LARPing: in the boxes?

[kwill]

how do others see LARPing interacting with the model? just another medium for exploration, or a totally different paradigm all together?

my initial take is that the differences operate at a Technique level,
so discussion of Creative Agenda and outer boxes should still apply(*) - *but* I have trouble applying the GNS goals to LARP play

(*) although the decision "let's play this tabletop game" is obviously
different to "let's play this LARP"

the fundamental LARP Technique (that you physically represent your character) seems to prioritize Simulationism ("Live The Dream"?) and, to a lesser degree, Narritivism (protagonism is obviously easier, but still needs to be explicitly supported - frex, you could alternatively support Illusionism)

I have what I identify to be a Gamist orientated LARP in the works (development on hold till next year when I have more time) - I'd be interested to hear about thought experiments or actual play that show LARPing within the context of the model, or not fitting at all

[Eero Tuovinen]

how do others see LARPing interacting with the model? just another medium for exploration, or a totally different paradigm all together?

Different paradigm, about as different as larping to theater. A comparison I use is actually the relationship between ballet and theater - they do the same thing, but one is inherently specialized in techniques. This is a simplification, and I speak only about what has been done to date. No doubt the form can be broadened in the future.

The main difference in current applications of larping compared to tabletop is the need to set game paradigm beforehand. The so-called metalevel of playing is traditionally very problematic with OOC and IC rules and other such complications. In practice there is no dialogue, no self-correcting procedure during the game, no introspection. Therefore the best larp writers have been able to aspire to is a form similar to some types of simulationism - every player has to have an inner map of the play, and it has to be the same with everyone. There cannot be random ideas or informal communication ("Hey, how about if your guy went like this, wouldn't it be cool?"), and thus play-generated content is inherently limited to what has been said pregame.

How much of this is a property of larping as an idea, and how much is due to history? I don't readily know, but it's clear that the main attraction of larping seems to be immersion. The point of going of to the forest in a funny dress is trying for best game-world immersion possible, and I don't think it's possible to lose that voluntarily. Therefore no introspection during the game, no improvisation out of bounds.

I'd like to take the time before giving my verdict about GSN-interaction to point out to our finnish readers the recent controversy about Myrskyn aika (MA; others might be interested in the column series by the author in RPGnet), which illustrates this point well. The game is structured to be playable as both a live game and as a tabletop game. Naturally it is quite an educative experience about the differences between the two, giving me insight about the larpers like never before. What is the most distinctive feature of the game?

The world of MA, Valenor I think it's named, is a three-pence fantasy world, one of those we all wrote when we were fourteen. Enough said, but the question remains: how a respected theorist like Mike Pohjola (behind that Turku Manifest, by the way), celebrated as an innovative postmodernist, is capable of writing such a below average fantasy heartbreaker? This has troubled many finnish hobbyists of late, and my answer pertains to the difference between larping and tabletop gaming:

The traditional fantasy larp has to be written, due to the abovementioned constraints of the form, to be inherently conservative of form. If you have non-humans, they have to be orcs and elves. If you have magic, it has to be wizards and magicians. The details of the game have to conform to the fantasy tradition, because the players have to be able to riff from them intependently. The world of the game has to be such that players can immerse themselves and still be in the same fantasy with the other players. A tabletop game does this by either a constant metadiscussion or a strong GM intervention. (And of course everyone has to be able to use their existing fantasy wardrobe.)

The above limits the freedom of a larp writer to the specifics of world history, some superficial social structure, lots of fantasy names and some geopolitics. Exactly what MA has, and from the view of a tabletop gamer that is woefully inadequate. There is no theme or reason to the game, because larpers are used to simulating a world, with many stories running at once. There is just a passable system for fantasy simulation and a dull fantasy world, which are the only things you really can offer for a larp writer if you don't want to write the specific scenario.

Now, keeping the above in mind, what is the GSN status of larping? I think all of the above can be interpreted as putting larping solidly above GSN modes in the abstraction. It should be noted that I'm no expert on the theory, so the following is probably all wrong.

LARPing is a form of social contract that searches (and presumably finds) the ultimate experience in immersing oneself to a fantasy as a whole body experience (as differentiated from inherently intellectual use of imagination in tabletop playing). Therefore it is a different form of Exploration alltogether. I'm currently convinced that this is true, and there actually is no psychological structure in the head of the larper corresponding to the one mr. Edwards abstracts as the list of Character, Setting, Situation, System and Color. This list delineates a form of exploration similar to most of wester male storytelling, while larping is psychologically more like erotic roleplaying - it's feminine, interested in being instead of acting, in the act instead of a cascade (fumbled my english; a consecutive queue with internal relations) of actions, and in the family groupings of cascades of actions instead of pruned and formalized sets therefore, which are stories and the main point of much of tabletop playing, be it simulationist, gamist or narrativist.

To my mind there's not much in GSN that can be easily applied to a larp. I see this as a great possibility for someone to construct the inner workings for a GSN-similar theory, by the way. Numerous larp theorists (like the abovementioned Mike Pohjola) have already proved their inability/nondesire to build descriptive models of socials of larping, preferring to stay with art theory.

[kalyptein]

My experience is limited to one larp, a fantasy-based affair called NERO (around Boston specifically).

