[Flowers for Mara] Family schisms at Gen Con

[Emily Care]

Hi there,

At Gen Con, I got the chance to play Seth Ben Ezra's game A Flower for Mara.  This game is played in the form of an improv play in four or five acts, greatly influenced by Jeep Form. The story takes place just after the death of a woman, Mara, in a family who was important to all the members, in good ways and difficult.  The players act out what happens in the family as everyone tries to come to terms with her loss, what she meant to them and what ways their life and they may now change. 

Who and how
In our game, Seth was the Director (the gm essentially) for seven players: myself, Marc, Dre, David, Dave, Tobias and Steve.  The characters were Mara's parents (played by Steve and Tobias), her brother, sister, husband and child (Dave, David, Steve and Dre).  I played Mara. Not a ghost, but the memories of her in the other characters' minds.  The relationships between the family members and mara broke down along generational lines: the players of the parents each chose a Competitive relationship, the siblings and husband, Devoted, and the child was Bitter.  Seth, they were chosen after they said the word, did you place them based on it, or had you decided already?

Playing Mara was challenging and amazingly fulfilling.  She can speak directly to each character one at a time, when a scene focuses on them. Each Mara is different--reflecting how the character experienced and remembers her. Mara's goal is to be remembered, no matter what. So you can use the characters fears and insecurities, weak spots and warm memories to tie them to her. I said some of the worst things I've ever said in that game. brr.... Hopefully the other players will forgive me some day.

Seasons of Grief
The play begins and ends with a speech at the graveside, opening and closing the curtain. Then the first scene took place at the meal following the cermony.  The players were just beginning to firm up the relationships between the family members...but, oh, I forgot something very important. We chose how Mara died as a group, and the group agreed to suicide. 

Yeah. Intense.

The acts are played out in seasons. We watched the father try to break through the mother's intense self-denial and guilt, though the relief he felt at having Mara gone was biting.  Brother and sister struggled with their own grieving, feeling like they were the only ones who loved her: the husband running as hard and as fast from the family and Mara's memory as his feet could take him.  The daughter's struggle to come to grips with the loss were heart-rending. I'll never forget the scene at the grave side where Dre had her travel across the country to say good bye ("my therapist told me I should come here"), which she did--but held on to the flower of her mother's memory even after the scene.

Letting Go
The memory is represented by a real flower that each player holds in their hand until they feel the character is ready to put it down and move on. At the start of the game, each person--director and player of Mara included--write down a real event or memory that they grieve. And when it comes time to put the flower down, they share that grief with the group. They can pass on this, by holding on to the flower, but apparently no one has so far. I started, since I played Mara, and shared a memory of a family member passing and having strife rip through the family afterwards. This reverberated through the game in different ways. 

This was an amazing game. I'd love to play again, as one of the family members. It was intense and stretching emotionally and narratively.  Thanks so much, Seth.

best,
Emily

[GreatWolf]

Thanks for writing this up, Emily!

The relationships between the family members and mara broke down along generational lines: the players of the parents each chose a Competitive relationship, the siblings and husband, Devoted, and the child was Bitter.  Seth, they were chosen after they said the word, did you place them based on it, or had you decided already?

I had decided already. The idea is that the assignment of roles and the choice of relationship type are done blindly and simultaneously. That way, the characters are created by a combination of an objective relationship (e.g. father) assigned by the Director and a subjective relationship (e.g. competitive) chosen by the player.

Playing Mara was challenging and amazingly fulfilling.  She can speak directly to each character one at a time, when a scene focuses on them. Each Mara is different--reflecting how the character experienced and remembers her. Mara's goal is to be remembered, no matter what. So you can use the characters fears and insecurities, weak spots and warm memories to tie them to her. I said some of the worst things I've ever said in that game. brr.... Hopefully the other players will forgive me some day.

I mentioned your comments about this to Gabrielle and Raquel (the other Mara "veterans"), and they said similar things. There's something emotionally violent about the role that can be really rather...um...what's a good word? Striking? Cutting? Intense? Something like that....

Like the bit where Thomas broke into the old family home to see where you'd killed yourself, and you scurried into the middle of the floor and sat down like you were in the bathtub. That scene really stands out in my mind.

