LARPs

[Mike Holmes]

Whoa, thanks for the detailed response, Walt. Just a few remarks...

The concepts of focus, coherence, drift, transition, and congruence must be applied to LARPs with great caution.

Ron has said this before on the subjet of LARP. I think you are starting to reveal what his intuition was about.

God I love that game.

And now we do, too. Sight unseen. Produce a description post haste or risk a vebal lashing!

The ultimate currency in a LARP (and I think in most non-solo RPGs) is attention. Yet given a choice, many players will request shadowy characters who work in secret and wield great power behind the scenes. They do so because they associate such characters with effectivness, and they are accustomed to RPGs in which character effectiveness is essential for getting attention.

That, my dear sir, is fascinating. I can totally see it.

I've always wondered how Vampire LARPs manage to get around this problem. A whole cast of characters who are secretive by nature acting in a medium in which audience appreciation is the main reward never seemed a very promising recipe to me. My guess would be that Vampire LARPs have adapted to provide settings and situations in which secrecy may (or must) be dropped.

The funniest thing I see watching Vampire LARPS is the guys using the Obfuscate talent to be invisible (for those who may not have seen it, theystand stock still against a wall or in a corner out of the way, with their hands crossed over their chests). I mean, that sounds like a cool ability, but it's interesting how much attention pretending to be invisible can get you. More interesting is that the player doesn't get to interact with the game. He's got a power, which as you said, disallows his participation. Weird.

But LARP audiences are very self-selected and their style preferences can often be predicted.

Moreso than other RPGs? Because they sign up for them as opposed to being recruited?

I agree that smaller LARPs are harder. But I never associated this with an audience factor. One's immediate audience in a LARP is usually small in any event.

I suppose, but there's the notion that you can find a group that you're comfortable playing to. As opposed to only having to play to a small set. And also, in a large group, you can get lost in the crowd. You don't have to play a big part if you don't want to. Again, not possible in small LARPS. Don't you find wallflowers more in larger LARPS? Aren't these players who might be more uncomfortable in a smaller LARP?

It has more to do with pacing ... Therefore, fewer players, less verisimilitude, generally speaking.

These are very interesting observations which has not occurd to me. But of course they're true. I find that all small LARPS take the form of "Several people get trapped on an island" sorts of setups. The only way to maintain any verisimilitude. Huh.

I know from one of my own LARP playing experiences that Narrativist play doesn't require an audience

Cool example. The decision to commit sepaku is definitely a Narrtivist one, and obviously observable. The internal conflict was just a bonus. Sweet. Can you post that one, too?

Mike

[Seth L. Blumberg]

"What is my (this character's) fit role in society?" is always a morally relevant question as long as the player perceives some empathic or metaphoric connection between the character and the player.

Okay, when you rephrase it that way, it's a perfectly good Egri-style Premise, and your report of post-game comments from the other players seems to support your assertion that they (as well as you) were playing in a Narrativist mode.

However, you need to get your terminology straight:

Simulationism has to be addressed with a bit more care. Might the player just be playing out what the character would have done? That is to say, what a comedic character in a world full of banana peels would have done? No. It doesn't wash. Inside the game world, a comedic character who slips on a banana peel does so because he doesn't see the banana peel. To deliberately step on the banana peel would be completely out of character and inappropriate (not to mention, not funny). If the character slips on the banana peel, it's because the player has decided that the character didn't see it. A metagame decision has been made.

You are confusing the distinction between Simulationism and Narrativism with the distinction between Actor Stance and Author Stance. The described action sounds to me like a use of Author Stance consonant with any mode of play. The character steps on the banana peel because the player is aware that, in a cartoon universe, toons routinely fail to see things if stepping on them would create an amusing pratfall; or the character steps on the banana peel because the character's clumsiness is somehow relevant to his theme; or the character steps on the banana peel because the player wants to get a laugh from the audience.

And it's been made purely for the sake of non-Gamist metagame rewards: in this case, creating humor; getting a laugh from the audience. That's Narrativism, pure and simple.

That is not remotely within the scope of Narrativism. I re-read the big GNS essay to make sure.

Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).

