[Moira] Examples of ensemble playing.

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

This thread continues from a theory thread, and attempts to illustrate the approach to gaming the people there used. Read that before reading this.

Moira was a three-day larp in Sweden about Scandinavian faeries, with (IIRC) about 70 players and a participation fee of 500 SEK. The situation was a trial, where the two warring societies (one living in woods and demanding worship by humans, one who had gone to the cities and believed in interbreeding with humans as the key to staying in power) of faeries met to see which side had been right. To this place were brough a group of humans, through whom the sides were reflected. Think androgynous nobility in dirty, white dresses playing croquet with meat, think water spirits who had moved from drowning kids to making exploitation porn, think trolls being soon banished from the places they had sworn to guard. Think dust, dirt and lost glory. By local standards a low-budget game, by some others a high-scale one.

Example one: Sunday morning, third day of the game: I (playing a human-hunting half-sylph) am sitting at a table. Around it soon gather all of the humans, whom all faeries are forbidden to hurt. One of them (I can't recall the guy's name, but played by Martin Ericsson) has been revealed as a pedophile tha day before. He is being insulted by everyone of the other humans. Thus, following /character-immersive/ reasons, I see him as the weakest animal in the pack, an start telling him that he's going to die no matter how the trial goes. I am /being/ a predatory forest-creature, after all. Martin, being very much a dramatist player, decides this is the moment the situation really sinks in to his character and runs out while seemingly in panic. (Thus so far we've stayed with what people would call CA behavior during the scene.)

But then, having been influenced by how many of the others had been playing throughout the weekend, I decide to go directly against my character. To stay in character, since I can't kill Martin's character without insulting our host, I would let him go and concentrate on what's around me. That's how I'd normally play it, by character choice /without exception/. But I decide to follow the ensemble route: I know Martin likes to play dramatic scene, so I go out and pick on him a second time (honestly telling how many times his death has been sold to a higher bidder – not due to pedophilia, but because faeries think he is guilty of hubris, as there is a sylph with similar habits they see him as usurping). Martin, being a Nordic dramatist, takes the verbal stuff I brought him and throws up (for real) on the stairs. From that point on everyone witnessing the scene has one more part they can integrate to their game and Martin has a key moment he uses to transform his character from a naive but horrific man into a monstrous fiend. I, however, have just broken away from my character and weakened my own game experience.

But what happens throughout the larp is that others provide similar moments for me, so that in the end everyone has gained more than they gave. For those participants interested in "living the fantasy" or creating drama, it seems to provide a lot more than what they invest into the process. A character immersionist like me gets a few truly wonderful moments at the expense of fragmenting my game. It leaves me with very mixed feelings, having in the experiential sense both gained and lost more than I expected. What I do know is that while interesting, it's not the way I like to play - even though I had a thoroughly enjoyable game..

The system followed the ideology that each player /should/ yield from his desires and provide more for everyone else. It was not stated in the game, but was simply the way the locals seemed (and often, afterwards, stated) to play.

(I hope we can attract one of the locals to provide more thorough examples.)

-Jiituomas

[TonyLB]

Cool!  Also following from the theory thread:  What sort of systemic rewards encouraged you to break character?  Were there tokens and bonusses?  Or was it purely "this is what I'm socially expected to do?"  What would the repercussions (mostly inside your own head) have been if you'd just stuck with doing what you like?

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

What sort of systemic rewards encouraged you to break character?  Were there tokens and bonusses?  Or was it purely "this is what I'm socially expected to do?"  What would the repercussions (mostly inside your own head) have been if you'd just stuck with doing what you like?

One of the key aspects of Nordic experientialism (as opposed to generic larps here, just like everywhere else) is that there are absolutely no systemic rewards for such actions. It's all social - part rewarding, part expectations. In that circumstance, for instance, I saw a chance to strengthen the game of another, so I took it. In return, I got a game with a little more things happening, made a positive difference for someone else. That feels good, especially since people tend to give feedback on such things after the game. Additionally each such moment creates new plot connections you can use later in the game, meaning you have more stuff to play with.

