[EverLARP] Piper’s Court

[Kat Miller]

Ok this is a LARP, but the mechanics and the plot are mine even if its set in "Everway"

I ran the LARP for the second time on Sunday.  I ran a LARP for my second time ever on Sunday.  And when I say I, I mean the group of us.  I'm co-GMing with Michele Mishko, except at Origins when I'll be Co-GMing with Michael Miller.

The Mechanic for the LARP is of my own devising.  I haven't named it yet, but refer to it as the business card system.

From the LARPs I've played in, the thing that annoys me the most is combat.  Necessary and integral, the unstable situation set up in the beginning of a LARP should result in a little physical combat (of the non physical type) But it has always been done with dice, or the need for a GM.  Some of these LARPs run for 20-30 people.  Having the GM tied up resolving combat means other players must wait.  And often the combat has this time effect where EVERYONE must wait.

In the business card system, I give everyone some Business cards.  One Card says defense and has a number on it, The others say attack and have a number.  You can only attack in the LARP as many times as you have attack cards.  When you want to attack you hand the person your attacking your card, they compare it to their own card.  The attack card gets ripped up.

If the attacker succeeds, the defender is at the mercy of the attackers resolution.  If the defender succeeds the attacker failed and is in danger of retaliation.  Ties go to the attacker.

Supporters declare their actions and hand their attack cards to the attacker or defense cards to the defender.  The initiator of the attack is the only one to rip up a card, but is also the only one who can declare the out come on a success.

At Dreamation There were only 7 players, and the business card system was used twice and I was needed both times.  I over complicated things for Dreamation tying the defense card to the earth score on the character sheet provided so the players had to look and add and compare.

For this last play test I added names to the attack and defend cards, removed elements for the character sheets entirely and let the number on the card represent the whole attack/defense value.  This seems to have improved the mechanic for the players.  I also added cards for potions, and magic items.  They had the word attack on them if they could be used to enhance an attack.

I had 11 players for this play test.  The card mechanic help players use potions, there were 3 or four assaults, and I was called on to help with the 5 on one pile up near then end.  I was a mere witness as they had it all in hand.

I'll be running the Game for 16 at Dexcon, Origins and Gen Con.

I'm discovering that GMing a LARP is a lot like GMing Bumper Cars.  I discovered that having a pc in the game is important to know what's going on and to give players information without them having to come out of character.   This time several different players bribed the GMs (both of us playing tavern wenches) into giving them information about other characters.  What a wonderful concept! 

Other than that you look around and make light chat with anyone looking bored or troubled to see if they are "in character" or actually Bored and Troubled.  (Sometimes bumper cars get stuck in the no electricity zones and need a push). 

I don't want to say too much about the plot since I'm running it again, but I have discovered that between this play test and Dreamation many main characters and their motivations were altered.  I added 4 new characters, and removed one character and tweaked the rest of the characters.  After this last play test.  I can see how two of the characters motivations need to be rewritten. One needs more to do.   I also need to add 5 more characters.

What I'm uncertain about is the Ending of a LARP.  This one came to what I though was a satisfying resolution ½ hour early.  But Michele had to point out that there was still time for smaller subplots to finish out.

One character in particular has agendas he cannot fulfill. I need to fix this.  There needs to be at least one thing a player can accomplish.

I thought in the beginning that I wanted the game to go wherever the players take it, but I think I'll be disappointed if the villains win.   I need to figure out where I really stand on this.  I played in a LARP where the Villain played well and out thought us, removing our abilities to satisfy our agendas, and potentially destroying the world.  The GMs stepped in and rewrote the ending "saving" the world. This annoyed me. I thought the villain was robbed.  He worked hard for and earned an end of the world type ending.

Now that I'm gming my own LARP, and there are two characters with agendas that are end of the world scenarios, I'm getting squeamish.

I'm not certain what makes a good ending.  If 10 out of 11 players have their agendas resolved but there is ½ hour left of play do I run to the full time?  Is it fair not to?  Still being new to the world of LARPing I'm not really sure.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

You can only attack in the LARP as many times as you have attack cards.  When you want to attack you hand the person your attacking your card, they compare it to their own card.  The attack card gets ripped up.

For a one-off LARP, this is probably the best way to couple resource to combat resolution that I have ever seen. I have seen "I am this stack of cards" LARPs many times, but they always carried a SIMist orientation: a guy that was "good at fighting" was going to generally win conflicts that could reduce to fighting... and that player would try really hard to reduce conflicts to fighting. You've got that all beat; a fighter better really need/want to try to win, to burn up one of their fighting opportunities.

If the attacker succeeds, the defender is at the mercy of the attackers resolution.

By this do you mean, total player fiat? As in, I could say, "OK, you're dead" if I win an attack? Worrisome, if only from a deprotagonizing perspective. Perhaps your combat system has more limited resolutions (e.g. make victim stay inactive for ten minutes; trap victim in a particular game location)?

