Hi all,

I have never written a "formal" adventure for a LARP style game before.  I have played in them before and they seemed more spontaneous (little preparation beforehand.)

So, let me describe how I am approaching this.  The 'adventure' that I want to write is for a game I am creating.  It is meant for a 'first session' game.  The prologue isn't the setting for my game (it's one of a myriad of possibilities for a 'gods game.')

I am writing in down in scenes.  For instance, scene one is a prologue illustrating a battle between two brothers that are gods.  They both die of mortal wounds and their blood splashes onto the shell of the celestial turtle.  (Don't ask about the turtle; that's pretty much what mythtellers say when they use myths of this nature to explain creation.)  From the blood, all life springs forth (including the players.)  At this point, it should be known that some of the brothers' blood mixed together and some of it didn't.  The blood that mixed formed all the mortal life while the drops that didn't mix formed other parts of the universe, including all of the various immortals.

Prompt:  players can now describe the universe and their connection to each other.  They make the discovery that they are literally related by blood (pure droplets that hit the same part of the turtle.)  They see that there are other beings like them, some potential allies and some that are enemies.

Moving forward:  Pseudo-Medieval Period (Mortals)

event - end of a ball...

My question is how much detail would you want for an story written LARP style.  Assuming they have rules, understand them for the most part, and have characters made.  Should I just write loosely connected scenes with a few stats for NPCs?  What else should be included?

*Sigh* I am trying not to make this a poll thread but I want to make sure I am using a structure that will work well for writting LARP style adventures.

Hi Sean,

It's hard to say without knowing more about your motivation and the games social contract. I can infer a few things from your post but would rather be certain. So let me ask a few questions.

Why are you writing a LARP adventure? To support a game you have created? For fun? Other? All of the above? What are some details of the game? Is it a continous game or are you making a one-shot adventure? Are the players expecting you to have a heavy hand in scene framing and plot generation?

This is a classic issue of situation design, vis a vis prep v. improvisation; and LARPs (I believe) make it most obvious, because of their large play areas and relatively little direct GM control.

I posit that there are two general types of situations: event sequences, which players may or may not discover and redirect/stop; and conflict framing, which will eventually drag in any interested players.

Event sequences - Modules, the master villain's plan, the invasion of the hoard. Basically, anything which will start, have stages, and could end if unchecked (usually in a lot of death and a change of in-game authority).
Conflict framing - Factionalism and scarcity of critical resources, requirements to be clandestine and means of discovery, conflicting morality and a forced alignment with one. Basically, anything which will drive players to take sides on an issue and then work to resolve it to their own satisfaction.

In my opinion, it is easier to do conflict framing than event sequences, for many reasons. Primarily, event sequencing takes more prep, a tighter schedule, more GM-to-GM communication, and more railroading or coercion (or cooperative player whimsy) to encourage participation. However, event sequences can be an interesting way to establish or resolve conflict framing (and, then, move to a new scarcity or moral divide). Once players present a "plan to invade the evil master's crypt" or "quest to find the source of unobtanium and stop this foolish war" or "decide to go overt and start dropping the hammer" then the GMs can set up more of a event sequence to lead players through.

At such times, the players have usually wound down on their own in-fighting, and they will be encouraging some final resolution. This means (a) they are ready to attend to the GMs, rather than continue to run around doing their own things, (b) they will be easier to collect together without force or heavy-handed clue-dropping, and (c) they will have solidified their factions or groups and will be wanting to stick together for The Big Push.

At such times, the clash of the original conflict framing against the clustering effect of event sequencing can be AWESOME. Consider how cool it would be if the Three Families all staggered through event sequences (modules) to reach the final resting place of The Goal of Being, and saw each other across the field? Automatic all-out war! Or a final resolution and lasting peace! (Or both: the dead sleep peacefully.) LARPs, by dint of their huge player base, offer great flexability in how to set up conflict framing, let it run itself using player input for inspiration, and resolve with more proscribed event sequences which ALSO work to bring the factions together even if they have stayed at arm's length out of prudence or fear.

I may have more... I am currently working on a LARP system, and a BIG part of my current thoughts is how to establish situation for games. I think I could be accused of long-winded thread-jacking, if I tried to get every point about this I have into one post. ;-)

More to come...
David

My wife and I write a LARP every year for about 60 players. It's a short one-time event, played out over about 5 hours. This year and last year, we played the LARP in a large ball room at a hotel. Years prior to last, we used rooms and hallway of the hotel we stay in, since the entire floor was taken up by "our people."

Our approach has been to set up relationships, goals, and secrets for each character. The last two years, we've added in the idea of knowledge hidden from the player. For example, in Act 1 you might be told that you went to the conservatory and it was empty, but in Act 2, we tell you that, actually, you met a woman there and exchanged words. This is the approach that How to Host a Murder Mystery takes, but we take it to the nth degree. Breaking down the information into three chunks by Act helps the players digest it better, too.