Letting Go
The memory is represented by a real flower that each player holds in their hand until they feel the character is ready to put it down and move on. At the start of the game, each person--director and player of Mara included--write down a real event or memory that they grieve. And when it comes time to put the flower down, they share that grief with the group. They can pass on this, by holding on to the flower, but apparently no one has so far. I started, since I played Mara, and shared a memory of a family member passing and having strife rip through the family afterwards. This reverberated through the game in different ways. 

I thought that this game was going to be the first where someone actually didn't put down his flower. As it was, Tobias only relinquished his flower at the very last minute, and that almost by accident, it seems. I may be reading into his performance here, but I think that he was just playing out where the character went, as opposed to actively angling for an opportunity to put down his flower. So, when he realized that he had found a place to do it, I think that he was almost as surprised as the rest of us. At least, that's what it looked like from where I was sitting.

This was an amazing game. I'd love to play again, as one of the family members. It was intense and stretching emotionally and narratively.  Thanks so much, Seth.

I was glad to have had the chance to play with you. In particular, I was glad that most of the group took the opportunity to spend time post-game talking about our experience. I really do think that the post-game debrief (or the "after party") is an important part of engaging with the material.

Something in particular that came up during that discussion was the place of laughter in the game. For all that this was an intense game with serious subject material, I also found (once again) that the players could actually laugh and enjoy the experience without disrespecting the material. In some ways, I felt that laughing was required in order to respect the material. This is a significant difference from Swedish-style Jeep, according to Tobias, where such out-of-character interaction is generally frowned upon. But, at least for us, I thought that it created a safe environment, a place where we could interact with some difficult and emotional issues together. And, as a result, I do feel like we were closer to each other as a result of this shared experience.

Crazy, huh?

[Steve Segedy]

I found that laughter was a bit of a defense mechanism- many of the situations were intense, and some of the things said demanded a release (maybe even a scream).  So sometimes I laughed because I was nervous, and sometimes because people were just cracking me up.

I hadn't read anything about Flowers for Mara before the con, so I wasn't really sure what I was getting into.  After we started I thought "damn, this is heavy- do I really want to do this?"  But then I remembered that that's how folks initially react to Grey Ranks as well, and I know from experience how much fun that game can be.  I stuck it out with, and I'm glad I did.

Seth, I think you said elsewhere that you felt a connection with the other players for the rest of the con.  I completely agree.  I only knew a few of the folks there when we started, but I feel like I know all of you much better now.  Special thanks to Emily for doing such a good job playing Mara!

[Emily Care]

Thanks for hanging in there, Steve. I loved what you brought. Your character was such a contrast with the rest, who kept wrangling with one another. And the parallel that you brought in with having been saved from suicidal thoughts by Mara when you got together made her death all the more ironic. 

Seth, Gabrielle, Raquel and I should form a club (or support group? . Really it was an intense and fulfilling experience playing her. There was so much material ready at hand, like the scene in the bath tub. I was so glad I could encourage Dave's character not to end it*, since he had chosen to have a "protective" relationship with Mara, that he protected her. I think it was that scene where I said "I"m your guardian angel." And he said, "No, you're not" and laid down the flower.  *chills* In a good way.  I still can't believe I actually nudged some characters towards suicide toward the start of the game. Those and some of the things that I said to Tobias as the Mom and Dre as the daughter still make me shudder. 

[blockquote]I had decided already. The idea is that the assignment of roles and the choice of relationship type are done blindly and simultaneously. That way, the characters are created by a combination of an objective relationship (e.g. father) assigned by the Director and a subjective relationship (e.g. competitive) chosen by the player.[/blockquote]
This is brilliant. The patterns they formed created a terrible and compelling picture of the family in this set up and it would be completely different each and every time. It makes me want to play again all the more.

[Tobias Wrigstad]

> As it was, Tobias only relinquished his flower at the very last
> minute, and that almost by accident, it seems. I may be reading
> into his performance here, but I think that he was just playing
> out where the character went, as opposed to actively angling for
> an opportunity to put down his flower.

Yep, that's exactly right. I had given up on the way I wanted to
play it (Emily kept making Mara this bitch, see) and so I gave up
on putting it down. Then something that Emily said turned my last
monologue into this "I will sacrifice myself for the sake of your
father, and thus be better than you" thing, after which I realised
that I had finally "won" and overcome, in a very bad way, the
grief. It just didn't feel right for the character to keep lugging
that old flower around after this moment.

