you create a clear tension between god powers and mortal powers (rather than just making mortal powers inferior to god powers) then there is no real need for a time constraint. Folks can choose whatever "path" they like to their own goals... but, of course, the situations that emerge in-game might well shift which path (form) has the most efficacy.
By the way, you should check out Great Ork Gods (http://www.greatorkgods.co.uk/) some time, as it is a rules-light tabletop game in which each player plays an orc and a god and there's little real reason to play favorites. That game's checks and balances seem to rest on god-to-god negotiation and orc-versus-orc competition, which lends an interesting ebb-and-flow to player-to-player interactions. And that leads me to....
Worshippers = power level - I think this one is interesting... but scary. From my own LARP experience, I would worry about any game system in which other players can de-power a player in any non-trivial way. It's one thing for a player to use an ability to, say, force another player to stay in one place for a few moments. It's quite another thing to let a group of players deny another player the opportunity to use an ability at all. In other word, you have an interesting check... but no balance.
And in general, any system you develop that comes from your notion of "punish mortals" is heading for trouble. I assume that punishment is not all a god can do to curry favor (there's gotta be a carrot to offset every stick, right?), but I don't think you want a game whose principle checks are ability denial and some other nebulous "punishment." I see serious shouting matches and the occasional real scuffle.
Back to you;
David
FWIW, I really like the ideas floating around re mortals and gods -- and yeah, if you're playing a long-running game, you want to make sure people have the freedom to play around.
What might work is if there were only a certain number of gods, but each was sufficiently aspected such that they had multiple mortals playing their various aspects. In fact, you could have people sign up for both a mortal and a god-aspect at the same time; maybe even making them related. People could switch between them during a session (so if their mortal was relevant, they'd probably play him or her, but if not, they could switch over to their god aspect for a while), and maybe in terms of what the "whole" god did (when/if it mattered), there would be a 'quick' poll of foo-aspected characters/players. People could even deterine which they favored through an experience mechanism allocating their points to their god or their mortal, depending on which was more important to them (if desired; this could be done in a non-newplayer harmful fashion by just having them shift points around between the two as they emphasized one over the other; a new player could choose their split, or could always start as 50/50 and shift in one direction or the other depending on preference).
Hi all,
I thought about the 2nd check (carrot and stick). It would work better for tabletop because the worshipers would probably be NPCs and the "narrator" could chose to emphasize paying attention to worshipers or not. In LARP, I would rather have a mixture of gods and mortals. ***I'll need to add an addendum for LARP***
Quote from: mneme on May 24, 2006, 05:57:06 PM
FWIW, I really like the ideas floating around re mortals and gods -- and yeah, if you're playing a long-running game, you want to make sure people have the freedom to play around.
What might work is if there were only a certain number of gods, but each was sufficiently aspected such that they had multiple mortals playing their various aspects. In fact, you could have people sign up for both a mortal and a god-aspect at the same time; maybe even making them related. People could switch between them during a session (so if their mortal was relevant, they'd probably play him or her, but if not, they could switch over to their god aspect for a while), and maybe in terms of what the "whole" god did (when/if it mattered), there would be a 'quick' poll of foo-aspected characters/players. People could even deterine which they favored through an experience mechanism allocating their points to their god or their mortal, depending on which was more important to them (if desired; this could be done in a non-newplayer harmful fashion by just having them shift points around between the two as they emphasized one over the other; a new player could choose their split, or could always start as 50/50 and shift in one direction or the other depending on preference).
I have a "power" called avatar. More or less, for every point in avatar, you can have multiple aspects on the mortal plane but you can only control one at a time (unless you have powers in different groups.) There would have to be an agreement between the players that they would, more or less, do what the 'god-player' said if they wanted to be avatars. It's not a bad idea but I could see some problems with that if you have lots of players that do not know each other.
