Report: Firefly LARP / Active Karma

[DevP]

See also: Active Karma system, Firefly LARP concepts

So, the Firefly LARP went well enough (and if you google for "firefly larp", my game comes up!). The problematic stuff going into it is that I didn't have nearly enough preptime as I had really wanted - not even close, and I daresay it showed a bit - there was lots of off-the-cuff preparation, and my delivery on the rules was imperfect. And yet, it worked really well.

System: I was using Active Karma as defined in the thread above, but given the time constraints on my prep I in fact had left behind one of the most interesting aspects of my resolution: the sealed envelope / moral value bribe. So, I apologize for not bringing that to the game.

The Dan Bayn's Karma core of the system, used exclusively for inter-character conflicts, was well received, and lots of people enjoyed the inherent balance of the mechanic. People also seemed to appreciate the extra effects (i.e. when humbled, complain to someone who care to recover), although I'm not convinced that the gestural component (i.e. you throw down your bid while doing your action) greatly improved play - next time I play, I may allow players to handle bidding separately, and then act out the result in character afterwards.

Then again: conflicts very rarely went through the system! When presented with the threat of major pounding or especially a drawn gun, players often relented, since guns are scary. This worked out in some ways (pain should be scary, and the reluctance to enter true conflict meant intimidation interactions worked as they should). I think the system as situatied *was* too conservative, so there is some possible retooling here.

There was a good deal of fiat on my end when players asked to do things that either effected the outside world (ex: Can I hack the Fed database? Can I defuel the escape pods?) or where character abilities ran up against character boundaries (ex: Can I deactivate Tankman's cyberarms with my FixIt skill? Can I use my Lawyer skill to circumvent the Patron's will?). So, I resorted to fiat, and generally said yes (sometimes backtracking, sometimes not). This worked out for the best, but it wasn't always fair - the Patron got the short end of the stick on things, as the legal example above suggests. (I perhaps should have more wisely said no to any use of an ability to interfere with a character; in fact, I almost certainly should have done this.)

So, final conclusion on the system: It didn't play a great part in making things work, ultimately, but I don't think it severly got in the way either. A failure on my part, but it didn't harm the game very much.

Flavor: I think this is a major part of why the game was able to work so well - everyone was solid on the flavor of things. I did my part to set up real color enjoyment - there was a scheduled pre-game costume run, and I made sure. (Also, the Karma tokens really were poker chips.)

Character & Situation & Prep: My character writeups are below; this is what I gave to each player. (I did have to make up some characters on the spot; I only had time to give them the crudest of backgrounds, but even Thorga the Greedy Grifter with a Knife had fun and made character progress.)

http://www.forgreatjustice.net/pmwiki/MythPunk/FireflyLARP (scenario spoilers inside)

As per some of the advice I'd gotten, I stitched the characters together by drawing out relationship maps, where connections were defined by money, sex or brotherhood of some sort, with some other hooks defined by the goals. (Goals of "Find the McGuffin first" vs "Find the McGuffin first" are likely to bring characters into conflict.) I also suggested an open-ended approach to goals after handing out characters -- "Feel free to come up with any goals you like. In general: love, sex, money. Always things you want."

I feel that my relationship mapping was pretty strong, and I was happy with the result. One odd side-effect was that the Patron (who, to his credit, was at the center of everyone's plots and began the game with the hot Companion and all the money) ended up screwed at the end, in part because of some bad fiat choices, but also because the most active characters had their plots centered on taking advantage of him. (Thus suggests that next time, my mapping should be a bit more decentralized still, and not count on people to be hubs/targets.)

Casting was interesting. I went through all the characters, described the character's archetype and role, and looked to see who would fit. This went very well, although interestingly no one picked out any of the family members of the Mechanic (and therefore that whole hook was dropped). Now that I think about it, I didn't offer much in the way of hooks from the Mechanic's Parent (other than "be crabby and obessive about your daughter") and lacked any kind of heroic gloss, as opposed to the Brash Pilot and Cyberpunk.

My Role: So, I positioned myself as Captain of the ship, and had factored the Captain into the relationship maps. Unfortunately owing to my status as captain of the ship and due to being at the center of many relationships, people were constantly cueing up to interact with me, when I'd prefer them to focus more on each other.

My goal through the game was to facilitate "trouble" as much as possible, in the sense of constantly putting the characters' goals & choices at stake. I played a mean-spirited and greedy Captain (with a secret to hide, of course), and played hard to make enemies and provoke a confrontation. As a GM I selectively deployed new information (ex: "you remember a song", "dispatch from the Feds", etc.) to push players into action and especially to keep them moving if they got somewhat lost. (I did this specifically with the Preacher's player, who at first was confused at what to do; the role wasn't her first choice.) I couldn't quite get the players to kill me off mid-game, but that was equal parts conservatism and unclear rules for mid-game murder.

I "deputized" a friend of mine to help co-GM with me. After giving him an outline of what everyone's relationships were like, I simply asked him to "cause as much trouble as possible". This worked....

Outcomes: Many characters achieved their goals, some did not, and there were more than a few surprises. For example, The Preacher showed Tankman the way of god, and Tankman went on to be a Ranger. The co-GM tricked the Kid into convincing the Preacher to kill the Patron, and there was lots of killing in the endgame (including the Captain, finally). I had no freakin' clue that this was the way it would come down.