Other than that you look around and make light chat with anyone looking bored or troubled to see if they are “in character” or actually Bored and Troubled.  (Sometimes bumper cars get stuck in the no electricity zones and need a push).

This is a good instinct to develop, as a LARP GM (or, frankly, any GM). I hope, however, that you are looking closely at the character's design, when it leads to such "stalled" play. You seem to have locked on to a situation framing system that tries to keep plots flowing and conflicts relevant; therefore, every stalled player is a clue as to missing hooks, motivations, or interrelations to other characters.

One character in particular has agendas he cannot fulfill. I need to fix this.  There needs to be at least one thing a player can accomplish.

Yep. May I suggest going one step further (time and future play schedules permitting)? Look for ways you can provide each character with multiple, conflicting goals or agendas. It is good that you present at least one, to provide a spur to action; I am merely suggesting that you consider providing a meaningful player decision which, in turn, spurs action.

Think of it like hi-lo poker: a character can be pursuing Agenda A (by the player's choice) but run into enough barriers that they opt to switch to pursue Agenda B. Or perhaps the player find better traction and interest amongst the other players for Agenda B: he or she can switch because it buys him or her (the player) more social feedback and involvement.

In short, if you give each character multiple agendas, you give each player a seminal, meaningful, character-defining choice AND you give them flexability to maintain involvement in the Reason To Play LARPs: social interaction. And by making the agendas conflicting, you prevent the situation where a player "wins" by satisfying all of the character's agendas. "Victors" in the game will have had to sacrifice something (i.e. the rewards from the conflicting agenda).

As a gross example, the Lonely Mad Scientist might want to destroy the world OR might want to find that special someone that makes it acceptable to permit the world to go on living. The other players can attempt to thwart the Mad Scientist, or can attempt to persuade him or her that there's love out there for him. Or both (saying "nice doggy" until they can find a rock--my favorite definition so far of "diplomacy").

Now that I’m gming my own LARP, and there are two characters with agendas that are end of the world scenarios, I’m getting squeamish.

Bah. Blow the joint up! Just so long as the victim players feel they had a fair shot, and the victor players are in no position to lord it over them, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with a one-off LARP that can conclude in Armageddon. Heck, I've played long-term LARPs that had that threat... as a real threat, not just a plot frame: the GMs were ready and perhaps too willing to let the game world go to hell and see what sort of play emerged for the survivors: Vampire the Masquerade meets Gamma World, basically.

I’m not certain what makes a good ending.  If 10 out of 11 players have their agendas resolved but there is ½ hour left of play do I run to the full time?  Is it fair not to?

This is a sort of odd question, to me. If the players were doing D&D, and they finished the dungeon crawl with all monsters down and all treasure carted away, who would ask if they should do some random monster encounters around the Inn?

You seem to have done a lot of work to establish your agendas as hooks/spurs for conflict and resolutions. If the agendas resolve themselves to everyone's satisfaction (or to the majority's, with little means to resolve remaining, perhaps inimical agendas) then what would be gained by playing-out a denouement or epilogue with the remaining time? Wouldn't the "victors" be reduced to playing a holding pattern, while the "unsatisfied" would be trying to fight an uphill battle under time constraints? Or do you see (or suspect that there is) some other way to fill the time that isn't going to feel like moot court?

Consider the alternative: agendas spiralling and gyrating around each other with nearly no resolution reached as you run out of time. One might argue that leaves the players wanting more (always leave 'em wanting more: you are Shaharazad, as a LARP GM). But in a one-off, that "wanting more" might not be fulfilled ever... which would leave players feeling gypped, I suspect.

From what I can see, you are handling the one-off LARP model brilliantly--inspired, I suspect, by exposure to tight-knit "Forgist" games (where system, setting, and situation are closely coupled). After all, I can only offer one clear piece of advice (multiple, conflicting agendas for each character). This concern of yours about ending early or ending with some unsatisfied agendas is very generous, but I think it's a non-issue, given your other efforts.

That isn't to say you shouldn't try to develop a game situation and agenda matrix in which you have carefully considered pacing and time-to-resolve: that's responsible game hosting and is expected in just about any game. But once you have given it your all, and tested as many times as you can, trust your instincts and trust the players. If they want to play beyond the resolution of all mutually compatible agendas, they will without your input. Or if they want to get to the pub a half hour earlier, to talk out of character about how cool your game was, they will. I do not feel that you need some hard-and-fast "Bang! Here's the Endgame Play and we've got thirty minutes" sort of system. Creative players--prompted by considerate GMs--will get to the endgame scenario all on their own; you just manage pacing.