> Something in particular that came up during that discussion was
> the place of laughter in the game. For all that this was an
> intense game with serious subject material, I also found (once
> again) that the players could actually laugh and enjoy the
> experience without disrespecting the material.

Yes, I had the exact same experiences with Doubt. It seems that
when the subject matter is really serious, and not just a serious
story, people do this on/off thing quite naturally.

> This is a significant difference from Swedish-style Jeep,
> according to Tobias, where such out-of-character interaction is
> generally frowned upon.

No, that's not really right. I was saying that I would have
preferred for there to be less fun stuff and more of the intense
stuff. I would have liked less tension-relief between the hard
parts to really feel them.

I totally agree that laughter has a natural place here -- as the
dual of those other experiences we were searching. I just would
have liked to have less of it.

On the issue of jeepness, we try to set things up so that there is
a minimum of out-of-character interaction, but this does not have
to mean no out-of-character interaction at all. In Doubt, for
example, there is generally quite a lot of it, but we've tried to
keep it down, e.g., by making scene orders and having brain
storming sessions before the game starts.

In the Doubt text, I talk about the play testing where my players
ended up talking a lot out-of-character about how to avoid saying
the wrong to your partner, for example when having an orgasm (tips
included always referring to your partner as sweetie, etc. and not
by their actual names). My realisation as a GM at this point was
that this was part of the game, this was what I wanted in the
game. What I didn't want was e.g., people talking about the
previous scenes ("man that was a lot of fun!"), talking crap ("is
there a game on tonight?"), etc. I think I should not have said
out-of-character, but "out-of-game-focus" or something like that.

In the end, this is a personal preference thing. The
out-of-character thing should really be tied to how I see most
forge games (or worse, like D&D and Vampire) is being played --
people discussing the game rather than playing their characters.

[GreatWolf]

What I didn't want was e.g., people talking about the
previous scenes ("man that was a lot of fun!"), talking crap ("is
there a game on tonight?"), etc. I think I should not have said
out-of-character, but "out-of-game-focus" or something like that.

In the end, this is a personal preference thing. The
out-of-character thing should really be tied to how I see most
forge games (or worse, like D&D and Vampire) is being played --
people discussing the game rather than playing their characters.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I think that this is one of the distinctives of Forge-style, which tends to be comfortable with (some of) these points of divergence.

That being said, I've found that the best model for interacting with the fiction actually comes from Polaris, which had more of an influence on A Flower for Mara than I may have originally realized. At the beginning and end of the game, there are opening and closing ritual acts that separate the gamespace from the rest of life. For Polaris, these are the opening and closing key phrases; in A Flower for Mara, these are the Raising and Lowering of the Curtain. In between these markers, the group is playing the game. As such, the expectation is that they will be focused on the game. Sure, there can be some excited babble, but it needs to be audience-oriented (e.g. "Wow, that was a great scene.") and not "out-of-game" oriented (e.g. "Is there a game on tonight?")

• Sure, you can take care of physical concerns (bathroom breaks, drink of water, and the like), but you need to move with some alacrity. This serves as a point of rest for the group in the middle of the game, generally at seams in between scenes.
  
  There's another level of engagement that's required during a scene. If you're playing a character, you have to engage with that character. You're not audience right now; focus on your role. If you're audience, you need to be paying attention to what's going on. And you don't interrupt this state until the scene is done. So, no, you can't nip off to the bathroom, even if you're in the audience. Wait until the scene break. In Polaris, a scene is delineated by another ritual opening and closing phrase ("And so it was...."); A Flower for Mara doesn't actually have a formal marker to indicate the shift from one state to the other.
  
  And that's the rhythm that I see in most of these games. Out-of-game-->seam-->scene-->seam-->scene--seam-->out-of-game.
  
  So, if I'm understanding you, Tobias, the discussion we're having is about how to handle those seams. Your preference would be to keep those seams as short as possible in order to focus time and energy on the scenes, whereas Forge-style play tends to allow for a more relaxed approach to the seams. Is this a fair statement of what we're saying?
  
