Hi folks, I've been doing some thinking About LARPs and GNS. What I've written below is potentially the second in a series of articles about applying GNS ideas to LARP design. Have a read, poke holes, I need to make sure I'm on the right track with my current thoughts if I'm to go any further. Hopefully I can convince Mods here to let me post this up as an article after I make revisions based on people comments and give it a general tidy up.

I would also like to point out that these theories are based entirely on my experiences and mine alone. I'm sure there are many of you that that have noticed very different trends, if so I implore you to point them out so that I can take them into account with my current ideas about GNS and LARP.

Addressing the problems with Applying the GNS theory to LARPs Part 2

Please read my first article and the required qualifications regarding the LARP style I'm discussing before reading this one. It'll make a lot more sense that way.

Having hopefully put forward the idea that it is possible to consider an Ongoing Social/Political LARP using the GNS theory in my previous article, I'm going to put forward a rather controversial idea:

All three of the Creative Agenda's are totally capable of existing simultaneously side by side within a single LARP for at least a short while.

I put forward this idea because every single Ongoing Social/Political LARP I have played in has supported all the different play objectives within different Cliques. Sure there is a large Gamist drift an all of them because the design of the rules has supported Gamist play and some people have been frustrated by how hard it is to play within their Creative Agenda and quit the game. But, and this is the important thing, many people have just played the game the way they wanted to play it regardless of what the system or many of the other players supported.

Every group viewed the other groups as odd, and the phrase "Bad Role player" got hurled by all three sides, but it didn't stop people playing the game the way they wanted to play it. In fact, it was only when a character shifted to one of the extremes of their Creative Agenda (and becoming Dysfunctional and therefore a problem) that we as the GM's even noticed that people were playing in different styles.

How can this happen?

So how is it possible to have so many different players playing to different Creative Agenda's and still make the game playable by all the groups. I think one of the main reasons behind this is the fact that even in reasonably rules heavy games (such as Minds Eye Theater) it is perfectly possible to go several months without ever having to use the rules. The rules are there, should they be needed but the Points of Contact between the rules and the actual play of the game can be incredibly low.

Combine this with the fact that there is little to no established Social Contract in place before a player joins the game and picks up one from the people his character gets involved with and suddenly Drift becomes very easy. So easy in fact that during one game I changed my Creative Agenda from a political Gamist agenda to a more socially based Simulationist agenda by retiring one character and bringing in another with links to different characters.

I should point out that although each of the creative agendas may well be present in a LARP, the majority of players will naturally gravitate towards the agenda most promoted by the rules system. This means that in most LARPs you will have a large number of Gamists (the agenda promoted by most LARP systems), followed by usually a smaller number of Simulationists (who are usually supported by the setting rather than the system) and a few Narrativists (who have settled on a character premise or two, and is going to "play the game properly despite how bad it is, damn it!").

So what do they think of each other?

In general, the Gamists don't notice the fact that there are people in the LARP who are not playing to the Gamist Agenda. Just that there's a bunch of people who turn up and don't really bother to talk to anyone bar their own Clique if they don't have to and seem to look down their noses at most of the players.

The Simulationists bemoan the fact that most of the players are too busy comparing character sheets and boasting about how hard their character has become to actually play the game the way it's meant to be played and actually get properly into character and make the fictional society work properly.

While the Narrativists accept that they know how to role play much better than everyone else, and if the few of them get together they can take advantage of the game to role play properly amongst them selves and hope they don't get trodden on too often. I should point out that these players are often joined by Simulationists interested in exploring character rather than setting who act as great NPC equivalents within the exploration of their premise.

It's all fun and games until someone loses and eye!

As you can see, the relationships between the different play styles can be quite antagonistic out of character. Each side believes that they are role playing properly and the chances are that the GM's are attempting to promote one style or another and as such favoring them in terms of time and attention. This causes animosity from the other groups and a feeling of disillusionment with the game that can rapidly escalate into dysfunctional play.

Although it is possible to catch the dysfunctional play early enough to keep the game going it is rarely possible at this late stage to solve the problems that cause the Dysfunction in the first place. A game can keep limping along while the GM's work to put out the fires of dysfunction. However very soon GM burn out will cause the game will fold or be handed off to another GM who's play style is closer to the dominant Agenda. This then usually results in changes to the balance of time and attention causing dysfunction within another agenda.

I have seen Camarilla games Flip Flop between Simulationist and Gamist GM's every six months or so due to an attempt by the people playing the opposite agenda of the one represented by the ST to get the game to play the way it should be run.