It was very heavily focused on having players "do" their actions.  We used boffer (foam padded) weapons, and you tended to be as good a fighter as you really were.  The rules could give you some extra hit points, or a limited set of critical strikes per day, but this didn't change things too much.  I've seen 40 PCs hanging back from 1 monster, who happened to be played by the local weapon-master, like a scene from a samurai movie.  Traps were represented by tripwires and electric buzzers, and thieves had to spot and disarm these with tweezers, scissors, etc.  Magic was delivered by touch or thrown bird-seed packets; if you missed, you missed.  So I'd say it was gamist in the same way as a basketball game, direct competition between players.

Simulationism was also fairly well served.  High production value stuff never worked too well (like a dragon played by five separate people...) but on the low end, you can't beat it for immersion.  Sitting in the shady corner of the tavern, talking to a furtive guy in a cloak who's slipping a clinking pouch of money into your hand, all while you both keep an eye out for spies or evesdroppers; its a great thrill.

The one thing I can't see working well in a larp (at least this kind) is Narrativism.  I think a small group of people could agree on a premise and create story among themselves, but it wouldn't be easy.  Larping doesn't seem to offer much chance for director stance.  You never know when some innocent soul will wander into your midst and start talking with you about something unrelated.  Or when the location will be suddenly overrun with invading goblins in the middle of a tender scene.

I should mention that these events usually had upwards of 120 people, between NPCs and PCs.  Smaller games may offer a much different CA mix.  Just thought I'd throw my experiences into the data pot.  I do think that the GNS divisions still make sense, at least as a framework in which to consider larping.  Maybe we could say that larping is a form of role-playing that does not admit Nar (which now that I think about it, I don't think is true), but unless some previously unknown CA were to be available in larps, I would consider it a different medium of role-playing, rather than a separate paradigm.

I'm currently convinced that this is true, and there actually is no psychological structure in the head of the larper corresponding to the one mr. Edwards abstracts as the list of Character, Setting, Situation, System and Color.

I would tend to disagree with this.  Now I have no background in acting, theatre, or art theory, so I approach this exclusively as a table-top gamer.  I don't think players, probably not even ones familiar with Forge theory, think too much about about the elements of Exploration during play, they just explore what they want to explore.  I'm not sure if you were suggesting that they did in table-top and not in larping.  I don't think that these exist as a psychological structure in the sense that they are consciously considered, but I think the same elements to be explored exist in both mediums.

There is a system to be explored in the form of abilities (deal 2x damage once per day) and permissions (you can't even attempt to disarm traps unless you have the Disarm Traps trait) that can be bought with character points, as well as the "system" of physics involved with creating boffer weapons that are well-balanced, or long enough, or are good for parrying, etc.  Character exists in a form very similar to traditional rpgs.  Setting and Situation would tend to merge, since there isn't any setting outside the immediate region; you can't up and sail across the sea to find out what's over there, but what there is can be explored as well in a larp as in a table-top game.  Color is limited, since everything will tend to be "reality-flavored", but what there is will be just as much a part of the game.

Since Social Contract underlies pretty much any cooperative human activity, I think the Model Formerly Known as GNS works very well through all its levels.  At the level of technique there will probably be a  strong divergence into table-top vs larp technique, but Technique and Ephemera will still exist as levels.

Alex

[Eero Tuovinen]

Well, seems that my understanding of the theory failed, as I warned. Let's see if I can salvage something.

I'm currently convinced that this is true, and there actually is no psychological structure in the head of the larper corresponding to the one mr. Edwards abstracts as the list of Character, Setting, Situation, System and Color.

I would tend to disagree with this.  Now I have no background in acting, theatre, or art theory, so I approach this exclusively as a table-top gamer.  I don't think players, probably not even ones familiar with Forge theory, think too much about about the elements of Exploration during play, they just explore what they want to explore.  I'm not sure if you were suggesting that they did in table-top and not in larping.  I don't think that these exist as a psychological structure in the sense that they are consciously considered, but I think the same elements to be explored exist in both mediums.

I'll start with this, as the earlier part of the post (although also interesting generally) can be seen as an argument for it.

I didn't certainly mean that anybody would think in theory terms when playing. I was developing the idea that the GSN theory, being descriptive, describes the structure of what's going on at the table, at least at social and aesthetic level, if not psychologically (the latter has been under constant discussion). In my opinion this structure is so different that even if one can name the abovementioned parts, their internal relations and actual meaning would be so different as to render any talk about modes or other substructures useless. So larping deviates at the level of exploration, I currently think.

This is actually an epistemological argument, and mr. Edwards would have to clear it up, I think. I meant in my post that the thing explored by larping is inherently different from tabletop play (how does it feel to sneak, as opposed to throwing dice, for example). If the theory doesn't mean to differentiate, I agree with you on all points.

There is a system to be explored in the form of abilities (deal 2x damage...

etc. Character exists in a form very similar to traditional rpgs. Setting and Situation would tend to merge,...

Since Social Contract underlies pretty much any cooperative human activity, I think the Model Formerly Known as GNS works very well through all its levels.  At the level of technique there will probably be a  strong divergence into table-top vs larp technique, but Technique and Ephemera will still exist as levels.