Trying to get laughs from the audience is absolutely a form of Gamism: if they laugh, you've scored points.

[Mike Holmes]

You're quibbles, Seth, while technically true do not invalidate his observations. As you note yourself. So let's not clobber Walt with a disection of GNS on a thread that's supposed to be about LARP, and not GNS.

Again, as Walt has stated, and Ron, the progenitor of the theory both claim, one needs to be careful in applying the theory at all to LARP. Misunderstandings are inevitable.

In any case, I think that we've established that Narrativism exists in LARPS though it may be rare. I think it's also worth noting that NArrativism may be rare in LARPS for the same reason that it is in tabletop, namely that it's not often recognized as a form of play, and just as often discouraged by the mechanics presented. Or rather the mechanics (and setting, situation, etc) promote Gamism or Sim. In LARP this is often because they are based on tabletop games, and of those games, I'll bet that none of them are Narrativist. So no big surprise, there. Vampire LARPS lead to Sim-Gam play. No big surprise there.

Hey, Walt, you mentioned space as a determinant of play. I've often thought that space is the biggest inhibitor of LARP play. Is that true? How do you get around that limit? Especially for we folks who aren't students and don't therefore have access to such resources.

Mike

[Walt Freitag]

Avaunt, with thy double standards!

Warrior takes wounds because a game system prescribes them as a result of a resolved action. We say, a typical sim (or gamist) facilitiating mechanism.

Warrior takes wounds because the player has narration rights and decides to narrate it that way. We say, ooh, nice way to facilitate narrativism.

Guy walking down the street slips on a banana peel because he failed a perception roll. We say, a typical sim (or gamist) facilitiating mechanism.

Guy walking down the street (in a LARP) slips on a banana peel because the player can behave however he wants and decides to act it out that way. We say, ooh, how... gamist?!?

The difference appears to be that for the wounded warrior, everyone's willing to hypothesize the existence of an unstated context that makes the event a part of the exploration of a Premise. That willingness evaporates for the pratfall. But for the pratfall to be funny (as it was stated to be, since laughter was the reaction), it needs exactly such a context. Humor is a complex signal that elicits a complex emotional reaction. Look into any instance of successful humor; you'll find a Premise there.

I stand by my assessment and my use of the terminology.

- Walt

[Walt Freitag]

Oh, and...

Trying to get laughs from the audience is absolutely a form of Gamism: if they laugh, you've scored points.

No fair putting a point-scoring mechanism into the scenario that I didn't put there or imply. What kind of points? These points are relevant in what arena of competition?

Surely you don't mean "points" that are an abstraction of personal satisfaction. A player might just as plausibly achieve personal satisfaction by playing well in-character, or by creating a story of literary merit through play. That logic would turn just about everything into Gamism.

- Walt

[Mike Holmes]

Just as I thought, derailed...

Mike

[Walt Freitag]

Sorry, Mike. I would have responded to your points as well. But I don't understand your main question.

Hey, Walt, you mentioned space as a determinant of play. I've often thought that space is the biggest inhibitor of LARP play. Is that true? How do you get around that limit? Especially for we folks who aren't students and don't therefore have access to such resources.

Do you mean, how do we deal with the fact that play is scattered over real space? Or do you mean how do we obtain the use of an appropriate space?

The first question is complex and goes right to one of the main differences from tabletop play, and all the concomittant issues: limited GM knowledge of events, real-space-related mechanisms such as pursuit, communication of the "world condition," and so forth.

The second question is straightforward real-world logistics. Actually, being students never was a factor (helpful or hindering) for my group, except insofar as it limited our budget. We borrowed space from conventions (at which there was rarely dedicated game space, except for control room space and specific reserved time in a function room for game opening and ending events; players mostly mingled in public spaces, which accounted for the strictness of some of the conduct rules), or bought it the way conventions do for our independent events.

Could you clarify the question please?