Quote from: David Artman on May 24, 2006, 02:04:20 PM
You're there, dude. :)
Each player is a god and a mortal and must play equal time - I think this could be a hell of a lot of fun! There's even multiple ways to approach it:
A) The mortal is the god incarnate - Leverage this play rule by making the mortal abilities reflect the god abilities, but in a different context or location. For instance, you must be in god-mode to get into "Elysium," which is where you can use your god powers. Conversely, you must be in mortal-mode to get onto "Earth" and use your mortal abilities. Makes for an interesting choice for players as to where and how to effect change in the game situations.
B) The mortal is the god's "favorite" mortal - Using the same "influence zones" as above, but the mortal is not the god, per se, nor should the mortal play as if they are a god's favorite unless the player... uh, tells himself that he is... hmmm. OK, maybe this one is sort of wonky....
C) The mortal and god have nothing to do with each other - This merely means that the mortal and god do not have an intrinsic relationship of identity (incarnation) or of favoritism. Yes, there are ways to do this (see Great Ork Gods below).
Back to you;
David
A) An interesting variant of play. My default rules have the gods able to affect the mortal plane (in limited ways). Right now, the character is either well-versed in one area - competent in 3 areas...in other words, they can't affect the mortal plane however they wanted.
B) Perhaps this would work better if player A was a god and favored mortal of Player B and Player B was a god and player A was his favored mortal.
C)I was going with C in my initial thoughts. However, I could add the other ideas as variants.
I'll have to take a look at Greak Ork Gods when I find some spare time. I'll probably add the time mechanic (equal time for each) but it would be a variant rule idea.
Sean
Hi all,
I just close a thread on the connections board. If you are interested in playtesting, PM me and I will email you a copy of the rules. I took the link off my website that let you download the rules for the time being.
While I am still working on editing the rules, I have posted a free LARP adventure for Divinity. Hopefully, I have incorporated all of the lessons gained here to make this simple adventure available. I'll let everyone know when the main ruleset will be available again.
BTW, not completely inspired by this discussion (actually, more coming out of a much longer series of insights), I posted a four point checklist for LARP design on my shared blog here:
http://labcats.livejournal.com/12886.html
Also, Adam, if you want to continue our discussion there, I'd be happy to.
Josh,
You made some very good points on your blog about LARP Design. I'll admit push and pull are fine hairs but I do see the difference. You have to be able to "push" the plot forward and you have to be able to pull others towards you (vice versa as well, I think.)
Thanks,
Sean
Indeed. You need a way to Do Stuff, but others need a reason to play with you (and these aren't always the same).
As magus mentioned (there), I left out a big important one -- goals! Mostly because it was obvious enough that it just didn't make my list. :)
My imput here is going to be a small one; but one I think has been overlooked/overshadowed to some extent. It is my personal opinion and might not be shared; but I think it has some validity to it.
I Saw this post as the query of asking how much to write of plot and how much to guide along the game with or reveal to the players; I could be wrong; this is just how I interpreted it!
I think the most visable differences I've seen in tabletop versus larp is that in a table-top, it is easier for the ST to control/guide/influence the story.
In a Good L.A.R.P., The storyteller needs to at times; sit back and just let player plot happen.
In a table-top, there is always some player plot, but often the players are guided or hanging by what the ST has created for them to defeat, go after or need to accomplish. While this is true in a L.A.R.P., this factor actually can hinder the game very quickly!
The best L.A.R.P.'s that I have seen, will give way to player plot over storyteller plot. In a good L.A.R.P., a storyteller will still introduce plots but be willing and MUST be willing to allow that plot to be completely screwed over by player plot/interaction.
The only things that must be absolute before you begin larping; is the world properties/definitions, the potential abilities, interactions and changes, and the rules of which they all operate. Are there NPC'S that will always exist? Evil, Good, Tangible, Interactive from the start? Have a set of absolutes, and then have things that can be altered.