  I'm discussing all this, because I'm a strong believer in the power of ritual to assist players in focusing and engaging with fictional material. However, a group will be at different levels of engagement throughout the game, so a designer needs to consider the desired experience and provide tools to the play group to manage both the scenes and the seams.
  
  ----
  footnote
  (*) Is there a game on tonight? OF COURSE THERE IS, AND YOU'RE PLAYING IN IT!
  

[Tobias Wrigstad]

Ah, I see what you're saying. I think that this is one of the distinctives of Forge-style, which tends to be comfortable with (some of) these points of divergence.

That being said, I've found that the best model for interacting with the fiction actually comes from Polaris, which had more of an influence on A Flower for Mara than I may have originally realized. At the beginning and end of the game, there are opening and closing ritual acts that separate the gamespace from the rest of life. For Polaris, these are the opening and closing key phrases; in A Flower for Mara, these are the Raising and Lowering of the Curtain. In between these markers, the group is playing the game. As such, the expectation is that they will be focused on the game.

I see what you are driving at, but for our session, I don't think
this really worked. To make these rituals work, they must be
carefully instrumented. The way we rushed through these bits, they
felt completely unnecessary and pointless and as far from a ritual
as possible. The GM putting her flower down in the beginning and
Mara in the very end is a better way to frame the game IMHO.

But also, for me, all that Bible stuff felt contrieved, very different
from the way the rest of the game worked, and the words we were
using in the rest of the game. I don't care about Mara when we open
the curtains, because I don't know her yet. When playing with devote
Christians that can perhaps relate to these phrases, it might work
better, for I still feel that you talking about the loss of your mother,
etc. would have made it a much stronger impression and a clearar
signal that we were leaving real life for the game.

Sure, there can be some excited babble, but it needs to be
audience-oriented (e.g. "Wow, that was a great scene.") and not
"out-of-game" oriented (e.g. "Is there a game on tonight?") 

Just to make it clear: I disagree. Both are bad IMHO. You have the
rest of your life to point out that a scene was great after the
game (except when you are playing some other game).

Sure, you can take care of physical concerns (bathroom breaks,
drink of water, and the like), but you need to move with some
alacrity.

Agreed. Flow is key.

This serves as a point of rest for the group in the middle of the
game, generally at seams in between scenes.

For Mara, I think the players are allowed to rest enough anyway,
since they are not always on stage. Surely, I preach that
watching is playing, but it is a different kind of playing, and
it is easier to watch and immerse than to be on stage and have to
constantly deliver. Obviously it is not OK to leave just because
you are not on stage just this moment.

And if someone goes to the bathroom for too long, it doesn't matter
when it happens, it will break the flow anyway, perhaps more, as
we will all be idle, waiting to continue...

In Polaris, a scene is delineated by another ritual opening and
closing phrase ("And so it was...."); A Flower for Mara doesn't
actually have a formal marker to indicate the shift from one state
to the other.

And that's the rhythm that I see in most of these
games. Out-of-game-->seam-->scene-->seam-->scene--seam-->out-of-game.

Yeah, this is what I would call old school freeform game
structure. Many freeform and jeepform games have a clear scene
structure, much like in most movies, and unlike most books. For a
long while (from say 1995 and 6-7 years on), it was fashionable in
Sweden to begin and end every scene with the GM reading some kind
of text, which I guess is very much like Polaris' opening and
closing phrases. I am certainly guilty of writing such games.
Later freeform games do away with these phrases, much like how you
did in Mara. Today, I would say that that is the right way to go
most of the time, but see e.g., "Doubt" where scenes are strung
together by player and Gm monologues.

In any case, this is a hard strucutre to break free of. At least I think
so, and I generally fail when I try. And in some sense, we need this
part to some extent not to turn into larpers.

So, if I'm understanding you, Tobias, the discussion we're having
is about how to handle those seams. Your preference would be to
keep those seams as short as possible in order to focus time and
energy on the scenes, whereas Forge-style play tends to allow for
a more relaxed approach to the seams. Is this a fair statement of
what we're saying?

Darn, I need to reply "yes and no" here. My main concern is the
flow and premise of the game. My "Doubt" example from my preious
post may perhaps illustrate this---"I" had gotten the players to
talk about the things that the game was about, so it felt right to
let them continue with that discussion for a while even though it
clearly broke the flow of the story told in the scenes of the
game.

