[Changeling LARP]

[Anna B]

So used to run a Changeling LARP. My co-ST and I ran a weekly game with about 10 players for around a year and half maybe two years. For the most part it was really fun experience, though I think we could have done a better job. Oh well, there's always next game.

My co-ST and I have strong Sim tendencies, we like the reality of the game to be consistant. One of the intersting things about Changeling is that the game reality is fairly flexable. To reflect this one of our house rules was "If it's cool you can at lest try to do it" Which I think helped along some of the more exciting moments of the game. Our player found lots of creative solutions to the situations we posed.

We tended to make problems fairly open ended. The Baron would like to take over the freehold, what are you going to do? This kid is a changeling but he's in some kind of coma, how are you going to wake him up? There's a metal hospital using banality in pill from to "treat" Changelings what should you do? (make him look bad some the rest of nobility won't support him; use magic to making him think he's butterfly and needs to come out now, rescue the patients and burn the place down.)

I think it some cases this was good but in others the players would have liked a little more direction.

Most of the problems with the game where social. Some players found others not fun to play with, there was some teenage drama going on. None of the players were really intersted in exploring the political issues we had on the table. I'm still not sure how to fix these kind of things. I think starting with a better core group would help, but I wanted to be able to rope in random people and have people bring friends without it being huge deal and that wasn't happening.

[Danny_K]

So, where do you think the problems were coming from?  The social layer, or the system itself?  Mind's Eye Theatre is a pretty wonky system, if that's what you're using, and Changeling is an interesting but poorly implemented game IMHO. 

But some of the issues you mention sound like there's a strong social component to them -- it reminds me of the recent RPG.Net thread where someone Photoshopped the cover of the Vampire LARP rules to read, "Let's dress up and act petty."

[Josh Roby]

You will never get good political roleplay out of Changeling as written, because the setting refuses to make decisions by the ruling elite actually affect the lives of the people they are supposed to be oppressing.  There are, for instance, no taxes (which is how a feudal system works).  The resources that the nobles control are, by law, open to anyone who needs to use them.  Would-be democratic revolutionaries cannot propose new systems that would demonstrably affect the problems presented in the game's typical situations, because the typical crisis in a Changeling game is a monster (chimera, mundane, whatever) that needs to be taken down.  A noble with a couple knights will do this better, faster, and more efficiently than a congress with a militia.  In Chris Chinn's terminology, the political 'choices' provided are almost all bunk choices.  If you want to tease some political roleplay out of Changeling, you have to pretty profoundly change the way the setting works so that the player-characters will have specific interests that they rely on that are threatened.  Otherwise you will be reduced to dressing up and acting petty -- that's incredibly accurate, Danny.

[Anna B]

At lot of the problems seemed social to me. The MET rules are fairly wonky but our system worked for the most part. The were a bunch of implicit rules that kept the power in check. For instantance we only let trusted players play Grumps. And we knew how powerful any given spell should be and didn't let people do wonky magic. We also used Grapevine which was huge help.

I guess the players just wanted differnet things out of the game. The mists of time are hindering me here. I can't think of good example.

Also Changeling is setting that, for some reason, really makes people want to play Mary Sues. That is charcaters that are like them but better. I think the most Mary Sueish Character I ever made was an NPC for that game. She made the best cookies *ever* and fed them to people.

I think part of the politics problem was that no one was intersted in Anarchism. The primary setting of the game was Anarchist freehold that was struggling to remain free form a Traditionalist Baron. The Reformest Countess was keeping the whole situation is check. But that aspect of the game never really took off. Maybe it was something we did.

What games do you think have good political systems?

[Josh Roby]

I think part of the politics problem was that no one was intersted in Anarchism. The primary setting of the game was Anarchist freehold that was struggling to remain free form a Traditionalist Baron. The Reformest Countess was keeping the whole situation is check. But that aspect of the game never really took off. Maybe it was something we did.

My emphasis.  I've seen a lot of Changeling game masters strive for achieving this sort of 'balance' thing, where the forces of one side are met and negated by other forces (this is actually common to most WoD games).  This kills games.  This means that, if the player characters do nothing at all, the Countess will continue to keep the Baron in check.  Or at least they can assume as much.  Which gives them zero incentive to take action against the Baron -- don't worry, the Countess will take care of him.  In order to make a situation that really compels action, you need to create an imbalanced setting -- take that Countess out.  Have her recently assassinated by parties unknown, and the happy commoner anarchists taking refuge in the anarchist freehold no longer have that nice benevolent Countess to rely on.  Now it's up to them, and if the player characters don't act, the Baron will snap up the freehold while the new Count(ess) is being selected and recognized.

But even that won't get you politics -- that will get you galvanized players snapping into a clump and working together.  Which may be what you're after.  If you really want politics you need to make that imbalanced setting where the desires and goals of the player characters are directly opposed, achievable, and immediate.  This means, among other things, that you need to have the players make their characters before you generate the situation.  It means you need to take their often pie-in-the-sky ideals and nail them down to specific and concrete things that you can then threaten, or better yet, have other players threaten.