These absolutes are things that players cannot alter, or would have an extremely hard time altering. (never say never...)
Then, write up a loose plot, watch your players and go off of their playing cues...If they get lazy, throw them some wild cards; if things are frantic; toss in another kink or a moment of rest with a well timed NPC.
That's my imput on how a L.A.R.P., "Should" Be designed. Hope it is of some use.
This discussion might be somewhat correct in saying that there are elements of participationism here, but there's no railroading going on by any useful definition of that word. If a player goes into the game knowing that he's supposed to reveal something at time X, that these are the rules of the game, then he has no expectation of having control over this. Railroading is only a meaningful term in a derogatory sense when it means that the GM (or other player) is taking away a players ability to make some decision that he expects to be able to make. That is, if you're told that you can have your character "do anything" and then the GM forces you to go left at a particular turn, that's railroading. Otherwise the GM saying, "Your character is getting wet, because it's raining" is railroading.
Everyone playing an RPG expects that the GM will control certain elements. As long as everyone's expectations are the same, and these expectations are upheld, there's no violation of social contract, and no essential problem. Now, where those lines may lie may affect how much somebody prefers one game or another, sure. But there's no reason that even tightly controlled games can't be fun.
The key, and everybody above is commenting on this in various ways, is to ensure that "agency" that everyone mentions - basically that the players get to make a contribution to the game that affects the course of the game in some manner. Not neccessarily the outcome of the game, but even just the color along the way can satisfy some players. There's lots of lattitude in between, and even heavy handed event dropping can facilitate player power rather than preventing it, if it's done correctly.
As such, the idea of forcing players to reveal information can simply be another way of producing bangs in play. Given that it would be hard for the GMs to dissemminate all of this information in play, I can see this being, at the very least, an expedient way to play.
Mike
Indeed! Sesere (a see-sense-reveal system described on my labcats blog, which I link to upthread) is intended to be a different way to make bangs appear in play, but especially in a longer game, you don't usually want to rely on this all being done by the players without any prompting at all.
Hi all,
All of you have continued to make good points here.
Quote from: IndigoDreamer on June 06, 2006, 11:51:50 PM
In a table-top, there is always some player plot, but often the players are guided or hanging by what the ST has created for them to defeat, go after or need to accomplish. While this is true in a L.A.R.P., this factor actually can hinder the game very quickly!
The best L.A.R.P.'s that I have seen, will give way to player plot over storyteller plot. In a good L.A.R.P., a storyteller will still introduce plots but be willing and MUST be willing to allow that plot to be completely screwed over by player plot/interaction.
The only things that must be absolute before you begin larping; is the world properties/definitions, the potential abilities, interactions and changes, and the rules of which they all operate. Are there NPC'S that will always exist? Evil, Good, Tangible, Interactive from the start? Have a set of absolutes, and then have things that can be altered.
These absolutes are things that players cannot alter, or would have an extremely hard time altering. (never say never...)
Then, write up a loose plot, watch your players and go off of their playing cues...If they get lazy, throw them some wild cards; if things are frantic; toss in another kink or a moment of rest with a well timed NPC.
I agree with your points but they teeter over the edge from plot to ST style. I guess that leads to another question: When you design adventures for others, how much attention do you pay to "ST style." Do you just present the plotlines, rules and a list of facts/events or do you include a primer on play style?
Right now, I have the former. I have a timeline of what can happen if events are left unchecked but I have left the task of "teaching roleplaying" to other people. I have my list of rules and etc.
Quote from: mneme on June 07, 2006, 12:56:40 PM
Indeed! Sesere (a see-sense-reveal system described on my labcats blog, which I link to upthread) is intended to be a different way to make bangs appear in play, but especially in a longer game, you don't usually want to rely on this all being done by the players without any prompting at all.
I need to take a peek at this before making any comments.