Your examples of the parts of exploration are probably accurate. The point however is that at this stage I at least am very sceptical about if the parts are really the same, even if there are instances where they look that way. And how the lack of real setting affects the whole, how fixing the elements of exploration almost all before the game begins affects it, that kind of thing.

What kind of assumptions the theory has about the exploration, anyway? I don't remember reading anything more than the list of elements, but one could imagine that there is some nonspoken assumptions, like the elements changing during the act of playing (which is the main thrust of my argument; they don't in a larp). Again, I'd like to defer to someone who actually understands the specifics of the model.

The part about Social Contract underlying larping doesn't to my mind prove anything about it's inner workings. Or if it does, then the theory describes all human activity and you can classify all social activity down to the modes and stances. Could be, but that would trivialize the terminology and give too much weight to similarities when compared to the differences.

One argument however is that it is self-evidently clear that decisionmaking in a larp cannot conform to the GSN modes, at least not easily. You can map simulationism relatively easily, and gamism somewhat (although it is quite possibly another case of mistaken identity through anecdotic similarity), but how about narrativism? A narrativistic decision depends on the player having a premise and the chance to address it. Again, could somebody tell me if these are actually needed in application, or is it sufficient that they could be there? It's in theory possible to build a larp so that you can address premise, even to other players, but I've never heard of such being tried. Themes are done, but that's not the same thing.

Actually, forget the above. Or take it as thinking aloud. That isn't an argument. I'll leave it in so nobody has to say it again.

The one thing I can't see working well in a larp (at least this kind) is Narrativism.  I think a small group of people could agree on a premise and create story among themselves, but it wouldn't be easy.  Larping doesn't seem to offer much chance for director stance.  You never know when some innocent soul will wander into your midst and start talking with you about something unrelated.  Or when the location will be suddenly overrun with invading goblins in the middle of a tender scene.

These are nonconcerns, incidentally. What's stopping one player from choosing a premise and basing his actions on that? Furthermore, you don't need director stance for narrativism (although it makes it easier).

I should mention that these events usually had upwards of 120 people, between NPCs and PCs.  Smaller games may offer a much different CA mix.  Just thought I'd throw my experiences into the data pot.  I do think that the GNS divisions still make sense, at least as a framework in which to consider larping.  Maybe we could say that larping is a form of role-playing that does not admit Nar (which now that I think about it, I don't think is true), but unless some previously unknown CA were to be available in larps, I would consider it a different medium of role-playing, rather than a separate paradigm.

Well, finnish theorists like to add eläytyjism, that is immersionism, as a fourth mode, but it seems to me that this is just because none of those have actually read about GSN (I think I'll lecture about it at the next Ropecon, if mr. Edwards agrees) and they don't understand that what they talk about is a subset of simulation. Other than that, I cannot think of any other modes. (but look below, where I continue thinkíng)

But as I intimated above, my doubt is centered on a higher level, at the exploration. If the thing a larp explores is the smells and the sights of living a different life (for example), then what guarantee is there that this wholly different thing has modes or stances similar to tabletop play? How about if there is a mode of Experiencing, where a player cuts an important conversation (simultaneously important to the character, player effectiveness and most usable premises) short just because he wants to go see what happens at another part of of the game, in the fair, for example? This is still exploration, but outside the GSN modes, and believable psychologically. Doesn't happen in tabletop play, which is a monochannel entertainment system where you don't miss things.

There are things to explore in a tabletop game which aren't there in a larp, and vice versa. I'd still say that the exploration unifies the two, but someone has to address the meaning and structure of exploration a little better to convince me that they are similar in the two.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

No one's going to like this answer ...

I see LARPing, relative to role-playing, very much like nightclubbing is to dancing.

One might dance at a nightclub. One might do so strictly as a subordinate sub-topic of some other social goal, such as getting drunk or getting laid or whatever. Or one might dance as an end of its own, which to be sure exists in the social contract of the situation, but can then be discussed as dance.

Insert role-playing for dancing and LARPing for the clubbing in the above paragraph, and you got my view, bang on.

Now, insofar as we're talking about the role-playing per se, insofar as it's occurring within the context of the LARP, then I think the model applies to it in full.

Best,
Ron

[Eero Tuovinen]

I see LARPing, relative to role-playing, very much like nightclubbing is to dancing.

...
That's very insightful, this's why I honor the man! (hope that's not inappropriate thing to say)

But what parts of the larp are then roleplaying, and which are clubbing? Are you talking about the constant OOC social game that develops in the insular larp circles (at least here in Finland) and leads to players fawning at GMs and other players and acting otherwise strangely IC, or something else? And is that then a constant part of larping, anymore than it is of tabletop play?

And is there a deeper reason to consider the roleplaying a dissimilar subset of the larp, instead of an integral part of it? My take (as I already explained) is that larping is indeed a coherent form of interaction, which just happens to have components that are very similar to tabletop play. Like you'd say that a cat and a dog are similar in that both have similar body parts, but that doesn't mean than one is a subset of another.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Actually, my above post constitutes pretty much the entire depth of my understanding about the issue. Which is not to dismiss it, but rather to say, I'm now pretty much an audience member for this thread, and taking notes, rather than much of a resource.

Anyone's insights about the questions you raise, Eero, will be greatly appreciated by me.

Best,
Ron

[Tomas HVM]

Ron Edwards wrote:
I see LARPing, relative to role-playing, very much like nightclubbing is to dancing.