The only game I can think of that even marginally supports good, political play is Exalted, and only barely.  It achieves this almost entirely through color and setting -- its setting is hugely and fundamentally imbalanced -- and by setting up the characters to be the maligned, rightful rulers of the imbalanced setting.  It has a couple social-fu charms, but not very good support for them beyond the immediate, task-resolution based mechanics.  Pendragon may also support some good politics, but I've only heard about the game second-hand by raving fanboys.

[Anna B]

Well, I wouldn't say it killed our game, but it did make so that the whole situation was never the real focus of events.  I think what we wanted was for people to care about the different system of rulership and be emotional invested in them. This didn't happen at all.  And I'm not sure it was realist goal. We cared about that stuff coming into the game, but the players didn't and we could covey our feeling very well.

[Josh Roby]

Did the players have any reason to care about the system of government?

Would anyone lose their livelihood if the Baron took the freehold?
Did anyone think that they'd succumb to the Mists if the Baron took over?
Was the Baron known to do anything destructive or morally objectionable?
...summon demons?
...kill dissenters?
...deny access to freeholds, even?
Did any characters have a prior history with the Baron, and a personal reason to oppose him?
Was somebody's sister going to get raped if the Baron won?

In short, did anyone have anything at stake in the conflict, or were they all observers?

[Adam Cerling]

Anna,

Welcome to the Forge!

I wrote Grapevine. So you can guess that I have a lot of experience with Mind's Eye Theater. I also helped run a Changeling LARP for a year or two. I loved Changeling, and bought all the books for it. I've seen a lot of the problems you describe.

Joshua's points are excellent. The Changeling books talk about politics a lot, but it is only talk. Nothing in the game actually supports politics. Instead, it supports other interesting things like amassing huge amounts of XP to grow into a titan of chimerical power.

One of Changeling's greatest weaknesses is that it is not focused enough. Me, I don't play Changeling for politics. I think its greatest strength is its struggle of fantasy vs. mundanity. But some people like the feudal system, while others like the high fantasy adventure. Sadly, Changeling overreaches itself. It allows for all of these things passably, but it does none of them well. That lack of focus ran the game line right off the shelves.

Vampire is a little better for politics, because it has a system for it -- Status, Boons, and the like. I've even had good politics using Werewolf thanks to Renown, Sept Positions and Challenges. But Changeling doesn't have any of that -- it has a rigid feudal structure with little social mobility.

But you want to know the best political LARP system I've ever seen? Take a look at this: Are You A Werewolf?

Sure, it's not what most people think of when you hear "LARP." But just try it with a dozen friends. Watch the arguments and alliances and backstabbing bloom. See how the rules actually support politics? There is something important at stake (your life), there is a political process in place (voting), and there are reasons to lie and deceive (the secret identities of the werewolves and the seer). It's a perfect storm, and it works every time. That's good game design.

[Matt Machell]

But you want to know the best political LARP system I've ever seen? Take a look at this: Are You A Werewolf?

Thisman knows of what he speaks. I've played this game. It elegantly gives you a political situation where your only defence is how well you can convince others of somebody's guilt. It gives you a stake and forces you to act, two important aspects of a political game.

-Matt

[Brand_Robins]

I'm gonna quote two of Josh's posts, make some points about Pendragon, then try to bring this home to Changeling:

Pendragon may also support some good politics, but I've only heard about the game second-hand by raving fanboys.

Pendragon is not a political game. Pendragon is a game where you're all knights, under the good King (or fighting to put the good King into power), and doing knightly things. It is, however, an excellent Romantic Melodrama game. It sets up characters that are passionate about things with opposition that is passionate about the opposite, gives PCs weaknesses that are mechanically enforced, and then tosses in family politics and squabbling to give you that Malorian feel.

This is slightly different than what Josh is calling politics, because Pendragon isn't really about who governs (the Pendragon does, duh), or about the fine nuances of life at court (though you can do a lot with that, it isn't the focus of the game), it is about the call to adventure when people who are Not You do things that are Against You and you have to respond with passionate violence.

This is something far easier to do in trad RPGs than actual politics. To get politics you need messy, unclear details and lots of hard-played motivations. To get passionate violence, however, you just need to get personal stakes and then kick things in the face.

Which brings us to this:

Was the Baron known to do anything destructive or morally objectionable?
...summon demons?
...kill dissenters?
...deny access to freeholds, even?

Did any characters have a prior history with the Baron, and a personal reason to oppose him?
Was somebody's sister going to get raped if the Baron won?

In short, did anyone have anything at stake in the conflict, or were they all observers?

These things are core to a Pendragon style Romantic Melodrama. It isn't about the political ideation of the parties, nor does it even require the deep and inexorably crossed motivations. It requires a bad, bad person (who may or may not be evil) who the players hate who is going to do hateful things when he wins. And he must win if the players don't stop him, and should get some degree of victory even when they do oppose him.