The Core of the Problem

The main reason so many of these games collapse in on themselves is simple. However it's not obvious. At first glance it looks like the reason all these games have problems is because the players have different Creative Agendas. The actual problem is that because of lack of support for their agenda's within the System (rather than rules) the characters must avoid interacting with other cliques if they are to continue pursue their own agenda. If they could actually interact without their Agendas conflicting they could bring an increased richness to the game.

You can please some of the people...

Currently all the Ongoing Social/Political LARPs I have run or played in have been Incoherent Gamist/Sumulationist blends. As you can see this has not resulted in the best form of play for any of the participants.

One of the popular ideas amongst the local LARPers is the idea that running an invite only game is the solution to all their LARPing woes. This idea may work, because it allows a simulationist GM to invite players with a Simulationist Agenda to play and none of the other Agendas. However that badly cuts down on your player base and basically declares to the other players that they are "not good role players" whether you intend to or not. It also doesn't get away from the Gamist Drift caused by the poorly designed systems for most LARPs.

Another option would be to establish the Social Contract more strongly before each player joins the game. Stating the Creative Agenda that is expected of them and enforcing it through system. Again some of your players may just not join because it won't be "fun". But at least you aren't actively excluding them. The trick with this technique is not to fight to too hard to keep players that are not enjoying them selves. I have seen too many GM's use everything from promises to emotional blackmail to keep players in a game for a while longer, and almost without fail it results in dysfunctional play and then the player leaving or being thrown out.

There is theoretically a third option. It is probably the hardest to achieve and may not be practically achievable at all. The idea would be to design a system that could be Abashed to any of the three Creative Agendas while not supporting any one agenda too strongly. Although I can't image this working in table top, in LARP, where there is very low Points of Contact and Drift is easy it might just be possible.

What Next?

Well, we've looked at how we find the problems and now we've looked at some of the GNS related problems that are obvious. The next step is to work out what each player type wants from a LARP so that we can design a system and social contract to satisfy as many of their needs as possible.

Hello mindwanders.

I am particularly interested in this topic, and would like to put a few points forward.

(1) LARP is a large group dynamic, whereas tabletop games are small group.

Obvious point, but it bears mentioning. Taking the theory of different gaming styles/objectives onboard: Any ongoing games evolve to become more and more specialised till they find their psychological niche with a balance of players wanting more or less the same thing. People not getting what they want move on to other games or give up on RPG. With large group dynamics it is easier to hide the tendancy, especially with one-off games. But, as evidenced in any of the ongoing LARPs I have been involved in in Australia, cliques of players and GMs form, partly out of personal association, but more and more out of an alignment of gaming desire. It just takes longer than one session to notice it, because of the size. So what the number of players of the game is doing is just hiding the system issues better.

(2) It is easier to manage all styles of play in short sharp shocks, but how do you deliver the right characters to the right players?

In one off LARP games it is much easier to hit all bases, because the numbers are working for you. If you are not trying to maintain one model or the other, you can design characters or events that suit all the different kinds of play. This has the consequence of creating mini-games within the larger social structure, and this too can be a positive thing. But the important difficulty to be overcome here is getting the right kind of player to the right kind of character.

(3) Players that create their own characters are often unaware of their own agendas, and this is evidence of how GM time constraints are magnified in LARP.

Players have little to no idea how they will slot in to the bigger picture, and can not or do not plan accordingly. In a large group it is almost impossible to have enough of a relationship with your players as a GM to be able to figure out what someone's play agenda might be in the limited time available. In large groups, an individual requires as much involvement in a game as in a small group, but usually GMs are fewer per player.

(4) LARP is more suited to Simulation play than Tabletop games.

You are walking around. You have body language, costume, and in many cases, setting props and accoutrements. Before a LARP game even starts, it has attracted more people who want to simulate a reality, because it is a LARP. The Sell of the game, that is, the blurb and the setting notes are what will attract people who want to figure things out or have a challenge, and people who are interested in the narrative will be likewise drawn in by what story you are aparently seeking to tell. The mechanics of play in a good LARP are as invisible as possible, to not impinge on the simulation, and this in and of itself is a condition upon LARP systems that does not exist in tabletop.

<EVAN EMPHATICALLY OPINES> LARP systems should first and foremost be addressing the Simulation aspects of play. Any LARP system that asks players to stop playing so that dice van be rolled, or, even worse, so that a game mechanic may be figured out, is killing itself in eutero. </OPINE>

I have a few more thoughts on the subject, but they are as yet unformulated, so I will get back to you.