Eero Tuovinen wrote:
That's very insightful, this's why I honor the man!

I am very glad that Ron underlines his limited insight in the issue. Eero; please honor Ron for such honesty, and not for "insights" which is nothing but misguided attitude (prejudice).

The "paradigm" of roleplaying games is interaction (the setting of the game will grow together with the actions of the participants, at some level, making them co-creators of the fictional universe). I'm simplifying this point, to get to the gore, so please bear with me.

Live action roleplaying, computer roleplaying (roleplaying that is, not tactical simulations like Baldurs Gate, not everything stated as "RPG" at the box is in fact a roleplaying game), text-based roleplaying and dialogue-based roleplaying (tabletop) all have this in common. It's their paradigm, and set them apart from other forms, like film, theater, literature and storytelling.

So we may consider all of these roleplaying games to be different versions of roleplaying. That is the easy part.

As for possibilities within each type, I can not evaluate computer and text-based RPGs. I've participated in a handful of MailRPs, and have tested some RPGs on the computer (true RPGs, one computer based, and several web-based), but my first experience has been with Tabletops and LARPs, both as a gamewright and participant. So I will address these in the following.

Tabletops:
- You all know that the field is broad in this kind of RPGs, with a great variety of methods, settings and genres. That is especially true for the indie-scene; the modern games of today, many of them testing the known limits of the form. What is more: tabletop roleplaying games vary very much in goals, from loony-toony comedy, to horror and social drama.

LARPs:
I suspect the LARP-scene in the US to be quite different from the Nordic scene. It may be that the arguments presented here is coloured by how larps are made/used/considered in the US: I will base my arguments on the Nordic scene, which I know firsthand and quite well.

The Nordic larp-scene has seen an upsurge of original and experimental LARPs through the nineties, and has seen elements and experiences from these LARPs, seeping into most arrangements of today. The form as we knew it back when I started larping (fantasy, and quite GM-ridden), has changed into something quite unpredictable and wide in its range of possible methods, settings and genres. What is more; modern day larps vary as much as anything in dramatic goals, from burlesque comedy set to the Orient Express (and played out aboard a train), to the realistic 1944-conflict between German soldiers and Norwegian civilians in a small village on the Norwegian coast (played out on location), and further on to arrangements like a surreal one man larp inside a toilet (a single player, and ten insidious "game masters").

Conclusion:
Consider my description of these two versions of roleplaying games. The similarities of the two fields is not construed by me. They are indeed parallell in development, althoough the larp-field is developing much faster than the tabletop-field. Larps in the Nordic countries has done in ten years, what tabletops worldwide has done in thirty. This is not due to some superiority of form, just due to some significant differences in the gameframe of larps and tabletops. Larps are setting and arrangement-based, while tabletops are setting and system-based. The arrangement-focus of larps make way for new methods in each new arrangement. The importance of having a resolution-system in tabletops, and knowing it, make both designers and players spend more time on it, and makes for a slower development of new systems.

The first and most important of the insights to be found in the many different larps in the Nordic scene, is that live action roleplaying is a form of roleplaying game in its own right, and must strive to fill its own boots, not to be some "shadow" of tabletop RPGs. This insight is important, and stressed by many Nordic larp-wrights, but still it is not an all-dividing cleft between tabletops and live action. The "cleft" has many natural bridges.

The variety and possibilities within both these forms of RPGs, are only just begun to surface. I expect that the same is true for computer RPGs. When it come to text-based RPGs, I am in doubt if they can evolve significantly further than today, but I would be glad to be proven wrong.

However: all of these forms still remains true RPGs. They are based on the same principles; immersion in character, interaction, co-creation of the fictional universe (once again I am simplifying, the finer points may be debated).

The GNS-model:
As for the significance of the GNS-model, when applied to other forms of RPgs than the tabletop one; I hold it that the model was not written on RPGs in general, and as such are taylored to dissect and understand tabletop RPgs in specific.

Still; in my experience there is significant parallells/similarities/common ground between the forms, and this may make it worth the while to study the model for gamewrights in computer games and larps too. They may find insights there that has been overlooked in their own theoretical work. I also suspect that many of the insights presented in the GNS-model, is directly transferrable from the tabletop form to other forms of roleplaying games.

Let us look at the different versions of RPGs as young puppies of the same litter. Even though they are different, we may expect them to grow up together. To vye for supremacy in the litter is only natural,  but each puppy will still grow up to become a dog in its own right. The different versions of RPGs may have much to learn from eachother, and they will at least challenge eachother to new heights. Let us be as playful as young puppies!

Let us consider all the forms I have mentioned here to be true roleplaying games. Such a stance will broaden our view, it will make way for possible synergies of form, and it is certain to strenghten the theoretical foundation of RPGs as a whole.

[Tomas HVM]

By the way:

I have met Mike Pohjola, and he seemed to be a young man of sound mind, quite knowledgeable with respect to larps (and from what others have told me; a great designer of them).

His knowledge in tabletop RPGs, and his skills as a designer of these, may be quite different. It is no wonder that his feats in this field may be under average. I have a similar personal experience; only the other way around; my arrangements of larps have all been disastrous, but I'm a great designer of tabletop RPGs.