Thanks,
Sean
QuoteI agree with your points but they teeter over the edge from plot to ST style. I guess that leads to another question: When you design adventures for others, how much attention do you pay to "ST style." Do you just present the plotlines, rules and a list of facts/events or do you include a primer on play style?
Right now, I have the former. I have a timeline of what can happen if events are left unchecked but I have left the task of "teaching roleplaying" to other people. I have my list of rules and etc.
ST style matters, but more so does the length of the game matters and the intentions of what you are basing the world/game environment upon. As for primer; it's just important to realize that some styles of storytelling just won't fit well with certain styles of writing or larp environments. By acknowledging this; you don't set your game up to fail by forcing it into a format that doesn't really let the game shine like it should/could; so I don't think setting an example of playstyle is a bad idea at all. If anything, it is a way for the potential storyteller to 'know' if the game is right for them; or the best way to storytell the game.
If you have a timeline, you have to debate how long to extend this timeline. If it's a set line of events; when those events happen determines for everyone the length of the game to an extent, depending of course on if you're adding extentions to the game or leaving it open ended.
The way you have it sounding; there is a closed ending with a time frame?
Personally, I love games that Have an end that is timely; but then again if you really enjoy a game; you want it to continue or find a reason to play it again, even though now the time and even factors can't be duplicated without already knowing it all.
Those are things to keep in mind with a larp as well.
Actually Indigo,
When I am writing this, I know I am splicing hairs and perhaps I am restating the obvious...I started this thread because I have a game I am working (imagine that... :)) and I wanted to add some scenerio suggestions to it and I have never worked on adventures for LARP style play (I feel like my rules are 'open' enough for that style of play.
In other words, the 'adventure' I wrote isn't the game en toto. I have the rules available as well as the scenerio I wrote based on those rules on my website. I should have more free time in about a week, so I can really work on tweaking the game and scenerio. I want to add more scenerios as well work on another project.
Thanks,
Sean
My thoughts were that when you do give the scenario as a possible storyline, perhaps suggest a plausible timeline? Some storytellers are better than others at "time management" He he...
I'm a staunch supporter of tabletop games turned larp and honestly, and imo, the biggest difference is just the 'chaos' and player interference factor that larps bring that tabletops cause less of. (due to sheer amount of people playing!) Everyone knows there's a million ways for a small tabletop to 'rain' on the storyteller's parade, and in a larp, that's just magnified. I've seen S.T's practically pull out hair when their players cause the st's plot to completely wash.
So therefore, the solution to the biggest problem is considering every possible way that someone might try and react to the timeline/story and make sure that it can do no more than delay or slow things down, or speed things up. (depending on what you want to happen in the story) -possibly get some friends to screw with your system and help you figure out ways to break it?)
Will you be posting progress and how the story is working out? (playtest, how it's working out, and the like?)
I'd be really interested in seeing how someone else goes about the transition. (I'm doing one myself)
Quote from: IndigoDreamer on June 15, 2006, 04:33:54 PM
....................
Will you be posting progress and how the story is working out? (playtest, how it's working out, and the like?)
I'd be really interested in seeing how someone else goes about the transition. (I'm doing one myself)
I'll post my findings in the playtesting forum. While I don't consider this a playtest, I did talk to a friend about the scenerio.
1. I decided that I needed to add a character prompt dealing with the nature of priest-worshiper interaction. He imagined hearing the prayers but feeling a bit overwhelmed at the number and nature of the prayers. We talked about how would he use mortals without making into automotons.
2. I also need to aid ST via prompts on the city. With the right details, the scenerio could be set in any time. I'll add them but I am not sure about the level of detail needed. I am sure the tone of the game would change if the events took place in a small town versus a metropolitian city.
3. Right now, I have power limitations on high-low use but not on how often? As it is, once there is a base number of mortal worshipers, you can use powers at level x or lower. I could use some people to go through the power lists and see what could happen if (let's say) level 3 or under powers have unlimited usage.