Thanks for this BTW, I found it very interesting!

Warm regards,
Evan

(1) LARP is a large group dynamic, whereas tabletop games are small group.

Any ongoing games evolve to become more and more specialised till they find their psychological niche with a balance of players wanting more or less the same thing. People not getting what they want move on to other games or give up on RPG. With large group dynamics it is easier to hide the tendancy, especially with one-off games. But, as evidenced in any of the ongoing LARPs I have been involved in in Australia, cliques of players and GMs form, partly out of personal association, but more and more out of an alignment of gaming desire. It just takes longer than one session to notice it, because of the size. So what the number of players of the game is doing is just hiding the system issues better.

(2) It is easier to manage all styles of play in short sharp shocks, but how do you deliver the right characters to the right players?

In one off LARP games it is much easier to hit all bases, because the numbers are working for you. If you are not trying to maintain one model or the other, you can design characters or events that suit all the different kinds of play. This has the consequence of creating mini-games within the larger social structure, and this too can be a positive thing. But the important difficulty to be overcome here is getting the right kind of player to the right kind of character.

(3) Players that create their own characters are often unaware of their own agendas, and this is evidence of how GM time constraints are magnified in LARP.

(4) LARP is more suited to Simulation play than Tabletop games.

<EVAN EMPHATICALLY OPINES> LARP systems should first and foremost be addressing the Simulation aspects of play. Any LARP system that asks players to stop playing so that dice van be rolled, or, even worse, so that a game mechanic may be figured out, is killing itself in eutero. </OPINE>

I have a few more thoughts on the subject, but they are as yet unformulated, so I will get back to you.

Thanks for this BTW, I found it very interesting!

mindwanders wrote: I'd also point out that it is easier to get accross the social contract and the agenda that people should be working towards for a single game with pre-generated characters. In addition, people are more likely to use a creative agenda they are not used to or do not normally enjoy for a single afternoon or weekend than they are to do so for a year of ongoing play.

mindwanders wrote:

<EVAN EMPHATICALLY OPINES> LARP systems should first and foremost be addressing the Simulation aspects of play. Any LARP system that asks players to stop playing so that dice van be rolled, or, even worse, so that a game mechanic may be figured out, is killing itself in eutero. </OPINE>

I'm not sure if this is actually true. If you look at some of the other Simulationist table top games, GURPS, Earthdawn, fading suns. These are not low search and handling time games. I agree that a high search and handling clashes badly with LARP play, but I would say that's more of a side effect of LARP being used as a tool rather than and issue with the simulationist agenda.

I'm a bit puzzled, here: what makes GURPS or FS the foremost simulationist games? I'm not aware that they emphasize roleplaying (which is how I understand simulationism) more than some other games.

I very much agree with Evan here, though. As live-roleplaying is something that encourages the player experiences the game world through multiple senses (instead of just speech as in tabletop playing),

it at least should encourage the player to (I dare to say) be immersed in her character. The common Nordic approach on the subject is that all things concerning rules or other meta-game-stuff break the flow of immersion/simulation, thus breaking the experience and breaking the game.

mindwanders wrote: I think you are confusing the aim of character exploration (which is one aspect of simulationism) with simulationism it's self, which is the simulation of reality in order to facilitate exploration of character, setting, situation, colour or even rules.

mindwanders wrote: However if the objective is to explore the setting and you characters place within it you may have very complicated rules to cover what happens between sessions. Otherwise the setting as a whole cannot properly be simulated.

mindwanders wrote: When we stopped running as many of the table top games the game shifted to character exploration for some and gamism for others and eventually virtual collapse of the game.

mindwanders wrote: I would say that the problem we are having is this misconception. A player isn't percieving the "Game World" in a LARP he is perceiveing the characters, colour and situation with maybe a very small amount of setting. This is not the same as percieving the "game world" (unless it's very small like in inside:outside).

mindwanders wrote:

it at least should encourage the player to (I dare to say) be immersed in her character. The common Nordic approach on the subject is that all things concerning rules or other meta-game-stuff break the flow of immersion/simulation, thus breaking the experience and breaking the game.