A character's sheet is a page of background information, including descriptions of important relationships; then a page for Act 1, a page for Act 2, and a page for Act 3. We stuff the background and Act 1 page into an envelope with any separate props. Act 2 goes into a second envelope labeled for that character, along with additional clues and props. Act 3 gets its own envelope, and occasionally more props.

Information for an Act is in two columns: "Reveal" and "Don't Volunteer." The Reveal information must be revealed by the player in that Act. This is what drives the plot forward. Yes, this is highly railroaded in some ways, but it's a great deal of fun. The Don't Volunteer information is stuff that is potentially damaging to the character's case (generally, there are multiple crimes or acts of treachery that must be solved or hidden). The rule about Don't Volunteer information is that if you are asked a direct question about something in that column, you may not lie about it. You can dodge, mislead, or fail to answer, but you cannot state a lie.

With 60+ players, the number of possible relationships becomes unwieldy. We partition the problem into tables of about 8 people each. Players start the LARP at a table of people with a common starting place. Their plots and secrets wind together. After the introductions and some "Reveals," players get up and start talking to players at other tables. Their sheets inevitably lead them to branch out and trade information with other people.

Every player gets additional goals every Act. Players usually have at least 6 goals, and sometimes as many as 15.

We use a custom card system as our only game mechanics. We create 'power' cards that are usable only once during the game. Each card has a power like "Advanced Liver: You drink so much that toxins don't affect you much. If you are poisoned, play this card to counteract all ill effects." We pick suitable cards for each character and 6-10 of those go into the envelopes for Act 1. Sometimes players get more cards in later Acts.

We also print out a bunch of Best LARPer cards that have a line on which to write a name. We give each player 6 of these and they write their choices for best LARPer for each Act and toss them into a convenient basket or bowl. We tally them up at the end and tell everyone who got lots of votes and who got the most votes. There is no prize other than a pat on the back.

At the end of Act 3, we get everyone back at their table then do the Big Reveal. Our murder mysteries are full of twists and turns and red herrings and misinformation. We lead them through the plotlines, asking specific players for input along the way with a prompted, "and what happened with that?"

FWIW, I hate (with a passion) the approach that Adam takes, having tried it.

Trying to play a character without knowing essential information that your character would have known means that the little creations you make as part of playing the game have a substantial (bordering on 100%) chance of being invalidated by the mechanic, which is insanely frustrating, and rewards boring and uncreative play.  It's possible it can be done in a fashion I'd find fun, but I'm doubtful.  I've played a murder-mystery-style LARP with phased rounds, and found the mechanic very harmful to roleplay; this is from limited experience, not speculation.  Basically, by my lights, this is an interesting party game, but it's not a LARP, it's not a roleplaying game; it's not even a story game.  The players have no agency.

Now, playing games where the characters (not the players) have knoweldge that they learn during the game, like the all amnesiac subgenre (one game of which, Jamais Vue, I've rewritten once and helped run twice), is fine -- sure, what you said last hour wasn't true, but that's because your character didn't remember it yet, so it's all golden.

Oh, following the topic:

Hi, I'm Joshua Kronengold -- I've been involved in the theatre style LARP community since about '93, working on an ever-unfinished game since '96 or so, and have been running games (some my own, some other people's) since 2000ish.

What I think works best is having some set situational events, but not scripted beginnings and endings.

For example, you could write a race game where the overplot went something like:

time -1: intro, time to read character sheets, put players into starting locations, etc.
time 0: game begins
time 1: the king dies.
time 2: enter: the inquisitor (played by the same player as the king).
time 3: announce that the (NPC) book is taking bets on the big race.
time 4: the big race begins.
time 5: the villains plan becomes visible if it hasn't been stopped earlier.
time 6: announce that it's 15 minutes to game wrap
time 7: announce that it's 5 minutes to game wrap

Everything in between -- what the players do, where the big sequences are, etc is up to the players -- the GM's contributions are nudges (especially to players who need guidance or to stop things from crashing to a halt) representing events external to the game, and keeping things at a tempo such that things are likely to feel more or less satisfying by the time they come to a close.  But script things more than this, and you're likely to end up with unsatisfying players...unless you're running an adventure game (for players expecting this) where all the "baddies" are NPCs whose timing you have total control over.

(Crossposted with Joshua K.)

Opinion noted. It sounds like you don't enjoy this kind of thing. Others do. Like the five exhausting hours of fun packed into five hours kind of fun.

Call it a party game if you want. There's tons of role-playing and, from discussion with the 70 players from last year, it was tons of fun. People really liked the information-hiding structure. Recall that this is a one-time, 5-hour game and not an serial LARP, too. We get a big bang in a little amount of time. If we were going to run a serial thing, we'd set it up differently.