In fact, it just occurred to me that a bigger potential issue is extending game play when players are rapidly locking down all agendas. It might be a better use of your time (after you come up with each character's conflicting personal agendas, of course!) to try to prepare additional character-independent complications: situations (and related character agendas) that you can drop into the game to delay final resolutions or, perhaps, to tweak player perceptions of their personal agenda decisions made earlier in the game play. How would the Lonely Mad Scientist's play change if he not only "got the girl," but in fact got too many love interests and found himself in a messy triangle? Would it be back to destroying the world (can't live with 'em...)? Would he use his evil genius to become the next Hugh Hefner (can't live without 'em...)? Would he see that only one of his interests "truly" loves him (while the rest are looking for the keys to the Lab and a rock)?

HTH;
David

[Kat Miller]

thanks David,
This responce is very helpful.

I've only been LARPing for a couple of years, so your advice is greatly appreciated.

If the attacker succeeds, the defender is at the mercy of the attackers resolution.

By this do you mean, total player fiat? As in, I could say, "OK, you're dead" if I win an attack? Worrisome, if only from a deprotagonizing perspective. Perhaps your combat system has more limited resolutions (e.g. make victim stay inactive for ten minutes; trap victim in a particular game location)?

Total player Fiat as in you're dead.  Everway is A High Magic setting with people who can speak to ghosts and ways to bring back the dead.  So Dead doesn't mean out of the game.  It might not even mean you can't still accomplish your goals.

In short, if you give each character multiple agendas, you give each player a seminal, meaningful, character-defining choice AND you give them flexability to maintain involvement in the Reason To Play LARPs: social interaction. And by making the agendas conflicting, you prevent the situation where a player "wins" by satisfying all of the character's agendas. "Victors" in the game will have had to sacrifice something (i.e. the rewards from the conflicting agenda).

All the characters have multiple agendas.  Not all the characters have conflicting agendas.   I like the idea of having choose one goal over another.   


The ending question happened on Sunday.  There was a 1/2 left of the game there was a dramatic unveiling where 9 out of 11 players achieved their main goals at once.  The 10th player had conflicting goals and had already chosen one side.  The 11th hadn't succeeded in any goals and to be honest There was only one achievable goal for him once the other players begin working together.

I wanted to end the game there.  It felt right.  I've ended a tabletop game there, but my other GM pointed out we had 1/2 hour and the one player was still trying to work his agendas out.  We only let the game run for another 10 minutes the King made a speech which provided a nice denouement.  Wrap up always takes more than its allotted time anyway.


-kat

[Julian]

I thought in the beginning that I wanted the game to go wherever the players take it, but I think I'll be disappointed if the villains win.   I need to figure out where I really stand on this.  I played in a LARP where the Villain played well and out thought us, removing our abilities to satisfy our agendas, and potentially destroying the world.  The GMs stepped in and rewrote the ending "saving" the world. This annoyed me. I thought the villain was robbed.  He worked hard for and earned an end of the world type ending.

Now that I'm gming my own LARP, and there are two characters with agendas that are end of the world scenarios, I'm getting squeamish.

If you don't want them to destroy the world, tell them up front on the character sheet that they're going to fail, but to do so with style. Nothing wrong with being doomed, as long as you know it, rather than have the rug pulled out from under you.

And give them some secondary goals that they can achieve.

[Kat Miller]

Thanks Julian,

I suppose if the player knows ahead of time that he is going to fail and is ok with that then there really is no problem.

I've seen this done before.  Thanks for mentioning it.

-kat

[mneme]

Hmm.  I asked this before, but have you changed things around enough that someone who's played the game before could play it again reasonably?

Julian's quite right re doomed villains -- and, in fact, he's played this (effectively, more than once, though one was very much a late-game thing).

I don't think there's anything wrong with "total player fiat, you're dead".  It's not deprotagonizing; it's a natural result of protagonist decisions (and the player can play the character as a ghost, play a new character, etc).  What you need to watch out for is "you are my slave and must do whatever I say" or "you are stuck here in this box".

I very much agree on bumper cards -- obviously, you want to write characters such that they won't stall...but they will anyway; you can't ignore the player factor, and what pleases one player won't please another.  Some of this you can do with casting (though Origins is a casting-challenged scenario); the rest you have to handle via vortex mechanics, ie "bumper cars".

[Kat Miller]

The main twists remain unchanged so I don't think so.

-kat


The Player fiat during combat means they can say you're knocked out, your wounded, your dead.
The "you're my slave" thing is not really an option.

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hi Kat,

I've run a few campaign LARP games and played in some more, and your rules don't address the largest problem that I've seen in Larps. The angry player who wants to end the game as revenge. Typically they will dream up something about bombs, gas mains,  gasoline, or snipers. Any LARP I've ever run has the stipulation no bombs, no explosions, and no snipers. Those three rules have saved me a lot of headache I've seen other GM's go through.