But yes, my experience of Forge-style play, especially american
Forge-style play, is that flow is not important. That is another
reason why I feel many Forge games are board games in disguise.

For our Mara session, I would have preferred to have zero-time
seams. I consider the time spent between the scenes in our session
effectively as time wasted. We never discussed anything that made
the game better and that couldn't have come out in play as far as I
can remember.

Also, we are/shoud be discussing structure of games here. Can we
do without the seams, can we create an uninterrupted flow that feels
like just a single scene? And if we have seams, how to handle them,
definitely. And here I'd like to say that this is quesion must be asked
and answered for every game---there is no single true answer.

I'm discussing all this, because I'm a strong believer in the
power of ritual to assist players in focusing and engaging with
fictional material.

I don't think we had rituals. And definitely not between scenes as
you say.

I think that even more important than rituals is clear
communication of what is expected of the players, what the game is
about and where the story is going. I believe that it is important
to put people in the right frame of mind and that rituals is just
one way to do it.

I agree that opening phrases is a good way of shaking off any
unimportant stuff discussed in the breaks (that was one reason
for the "Doubt" monologes), but they are still a bit contrieved and
it would be so much better, IMHO, not to have anything that
needs shaking off.

However, a group will be at different levels of engagement
throughout the game, so a designer needs to consider the desired
experience and provide tools to the play group to manage both the
scenes and the seams.

This is definitely true. As soon as the game has started (which is
a point in time that's hard to describe, but let's say as soon as
all the players are gathered in the same room for simplicity), it
does not end until it is, by some means, officiall declared
over. And we need to think about everything that happens inbetween
those moments, and, as we continue to explore games that provoke
thoughts and mess with peoples' minds, probably what will happen
as players process the game for days or weeks after.

[Tobias Wrigstad]

Seth, and who else might be reading:

I can't find the edit button. When I re-read my post, I didn't just see
the spelling errors, but I felt it had a harsh tone at times. That was
not the intention. I like your deconstruction of what we are talking
about, and that made me think about even more things that I perhaps
didn't realise I was thinking of before.

So thanks!

[Emily Care]

I enjoyed the opening and closing speeches. I was actually going to ask you about that, Seth. I am pagan, so have thought about using a less denominational text when I run the game. Have you had other people talk about modifying that? The words used could well have a strong in-game effect. Hellfire and damnation (which are most decidely *not* in your text) could cause the family to react in a certain way, versus a more crunchy, new-agey version. But then, the primary function of them seems to be to demarcate the fictional (and emotional) space of the game.

It's very interesting, in my book, to see what comes of the hybrid of the Jeep Tradition, focussed-narrativist story-type-games and improv techniques that will likely come from these games being written in America. Diversity of technique is good.

[Tobias Wrigstad]

I enjoyed the opening and closing speeches

That's not so strange, no? I mean, who would not like to attend her own funeral? :-)

Good that you disagree.

It's very interesting, in my book, to see what comes of the hybrid of the Jeep Tradition, focussed-narrativist story-type-games and improv techniques that will likely come from these games being written in America. Diversity of technique is good.

I totally agree! I am very much looking forward to the games to come!

[GreatWolf]

The opening and closing speeches are taken directly from The Book of Common Prayer, which is essentially the "traditional" Christian liturgy. So, in a movie, if you hear a portion of a burial service being spoken or a formal marriage ceremony, you're likely hearing something from The Book of Common Prayer. You know, "Dearly beloved, we are gathered together today in the sight of God..." That's the marriage service from The Book of Common Prayer.

Anyways, I chose the opening and closing texts for a few reasons.

1) At the beginning, conceptually the players are transforming from "just" being the players to also being the characters. As such, Raising the Curtain is also essentially the burial service, with the family standing at the graveside while Mara is being buried. That's why Mara stands by the grave when the Curtain is Raised: she is being buried.

2) At the end, conceptually the players are laying to rest the Griefs that they have placed at the graveside. If someone is still holding his flower at the end of the play, he gives it to Mara. So, she is standing there as a reminder of the Griefs that were not resolved. So, at the end, when the Director reads "Unto Almighty God we commend the soul of our sister Mara departed...", the referent is now all the things that Mara now stands for: all those griefs that were discussed, all those nasty things that Mara said, all the fictional griefs that the characters addressed (or didn't). When we Lower the Curtain, we leave all of those at the grave, and then we walk away.