- Walt[/u]

[James Holloway]

The first question is complex and goes right to one of the main differences from tabletop play, and all the concomittant issues: limited GM knowledge of events, real-space-related mechanisms such as pursuit, communication of the "world condition," and so forth. - Walt

[/u]

I've seen two ways to do it: the first is how, in my experience, SIL-style games are usually run. This is to make player-vs-player plots the most important aspects of the game, and to minimize (hopefully) the need for GM interaction. GMs are then posted in a particular location (a particular hotel room, a desk, etc) and the players are informed of this. Any player needing a GM can then come to this spot, and the largely GM-less rules system hopefully ensures that there won't be a big line there. Meanwhile, other GMs rove around, troubleshooting on-the-spot or going to scenes which will need more intense GM supervision.

The second is how my LARP group does it in our mainly outdoor game: each GM has a cell phone (in previous games, it was two-way radios) and they spread out among the wandering players. This can occasionally lead to confusion, but gives the GMs a high level of flexibility.

This was done this way before GMs had any reliable means of communication; an old Vampire LARP was legendary for "we need a GM" being native for "let's wander around for hours looking for one."

In my small LARPs, the GM usually plays some NPC role and accompanies the players, who are usually in a group.

In all cases, the physical limitations of the game are an important element in designing it.  Since LARPs often involve purpose-built systems, this shows up in every aspect of the game design, from basics (location, number of players, duration) to system (resolution mechanisms, for example, are usually a bit simple in order to avoid the need for GM intercession) to scenario (will player conflicts be able to drive this plot? Will the players have anywhere to do activity X?)

I don't know if all styles of play are equally possible as LARPs; certainly, not all types of scenarios can or should be LARPs.

[Matt Machell]

If you were to introduce a newbie to the game, would you think they'd be more comfortable in the big sessions, or the small ones?

To be honest small ones tend to work better for introducing newbies, simply because (as a GM) you can give them more attention (something not always possible in larger games). As it happens, we have a newbie to LARP in that very game (though he'd done tabletop before), and he had a blast and got really involved. That said, as with any game, depends who's running it (a poor organiser is more of a liability in LARP IMHO).

As to UK trends being different, possibly. LARP has a different history here, going back to Treasure Trap in the late 70s, (boffer weapon LARP to you US types, though I'd hate to describe an eldritch weapon as a boffer). I've found more problems with freaking out tabletop players than mundanes, to be honest.

As you say, maybe a topic for a different thread.

-Matt

[Wart]

Walt said: (Talking about players preferring shadowy, powerful characters working behind the scenes.)

I've always wondered how Vampire LARPs manage to get around this problem. A whole cast of characters who are secretive by nature acting in a medium in which audience appreciation is the main reward never seemed a very promising recipe to me. My guess would be that Vampire LARPs have adapted to provide settings and situations in which secrecy may (or must) be dropped.

This is what I have observed in Oxford's Vampire LARPs - there tends to be an unofficial one running alongside the University society's official "society freeform" and Camarilla UK. One of the more effective ways of dealing with this is the current one, in which the PCs are the leaders of the Camarilla - Inner Circle members, Princes, Justicars and what have you - and so have to talk to each other. The game is *set* in the smoke-filled rooms behind the scenes that the shadowy figures make their deals in. (It also manages to make the immortality bit actually *relevant*, by having a decade of IC time between sessions - the campaign is going to cover the 20th Century from a Vampiric perspective...)

Then Mike said:

The funniest thing I see watching Vampire LARPS is the guys using the Obfuscate talent to be invisible (for those who may not have seen it, theystand stock still against a wall or in a corner out of the way, with their hands crossed over their chests). I mean, that sounds like a cool ability, but it's interesting how much attention pretending to be invisible can get you. More interesting is that the player doesn't get to interact with the game. He's got a power, which as you said, disallows his participation. Weird.

Most of the unofficial Oxford vampire games have some sort of convention which says that it's regarded as terribly, terribly gauche to use kewl powerz in-session. (They tend to be used out-of-session in turnsheeting). Mainly because people look so silly when using them, they screw up suspension of disbelief for most people. (And don't get me started on paper/rock/scissors/bomb...)

More dubious are the rules for Status. High-Status vampires are generally expected not to talk to low-Status vampires in the canonical WW setting: this has been implemented to varying extents in various Vampire freeforms.