Speaking of the endgame: this is what I decided to do for having murder in-game. I let people gather in a circle right before the scenario ended, and let people call one-another out for gunfights to the actual death. On one hand, this had a nice Hamlet-esqe feel as bodies piled in front of the doorway, but there was no clear sense of when the scenario could *really* end, and moreover sitting around while lots of people were dying didn't make much sense. (Also. shooting at each other in front of the Ranger character didn't make much sense either.) This was not the best way to do things; I should have planned for alonger period of time where killing was *allowed*, so that it didn't have to happen out in the very open.

...

For my first LARP, I was happy with the result. I sadly couldn't leverage the mechanical System in a good way, but that can be improved; meanwhile, the Color, Characters and Situation were strong driving forces for the game, and in future LARPs I would give these three the Lion's share of the focus.

Epilogue: And I now have a suitcase filled with spare plastic guns. Yeah, the FBI is gonna love that. Comments?

[Andrew Morris]

Very nice. I was looking forward to hearing a report of this system in action. The first thing that pops into my mind is your comment that the system didn't work. It sounded like everything went great to me; can you explain more specifically why you think that?

I find it interesting that you thought the Preacher/Tankman hookup was a suprise, because when I read the descriptions, I honestly thought you'd set them up to interact in just that way.

One thing I've found out from running and playing in many LARPs is that the GMs usually shouldn't be powerful characters. Just think how things would have worked out if you were, say, a bartender instead of the captain. You'd be available to support player interactions ("Oh, sounds like you need to talk to the Preacher over there.") and drop information in character ("Hey, buddy, you got a message here from someone at home office."), etc. Put the players in the hotspot -- that's fun for them, and work for a GM.

Oh, and did you review whether players achieved their characters' goals publicly at the end? I know that'd be fun for me as a player, to find out why people were doing certain things and vicariously share in successes and failures.

The problematic stuff going into it is that I didn't have nearly enough preptime as I had really wanted - not even close, and I daresay it showed a bit - there was lots of off-the-cuff preparation, and my delivery on the rules was imperfect.

So...uh? You're saying it was a LARP, then? Seriously, I've never seen or been involved in a LARP where this wasn't the case. Oh, I'm sure it happens, but from my experience, it's the exception, not the rule. Hell, I've run LARPs where I was still printing out information as the characters arrived.

[DevP]

The first thing that pops into my mind is your comment that the system didn't work. It sounded like everything went great to me; can you explain more specifically why you think that?

For the goal of not getting in the way of the aesthetics of LARP play, and not interfereing with what players wanted, it was a success. Given my own preferences, not-getting-in-the-way is job 1. So I'm happy with that. (And in a one-shot time-sensitive convention setting, having light rules feels very important.)

However, the system as such might not have covered enough (the various fiat I had to employ, and employed less well) and I don't think it did much to promote the gameplay I wanted (the envelopes may have been that).

If we had simply played freeform instead of with these rules, the game would not have *greatly* been worse. (There were a few duels, but only a few.)

I find it interesting that you thought the Preacher/Tankman hookup was a suprise, because when I read the descriptions, I honestly thought you'd set them up to interact in just that way.

Actually, just a mis-remembering, as I added Tankman a bit later. I had expected the Security person to become the Ranger's new deputy, rather than Tankman. So, this was expected and really wonderful in play - there was this great moment where the Preacher was about to gun down the Patron, and the Tankman was warning him not to: "Remember what you told me about the book, Preacher! It's not worth it!"

One thing I've found out from running and playing in many LARPs is that the GMs usually shouldn't be powerful characters. Just think how things would have worked out if you were, say, a bartender instead of the captain.

Very true, although having a potent character with the power to push around PC agenda and relationships (ex: the Captain making the Crew and the Patron working at cross-purposes). The bartender almost works, except that he has to stay in the bar instead of milling around. A somewhat self-absorbed preacher character who wanders around and insists and walking around and dispensing advice - perhaps make it a special GM power, "you must give me a moment of time" - could also work, although everyone would treat him hostilely.

Oh, and did you review whether players achieved their characters' goals publicly at the end? I know that'd be fun for me as a player, to find out why people were doing certain things and vicariously share in successes and failures.

We did indeed have our "spill session" - I don't think you can really have a LARP like this without the post-session to unwind, decompress, and learn about how screwed you were from the getgo.

So...uh? You're saying it was a LARP, then? Seriously, I've never seen or been involved in a LARP where this wasn't the case. Oh, I'm sure it happens, but from my experience, it's the exception, not the rule. Hell, I've run LARPs where I was still printing out information as the characters arrived.

I was still writing out (spontaneous, new) information in the middle of the LARP! But thank you. I certainly found the experience awesome, but exhausting. Not sure if I'd do a LARP in this environmet again (although doing one for

Sudden realization: I really want mechanics to make this DiTV-the-LARP. Having played DiTV recently, I can say that with more authority now. Then again, it might take a repeated play scenario (rather than a 1-shot LARP) for crunchier and Premise-supporting rules to take hold.