3) The formality of the phrases is supposed to add a measure of gravitas to the proceedings. Again, this is like Polaris, where the opening phrase is "Long ago, the people were dying at the end of the world." Even when you don't really know what that means, there's a certain emotional weight that is carried by those words. In other words, to quote Emily, "But then, the primary function of them seems to be to demarcate the fictional (and emotional) space of the game." Yes. This.

4) As a Christian, I cannot approach these issues apart from my faith. That includes how I go about the design of the game. I've had a couple of people (Tobias being one of them) discuss alternate options with me. Upon some reflection, I decided to stick with what's there, although I did shorten the reading. (It used to be longer, and you also listened to a piece of music, too!) Something I've learned as a game designer is that people will always hack the game. That doesn't bother me. I view it just like variants or house rules. So, I figure that there will be people out there who will decide to hack the text and change those readings. However, I need to remain true to my vision for the game. My vision for the game includes the players having to interact with those texts at some point, even if it is to discard them.

Seth, and who else might be reading:

I can't find the edit button. When I re-read my post, I didn't just see
the spelling errors, but I felt it had a harsh tone at times. That was
not the intention. I like your deconstruction of what we are talking
about, and that made me think about even more things that I perhaps
didn't realise I was thinking of before.

So thanks!

Thanks for clarifying, Tobias! FYI, there's no edit feature on the Forge. This is a deliberate design decision by The Powerz That Be (essentially Ron) as part of the social structuring of this forum. That way, people can't "take back" what they wrote by deleting it; they can only add clarifying remarks, as you have. Thus, the historical record of the conversation is preserved. It's one of those unique features of the Forge.

Anyways!

Part of what I'm getting from this conversation is the realization that I actually treasure the seams in a game. And here, I'm talking about all my roleplaying, not just A Flower for Mara. I like the opportunity for the group to be able to interact as players during the game without character mediation. I like the applause that we gave to a player at one point for an particularly outstanding performance in a scene. I like the excited babble and the high-fives that can follow a scene. I even like some kibitzing about the game events, particularly if it allows the players to synchronize their authorial vision of what they are creating. This particular feature of face-to-face play is what I look for in my games.

Here's an example from a game of Mage that I played many many years ago. This was my wife's first roleplaying game with others, and therefore, she was playing her default character: a quietly fanatical individual. There was a lot going on in that character, as I'd learn in between sessions, as Crystal told me of all the internal struggles going on in that character. However, none of the other players actually knew that any of those things were going on. In fact, it could be a little frustrating to play across from Crystal's character because the character was so quiet and reserved.

We talked about this a lot, to little avail. Part of this is that the Forge's understanding of RPG theory was still developing and, as such, we were still working on developing the necessary critical vocabulary to discuss some of these things. But, eventually, we had a breakthrough of understanding.

Crystal wants to have intricately developed characters prepared before play. If she doesn't know the character, then how can she play the character?

I want to know when she is playing the character. That includes when she is thinking and feeling. In order for me to author my character, I need to know what her character is thinking. That's out-of-character information that isn't available to the other players. I just wanted her to share this information with the rest of the table. That could be in narration (e.g. give us a monologue) or simply by announcing it to the table to clarify her character's actions.

Since then, our roleplaying has been much better.

I've read the various "Nodal Point" LARP books, and I've generally been in awe of the elaborate LARPs that are coming out of that scene. At the same time, I doubt that I would enjoy participating in them, precisely because of the lack of these seams. I play these games to share an experience with other players. A large art LARP, of necessity, cannot be a shared experience, simply because it is geographically spread out, and a single player cannot witness it all.

Jeepform is more attractive to me, because of the geographic unity of play. At the same time, I'm less concerned with "immersion" in character, if it's at the expense of this shared experience. I happen to think that the traditional post-game discussions that appear to occur after a LARP or Jeep game help a great deal with this. Still, I want to have the sense of sharing both authorship and audience during the event, not just afterwards.

[Tobias Wrigstad]

FYI, there's no edit feature on the Forge. This is a deliberate design decision by The Powerz That Be (essentially Ron) as part of the social structuring of this forum. That way, people can't "take back" what they wrote by deleting it; they can only add clarifying remarks, as you have. Thus, the historical record of the conversation is preserved. It's one of those unique features of the Forge.