I'm curious how you resolve multiple people wanting a resolution? You mention that a 5 or one conflict was resolved without your direct involvement. How did that work? Also are the business cards being used for any type of resolution, for example, social, mental, and physical?

[Lisa Padol]

Kat, I'm signed up for the Origins run.

Also, I'm working on a larp and have run others, both ones I worked on and ones that were written and run by others before I ever got them. Do you want me to bring any of that for you to see?

-Lisa Padol

[mneme]

Clyde: more or less, the way you deal with the "angry player" problem is 1. try not to have angry players, and 2. Gm foot stamping firmly on floor.  A worse problem is when the player -isn't- the problem -- where it's that the GMs designed things such that the player -could- end the game that way, and doing so is firmly in character.  Regardless, while I've heard of such issues, I've never seen them in any game I ran (in a game  played in, we had a related "a bunch of combat monsters start mugging everyone to try to get something done already" issue).

[Kat Miller]

I'm curious how you resolve multiple people wanting a resolution? You mention that a 5 or one conflict was resolved without your direct involvement. How did that work? Also are the business cards being used for any type of resolution, for example, social, mental, and physical?

Hi Clyde,

The game is pretty self contained.  You can only use things that are in the game.  I'm OK with Snipers.  But they still have to act with the card resolution.  I guess the best way would be to tell me who they are attacking as a sniper and using what.  Then I'd go over to the target. I'll ask him if his Defense card beats the number on the attack without showing him the attack card.  Then I'll rip up the attack card.  Either the target has been stabbed.(Sniper will need to tell me his intent when he hands me the card) or the Target notices a knife that nearly missed him.   

The multiple attack (we had a couple) 
Only one person declares an attack all other players are supporters.  The first person is the Initiator and only this person determins the resolution if the attack is successful.  The first person's attack card gets ripped up.

This worked out real well.  The supporting players declare what they are doing to enable the Initiators attack.  KC says "I want to nock him out" She is the initiator because she is the first to declare violence.  Carl wants to help.  He hands KC his attack card and says "Hit him with this chair."  Mike S. says "I'll stands behind Michael to prevent his escape" Mike S. hands KC his attack card.  Dalys and Jen declair they are throwing bottles at Michael.  They both hand their attack cards to KC.  Michael who had it coming by then has no one to support his defence.  KC ripped her card and declared Michael knocked out.   

The card system is being used for Physical and Magical conflict only.  Social and Mental Conflict is up to the skills of the player. 

-kat

[Kat Miller]

Lisa- That would be nice.  I'd love to see what you guys have done.

Josh-  I suspect that the described behavior is ore common in the on going, 60+ person LARPs.  that's just my guess.  Ive been playing single session small LARPs and I haven't played with the angry player although I have heard of them.

-kat

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Kat:

Snipers would indeed be less problematic in your design as their number of attacks are limited. You also are less likely to run into angry gamer syndrome in one shots as there probably isn't the amount of time to generate the over-extreme amount of investment that an angry gamer has. That's typically the problem is they have a lot of investment and are finding themselves frustrated in how the game is run, or other players not meeting their standards, etc.

Have you considered the resolution of area effect attacks? Can you do area effects in your design? Perhaps I'm just not understanding what you mean by you can only use what is in the game.

Also is this open for other playtesting, do you have the rules written up?

Joshua:

Hi Joshua,

You are right, trying to have non-angry players is definitely a virtue. Unfortunately it isn't something you can really control especially in a larger game. The games where I've seen the problem are typically 50 plus players. (good call Kat) I've never experienced this problem in any of my games as my modification of no snipers, no bombs, no explosions makes it so players have to address their problems in a different way, or leave. Both are healthy responses to frustration.

My largest game would have 75 players sometimes and I had about 120 registered players. They would typically be spread over 4 large rooms in one large building and outside all around the block, while others might be 3 blocks away at a park, and ... etc. One persons foot is not big enough. Someone is just going to get angry over time. Like the 5 kids who tried to splinter my game, by running their game across the street for awhile, because they didn't like some ruling of mine. I like to think I was doing well because they never got a single other player, and eventually they returned.

It was much easier for the narrators to be invested with the specific, "no snipers, no bombs, and no explosions rule." That made it so players couldn't make a Mom versus Dad move. (They could go try the stunt later with a narrator even if my foot had been put down.)

Anyway, this is more than is necessary for addressing Kat's rules. If you would like to discuss this further please feel free to PM me, I don't want to continue to sidetrack this thread.

[mneme]

BTW, Kat -- IIRC, one problem we ran into in the first run was that if a player was out of attacks, they couldn't even support.  This mean that odd tactical choices (having a stronger character (mine) support a weaker character (Emily)'s attack) were irreversable -- since the weaker character's only combat card was ripped up, they couldn't turn around and support the stronger character in a later combat.

Did you fix this in the current version?