Mike has probably done a bad tabletop RPG, and has grown a wiser man. Do not make it into a disaster. Congratulate him, and pray that it will happen to you too...

[hanschristianandersen]

My LARP experience is limited to the scene in Palo Alto and Mountain View, CA from 2002 to 2003.

WITHIN THAT SCENE, across three-and-a-half larps, the GNS theory and lexicon apply beautifully.  No paradigm shifts, analogies, or new vocabulary are needed to apply the Theory to it.   (I cannot stress strongly enough that this analysis is purely of this particular LARP scene.)

The social contract isn't articulated beyond simply "We're here to play a XYZ (Vampire, Unknown Armies, whatever) LARP!  Make your character according to the GM-provided system, and within the GM-provided setting, show up, and play!"  There are unspoken social guidelines, such as The GM's Aren't Supposed To Play Favorites, and Don't Bring Out-Of-Character Grudges Into It, and players get very self-righteous and angry very quickly when they perceive that these unwritten rules are being broken.  Having so many (20-40) players in the game means that perceived violations happen pretty darn frequently, but this isn't really unique to the LARP format;  I've seen tabletop games with five people die due to the same sort of dysfunctional behaviors.

System-wise, the mechanics (usually the umpteenth generation revision of the local homebrew system) have invariably been gamist/simulationist, with great stock put in "balancing" the various powers and abilities.  Combat is often very crunchy.

The players come to the game with their own creative agendas, just like in any tabletop game.  The rhetoric promotes Simulationist play, with a heavy emphasis on Actor stance and a lot of lip service given to "character fidelity".  Invariably, some of these "character actor" players find that the game mechanics do a pretty good job of deprotagonizing their characters, expecially relative to the "combat monster" Gamist players.  In my opinion, the "combat monster" players, though universally derided by self-proclaimed "serious roleplayers", are primarily interested in protagonizing their characters - classic gamist motivations, really.

Aside from mechanical effectiveness, "Plot" is a primary form of currency; "Plot" roughly translates to "Time spent actively roleplaying".  The absence of "Plot" is "Sitting around waiting for something to happen."  Plot takes several forms; there's GM-Plot, which is interaction-time with NPC's and the ongoing GM-controlled illusionist "story".  There's also "Player-Plot", which is when the primary motivators for the roleplaying-time is derived from player-driven behaviors.  This is most often simulationist in origin, as in "My guy hates your guy for stealing the McGuffin from him last week; now I'm out to undermine your position.  Occasionally, more narrativist concerns come in, usually via limited use of Author stance - "I think that a conflict between the Romeos and the Capulets would be cool, so I'm going to have my guy stir up unprovoked trouble."  Narrativist player-plot often falls flat when the intended "target" isn't interested in these kind of externally motivated events.

The GMs have their own differing priorities; some are content to dole out "plot" to the players who are most likely to be responsive to it, thus creating a situation where groups of players with well-aligned creative agendas go off and have a grand time, leaving other players to hang around the designated in-game gathering point and complain.  Other GMs try to involve as many players as possible, but the CA gulfs make this tricky.  Still other GMs see it as their mission to make players "happy", usually by satisfying their CA's one in-game scene at a time.  So, that might include a narrative-oriented scene with player A, and a gamist-oriented challenge with player B... In the long run, when the GM attempts to reconcile all these different scenes and events into their illusionist metaplot, things get really incoherent really fast.

In short, it's Incoherent Sim/Gam Writ Large, with no shared Creative Agenda and a very messy social contract, and it plays out about how you'd expect.  The theory applies beautifully, both to articulate why the parts that work well did indeed work, and also why the unsatisfying parts were unsatisfying.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Ron Edwards wrote:
I see LARPing, relative to role-playing, very much like nightclubbing is to dancing.
Eero Tuovinen wrote:
That's very insightful, this's why I honor the man!

I am very glad that Ron underlines his limited insight in the issue. Eero; please honor Ron for such honesty, and not for "insights" which is nothing but misguided attitude (prejudice).

Well, OK, can do. But it sounds intelligent to me, and brave, what he said. I myself have grave doubts about the artistic usefulness of dressing up and running around from time to time, and mr. Edwards' analogy shouldn't therefore be dismissed out of hand. You certainly can say that larping is a similar and equal form, but that's a long way of from any analytical position on the matter.

For some reason active larpers have a weak spot for the seriousness of their form when talking to tabletop players; it's become quite a white cow to even suggest that either larping is fundamentally different or has added things that would be redundant for tabletop play. I don't know why, but those roleplayers who mainly larp seem to need the merit of tabletop on their side. Which is strange, for at least here in the Nordic larping is the more prestigious and intellectual form.

Anyway, this isn't the issue of the thread, the same as Mike's game isn't. Technically, the "psalm of the larper" you go through in your post isn't either, but let's take a look at that to clear up what we are actually talking about, shall we?

The "paradigm" of roleplaying games is interaction (the setting of the game will grow together with the actions of the participants, at some level, making them co-creators of the fictional universe). I'm simplifying this point, to get to the gore, so please bear with me.

This is the canonical definition around here in the north, and Thomas continues with what I've started to refer to as the psalm of the larper. Therein it is stated that all forms of roleplaying (interaction) are similar and equally important and prestigious. At least here in Finland every conversation about larping relative to other forms either starts or ends with it. Irregardless of whether it's the issue.