4. edit the link for rules...http://agesgaming.pbwiki.com/f/divinity.pdf
Quote from: IndigoDreamer on June 15, 2006, 04:33:54 PM
So therefore, the solution to the biggest problem is considering every possible way that someone might try and react to the timeline/story and make sure that it can do no more than delay or slow things down, or speed things up.
Sorry, knee-jerk, but...
If they can do no more than delay or slow things down (or speed things up) you're doing something wrong (or, more accurately, playing a game I like less than other games).
The players' actions should make a difference.
Also -- I actually think it's more important that the GMs have control over timing -- be able to kick things into overdrive or slow things down so the game doesn't end too early -- than that they have control over -plot-.
Quote from: mneme on June 16, 2006, 10:29:00 AM
Quote from: IndigoDreamer on June 15, 2006, 04:33:54 PM
So therefore, the solution to the biggest problem is considering every possible way that someone might try and react to the timeline/story and make sure that it can do no more than delay or slow things down, or speed things up.
Sorry, knee-jerk, but...
If they can do no more than delay or slow things down (or speed things up) you're doing something wrong (or, more accurately, playing a game I like less than other games).
The players' actions should make a difference.
Also -- I actually think it's more important that the GMs have control over timing -- be able to kick things into overdrive or slow things down so the game doesn't end too early -- than that they have control over -plot-.
Hi everyone,
IMHO...
I think Indigo was talking about story pacing while Mneme is talking about plot...related but different my gut tells me of this point. I do think one could add to pacing "Put a complete monkey wrench into everything, bringing everything to a screeching halt or making the story change direction."
My belief is you should have a "mutable baseline" for the plot and be prepared to adapt to plot changes, which may end up speeding up or slowing down events.
Sean
Actually, I addressed both -- that the GMs need to have a lot of control over pacing (because in the end, the site needs to close on time), but not so much over plot, including the big arcs, once the game begins. But I may have misenterpreted Indigo.
Hey Joshua,
I wanted to apologize publicly for my incomplete posting of your points. You were including plot and pace while Indigo was focused on pacing...again INHO.
Speaking of what to focus on...is it just me or do you find yourselves concentrating on the "macro" when thinking about LARP and on the "micro" for tabletop. I guess it's obvious but how much disparity in detail level is there?
Thanks again everyone,
Sean
Quote from: Adam Dray on May 19, 2006, 04:50:42 PMYes, players have to adjust from Act to Act as they get new information about what happened and what they did. Our players seemed delighted by the surprises. The mechanism is designed to protect pacing of the revelation of the various background plotlines so that a player doesn't resolve everything in Act 1.
Warning: Opinions Follow.
Ghod almichty, I hate, hate, hate that. Note that I have played in one larp of this style. It was a Girl Genius larp, with guest appearanced by Phil Foglio. I was playing Von Pinn. So, I was having fun.
In Act Two, I was accused of making a play for Adam, Lilith's husband. Indignantly, I denied it.
In Act Three, I learned it was true.
I would have made my denial completely differently if I had known I was lying.
Yes, I consider this different than players and GM (if any) in collaboration saying, "You know, maybe your PC is lying. Can we go with that?" I'm part of the retconning. Here, I just felt -- well, not shafted. Not betrayed. Just -- very, very dissatisfied.
QuoteWhat about all the retconning that, you complain, destroys role-play? Imagine a Dogs tabletop game. You go to town and learn from Brother Enos that Sister Constance is cheating on her husband. You and the other Dogs confront her. Now, for the sake of argument, I as GM do something I'd never do in a real Dogs game: I tell you that your character is the one sleeping with Sister Constance.
I find it telling that you'd never do it in a real Dogs game. I submit that there is a reason for this.
I also think that if I am playing the Dog in question, I'm a) playing with people I trust, including a GM who will take it back if I really don't want my character to be sleeping with Sister Constance or b) making a deliberate decision to play with people I don't know as well as my gaming group specifically because I am choosing to open myself up to this kind of risk. I choose. I choose in a way that I did not choose to have Von Pinn lie.
