Observers to role-playing

[hardcoremoose]

I think LARPs are like performance art, but for some reason (perhaps by their very nature) are boring to observe.  On the other hand - and maybe this is where I use the word "performace" a bit too loosely - I do not believe tabletop roleplaying is boring, either to play or to observe.

Now some tabletop games are going to be boring - I'm thinking mechanics-heavy games that bog down with dice rolling and whatnot.  But lite games - particularly those with a narrativist streak (like The Pool, and dare I say it, WYRD) could be interesting to observe in almost the same way that any oral storytelling tradition is fun for its audience, without losing any of it's "gaminess".

And I think that's one of the reasons I excluded LARPs.  To make LARPs entertaining to watch might require removing the essential "gameness" from them (one could argue that LARPs aren't even games, and I might have to agree), at which point they cease to be a LARP and instead become straight improvisational theatre.  I could be off on that, however...I've watched people play LARPs before, but that's about the entire depth of my experience with them.

And that's the other reason I excluded LARPs.  I didn't want anyone to misunderstand what I was getting at -  I'm just not that interested in LARPs.  However, roleplaying games as a form of oral storytelling...that interests me alot.

- Scott

[Paul Czege]

I'd think that LARP would produce a more salable product...

Oooh...I don't know. I'm not a LARP expert, but what I've seen as a spectator isn't that interesting. The costumes can be nice, but by far the vast preponderance of player action seems to be characterizing their character. It's pretty damn boring to watch people bump around against clues to some backstory mystery, constantly characterizing themselves, and engaging in extended contests of verbal one-upmanship. No one really emerges from the morass as a compelling protagonist.

I'd hazard that Tor's tabletop game, with players exercising authorial power, would hold spectator interest better than the typical LARP.

But maybe I just haven't seen the good stuff.

Paul


[ This Message was edited by: Paul Czege on 2001-12-14 15:51 ]

[Mike Holmes]

Sounds like you've seen a lot of Vampire LARP, Paul.

My point was that in LARP there are more visual elements to appreciate, etc. And I think that both forms have a theoretical ability to create as good a story as the next given the right design. Just as Narrativism is rare in tabletop, I think so might its correspondent be in LARP, if not non-existent. But I think one could play that way. So, plot production being equal, I think that LARP has a greater potential because of the movement and costumes, acting, etc.

Anyhow, Moose, what's the point? Are you advocating doing RPGs as performance art? Going to sell tickets? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the impov theatre people are going to steal your market hands down. Or do you just have a desire to please the public?

Mike

[Gordon C. Landis]

This thread cropped up just as the GM of one game that should start in the new year asked us how we felt about an observer - seems his girlfriend had heard (and accepted, mostly) a lot of very BAD things about RPGs from her religious leaders (sigh), and he was hoping that bringing her to an actual session would show that we're not a bunch of Satan-worshipping occultists.  Not that there's anything WRONG with that . . . :wink:

A very different angle on the "observer" issue, and if she does show up I'll post back here to let y'all know how it went.

On the "RPGs as performance art" front . . . didn't I read somewhere that in Japan, "transcripts" of RPG play sessions are very popular, they're bought, sold, and traded - perhaps even professionally or semi-professionally published?

I've no idea what is meant by "transcripts", obviously, so this might not be an "art" phenomena but rather a collectible curiosity or the like.  Or it may be simple fiction-writing based on play sessions, and thus not really "performance" related.  In any case, it's always seemed like an interesting data point to gather more info around.  If only I spoke/read Japanese . . .

Oh, I am also not a LARP fan/expert, but . . . aren't a lot of the "Reality TV" shows (Survivor, Amazing Race, and the like) kinda like edited presentations of scenes from a LARP?  Perhaps not - I'm also not a Reality TV fan/expert, so take the possible connection with a huge grain of salt.  If so . . . anyone want to join me in pitching "Can YOU Destroy the One Ring?" to, say, NBC?  Average people from around the world are put into the shoes of the characters from the blockbuster movie - who will survive?  Let see - the rules would need to support Simulation of setting, but encourage Gamist competition among the players.  And the producer/editors would need to to take that mess and turn it into a semi-meaningful Narrative.

Gah.  GNS, it's a disease, I tell you.  Even off here in an innocuous thread about  observers, I can't resist mentioning it . . .

Gordon

[hardcoremoose]

Hey Mike,

What's the point of anything, right?

I guess the questions I'm asking - and can't necessarily answer right now - are these:

When compared to other forms of entertainment, is there something unique about RPGs that would lend themselves to an audience and make them superior to, say, watching TV?

If so, is this something worth exploring?  Or should we just ignore the phenomenon.