Anyway, to my mind the talk about the matter has been quite efficiently mired by the psalm and it's companion definitions and taboos. Like the above piece about roleplaying being defined by interaction. Edwards, for example, seems to disagree (Exploration), and overall it's not nearly so self-evident that you could just state it without considering the ramifications.

After all, to be an useful definition, the above should conceivably differentiate what is commonly understood as roleplaying from what isn't, otherwise it's a definition for something else. And still things like parliamentary process fall quite nicely within it.

Conclusion:
Consider my description of these two versions of roleplaying games. The similarities of the two fields is not construed by me. They are indeed parallell in development, althoough the larp-field is developing much faster than the tabletop-field. Larps in the Nordic countries has done in ten years, what tabletops worldwide has done in thirty. This is not due to some superiority of form, just due to some significant differences in the gameframe of larps and tabletops. Larps are setting and arrangement-based, while tabletops are setting and system-based. The arrangement-focus of larps make way for new methods in each new arrangement. The importance of having a resolution-system in tabletops, and knowing it, make both designers and players spend more time on it, and makes for a slower development of new systems.

Completely apart from the discussion, this is one spurious analysis. I'd be glad to discuss it in another thread.

The first and most important of the insights to be found in the many different larps in the Nordic scene, is that live action roleplaying is a form of roleplaying game in its own right, and must strive to fill its own boots, not to be some "shadow" of tabletop RPGs. This insight is important, and stressed by many Nordic larp-wrights, but still it is not an all-dividing cleft between tabletops and live action. The "cleft" has many natural bridges.

This is the strawman against which Thomas argues. I didn't say it, nobody else said it, but here anyway comes the psalm of the larper! The thing we've been talking about has been if the relation of larping to roleplaying is that they are subsets of one or the other or if their relation is just a family resemblance. I imagine the great majority of readers here take the point above as a given, for the alternative is to assume that great many larpers are somehow stupid.

Now, to be absolutely clear: I mean no harm, but this isn't as far as I understand, the issue here. If kwill wants to go there, then fine, but otherwise, let's keep these nordic-peculiar arguments about the relative merits of the forms off-line for now. I for one don't really want to have this same conversation in the Forge, and I imagine this isn't the first time for Thomas either.

Back to the scheduled program, the GSN status of larping:

The GNS-model:
As for the significance of the GNS-model, when applied to other forms of RPgs than the tabletop one; I hold it that the model was not written on RPGs in general, and as such are taylored to dissect and understand tabletop RPgs in specific.

I suspect the same, but most seem to disagree. Now we need some particulars from people who actually handle the theory analytically and generatively. I at least don't understand it's distinctions and the epistemology of it's structures well enough to make an authoritative decision.

Let us look at the different versions of RPGs as young puppies of the same litter. Even though they are different, we may expect them to grow up together. To vye for supremacy in the litter is only natural,  but each puppy will still grow up to become a dog in its own right. The different versions of RPGs may have much to learn from eachother, and they will at least challenge eachother to new heights. Let us be as playful as young puppies!

Let us consider all the forms I have mentioned here to be true roleplaying games. Such a stance will broaden our view, it will make way for possible synergies of form, and it is certain to strenghten the theoretical foundation of RPGs as a whole.

The picture I get here is that Thomas is having an old conversation, not the one here. For those who aren't used to the unique mix of artistic intellectualism especially prevalent in the nordic countries this might be hard to understand, but there seems to be a tendency for conversations to formalize to some kind of rituals between cliques. I for one have personally actually had this very same conversation two or three times, where an avid larper sermons me about how larping is an equal but different form and I try to timidly ask questions like "Why?" and "How?" meanwhile wondering if I ever ejaculated anything to the contrary.

Anyway, to recapitulate: it seems that from a purely empiristic viewpoint people see the GSN model applying to larping quite well. Is this because the substructure of a larp is actually the same as in a tabletop game, or because these people are used to using the model and therefore see it's distinctions facilely even where they aren't warranted? After all, such overeagerness with theoretical models has been bread and butter for evolutionists, hegelists, marxists and about every other theoretical school in it's infancy. A while back someone offered to use GSN to analyse a foot-ball match! Hard distinctions, and I won't demand any hard answers if nobody has them. This isn't anything I need to hang myself with, and both possibilities are fine with me.

[Erling Rognli]

First off, I'd like to point out  the importance, in this discussion, of taking into consideration not only the great differences in larp-tradition between the nordic countries and the US, but also internally in scandinavia, and even within each country. The differences exist on many levels, but for the topic at hand the closeness of ties to tabletop gaming is primarily of interest. (I must also point out that I am writing out of my knowledge of the norwegian larp-scene, which is the only one I am familiar with from personal experience.)

Larp has arisen out of tabletop gaming, as far as we know. It has met and exchanged ideas with dramatic arts and historical reenactment, and grown and evolved on its own. Still, the ties to tabletop-rpg remains, at least historically. Some larp traditions, such as the finnish and to an even greater degree, the american, seems to remain close to their tabletop roots. Others, such as the norwegian one, have nearly cut those ties alltogether. There is a growing trend in norway of identifying larp as an adult form of "rollelek" which is a term for childrens make-believe games with characters. It might be that larp as practised in norway has come full circle, ending up closer to the actual roots of role-playing itself: the urge to play make-believe games.

