Snow White is a Parlor Larp--a one-shot live action game intended for six to eight people, plus a director, with few requirements on space or props.

The game is intended to be a rendition of the story of Snow White with some modifications; it's specifically based on the earlier versions of the legend, not the Disney version.  It takes place after the main events of the story, shortly before the queen is to be executed, but after the prince has awakened Snow White.

The game is most focused on conveying a certain atmosphere--a feeling of coldness and smallness and the meaning of beauty, of the contrast between civilization and wilderness, between blood and snow.

The six essential characters are the queen, Snow White, the prince, a dwarf, the queen's huntsman, and a new character, the queen's advisor Naresh.  We played with one optional character, Snow White's nurse.

The Parlor Larp system uses a hybrid of pre-made characters and characters made by players: the core of each character is specified, and then the player is asked to write answers to a list of questions to fill in details and provide background motivations.  These provide a sort of directed character creation, in which the player has some freedom to create someone they're comfortable playing, while making sure that the character fits into the pre-written parts of the game as needed.

I won't give a point by point summary of the plot, both because it is probably uninteresting, and because giving too much of our interpretation of the characters might detract from other people going with their own interpretations.  Instead, I'll try to talk about specific elements of the game and how they worked:

The environment we played in was very important: we had two rooms and a porch, which gave us some room to separate and talk privately.  The rooms were all white, and other than a few pieces of decoration, all other objects were either removed or covered with a white sheet.  This set off the few artistic objects so that they looked like flashes of color against a barren background.  All windows were open, and fans had been going for several hours, so the rooms were cold.  Space, both feeling open and cramped, as well as feeling cold, is an essential part of the atmosphere, and having the right physical environment made the atmosphere of the game much more pervasive.

Most of the players started adopting anachronisms in their speech (the game is set around 800 AD).  Usually I avoid this kind of thing, since it's more distracting than useful, but the consensus after was that it worked well.  People were sparing with it, so it didn't become as awkward or grating as it might have, and it added to the general feel of being highly stylized--that we were in something closer to telling a fairy tale than a fantasy story.

Along the same lines, the queen and prince aren't given names--they're just referred to by titles, while the rest of the characters have names.  I suspect that working around problems like that helped encourage some of the unusual speech patterns.  Again, I think it's a risky choice, but one that seems to succeed in conveying the fairy tale atmosphere.

The queen is a hard character to play, since at the start of the game she's socially defeated and chained, but played well, the effect is dramatic--our queen managed to exert a huge influence on the game, and exact a revenge of sorts, by carefully planting ideas.  (Only after the game, when we discussed what had happened, did I realize that much of what my character had done had been inspired by ideas the queen had planted.)

The game strikes a delicate balance with gamism.  Several of the characters, if played in a gamist way, can ruin the storyline.  All characters are given goals, but many of them are vauge and essentially simulationist; however by the end of the game, many of them do harden into more concrete and gamist goals.  The main check on this seems to be that almost all actions have to filter through the palace servants, played by the director, most of whom have their own loyalties and are a bit unreliable.  Combined with responsible players who keep their OOC focus on the atmospheric elements, this was enough to keep the game on track.

The character questions generally work well, although, at least in my case, I found the several seemed a little too remote from the events of the game to be optimal choices.  Overall, though, they made it much easier for me to get into character because they give some direction in explaining why my character was the sort of person he was.  I had the particular pleasure of learning, after the game, that one of the other characters had reacted to me completely differently because of the answer I'd given to one question, which had come up casually in discussion part way through the game.

The resolution system, in my opinion, is a little bit clunky--it does tend to pull the game OOC rather jarringly.  This is inevitable to some extent, but it does detract a bit.  Fortunately, the system is pretty fast, and it was only used a handful of times in the three hour game.

I guess it's evident from this write-up that I liked the game.  I'm planning to try to run it, probably some time in the winter (so that I can make my apartment cold enough).  My biggest concern is that the director has to make a lot of on the spot calls about what's best for the structure of the game without possibly being aware of everything going on; I may compensate for this by putting more effort into vetting the answers people give to character questions, and try to actively direct people towards answers likely to be good for the game.

Henry

Henry,

I'm really fascinated by the things you did to create atmosphere in the game.

Can you talk about how conflict resolution was handled?  What happened when one character wanted to do something to or against the will of another character?

Thanks for posting.

I love the idea of the cold blank rooms.

How long did the game run for?  Was there a goal that the players were suppose to accomplish before the end of the night, like decide the fate of the Queen?

The Lost GM

Conflict resolution:
Characters had scores for abilities they could use, as well as for resistences to other abilities.  They could bid, taking damage to increase their score, to represent things the character cared more about.  The person with the higher total won out.

The game was three hours of game play, with about an hour of pre-game stuff before, and about half an hour of wrap-up.  There were a number of matters that needed to be resolved, the most important being the fate of the Queen and whether or not the remaining people in the government would support the prince's rule, but none of them were global in the sense that every single character cared about a single one.

Could you walk me through a conflict that happened and how it played out?