It's obvious here, and also in some discussion I had with Ron, that many people have had very positive experiences with small audiences observing their games.  Now, I'm one of these people who tend to liken roleplaying more to the traditions of oral storytelling than to wargaming (I think cases can be made for both), and I believe that's a good thing.  If these things prove to be true - that rpgs offer a unique entertainment experience with an audience that finds it worthwhile, and that it does strengthen our connection to each other through shared stories - then I'm all for it.  Which is a major reversal of the point I argued in the first few posts in this thread.

That's all I'm wondering about.  I'm not thinking about tickets or head counts or anything like that.  I'm just starting to believe that just maybe there is a real human benefit to roleplaying as a form of performance.

And it's not like I think this idea is going to revolutionize gaming or anything.  I just remembered how cool it was to play Primeval with John Wick, and all the while I was thinking "You just don't see this sort of stuff all the time."  But why the hell not, ya' know?  

- Scott

[ This Message was edited by: hardcoremoose on 2001-12-14 21:33 ]

[contracycle]

I don't think that LARP or tabletop can be an observed art form; I think the observer in RPG must necessarily be a participant too; i.e. we are really talking about Audience stance.    This is because an observer who is not party to the suspension of disbelief the players experience has a difficult time following their decisions, motives and stimuli.

I saw a video recording of one of our RPG sessions once; quite interesting.  But even as someone who had been there, I was not able to necessarily follow precisely what I-the-player on the box was thinking at any given moment.  In many ways the post factor reorganisation of inputs into a coherent image of a sequence of events ignores much of the blurry vision and ignorance which you had at the start of the game but which has been cleared up by the time it has been finished.  The problem for the observer is they will also be seeing stops and starts; its not neat and immediately explicable.

What I would think is more likely is tha the Explorationist wing of RPG will go on to construct "experience events" possibly based on VR - Jurassic Park, The Experience, kinda thing.  This is kinda like an uber-MUD, except not necessarily persistent.  Inasmuch as "art" can be construed as "a challenge to understanding", its natural home is Explorationism; Narrativism would, I should think, produce "aesthetics" as opposed "art".

[Osric]

Regarding the 'keep your pucker shut' idea, I once observed on a game and there was one bit where the GM was describing a widget and the players were nodding sagely without a clue what was going on.  It occurred to me I had no idea whether it measured 20' or 2", and I asked (my first words in 45 minutes).  They didn't like that, and asked me not to speak.
This was in the evening in the lecture room the society was allowed to use, so I had a right to be there but wasn't exactly invited.  Yes, it still rankles 15 years later(!) but I can be forgiving.  More to the point, on reflection I had to concede that on a certain level, even if the size of the widget was staring them in the face, it should still be up to THEM to engage with the GM's description.

Incidentally, he was claiming to have invented the world's greatest systemless way of tossing a few dice about whenever a resolution was required -- and called it 'Genesis'.  Funny how his selection of dice corresponded exactly to Fantasy Hero.  And this is the first time I've told that to anyone.


I've only got good things to say about having occasional observers at my own games.  One time I was doing a one-on-one thing for one of my players in the morning aftermath of a party.  One of the girls was on the couch hungover and drifting in and out of sleep...  Later that day she was able to enthuse wildly, since she'd been vividly dreaming the events we described.  RPing could be performance art if we provide the audience with an appropriate cocktail of sedatives and/or hallucinogens!  

The other main one was my girlfriend who wanted to play hostess a bit more than if I just let the guys in at the door and took them straight to the gaming room.  Having coffees, tea and cakes served up was obviously nice, but she also rapidly abandoned her derisive expectations, and promptly started helping me analyse the guys' styles and suggesting character-related plot events to throw at them.  (They also told her things about my attitude to GMing that they hadn't told me in three years.  Of course I got to hear them, and things improved for yet another reason.)

And while we're talking about the fairer sex, I should add that having even one female gamer in the group also serves nicely to make everyone take things seriously instead of descending into the repetitive schoolboy humour.

Like Ron says, the main thing seems to be unashamed of the hobby, stop concerning yourself with the geek-reputation  and be as open as you like.  People might surprise you with their attitudes.

Cheers,
-- Nev.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

And perhaps this is just an indication of my personality, but if I were a guest/observer at a game session, and if anyone told me that my comments were to be regulated or unwelcome, I'd tell'em they were being assholes and then not attend.

I like lots of ongoing conversation at the game table, as has been described in another thread, and I think people are good about staying engaged with the in-game stuff when - shock - actual play is engaging. That would apply to folks who are merely attending as well.

As I've tried to describe before, I think that people who chime in (whether non-players or players whose characters are not present the scene) are often entering Author or Director stance. I also think that a person who's attending, but not officially playing, will almost certainly become a player sooner or later if they are welcomed to participate in this fashion.

Best,
Ron