Dogma'99 (by Lars Wingård and Eirik Fatland) defines larp as "a meeting between people who, through their roles, relate to each other in a fictional world." If you add a clause about physicality, to draw the line against tabletop-rpg, this is a working definition, in that it includes only the bare necessities of larping. It is of course the physicality that separates larp from tabletop, in that it does away with much of the need for system (time and space are present in persona), and as it limits what you can do as a player. For instance fighting and magic usually looks very silly, and you can't sail across the sea. I would however also point out that size does matter. A larp with only five players is very close to a tabletop game, and the division runs only along the lines of physicality. A larp of 30 players, or 80 or 250, is something quite different, and it makes totally different demands on organization. Still, it is a form of roleplaying, although it might be closer to the motivational roots of the activity.

The GNS-model (as proposed by Ron Edwards) should therefore to some degree apply to larp. Actually, a cousin of it, called "the Threefold Model" (by Petter Bøckmann) has been utilised for some time by larpers in Norway. I personally think that a modified version Edwards GNS-model would prove fruitful for larp as a form (I have actually been toying with the idea of writing one). However, the essential point here is modified.

I will try to sketch out some modifications that are necessary, in my opinion, to adapt the GNS-model for larp.  

Firstly, I think the concept of Exploration has to be renamed Experience in the larp version. Larp is not about exploring a collectively imagined space, but about experiencing a shared physical illusion created by consensus. These are similar, but not identical, as exploration demands a much greater degree of activity on the part of the player. It is possible, although not necessarily interesting, to experience a larp rather passively. This is because the illusion exists in the physical space shared by the participants, not in a shared imagined space.

This slightly changes the nature of the different GNS-goals. The narrativist goal is the experience of participation in the story of the larp. The simulationist goal is the experience of immersion, usually in character (due to the influence of the Turku-school) but concievably also in situation or mood. The gamist goal is the the experience of competition, usually against other players.

System is not so much of an issue in larp, as such, because those larps utilizing resolution systems are in fact playing "tabletop" when those systems are utilized, in that they move play from a shared illusion in a physical space, to a shared imagined space. The lines are fluid, of course, as in most closely related phenomenons. Still, it is primarily the parts of the GNS model that concerns why the game is played and the implications of the different motivations for play that are relevant to larping, not the otherwise exellent thoughts on structuring game systems.

Best regards,

Erling Rognli

[Tomas HVM]

You certainly can say that larping is a similar and equal form, but that's a long way of from any analytical position on the matter.

Yes, I do indeed say so, and my background for saying so is extensive. My "analytical position" in the matter leave me quite close to what I have stated here, so please try to analyze my observations and arguments.

I don't know why, but those roleplayers who mainly larp seem to need the merit of tabletop on their side.

I think Eero misconstrue this. Larpers need to be acknowledged as roleplayers, as they (justly) perceive themselves to be so. In discussions with tabletop players this has been an issue mainly because tabletop players tend to view larp as "not actually roleplayeing" (or often denote it as such).

In my view we are talking about parallell cultures within the same media, and the frustration which occur when they meet at common ground (interaction, immersion, exploration, etc.), and try to claim it as something exclusive to their particular form of roleplaying.

Anyway, this isn't the issue of the thread, the same as Mike's game isn't. Technically, the "psalm of the larper" you go through in your post isn't either, but let's take a look at that to clear up what we are actually talking about, shall we?

I do not know the background of Eero, nor his standing with larpers or tabletop'ers in his homecountry. However; when he refer to my writings as "the psalm of the larper", I must consider him a bit out of touch with reality. I have made observations (been there, seen it, discussed it), and have communicated my experience with both larp and tabletop in a balanced way here. I have certainly not sung any kind of "psalm" or recited any kind of litany.

Please Eero; focus on the actual content of my writing, not some misconstrued idea, possibly stemming from discussions you have had with other roleplayers (and true in respect to them). That will make it easier for both me, for you, and for the other participants in this discussion.

Therein it is stated that all forms of roleplaying (interaction) are similar and equally important and prestigious.

And this is not what I have written. Eero insist on reading me wrong. I have written that there are indeed "similarities", but also have maintained that the individual forms are different. I have not argued that the forms are "similar", like in; "the same, no difference at all".

As for importance; that depends on preferences, and personal point of view. Lets not go down that road.

When it comes to prestige... well... certain individuals within each form may like to see their form as more prestigious (no, I am not one of them, mayby due to my great experiences with both forms), but roleplayers in general tend to be very down to earth, to shun the discussions and prestigious theories, and to be mainly interested in the fun of it.

... Like the above piece about roleplaying being defined by interaction. Edwards, for example, seems to disagree (Exploration), and overall it's not nearly so self-evident that you could just state it without considering the ramifications.

I simplified, as stated. I could argue the fact that interaction is a part of both larps and tabletops, and that this interaction defines roleplaying games towards other artforms, in a more fundamental way than any "exploration" does. But such an argument is not essential to the appliance of the GNS-model on other forms of RPGs. I disagree with Ron in his thesis on "exploration", but still hold him to have written quite wisely on the importance of exploration in RPGs.