Camarilla incorporates all of Vampire's social stats lock, stock and barrel, which is rather silly for a game which is supposed to be based on the players acting out the social skills. (Yes, I know this means it's hard for someone to play someone with better social skills than them - this problem is more pronounced in LARPs than in tabletops, since at least in tabletops you can say "I make a stirring speech" and roll dice - in LARPs doing this looks silly, and you really ought to act out the speech yourself. Being "convinced" by someone who is a truly abysmal liar, who's just told you a transparently counter-factual and internally inconsistent whopper, just because they have more dots in a particular stat than you and beat you in paper/rock/scissors/bomb just doesn't feel right...)

A former unofficial Vampire game (they tend to run for a year or so, since if they run longer than that students end up graduating and their characters disappear...) didn't incorporate all of WW's social rules, but did impose a very strict Status system - more strict than usual. As a result, high-status PCs snubbed low-status PCs in-session. "Sounds great," you think, "makes social interaction a game/better simulates a stratified society/emphasises the inequality premise I want to explore." Unfortunately, it had the effect of generating a subculture of folk whose Status was so low (arguably through their own fault, through choosing to play a very low-Status character or committing a grotesque social gaffe) that they could only talk to each other: everyone else avoided them. This had the result that, with few people to talk to in-session, they got bored, so some left, so those low-status plebs who were left had even less people to talk to...

The current Vampire game manages to incorporate Status without limiting people's roleplaying opportunities: there is a social convention that if one is masked at a meeting, one is effectively anonymous for purposes of Status, and it is a tremendous social gaffe to admit to recognising someone wearing a mask at an official function. This allows high-Status folk to talk to low-Status folk and vice versa, but still highlights the Status system. It's also very fun - when wearing a mask you can't say "As the Prince of London, I think...", you have to say "I believe that if you asked the Prince of London he would say..." or something like that.

[Le Joueur]

The first question is complex and goes right to one of the main differences from tabletop play, and all the concomittant issues: limited GM knowledge of events, real-space-related mechanisms such as pursuit, communication of the "world condition," and so forth.

I've seen two ways to do it: the first is how, in my experience, SIL-style games are usually run. This is to make player-vs-player plots the most important aspects of the game, and to minimize (hopefully) the need for GM interaction. GMs are then posted in a particular location (a particular hotel room, a desk, etc) and the players are informed of this. Any player needing a GM can then come to this spot, and the largely GM-less rules system hopefully ensures that there won't be a big line there. Meanwhile, other GMs rove around, troubleshooting on-the-spot or going to scenes which will need more intense GM supervision.

The second is how my LARP group does it in our mainly outdoor game: each GM has a cell phone (in previous games, it was two-way radios) and they spread out among the wandering players. This can occasionally lead to confusion, but gives the GMs a high level of flexibility.

This was done this way before GMs had any reliable means of communication; an old Vampire LARP was legendary for "we need a GM" being native for "let's wander around for hours looking for one."

In my small LARPs, the GM usually plays some NPC role and accompanies the players, who are usually in a group.

In all cases, the physical limitations of the game are an important element in designing it.  Since LARPs often involve purpose-built systems, this shows up in every aspect of the game design, from basics (location, number of players, duration) to system (resolution mechanisms, for example, are usually a bit simple in order to avoid the need for GM intercession) to scenario (will player conflicts be able to drive this plot? Will the players have anywhere to do activity X?)

I don't really have the kind of experience being tossed around here, but have observed a number of the same problems.  I thought I'd toss in the solutions we can up with.  Most were based on the premise of getting rid of the traditional 'tabletop gamemaster' role.

I posted this:

For Scattershot (did I mention it also has a set of Live-Action Role-Playing Game rules?), we separate the traditional role of gamemaster into five different parts for the sake of delegation.  First is the referee, this is the on-the-spot arbiter of player conflicts.  Second is the game’s originator(s), this is where the set up comes from, background, mechanics choice, character slots, non-player characters, and the whole shebang.  Third is the ‘gamemaster’ (I know using this name can be somewhat confusing, but we wanted to stay away from pompous titles like Moderator or Storyteller), who is kept abreast of the major goings on and introduces ‘agitation’ in areas that are losing the players’ interest or becoming overwhelming.  Fourth is site maintenance, basically the ‘host’ providing location, arrangements, scheduling of the events, ‘room’ sign-out and logging, prop sign-out (props also include in-game resources that do not necessarily have physical manifestation), check-in & out, and attendance.  Fifth is recruitment and customer service.