I've played in two different How To Host a Murder Mystery games: one was a professional name-brand package and the other an amateurish package purchased off the net. Neither of these games felt like a role-playing game. We talked in voices, we revealed information when it seemed appropriate, and that's all. There were no decisions to be made, so if you're thinking that I'm describing one of those games, I can see how you'd think it's not an RPG or a LARP. Our game borrows from that structure and sets up enough situation that players have to make choices. Do I tell the prince that his sister is sleeping with my brother? If I do, I'll get my brother into trouble. I love my brother, but I also want the prince to appoint me head of the noble household, not him. But I'm in love with the prince's sister, myself. I don't want to get her disowned. Until I find out that she's been dissing me to everyone.

I disagree that the players have no agency. Players are forced to make countless decisions throughout the game. Decisions with teeth. They decide how to respond to things and make many really tough choices. We're dictating situation and players are tossed into a very dynamic relationship map. I'll try to take some notes this year (LARP is May 27) and post some Actual Play. Maybe I can convince some of the players (who are almost all very non-theory people; many aren't even tabletop gamers) to respond with their own comments, too.

Yes, players have to adjust from Act to Act as they get new information about what happened and what they did. Our players seemed delighted by the surprises. The mechanism is designed to protect pacing of the revelation of the various background plotlines so that a player doesn't resolve everything in Act 1.

Yes, it's absolutely railroading and cramming a plot down people's throats. The players are well aware of how it all works. Call it Participationism.

Is it a role-playing game? Depends on your definition and I really hope to avoid semantic arguments. Please read charitably. Or tell me why you think this LARP structure is not a role-playing game with some made up examples. I mean, we know they're role-playing, or talking in-character, but I don't think that's enough to settle the question.

To determine if it's a role-playing game, I guess the question is, "What of value can players introduce into the fiction?" Right? We are forcing players to make hard decisions about their situation, with consequences for every decision.

What about all the retconning that, you complain, destroys role-play? Imagine a Dogs tabletop game. You go to town and learn from Brother Enos that Sister Constance is cheating on her husband. You and the other Dogs confront her. Now, for the sake of argument, I as GM do something I'd never do in a real Dogs game: I tell you that your character is the one sleeping with Sister Constance. Did that take away some of your agency? Yes. Does it require some quick rearrangement in your head to satisfy continuity? Yes. Does it strip you of all agency? No. As a player, I'd say to myself, "Shit! I did that? I'll say that I confronted her because I didn't want the other Dogs to know it was me. She didn't implicate me because she figured I had to go along with this." But now, if one of the Dogs wants to haul her into the street and shoot her, you might have something different to say about it.

Remember that all the LARP characters are created lock, stock, and barrel by me and my wife. Players can't say, "But my character wouldn't do that! I didn't create her that way!" Yeah, they would act that way, and we hid from you what they did as a technique for drawing out a particular kind of story. It's a kind of "monkey wrench" we toss into every player's gearworks. There are broad grins on everyone's faces as they read their new sheets in Acts 2 and 3.

We front-load the story and situation in a big way. We've tried single-act structures and they do work, but this works better for us.

Can you tell me if the kinds of events you are running are one-shots or serial games? How many major plotlines and subplots would you create for 60-70 person LARP? Are you willing to post a sample character or plotline? I assume that the example you gave is oversimplified. The LARP we run is incredibly complicated in terms of story structure.

We also use some scripted events. For your "game begins" part, what are the players doing? What creates conflict for them? Are you using GMs for the villains and king? (We don't use any NPC characters.) Essentially, NPC characters are played by players with little agency, no?

Clyde wrote:
Hi Sean,

It's hard to say without knowing more about your motivation and the games social contract. I can infer a few things from your post but would rather be certain. So let me ask a few questions.

Why are you writing a LARP adventure? To support a game you have created? For fun? Other? All of the above? What are some details of the game? Is it a continous game or are you making a one-shot adventure? Are the players expecting you to have a heavy hand in scene framing and plot generation?

Hi Sean,

I like the thing about the creation myth being chosen by the group. That's very nice.

It looks as though your structure is flexible, which I think is a good thing. The problem with LARPs is that players will always break your game by doing something unexpected (e.g. joining the worshipping cult).

One comment: at the moment, it looks as though most of the opposition is provided by NPCs. That may mean that your players spend a lot of time bugging you (because you represent the NPCs). One thing I've found useful is to make the PCs provide opposition to each other: for example, perhaps have one of the players play the Rogue Divinity or its worshippers. That way, they interact with each other rather than with you.

I hope that's of some help. What areas do you want feedback on?

Graham

Graham wrote:
Hi Sean,

I like the thing about the creation myth being chosen by the group. That's very nice.

It looks as though your structure is flexible, which I think is a good thing. The problem with LARPs is that players will always break your game by doing something unexpected (e.g. joining the worshipping cult).