I think that's an attidude that is very popular around the world, but I think it's particularly strong within nordic LARPers. To me it represents a focus on one aspect of simulationism rather than simulationism it's self.

mindwanders wrote: Just out of interest, I'm assuming Camarilla/vampire larps are either non-existant or very marginalised over there. Is this an accurate statement?

mindwanders wrote: On an aside I'm hoping to get over to the nordic LARP convention this winter. I really want a chance to meet some of the people that have really pushed the boundaries of larping (not to mention play in some of their LARPs :-)).

Personally, I don't think the exploration of the setting and characters is something that would need complicated rules, just as I don't think a normal tabletop game would need an extensive set of rules to reach the same. However, I do also realise that this isn't a valid simulationist viewpoint. :)

We usually do the between-games action by giving input to the GM's (reports, character goals, etc), after which the GM's decide what happens (and include a tabletop or a live-action mini game if needed), and give the output to players in next game's briefings.

I'd be intrested to know what you think contributed for the change in live-action part. Did the players feel that some essential part of the game was lost and they tried it make it up by changing the live-action part to suit their needs?

To figure this out, we'd probably have to talk about how we experience the "Game World" or setting at large, and how players interact with in during the game.

Actually, it's (or at least used to be) another way around. The MET-based games are larger and tend to show the same symptoms you mentioned. The games which have something to do with the Turku approach (personally, I dislike the term, not being from Turku) have been gaining more momemtum, though. It's just that they get talked about more and people running them tend to be quite fixed with the approach.

mindwanders wrote: In my opinion that is still a high search and handling time rules system. It's just Drama/Karma based rather than fate based. I would also point out that just because the rules are hidden from the player (for example, handled by the GM) it doesn't mean they aren't there (even if they are in his head).

mindwanders wrote: This also brings up the idea of if a rule system is invisible to the player, is it still High search and handling time if it's a lot of work for the GM?

mindwanders wrote: I've generally found that the Ongoing Political/Social LARP style is maginalised all over the place. There's an awful lot of places online that won't really court discussion of this larp form. Sure it has a lot of players, but it doesn't seem to promote the same level of interest and discussion amongst the organisers that things like freeforms do.

mindwanders wrote: I think a lot of that is because experienced freeform larpers look at the model and can tell instinctively that it's broken, they just can't put thier finger on why. Of course the reason for this is that most are based on existing game systems which are already incoherent mixes of simulationist and gamist goals.

Good question. If the system is invisible to players and does not affect the flow of live-game, I'd be prone to call it freeform. Like if GM devotes a great deal of energy to construct the characters and plots beforehand, but stays out of the actual game (no rules, no rules judging, etc), it's a freeform.

Probably because those games are usually build upon an existing rules and setting; one can discuss about what happened in the game, but the game itself doesen't spark intrest. From design-point of view, there's nothing to discuss.

When the game is build from the scratch and includes something the organisers and players at least think to be new and innovative, they have no qualms to discuss it to death.

Just a personal observation; I do the same all the time.

Agreed. There's also the fact that cliques, like ones formed around freeforms, tend to keep their playing style as something which has evolved from the other mentioned styles, and thus is the cutting edge. It's not an healthy attitude, but rather common one.

Well, quite a lot to talk about here. Nice!

I wonder if this discussion might be better suited to the GNS topic?

OK, I have a lot to say here, and not much time, so I will just address the original points I made and the first follow up.

mindwanders wrote:

(1) LARP is a large group dynamic, whereas tabletop games are small group.

Any ongoing games evolve to become more and more specialised till they find their psychological niche with a balance of players wanting more or less the same thing. People not getting what they want move on to other games or give up on RPG. With large group dynamics it is easier to hide the tendancy, especially with one-off games. But, as evidenced in any of the ongoing LARPs I have been involved in in Australia, cliques of players and GMs form, partly out of personal association, but more and more out of an alignment of gaming desire. It just takes longer than one session to notice it, because of the size. So what the number of players of the game is doing is just hiding the system issues better.

I'm really not sure if this is true. It seems to be what happens from my experience but I do wonder whether it is possible to support all forms of play equally without damaging the game for some of the players. I agree that it's unlikely to happen, but as I put forward in the article it is theoretically possible.

<EVAN EMPHATICALLY OPINES> LARP systems should first and foremost be addressing the Simulation aspects of play. Any LARP system that asks players to stop playing so that dice van be rolled, or, even worse, so that a game mechanic may be figured out, is killing itself in eutero. </OPINE>

I'm not sure if this is actually true. If you look at some of the other Simulationist table top games, GURPS, Earthdawn, fading suns. These are not low search and handling time games. I agree that a high search and handling clashes badly with LARP play, but I would say that's more of a side effect of LARP being used as a tool rather than and issue with the simulationist agenda.