Refereeing is required of at least a fifth of the membership (during their ‘off-screen time’ only) and is a trained position lead by a team leader and overseen by an ethics process.  The most important thing about the game origination is that the process ends totally at the beginning of the game (it is suggested that one of the origination team continue on as gamemaster, but not required).

There is, was, and will be only one gamemaster ever; the intention of the design is to put every possible ‘power’ or background ‘office’ into the hands of the players (who are also required to play at least two non-player characters on a continuing basis as well as any ‘bit parts’ whenever they are not ‘on-screen’).  This way all conflicts become a matter between players (only a handful of non-player characters are allowed the gamemaster).  The gamemaster introduces new props and new or replacement non-player characters (assigning them as needed) and from this, the props log, and logbook, they can keep some idea how ‘things are going’ (not something I have seen any group of gamemasters, no matter how small, being capable of, except in well...exceptional circumstances).

Site maintenance is easily handled by a series of volunteers.  Recruitment is handled mostly between sessions and customer service only becomes needed during a session when a referee cannot handle a dispute.

This came up in this post about live-action role-playing gaming last year.

Since I am still interested in developing live-action role-playing game Mechanix for Scattershot, I was wondering what you guys thought of the 'gamemaster redesigned' and if you could see any inherent problems.

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this again, you guys are a wealth of information.  (I'm already thinking about making turnsheets for 'during the session' a requirement and having them and 'between game' turnsheets processed by the gamemaster; thanks for the ideas.)

Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

Could you clarify the question please?

You answered it with your second answer about convention space, thank you. That does indeed sound like an impediment to play. Or perhaps I'm just not familiar enough with enough small cons to see how one could play very often.

That said, your other answer was also enlightening.

This leads me to another more general question. How often do people play LARPS? I play one every year or so. Not often. What's the most frequent rate a LARPer could expect to play?

Mike

[Wart]

This leads me to another more general question. How often do people play LARPS? I play one every year or so. Not often. What's the most frequent rate a LARPer could expect to play?

In a university situation, where people can book college rooms, once a week.

Presumably, outside college situations there are local venues which could potentially be booked. (Church halls, social clubs, etc.)

W.

[Mike Holmes]

Presumably, outside college situations there are local venues which could potentially be booked. (Church halls, social clubs, etc.)

LARP in a church hall... Well, I've never seen nor heard of it, though I suppose it's not impossible. But I for one am not brave enough to ask. I think that's the point. You go to the social club and ask for space, they say what for, and then I have to explain what a LARP is...

Maybe the problem is just my own hang ups. Anyone ever play LARPS in such venues? Wart, are you suggesting that you have?

Mike

[Wart]

Presumably, outside college situations there are local venues which could potentially be booked. (Church halls, social clubs, etc.)

LARP in a church hall... Well, I've never seen nor heard of it, though I suppose it's not impossible. But I for one am not brave enough to ask. I think that's the point. You go to the social club and ask for space, they say what for, and then I have to explain what a LARP is...

Ah, this is the benefit of living in corrupt, decadent, faithless ol' Europe. ;)

Seriously speaking though: it depends on the sort of LARP you want. If we're talking freeforms, then booking a room like a church hall or social club or something needn't be too much of a problem - make comparisons to improvisational theatre or some other activity with superficial similarities which people might have heard of and they'll probably let you go along with it.

(Obviously, you need to think carefully about which venues you ask about this... in Oxford, the local Camarilla game runs in the basement room of a bar, church halls being a foolish place to ask to play a vampire game unless we're talking a quite hip, liberal church.)

For combat-oriented LARPs, booking rooms is obviously foolishness. We tend to go along to a local area of public woodland at night and play - we phone the police to let them know what we're up to and we haven't really had many problems.