For example, after Moira ended I found out that my nastiness helped Martin to decide to turn his character into a monster (he'd been undecided on whether he'd become monstrous or a broken-down victim in a chain of abuse because of what was happening to him). That he became a monster created a strong scene for one player an hour later, which in turn lead to her providing me one of the best dramatic moments in the entire game. Each of the three of us thanked the other partner of each scene, and seeing how the chain of events had unfolded was very enjoyable. We all played at one point so that the other guy would get the most out of a moment important to him/her, at some small expennse to our own enjoyment, and it paid off at another time for each of us.

So the repercussions for not having done that would have just lead me to missing out on some pretty powerfull stuff, nothing else. Constantly not picking up on such clues would have possibly lead others into noticing such selfish playing, being considered a bad player, being left out of other important scenes because I couldn't be trusted te reciprocate, and eventually not being on the invitation list for other games I might want to participate in. That's a very strong system of social rewards: adapt, and your game improves, be too selfish and your game will suffer. Note that the same works in reverse: if someone tries to use suppressive playing in a game here that is based on individual character-obssion, they won't get much out of it - in those games the dynamic is based on mutual exploitation instead of mutual support. The trick lies in knowing which system is being used, which one is best /for the game at hand/.

-Jiituomas

[Sydney Freedberg]

....Martin, being very much a dramatist player, decides this is the moment the situation really sinks in to his character and runs out while seemingly in panic....I know Martin likes to play dramatic scene, so I go out and pick on him a second time.... Martin, being a Nordic dramatist, takes the verbal stuff I brought him and throws up (for real) on the stairs.

That's scarily intense. And having never played in this kind of game, I have to ask, a little nervously: Was there some kind of "safe word" or other clear signal so Marvin could tell you, "I, the real person and not the character, am freaking out and need to get away now?"

[Sydney Freedberg]

P.S. I understand Martin may well have thought throwing up was great, since intensity and immersion are major objectives in this style of play. I just would love reassurance that if Martin had wanted out, he had some way to communicate that to the other players.

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

I just would love reassurance that if Martin had wanted out, he had some way to communicate that to the other players.

The game had two safe words: one for immediate, total game breaks and one for conveying the message "let's play this less intensely". Both words also had the clause that anyone using them would not have any duty to inform why they chose to use a safe word. Add to this the facts that a) I and Martin know each other's playing styles very well and  b) the organizers would never have given such a disgusting character to an inexperienced player who might have had problems handling it. So everything - as far as players were concerned - was safe, sane and consensual.

-Jiituomas

[Christoph Boeckle]

Sounds like this larp was very neat!

The idea of sacrificing a little bit of direct personal satisfaction to give a greater experience to others (and everybody following this train of thought) has in my opinion wider value thant just RPGs. It's extremly important to RPG activity nonetheless.

I see it as a mix of politeness and empathy that is supposed to work in any group-event with people all on the same "level of participation". (I feel bad if I don't consider other peoples preferences and just go on my egocentric trip.)

You can use that principle in a game of soccer. Say that you play with people with varying skills (just like in RPGs some players are more experienced or outgoing) and you are one of the best. You could surely solo through a lot of the game and score goals upon goals. But the others just sit and wait. Isn't it much more fun to try to engage the less skilled players a bit and try to build something? This would require lots of fair play, because if the good players on the other side just exploit this to waste your efforts, it isn't worth it.
If it does work, I'm convinced everybody will have a great time, and you will feel good for having helped to achieve this. (What I'm saying is that even if you sacrifice some personal satisfaction, you don't even need to get the same in return. Just seeing that your "sacrifice" made other people enjoy themselves more is worth it, in my view. Of course if the others are ungrateful it sucks, but that's a different issue).

Or at a family meeting. There's often someone who's got a big mouth and always talks out loud, drawing attention to him. It's okay for a while, but from time to time he should shut up, or involve other people into the talking and let them take over for a while, if he doesn't want to be considered a dick.

So what I think is that this principle you are officialy applying to larps in Sweden should not only be applied to all roleplaying, but to any group-activity somebody engages in. Of course, some people play RPGs where the GM is an entertainer/storyteller, and in this case, it would be bad form to kill his show. But I don't consider these RPGs as a group-activity (rather a one-man activity with a group of spectators). I'm not placing one social phenomenon over the other, just trying to be coherent.

This is getting quite ethic.