I have a few more thoughts on the subject, but they are as yet unformulated, so I will get back to you.

Please do. It's great to have somewhere to actually discuss this, along with the language to actually hold this conversation :-)

Thanks for this BTW, I found it very interesting!

Cool. I'm hoping that as I continue along this thread I can get to the stage where it becomes more than interesting and actually be comes a useful aid for designing LARPs.

Some thoughts on why high handling times clash badly with LARPs, with possible grave mishandling of the terminology:

Unlike (most?) tabletop games, time is not elastic in a LARP: it ticks by, one second at a time, and until you hit the HHTM (High Handling Time Mechanic), it doesn't matter - though it does serve nicely to keep everything "tkaing as long as it takes" and nicely synchronized.

When the HHTM hits, you suddenly get an action that violates this synchronicity, and *doesn't* "take as long as it takes" - which, in turn, gives other players extra time to react to it, prepare for its outcomes, or whatever.

The realtime/realspace aspect of LARPs (whether or not realtime and realspace map at a 1:1 ratio to gametime and gamespace - it's possible that the game spans a longer span of time, or has areas that are far away, etc) enforces an implied Sim heavily into the game. You can't sit up and shout "Story Now!" if your part of the game doesn't have enough plot to suit you (though you're perfectly free to go and *find* more story).

So, even if your overt system prioritizes Nar or Gam, you've got this nearly subliminal layer of Sim in a LARP, and players (in my experience) both notice and dislike events that take too long to figure out. [I've pared my system down to bare essentialys, with maximum streamlining, and still the combat module takes too long....]

I'm trying to think of a situation in a LARP where a HHTM would be a good thing, and I'm failing. Any ideas? It might help illuminate the problem.


Evan: "I have to say that discovering this forum has been an electrifying experience."

Oh yes. :)

JamesSterrett wrote: <Snip a very nice articulation of the point, with enhancements>

I'm trying to think of a situation in a LARP where a HHTM would be a good thing, and I'm failing. Any ideas? It might help illuminate the problem.


Evan: "I have to say that discovering this forum has been an electrifying experience."

Oh yes. :)

PlotDevice wrote: Remember that players who are on hold waiting for a mechanic to be figured out or a GM to get back to them are definately not having fun. Unlike Table top games, people in LARP are less patient about being on hold. In table top, everyone is having a turn, it is a part of our social contract that people take turns. But in LARP, everyone is having a go all at once... and that is the usual experience. Different situation entirely.

PlotDevice wrote: Well, quite a lot to talk about here. Nice!

I wonder if this discussion might be better suited to the GNS topic?

PlotDevice wrote:
OK, opinion time again:

My issue with this theory, is that it is basically the same as postulating that tabletop systems can please everybody. I have yet to see an example of it, and in fact would say that due to the numbers being more likely to be big, you will have more problems, not less, in attempting to prove your postulation.

But I don't object to the premise, off the cuff. Heck, isn't this what every game designer wants to do, in the pit of their soul? Please everyone. I just think that LARP and tabletop have different manifestation entirely, and I don't think that LARP is more able to handle the different agendas of gamers because of those differences.

I have to say that discovering this forum has been an electrifying experience. I look forward to more of this.

I'm starting my comments before reading the rest of the thread, because I'm too tired at this late hour to keep everything in my head.

I think that you've implicitly identified why conflicting agenda exist in LARP play: because the players are able to self-isolate. You suggest at the end of your article that LARP could be designed to easily accommodate drift, which you say tabletop doesn't do so well.

My reaction is to observe that Multiverser has for quite a few years now supported drift in play with a system which is flexible enough to allow players to do what they want. Player isolation is a factor in that, because characters do not have to interact at all if the players don't wish it, even at the same table.

What is much more difficult to achieve is congruence--the "holy grail" of game design, perhaps, the game in which gamist, simulationist, and narrativist players can all play together, interacting with each other while pursuing their individual agenda, without interfering with each other's enjoyment of play. Far from enriching play, efforts to get the three disparate groups to interact is most likely going to inhibit each group's enjoyment of the game. Even if you can get them to agree that no one is playing "wrong" and no one is playing "better", they're still going to find that some players are doing things that are wasting their valuable play time, because it's not what they want to do.

--An Aside on Simulationism--

Merten--one of the confusions regarding the term "simulationism" comes from its development through two distinct theories.