This was my first larp of that type. I had no warning that my character would change on me in ways I had no control over -- and not no control in the sense that I get from some of the interesting edgy indie games I've bought. There, it's "Well, you're doing X, and I think Y would be interesting, so we're collaborating on the spot." In the larp, it was, "We've decided start to finish what this character is."
Sure, I know other folks enjoy it, and I've no desire to tell them to stop. Why should they? But man, it's not fun for me. It's neither a larp as I do larps nor a play, and has for me the worst features of both.
This despite my not having a dreadful time -- in fact, despite having a reasonably pleasant time.
-Lisa
Quote from: sean2099 on June 20, 2006, 08:41:02 PMSpeaking of what to focus on...is it just me or do you find yourselves concentrating on the "macro" when thinking about LARP and on the "micro" for tabletop. I guess it's obvious but how much disparity in detail level is there?
It varies. When I plot out an arc for tabletop, I am thinking macro.
When I write what I think is a wonderful detail for a particular larp PC -- or when I hit my stride, performance flow kicks in, and I'm thinking the character's thoughts as I'm typing them -- I am thinking micro.
When I say, "I'll put X in for Josh's PC to react to," I am probably thinking micro.
When I look at five character sheets to figure out exactly what the story behind, let's say, a murder is, I am probably thinking macro.
Does this help?
-Lisa Padol
Quote from: Lisa Padol on June 21, 2006, 04:16:20 PM
Yes, I consider this different than players and GM (if any) in collaboration saying, "You know, maybe your PC is lying. Can we go with that?" I'm part of the retconning. Here, I just felt -- well, not shafted. Not betrayed. Just -- very, very dissatisfied.
That's exactly what we do, Lisa. We tell the players up front that The Truth will be revealed in pieces and that some of the facts on their sheets will be carefully constructed lies. Every player knows how it works up front. We even give them cards to use to get out of answering stuff in case they don't know the answer yet.
QuoteI find it telling that you'd never do it in a real Dogs game. I submit that there is a reason for this.
Yeah. The Dogs rules strictly prohibit it.
QuoteThis was my first larp of that type. I had no warning that my character would change on me in ways I had no control over -- and not no control in the sense that I get from some of the interesting edgy indie games I've bought.
So the problem isn't the rule mechanism that changed your character without your control. The problem was that you hadn't consented to that. This is a breach of social contract, not a broken game design. The problem is higher up the stack. Don't focus on this as a bad rule. Focus on the bad communication.
QuoteSure, I know other folks enjoy it, and I've no desire to tell them to stop. Why should they? But man, it's not fun for me. It's neither a larp as I do larps nor a play, and has for me the worst features of both.
Have you ever played in such a larp when you were told in advance that what your character knows will be revealed to you over three rounds? That is, explicitly? If not, you're not talking about the same game I am.
Quote from: Lisa Padol on June 21, 2006, 04:21:57 PM
Quote from: sean2099 on June 20, 2006, 08:41:02 PMSpeaking of what to focus on...is it just me or do you find yourselves concentrating on the "macro" when thinking about LARP and on the "micro" for tabletop. I guess it's obvious but how much disparity in detail level is there?
It varies. When I plot out an arc for tabletop, I am thinking macro.
When I write what I think is a wonderful detail for a particular larp PC -- or when I hit my stride, performance flow kicks in, and I'm thinking the character's thoughts as I'm typing them -- I am thinking micro.
When I say, "I'll put X in for Josh's PC to react to," I am probably thinking micro.
When I look at five character sheets to figure out exactly what the story behind, let's say, a murder is, I am probably thinking macro.
Does this help?