After all, to be an useful definition, the above should conceivably differentiate what is commonly understood as roleplaying from what isn't, otherwise it's a definition for something else.

Please! It was a simplification for the sake of argument. Why initiate a discussion on RPG-definitions because of such a point? Let it rest!

I wrote:
Consider my description of these two versions of roleplaying games. The similarities of the two fields is not construed by me. They are indeed parallell in development, ...

Completely apart from the discussion, this is one spurious analysis. I'd be glad to discuss it in another thread.

It is not apart from the discussion, but an important contribution to a discussion to a certain degree based on misconceptions about what larps are, and the potential of such roleplaying games. I try to say that the potential in larps is as rich as in tabletop RPGs, based on observations of both, and under the premise that larps are treated as a form with its own potential and limitations. There is nothing "spurious" about this.

And please; I do not "argue" against any "strawman" when conveying these observations. I merely give you my firsthand experiences with, and my reflections on, both forms. Once again; this is no "psalm of the larper". In fact I do not write as a larper at all. I write as a roleplayer mostly engaged in tabletop gaming, but with knowledge in the larp form as well.

The thing we've been talking about has been if the relation of larping to roleplaying is that they are subsets of one or the other or if their relation is just a family resemblance.

Larp has its cradle in the exploring minds of tabletop roleplayers, back in the seventies or eighties, but has since grown to become an independent form of roleplaying. I consider this equally true for roleplaying on the web, which we have seen only the beginning of so far. This is no real issue with me, so I have only stated it to establish a sound basis for the discussion.

... let's keep these nordic-peculiar arguments about the relative merits of the forms off-line for now. I for one don't really want to have this same conversation in the Forge, and I imagine this isn't the first time for Thomas either.

That is Tomas, thank you. The "nordic-peculiar arguments" is mostly not arguements, but observations. The implications of the Nordic developments are not limited to the Nordic scene, so please consider it relevant.

Yes, I have been in discussions on larps relative to tabletop RPGs more than once. I have discussed this continually for over a decade, with both larpers and tabletop'ers, and find the same prejudice on both sides of the fence (yes, there really is a "fence", a division between the forms, but there is obvious and open gates in it). My patience is perhaps greater than Eero's, or maybe my motivation is better...

For those who aren't used to the unique mix of artistic intellectualism especially prevalent in the nordic countries this might be hard to understand, but there seems to be a tendency for conversations to formalize to some kind of rituals between cliques. I for one have personally actually had this very same conversation two or three times, where an avid larper sermons me about how larping is an equal but different form and I try to timidly ask questions like "Why?" and "How?" meanwhile wondering if I ever ejaculated anything to the contrary.

Eero's way of writing leaves me with a foul taste in my mouth. I do not like his multiple characterizations of my writings as some "psalm of larp". I have been very meticulous with the reality in, and the balanced presentations of, my observations.  Eero's comments on things "spurious", or his description of "nordic peculiarities" is also not called for. His efforts to "explain" my standing to you uninformed readers is quite beside the point of discussion. His "explanations" are false, not in keeping with reality, neither when they are supposed to pertain to me, nor when he tries to serve any analysis of the general scene of the Nordic countries.

I find this part of his post quite distasteful.

Let me proceed to comment on the part I find useful and constructive:

Anyway, to recapitulate: it seems that from a purely empiristic viewpoint people see the GSN model applying to larping quite well. Is this because the substructure of a larp is actually the same as in a tabletop game, or because these people are used to using the model and therefore see it's distinctions facilely even where they aren't warranted?

I hold you to be right, Eero, when arguing that the GNS-model may be applied on larps. And the question you pose in the end is interesting.

[Tomas HVM]

It might be that larp as practised in norway has come full circle, ending up closer to the actual roots of role-playing itself: the urge to play make-believe games.

I thoroughly enjoyed this posting by Erling. I find the abovementioned quote an observation that both surprises me, and rings true.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Hohum, it's probably better to stop while we are ahead, assuming nobody else has a fresh viewpoint. I call it as I see it, and I see that this discussion isn't going anywhere. Apparently we have grossly different perspective on what we are talking about, in what sense, and in which social context. I repeat that I'm familiar with the acerbic continental intellectualism and it's style of discourse. I just don't want to have that kind of conversation here, as I imagine that it would just seem terribly rude and pointless to others reading the forum.

It's a clear sign of a dead conversation when both participants take turns writing essentially that "you aren't staying with the issue, you aren't even looking at what I said". If I really misunderstood what you wrote, then you equally understood hardly a word of my missive; I just tried to convey that a) I've heard this line of conversation one too many times and b) it isn't even pertinent to the topic at hand, because everybody agrees that larping is a prestigious and independent form.

So let's both desist from this until someone else steps in for some guidance on the direction? And sorry about the name, I was dimly aware of it when writing, but didn't think that an anglised form would hurt. Mea culpa all the more.

Completely apart from the discussion, this is one spurious analysis. I'd be glad to discuss it in another thread.

In the tradition of going against my own advice I'll try to clear this up; this is maybe the meanest part of my mean post, so better not let it fester.

I meant that your analysis on the respective developments of larping and tabletop was 'spurious', as in 'strange' or 'debatable'. Might be the wrong word, me not being an englishman. It included many assumptions and observations I disagree with. But as I said, it isn't a matter for this thread.