It was originally proposed as part of the RGFA/Threefold model, along with Gamist and Dramatist. In that model, it had very much the meaning you suggest, of having the experience of being there, some form of immersionist play.

The Threefold terminology was the foundation for "GNS", what is now the most recognized part of the current model here; but the concepts were different in kind. The first difference recognized was that Narrativist play with its focus on premise was not recognized as similar to Dramatist play. However, Simulationism was not the same either. GNS was based on the decision-making process and what appeared to be driving it, while Threefold was based on the techniques used in play.

Immersive play remained connected to simulationism even through publication of Ron's essay The Right to Dream. However, even before that it was agreed that immersion was not a tell but a technique--you could have immersive gamist play and immersive narrativist play. It's currently a hot issue as to the degree to which simulationism requires immersive play.

Simulationist tabletop games historically have been high-density rules systems. The theory has been that to create a game world which is fully "real" in a way that will always be predictable you need to cover every possible situation with a consistent rule. The rules in that sense were seen as the physics of the game world--movement, falling damage, targeting modifiers, all the details that had to be accurate to maintain the integrity of the imagined world. It's only recently that it's been clearly recognized that rules lite system can achieve full integrity for simulationist play; but then, simulationism is going through a lot of development even tonight, as we all struggle to fully understand and define it.

--M. J. Young

JamesSterrett wrote:

Unlike (most?) tabletop games, time is not elastic in a LARP: it ticks by, one second at a time, and until you hit the HHTM (High Handling Time Mechanic), it doesn't matter - though it does serve nicely to keep everything "tkaing as long as it takes" and nicely synchronized.

When the HHTM hits, you suddenly get an action that violates this synchronicity, and *doesn't* "take as long as it takes" - which, in turn, gives other players extra time to react to it, prepare for its outcomes, or whatever.

The realtime/realspace aspect of LARPs (whether or not realtime and realspace map at a 1:1 ratio to gametime and gamespace - it's possible that the game spans a longer span of time, or has areas that are far away, etc) enforces an implied Sim heavily into the game. You can't sit up and shout "Story Now!" if your part of the game doesn't have enough plot to suit you (though you're perfectly free to go and *find* more story).

That's a very good way of putting something I've been trying to put into words for a long time :-) Mind if I maybe steal this for one of the later articles?

It also explains why some actions in LARPs have time penalties attached to them. The search and handling time for the simulated action is too low to accurately represent the players action.

For example a character goes and searches the library for information on something. The GM performs the necessary task resolution and gives them the information and then tells them to go and look at beooks for 10 mins before the character knows it.

I think this is seen as one of the ideals for LARP design, getting the time it takes for a character to do something to be the same as the time it takes a player to do something.

So, even if your overt system prioritizes Nar or Gam, you've got this nearly subliminal layer of Sim in a LARP, and players (in my experience) both notice and dislike events that take too long to figure out. [I've pared my system down to bare essentialys, with maximum streamlining, and still the combat module takes too long....]

Just out of interest, is it mostly Sim players you have?

I would say that some gamists are probably more willing to sacrifice the 1:1 relationship in order to get more strategy into the game. Whether, again this is something specific to the Gamist Agenda or whether it's simply some people not quite getting the concept of LARP being based on the 1:1 rleationship.

I'm trying to think of a situation in a LARP where a HHTM would be a good thing, and I'm failing. Any ideas? It might help illuminate the problem.

The only examples I can think of are for long tasks, but they still would be resolved faster by the task resolution system than in real time. Apart from that, I've seen gamists Happily drag on a fight for a long time, much longer than it would take in real life, without any regard for it spoiling play (which most players outside the fight will complain it does).

PlotDevice wrote: Re HHTM: Only examples I came up with are: if it is agreed to in advance as part of the game structure, and/or integrated with continuing RP it can be useful. An example might be "we give our orders to armies." The players then are free to RP while the GMs wander off and consult for effects, and then half hour later report on combat events off camera. Another example might be integrating game breaks with HHTM: LARP that revolves arround the preparation for combat, then breaks (for lunch?), combat is done by mechanic, and game restarts with the after effects. quote]

I'd probably classify these examples as things that would take as long or longer to resolve in real time, and as such are acceptable breaches of the high search and handling time rule.

Merten wrote: Not having fun, and actually breaking the experience as well as the synchronity. I'll think it like this: when a tabletop game enters a meta-discussion phase ("so, what you're going to do next, folks?"), the players slip back to real world, maybe have a quick look at the character sheets and game notes, talk a while in Out Of Character-mode, before slipping back to the game world and discuss In Character. It's perfectly fine and normal, and the transition is easy as the game world only exists in the players imagination (or shared imagination, or diegesis, or something).