Thanks.

One conflict I recall went something like this:

One character, Naresh, can, three times in the night, try to determine if something said to him was a lie (representing that Naresh is more skilled at such things than the player is).  After the Dwarf makes an important factual statement (I won't say what), Naresh uses this.  The Dwarf decides that he doesn't want to do anything in response, so he just resists.

Both then have the chance to bid--they hold a hand behind their back, and simultaneously reveal a number of fingers.  Naresh reveals a fist--a bid of 0--while the Dwarf holds out one finger, which means he is willing to take a level of damage to keep Naresh from finding out.  The ability Naresh is using has a score of 2, while the Dwarf has a Social Resist (since Naresh is using a social power) of 1, plus 1 from his bid.  This is a tie, so they throw rock-paper-scissors to resolve it.  Naresh wins, so he learns that the Dwarf was lying; the Dwarf lost, so he doesn't take damage from his bid.

To take a more combat-like example, the Queen and Snow White once got into a verbal battle.  The Queen insulted Snow White, trying to demean her, and Snow White tried to look as beautiful as she could to make the Queen upset.  (Both had listed abilities to support this.)  Neither bid, and since neither action contradicted the other, both took a level of damage.

I'd give an example of more conventional combat, but I don't think there actually was any.  The mechanics, however, treat social and physical combat in essentially the same way.

(I should note that the latest edition of the books uses slightly revised rules; the basic mechanics are the same, but the exact resolution rules for combat have been streamlined a bit.)

Thanks, Henry.

LARP systems fascinate me, so I've got questions.  Thank you so much for the responses and the feedback.

HenryT wrote:
To take a more combat-like example, the Queen and Snow White once got into a verbal battle.  The Queen insulted Snow White, trying to demean her, and Snow White tried to look as beautiful as she could to make the Queen upset.  (Both had listed abilities to support this.)  Neither bid, and since neither action contradicted the other, both took a level of damage.

HenryT wrote:
(I should note that the latest edition of the books uses slightly revised rules; the basic mechanics are the same, but the exact resolution rules for combat have been streamlined a bit.)

Paka wrote:

HenryT wrote:
To take a more combat-like example, the Queen and Snow White once got into a verbal battle. The Queen insulted Snow White, trying to demean her, and Snow White tried to look as beautiful as she could to make the Queen upset. (Both had listed abilities to support this.) Neither bid, and since neither action contradicted the other, both took a level of damage.

Alright, what was being said by the players at this point? How much out of game action has to be done while this kind of social conflict is going on?

Paka wrote:
Latest edition?

Is this a published rules set? How could one obtain a copy of them?

Thanks again.

The Parlor Larp system uses a hybrid of pre-made characters and characters made by players: the core of each character is specified, and then the player is asked to write answers to a list of questions to fill in details and provide background motivations.  These provide a sort of directed character creation, in which the player has some freedom to create someone they're comfortable playing, while making sure that the character fits into the pre-written parts of the game as needed.

komradebob wrote:
Could you give an example of how a player in the game worked with this creation system? Did anyone in particular come up with refinements of the core character that you found interesting?

komradebob wrote:
Also, if memebers of your group include both experienced gamers and new gamers, how did they react to this system? Was there a difference between the two groups?

Henry,

Thanks for the great and intriguing thread including all of your patient answers to my and others constant questions.  It is appreciated.

One more question, please.

Could you write what people had on their character sheets in terms of rules and background?

Thanks again.

As I recall, the only rules on a character sheet were the list of abilities (generally something like:
Detect Lie (x3) [3-5] +2: Tell if the last thing someone said to you was true (S)
where the assorted numbers are explained in a common rules section).

Then there was typically a couple paragraph background, something like who the person was, what their involvement was, and how they connected to other people, a list of goals (mostly general things like "Decide what to do about X," though some people had more specific ones like "Convince people to accept you as the rightful ruler"), and some background knowledge about the situation and other characters.

Does that answer your question?  I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for.

Henry

That's great, Henry.

Thanks again for the informative responses.

Henry:
Out of curiosity, how did you determine when the game should end? Where there conditions pre-set, or some sort of time related events to move things along?

Also, were there events that had to occur or that could occur if a certain player character did X+Y+Z things?

Was this a new style of play for your group, or had you played other Parlor LARPs?

BTW, thanks for posting this thread. I've been very curious about this style of rping for some time.

Regards,
Robert

The game was set in a three hour period before the execution of the old queen.  That set the basic deadline, although there was room for that to be modified a bit by the players.

Other than the end of the game, the only events that would happen were actions involving the two sets of troops in the castle (local guards and those brought by the Prince), which were under the control of appropriate PCs.  In theory, this could have caused combat to break out in the castle (this did happen, but during the narrated wrap-up after the game rather than the game itself).  Besides that, the game was pretty much about the interaction of the characters; one of the key elements of the atmosphere was that they were isolated from most possible events.  (Other Parlor Larps have more scripted events, however--it varies from game to game.)

We'd played Parlor Larps before.

Henry