Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Graham W, December 12, 2005, 12:56:24 PM
Quote from: Graham Walmsley on December 12, 2005, 12:56:24 PMHere's the problem: the players weren't involved enough in determining the plot.
Quote from: Graham Walmsley on December 12, 2005, 12:56:24 PMThere's a subproblem too. Some players came to me asking to research werewolf legends and set traps for the werewolves. These were all things that should have affected the ending, and they didn't, and that's my fault. But I'm not sure: should I encourage so much GM interaction? I'd prefer the players had decided the game ending among themselves, rather than coming to the GM to do it.
Quote from: Graham Walmsley on December 12, 2005, 12:56:24 PMHowever, as I ran around listening to the players, there wasn't a consistent tone.
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen on December 12, 2005, 01:12:05 PMTo consistently unify a group at the end of a LARP, they need something to unify around - a strong leader (often, both in and out of character), a game theme, a set of rules, genre conventions. Something they all understand inherently, that puts them on the same page.
Quote from: TonyLB on December 12, 2005, 03:26:24 PMIt doesn't sound like there was any mechanic that would help them communicate what they wanted for a consistent tone, so I'm not surprised that they didn't end up achieving one. There was no feedback system telling people to get on board with what other people wanted.
Quote from: TonyLB on December 12, 2005, 03:26:24 PMPersonally, I'd have recommended red hearts for cool romance/interpersonal, gold hearts for cool combat/preparation things and silver hearts for cool sniping/infighting things. Then people could look at what was being rewarded and (subconsciously, I expect) adjust their game-play accordingly. Plus, you'd be able to just look at the board and know what people were getting stoked about, without having to go wandering around trying to divine it by intuition.
Quote from: Jason Morningstar on December 13, 2005, 08:22:38 AMThat sounds so fun to me, and I've always assiduously avoided LARP in all forms. It makes me think of poor Mr. Chinnery from "League of Gentlemen", too.
Quote from: Jason Morningstar on December 13, 2005, 08:22:38 AMI think a little boundary-setting might be useful when you have a large group with possibly diverse enthusiasms. You could, for example, explicitly state that the event would end in a certain way, or that it was to have a certain tone from the outset - a little structure can help people sometimes, rather than hinder them. "This is going to end with a do-or-die seige against rampaging werewolves - how do we get there?"
Quote from: Graham Walmsley on December 16, 2005, 08:55:30 PMAnd I could always tell them this two-thirds of the way through the game, so that they don't spend the whole game getting ready for a fight. Which would be dull.
Quote from: Jason Morningstar on December 19, 2005, 09:51:57 AMI think what you have here is an issue with point-of-attack: Getting ready for a fight with fucking werewolves shouldn't be a dull activity.
Quote from: Lig on December 19, 2005, 06:09:26 AMFirstly, I made a massive typo above. If only the game had 400 players! We run with 40-50, although numbers are on the rise.
Quote from: Lig on December 19, 2005, 06:09:26 AMThis means that you need several processes, or indeed families of processes, which the players can pick up and play with as they choose; you can always keep rigid control of a few processes, if certain things have to happen.The processes could be anything mechanical - or certainly anything "hardwired" into the larp. If might be that a portal to the spirit lands can be opened by a skilled character (A1) with an ash wand (A2) and handful of liverwort (A3). Or maybe there's an abandoned mine, but the players need to get a warrant to enter it - it needs a character with authority (B1), evidence of a problem there (B2) and an armed character to lead (B3).