LARP is a different beast; here, only a part of the game world exists in diegesis or imagination. Most of it is all around you - you can touch it, smell it, speak with it, walk in it. When game slips into the meta discussion, like resolving something with a system or discussion with the gamemaster, the transition isn't as easy as in tabletop games. You still are in the physical game world, and only slip back from the diegesis/imagination. And, doing that, you can easily break the diegesis of other players

I'd agree with that. So basically we have worked out why a lot of LARP writers claim that the artform won't really come to a fore until we have startrek style holodecks.

Again mind if I maybe steal this idea for a later article?

Merten wrote: (like doing rock-paper-scissors in the middle of a masquerade ball).

I think this is a particularly good example of something that is broken on two levels. Not only is the search and handling time quite high in MET, but it also uses a task resolution system that just screams "we are doing a test". I've seen particularly fun examples of this at games where characters (not players) are playing RPS and drew crowds of players waiting to see what was going to happen.

There's a worse example that I've seen (and used actually) and that is calling a halt to play to resolve a test with "all" the players.

M. J. Young wrote: It's only recently that it's been clearly recognized that rules lite system can achieve full integrity for simulationist play; but then, simulationism is going through a lot of development even tonight, as we all struggle to fully understand and define it.

mindwanders wrote: Again mind if I maybe steal this idea for a later article?

mindwanders wrote: I think this is a particularly good example of something that is broken on two levels. Not only is the search and handling time quite high in MET, but it also uses a task resolution system that just screams "we are doing a test". I've seen particularly fun examples of this at games where characters (not players) are playing RPS and drew crowds of players waiting to see what was going to happen.

Mindwanders: "That's a very good way of putting something I've been trying to put into words for a long time :-) Mind if I maybe steal this for one of the later articles? "

Heck, steal it word for word - and put in the attribution. :)

and...

"I would say that some gamists are probably more willing to sacrifice the 1:1 relationship in order to get more strategy into the game. [...] I've seen gamists Happily drag on a fight for a long time, much longer than it would take in real life, without any regard for it spoiling play (which most players outside the fight will complain it does)."

The main disjoint is (usually) woith the people outside the fight (or other task resolution) - *their* ability to interact smoothly with people is disrupted, because synchronization is broken.

I don't think the key thing about a LARP is a 1:1 ratio of realtime:gametime; the key things is that the 1:N ratio of these is very close to invariant over the course of the game, and the 1:N ratio is very close to the same for every player in the game.

(Which isn't to say that the 1:N ratio *cannot* change - but it's very difficult to do it unless all the players are taken along for the time shift. For example, the LARP we ran in June featured a "helicopter ride", in which all the players get "transported" from site A to site B - and we skipped right through the ride by GM declaration to all players. The 1:N ration changed, but it changed for all the players at the same time, and to the same degree, maintaining the synchronization of player actions.)

My player base: Is broken up into many groups. Some are highly gamist (they want goals to pursue and go after them), some Sim (in the sense of "explore character/situation" - I've got one player who doesn't really want character goals, but wants to - and is good at - playing a character who acts as "color" in the game), some narrativists (who want to explore character dilemmas. Some are highly experienced LARPers.

But many of my player base have never played any other RPG, and not other games more complex than the various offerings of CheapAss (most of which are simple, fun, & zany). The trouble with the combat mechanics (which are, in a nutshell: draw a card, multiply by N if you have a weapon, do that much damage to your opponent, total initial health is 100) is that they are too complex for some of these players to readily grasp and then retain when the combat actually takes place.

Are they Sim? Nar? Gamist? I treat them as default Gamist in some ways - I try to ensure they have clear goals (which lets them answer the question "What am I supposed to do?") However, I also try to work in a character dilemma for them.

So, well, you tell me what my players tend to be. :)

[One of the Subversive Goals of my LARPs is to introduce non-gamers to playing games - showing them that it's something they can do, and enjoy, etc. I've had at least one success, with a player who reported to me that because of playing in my LARPs, she now plays tabletop RPGs in her home city. :) ]

Mindwanders: "That's a very good way of putting something I've been trying to put into words for a long time :-) Mind if I maybe steal this for one of the later articles? "

Heck, steal it word for word - and put in the attribution. :)

The main disjoint is (usually) woith the people outside the fight (or other task resolution) - *their* ability to interact smoothly with people is disrupted, because synchronization is broken.