-Lisa Padol
Yes, it has helped me some. I don't think you can completely get away from plot in a LARP. I know this has been mentioned before but willingness to change in mid-game is important. You can plan ahead, even on a minute level, especially if you know what type of characters everyone is playing before (i.e., they had to submit a completed sheet or concept for your approval.) However, you can't plan for everything.
You run into the debate of the advantages and disadvantages of preplanning vs improv. at this point.
Again, I know my posts are not profound...They're my attempts to process information.
Sean
Quote from: Adam Dray on June 21, 2006, 04:58:04 PMHave you ever played in such a larp when you were told in advance that what your character knows will be revealed to you over three rounds? That is, explicitly? If not, you're not talking about the same game I am.
We came in about halfway through round one, and we were given a printed set of explicit rules. I don't recall if it said explicitly that we might discover something we thought we'd been truthful about might, well, not turn out to be the case, but everything else was there in black and white. No blame to the gms.
And, I did not have a terrible time. I had a nice, broad, stereotype of a PC, one I could jump right into. It is just not my preferred method of gaming.
-Lisa
Quote from: sean2099 on June 16, 2006, 04:26:49 PM
Quote from: mneme on June 16, 2006, 10:29:00 AM
Quote from: IndigoDreamer on June 15, 2006, 04:33:54 PM
So therefore, the solution to the biggest problem is considering every possible way that someone might try and react to the timeline/story and make sure that it can do no more than delay or slow things down, or speed things up.
Sorry, knee-jerk, but...
If they can do no more than delay or slow things down (or speed things up) you're doing something wrong (or, more accurately, playing a game I like less than other games).
The players' actions should make a difference.
Also -- I actually think it's more important that the GMs have control over timing -- be able to kick things into overdrive or slow things down so the game doesn't end too early -- than that they have control over -plot-.
Hi everyone,
IMHO...
I think Indigo was talking about story pacing while Mneme is talking about plot...related but different my gut tells me of this point. I do think one could add to pacing "Put a complete monkey wrench into everything, bringing everything to a screeching halt or making the story change direction."
This interpretation is the closest to the truth. My statement came after establishing if he wanted the overall plot as an absolute or something that can be changed.
As stated in my earlier posts, I prefer changeable plots myself, but there are plenty of games where some plot things WILL happen, even if other things do not. This is where I was entering in with pace. Tabletop or Larp, My favoriate expression for a storyteller has always been "Prepare for dissapointment." Because sometimes, that idea, the plot twist that you fostered and crafted so carefully can be shattered five minutes after you introduce it. It happens, and unless you take the time to see all the ways it CAN happen, you might not get the satisfaction that you want as a writer/storyteller from it. That is where I was introducing pace and asking what the overal intent is. I personally -LOVE- it when a storyteller doesn't even have to write the plots, because the player plots have taken over as far as 'focus'. The comment though was based on the storyteller part of the plot and how much he wants 'enforced' or 'changed'
Perhaps I was mistaken when I was posting? I had gotten the idea that part of what you were looking for was things to watch for when adapting your writing and potential pitfalls you might encounter so that the overall story could be played out.
That's where I had gotten into explaining how 'big plot, little stories", which I had thought of as working really well with what you seemed to be looking for. An example is, "The world is going to end." Call this the "big plot". This part might be made to be unchange changeable, however, everything leading up to it, or things around it might change, be changed or alter the perception or outcome of that 'big plot". Since to me, it had seemed you wanted a certain aspect of the story to be played out in the end, that sort of plot would make sense. So...that's where that had come from.
I hope I make sense...I have a habit of being abstract when I talk, I'll work on that :)
P.S....
Quote
My belief is you should have a "mutable baseline" for the plot and be prepared to adapt to plot changes, which may end up speeding up or slowing down events
Absolutely!
QuoteI don't think you can completely get away from plot in a LARP. I know this has been mentioned before but willingness to change in mid-game is important. You can plan ahead, even on a minute level, especially if you know what type of characters everyone is playing before (i.e., they had to submit a completed sheet or concept for your approval.) However, you can't plan for everything.