Now how does this apply to Changeling? Well, as others have noted Changeling is very bad as a political game. It really is. It is, however, pretty damn solid as a Romantic Melodrama. Engaging people's political aspirations is difficult and unsuported, but engaging their personal emotions is usually pretty damn simple. It works better, in my experience, to get people focused on personal stakes, personal hatreds, personal loves, and then turn them to the boiling point.

Few Changelings are going to honestly care that much if the Baron they don't know takes over a freehold and goes "Now We Are Traditionalist!" Most Changelings, however, will care a lot if they are a commoner in love with the Baron's ward and he will never let her be with a commoner. Or if the Baron killed their mentor in a duel and they find out that he cheated. Or if the Baron comes to them and tells them how he is going to seduce their mother. Or if the Baron actually hits them in the heart, rather than the head.

So my advice is not to worry about the politics in Changeling, and go right for the romance, the emotion, and the melodrama. Give everyone a reason to personally care, not just about resources and ideals, but about meaty emotional matters and you will often find them getting more and more involved.

And heck, in a LARP if you can set it up so there are two or three sides that all have such powerful emotional reasons to burn each other to the ground....

[Josh Roby]

Enh.  I'm going to respectfully disagree with Brand and say what he's talking about is exactly the kind of 'political' play that I'd expect out of Changeling.  The key is to connect the big abstract politics with the personal lives of the characters.  Politics are only important when they hit close to home.

Politics is not activists waving signs and defending the rights of people they don't know.  Politics is people with opposing stakes in an open question, having to determine between them how they will resolve the problem.

[Brand_Robins]

Enh.  I'm going to respectfully disagree with Brand and say what he's talking about is exactly the kind of 'political' play that I'd expect out of Changeling.  The key is to connect the big abstract politics with the personal lives of the characters.  Politics are only important when they hit close to home.

Ah, see I thought you were focusing on politics in terms of resources, governmental control, ideation, and social status -- West Wing politics, as it were. But if you're talking more about romantic politics, then we are in agreement. I just think it is important to differentiate the two because they operate on different axes, and because its easy to confuse one with the other when thinking "I want a game about politics."

[Josh Roby]

Ah, see I thought you were focusing on politics in terms of resources, governmental control, ideation, and social status...

That's a board game.  I mean, I seriously can't see a roleplaying game really achieve engaging play with these topics simply because (a) the roles would not be meaningfully engaged without (b) the players having a professional politician's view of the host of details involved to influence these kinds of decisions.  Then there's also (c) any game would have to systemize some of these elements, and the systemization would itself have an ideological slant which would contrast sharply with the in-the-raw nature of political ebb and flow.  I mean, I love me some West Wing, and maybe you could pull it off with PTA and a table full of Poli-Sci majors, but for the most part, I don't think this is feasible in-game.

This is why, to be a little more on-topic, Changeling can't pull of West Wing-esque play.  There simply aren't enough details to influence the decisions being made, and what details are introduced are the sole province of the Storyteller(s), which is more or less a recipe for railroading these decisions.  Far more likely that we can run a game like Erin Brokovich, with the PCs at the very personal and idiosyncratic nexus of politics and an individual life.

West Wing Geeking Addendum -- The best West Wing episodes aren't actually about the politics at all; the politics are used as a backdrop for compelling character exploration.  No, not in the form of "making tough moral decisions" but in exploring why Sam Seaborne is so driven to seek justice for people he doesn't know, juxtaposed with him finding out that his father has been having an affair for ten years.  Or the clash of Sam's idealism with the brutal legacies of Cold War spies.  In lots of ways, West Wing isn't about politics as it is about the people who operate the political machine.

[Brand_Robins]

West Wing Geeking Addendum -- The best West Wing episodes aren't actually about the politics at all; the politics are used as a backdrop for compelling character exploration.  No, not in the form of "making tough moral decisions" but in exploring why Sam Seaborne is so driven to seek justice for people he doesn't know, juxtaposed with him finding out that his father has been having an affair for ten years.  Or the clash of Sam's idealism with the brutal legacies of Cold War spies.  In lots of ways, West Wing isn't about politics as it is about the people who operate the political machine.

Shh. You're giving away secrets now.

Though if anyone wants an interesting LARP-style take on a political RPG, you must check out Executive Decision, which has a whole new spin on it.

[Danny_K]

Ah, see I thought you were focusing on politics in terms of resources, governmental control, ideation, and social status -- West Wing politics, as it were. But if you're talking more about romantic politics, then we are in agreement. I just think it is important to differentiate the two because they operate on different axes, and because its easy to confuse one with the other when thinking "I want a game about politics."

Vampire has a lot of these things, but the system doesn't support them terribly well; in most games I've played, it basically s a form of color -- "The Tremere control the University, everybody knows that."