I don't think the key thing about a LARP is a 1:1 ratio of realtime:gametime; the key things is that the 1:N ratio of these is very close to invariant over the course of the game, and the 1:N ratio is very close to the same for every player in the game.

(Which isn't to say that the 1:N ratio *cannot* change - but it's very difficult to do it unless all the players are taken along for the time shift. For example, the LARP we ran in June featured a "helicopter ride", in which all the players get "transported" from site A to site B - and we skipped right through the ride by GM declaration to all players. The 1:N ration changed, but it changed for all the players at the same time, and to the same degree, maintaining the synchronization of player actions.)

But many of my player base have never played any other RPG, and not other games more complex than the various offerings of CheapAss (most of which are simple, fun, & zany). The trouble with the combat mechanics (which are, in a nutshell: draw a card, multiply by N if you have a weapon, do that much damage to your opponent, total initial health is 100) is that they are too complex for some of these players to readily grasp and then retain when the combat actually takes place.

Are they Sim? Nar? Gamist? I treat them as default Gamist in some ways - I try to ensure they have clear goals (which lets them answer the question "What am I supposed to do?") However, I also try to work in a character dilemma for them.

So, well, you tell me what my players tend to be. :)

[One of the Subversive Goals of my LARPs is to introduce non-gamers to playing games - showing them that it's something they can do, and enjoy, etc. I've had at least one success, with a player who reported to me that because of playing in my LARPs, she now plays tabletop RPGs in her home city. :) ]

I believe that when the term immersion is used by most Nordic theorists, they mean it the way Turku School meant it or they mean it in the Three Way Model sense. The same may apply to simulationism. Immersionism is sometimes thought to be the true, most pure, form of simulationism and maybe the only form that is appliable to live action games.

I think that you've implicitly identified why conflicting agenda exist in LARP play: because the players are able to self-isolate. You suggest at the end of your article that LARP could be designed to easily accommodate drift, which you say tabletop doesn't do so well.

My reaction is to observe that Multiverser has for quite a few years now supported drift in play with a system which is flexible enough to allow players to do what they want. Player isolation is a factor in that, because characters do not have to interact at all if the players don't wish it, even at the same table.

"What is much more difficult to achieve is congruence--the "holy grail" of game design, perhaps, the game in which gamist, simulationist, and narrativist players can all play together, interacting with each other while pursuing their individual agenda, without interfering with each other's enjoyment of play. Far from enriching play, efforts to get the three disparate groups to interact is most likely going to inhibit each group's enjoyment of the game. Even if you can get them to agree that no one is playing "wrong" and no one is playing "better", they're still going to find that some players are doing things that are wasting their valuable play time, because it's not what they want to do. "

I think that, once you acknowledged the existence of GNS, you can organize a LARP that doesn't conflict with any of those priorities providing they are no more tahn priorities.

My opinion for it would be :

- respecting simulationist play is one of the rules that gamists have to respect. Any breach from this rule results in a gamist penalty (access to far less XP and NPC informations)
- simulationnist play provides ideal "NPCs" for narrativist play.
- narrativist play is hugely interesting PROVIDED "no RP" gamists don't pervert it.
- the "no RP" gamist shouldn't be invited whereas non-dysfunctionnal gamism should be encouraged.

My approach on it emphasizes other points. Brilliant gamists should get challenges and penalties. The same way some horses carry heavy weights in horce races. This is intersting for them as it gives them an appropriate challenge and intercation wuith every one (who is suddenly brought at their power level).

The condition for it to work is that you present penalties as rewards. "As I no you are very good at fencing, I don't allow your charcater to pick ambidexterity". This can be accpeted easily by gamists who admit that they still get a chance and an interesting thing to do.

I do wonder if you could ever convince players to accept a golf style handicap? Post it up for all to see and suddenly it becomes something that the gamists will compete to increase. Never forget the level of reward a gamist feels for seeing his name up in lights (or on the website or whatever).

This is similar to the reward system listed here http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12230 but with a game effect.

I think a lot of designers forget that visable ranking systems are a great reward system for gamists without actually affecting the way the game plays. It plays to the Step On Up side of Gamist wonderfully.

Strangely, the gamist targetted LARP I'm working on at the moment relies heavily on offering a lot of ranking systems (visable to other players through the website). It's just going to take a bit of fine tuning to determine the way they are handled.

But then computer game designers have been using that trick for years.