You run into the debate of the advantages and disadvantages of preplanning vs improv. at this point.
You've explained a bit more bluntly what I was trying to get at earlier when I was talking about 'world creation and plot' versus story.
The best stories have more content than anyone should see within a single gameplay. They grow; and there is always more there to pull from, and adapting to grow with and from player plot. For lack of a better idea of how to explain, imagine throwing a bunch of seeds into a pot; the seeds are meant to grow itno a big vine. Mice eat a few of them and they are gone, but meanwhile, the seeds spread out while being accessed and suddenly you've got alot of ivy vines with the original vines there to stem off of.
A difference with writing for table vs larp is that you just have ALOT more of those vines to handle; and need provide sufficient seeds to give the 'storyteller' what they need to keep the vines growing.
Perhaps not very elequent, but that's my thoughts!
You were talking about differing power levels within the LARP. I help run a monthly LARP with differing power levels. The game is about gods inbweing mortals with powers. Different gods can imbue the same mortal. The mortal minimum is 25%. A god can then imbue from 25% to 75%. The chrs which are 25% mortal, 75% gods are _much_ more powerful than the 25% mortal, 25% god chrs.
The reason this works in the game (going on for a year now) is that there are more disadvantages the higher % the chrs go. low % gods can use technology, high % can not. As GMs we make sure there are plots which must be solved in ways other than pure power.
So while some chrs can level a building, in the game this is not always the best thing to have. So long as the in game balance continues, the differing power levels are merely setting, not something which translates into ingame power.
Sorry for going dark for a few weeks -- needed to GAFIATE. Apology accepted, sean.
Lisa and I are talking about the same game -- we've got fairly extensive experience in "Theater Style" games, minimal (but existent) experience in campaign-style WW-type games, no experience in campaign style live combat games, and a single solitary experience in a pure murder mystery game.
(that said, TS games have a very large variation in how much information is revealed within the game, though it's usually handled organically through the narrative rather than as instant flashbacks).
Quote from: sean2099 on June 21, 2006, 07:53:25 PM
Yes, it has helped me some. I don't think you can completely get away from plot in a LARP. I know this has been mentioned before but willingness to change in mid-game is important. You can plan ahead, even on a minute level, especially if you know what type of characters everyone is playing before (i.e., they had to submit a completed sheet or concept for your approval.) However, you can't plan for everything.
This is even true in the TS games I'm most familiar with -- where the GMs have written the characters, the opposing characters, the background -- everything; where what the players bring is their interpretation to 5+ page character backgrounds and personalities. The problem is made -worse- if the GMs assume something that hasn't actually happened -will- happen, that the players won't go their own way once they hit the interface of the game.
Quote from: mneme on July 06, 2006, 11:11:47 AMThis is even true in the TS games I'm most familiar with -- where the GMs have written the characters, the opposing characters, the background -- everything; where what the players bring is their interpretation to 5+ page character backgrounds and personalities. The problem is made -worse- if the GMs assume something that hasn't actually happened -will- happen, that the players won't go their own way once they hit the interface of the game.
Yah. In extreme cases, GMs may try to force it, which is generally a bad idea.
We're also developing a taxonomy of failure modes for a larp, both in general and for specific player types. (E.g., Character X may be fine for Player A, but would bore Player B to tears. Now, for a group of strangers, how do you tweak a questionnaire to identify your As and Bs?).
We're also working on the second Hot Tub larp, scheduled to run at this year's DexCon, Saturday, 9-12. Very basic, very minimal, as the character sheet fits on the back of a laminated badge.
-Lisa
Hi folks,
When a thread hits this many pages with only a few participants, it's probably time to take the discussion to a private venue.
It was an interesting topic and a lot of people said neat stuff, so this isn't a shut-down based on anything awful. The time has come, that's all.
Best, Ron