I was so sure there was one, since i saw this comment in the UMS thread:

edited to fix a mis-applied person's name

This was in a post from Ron. I guess the powerz that be have enabled
the edit-butten for themselves :-)

For some reason, I have a hard time reading my own posts with
someone elses eyes until they are actually submitted and visible
to the world...

[Tobias Wrigstad]

As a Christian, I cannot approach these issues apart from my faith.

Of course not. To try and do that would be stupid I think.

Something I've learned as a game designer is that people will
always hack the game. That doesn't bother me. I view it just like
variants or house rules. So, I figure that there will be people
out there who will decide to hack the text and change those
readings. However, I need to remain true to my vision for the
game. My vision for the game includes the players having to
interact with those texts at some point, even if it is to discard
them.

Yeah, I've learned that too. The most important IMHO is to write
for yourself which sometimes makes people like the game less. But
we always said that a game can be great even if it is unplayable.
(I am certainly guilty of writing such games.)

One of the reasons why I don't like the breaks between scenes to
be filled with random talking is that I find it hard to keep the
flow and get back in the spirit of the game. In our session, these
breaks gave us a lot of distance to the story and its contents and
once you have that, it is easy to slip back and forth since you
are not required to go deep when you go back anyways. I think that
the game would have been much richer and given rise to more
feeling and more tension (which is good for the focus) if we
hadn't had them.

A lot of Scandinavian, immersionist larpers express similar
problems with jeepform in general. The find that actively
exploring the meta play or switching between characters (without
breaks) block their ability to immerse in the game.

Apart from it being personal preference, I believe that it is a
matter of practise, a matter of whom you are with (easier with
people you don't know for some), etc. It is also a matter of what
game it is. In The Upgrade! I would mind the high-fives less,
since the game isn't very serious and there is generally not much
that you can break by chatting about something else. (Luckily, you
can hi-five in-game in The Upgrade!)

I also think that character mediated may not be the right word,
but I see what you mean. I think there is a lot of exchanges that
goes on in the meta-play that is not character mediated. Like
looks, signals, body language, etc. I just wanted to point that
out.

I like it how these two threads (this and the UMS one) keep
crossing over into each other. It seems to me like Crystal would
really have been helped by monologues! Again, expose the inner
play.

You should know that even in Scandinavian larps, people go to
various "off zones" to have breaks and enjoy these kinds of off
moments that you talk about. The great thing here is that you can
look them up when you need them and avoid them otherwise. So, if
you are going through something where a real break would throw you
off, you simply don't go there. Some larpers spend a lot of time
plotting in these off zones to go back in and execute. Sometimes,
these are play-for-show people, but not necessarily.

One of the most important things to me with jeepform stuff is to
keep people as close as possible. In A Nice Evening with the
Family, we had a staff of GMs and several interconnecting scripts
to make up for the fact that people were geographically
distributed. And still they were in the same mansion and in the
garden only. On a similar note, I think that you will find
jeepform less character immersive than most larps.

I happen to think that the traditional post-game discussions that
appear to occur after a LARP or Jeep game help a great deal with
this. Still, I want to have the sense of sharing both authorship
and audience during the event, not just afterwards. 

Sorry, I didn't get this part. Can you explain?

[Blessdevil]

This discussion and the UMS one are very interesting so thanks to all the posters.

I just wouls like to contribute one AP example in which the "breaks" added something to the game.

This Sunday I directed a game of Doubt. It was the third one I directed and it gave life to the saddest version of the story (probably my favourite up to now).

Towards the end, the scenes played were really grim and tense and all of us not on stage watched intently helding our breath.
But as soon as each scene ended it was a chorus of laughter and exclamations totally contrasting the sadness of the story. A short, very focused discussion about the next scene to come would immediately follow before getting back to the game.

I think we needed those laughter to catch our breath before delving again into the painful situations portrayed in the game. The talking also kept all of us on the same page and bettered our game.

It may sound funny but I felt those pauses and laughter made our game more intense and tragic.

[Claudia Cangini]

I beg your pardon, I posted from Michele's cpu forgetting to log in as myself.
The above message should be signed Claudia Cangini.
Sorry for the mess.