One comment: at the moment, it looks as though most of the opposition is provided by NPCs. That may mean that your players spend a lot of time bugging you (because you represent the NPCs). One thing I've found useful is to make the PCs provide opposition to each other: for example, perhaps have one of the players play the Rogue Divinity or its worshippers. That way, they interact with each other rather than with you.

I hope that's of some help. What areas do you want feedback on?

Graham

Adam, do you want to create a new thread for this?  I'm a bit worried about hijacking this one.

That said:

I also run one shot games with GM-written characters.  Our games tend to be 4ish hour games for 13-25 characters, not 70.  The long-in-development full weekend game we've been writing for a good long while has about 60 PCs.

And yes, we don't use NPCs for major roles -- we'll have a GM or a player who asked for such a role take on minor roles that end up being needed (or that are scripted in -- "at some point, the kraken will attack", frex), but if there's a villain or a king, it generally be a PC.

What I was listing was a (somewhat, but not absurdly simplified) tiimeline for "external events", ie, one separate from things frontoaded into character sheets.

I think the category question is irrelevant, aside from determining goals.  That said, I reflexively bring it up anyway, mostly when something conflicts with my personal goals of play.  Caveat emptor.

I do things there are mechanisms to protect pacing that don't mess with the character internal narratives.  Sometimes you do stuff like the amneiac game (really, style of games; there are a lot of them) I was referring to.  Sometimes you set things up with things tuned to go off at about the right time and they just work out (tying things to external events can help).  And sometimes...things just get resolved early, or don't resolve; you can design/run things such that even when things don't go as planned, there's still an interesting/fun game there.

That said, I think there are some things we could use to impove our games, and some of them are things you're doing as a matter of course (in particular: one thing we were advised when we started writing stuff was that every character should have a unique and useful power or ability of some sort; something other people have to interact with them for and which makes them unique, which is more or less true...but every character should also have some moral or situational choices to make; should be at some sort of crux point, and while that's something we've often designed into particular characters, it's never been a major design goal (someting I'll push when next we start work on a game)).  But I wonder if your games would be improved or hurt if you could work the act 2/3 revelations into the internal structure of the game itself, rather than having them be an exterrnal "you just remembered" force.  In the same way, I find that as my skills as a player have improved, I've become much more revealing about by game secrets and information, as that tends to make my games more fun, more interesting, and even, from a pure gamist perspective, tends to make my characters more successful, but while I suspect your "must reveal"/don't volunteer mechanic (borrowed, directly, from murder mystery games, obviously) forces certain types of play, it also pushes in a certain style of force that I doubt I, pesonally would find fun.

Hi Sean,

sean2099 wrote: Actually, as I initially thought about making this adventure up, I was worried about the number of players.  What you said about the other players is a good idea.  I know some LARPs have a number of assistants that roleplay the NPCs.  Another possibility would be to have two different groups answering the prayers of the mortals.  i.e. both group want more worshipers and both groups want to do the right thing (or not).  There's room for intraplayer conflict, never mind setting personal goals if you are playing the mortal or god.

Sigh...*browser crash at end of post*

Graham wrote:
Hi Sean,

Yeah, that sounds as though that would work. That's a classic LARP set-up: have two groups and send them both after the same thing. And concentrating on goals for players is always good.

Anything else you want to talk about, regarding this game?

(Adam and Joshua, I'm interested by what you're saying and I'd like to discuss it, but I'm worried about hijacking this thread too. If you move it to another thread, I'll gladly join in.)

Graham

Sean: Disparity of power levels is fine.  It's important that everyone's got enough power to be influencial in their own circles (or at least some of them), but if some people are divinities with enough power to operate fairely in divine circles, and some are mortals with just enough power to operate inlower circles (with multiple circles of mortals, even), it's all good -- what you want to avoid is someone feeling irrelevant; having other players who are a little more powerful, or are relevant on an entirely different scale, is fine as long as they have enough to do on their scale that they're less likely to take over the lower ones.

You can mix characters of different power levels if you have a mechanism for keeping the really powerful characters from stomping on the fun of the weaker characters. We've run LARPs where gods walk among men. We just had to limit the god characters a great deal.

Thanks for all of your answers.  While I do not want to close this thread formally, I will be working on writing out the basic layout for this LARP adventure.  If I run across any problems, I'll be sure to post here.

Just thought I'd add one brief comment... From my experience, there are really one major thing to keep in mind when planning a LARP: Plan Loose. LARPs generally have far more people than sit-down games, so you've got that many more wildcards - this effect is much stronger if there are people you don't know all that well (or at all) involved. The more detail you stick in, the more likely you are to get messed up by somebody deciding to get creative... or stupid.

Never underestimate the power of raw, directed stupidity.

sean2099 wrote: In short...maturity issues with disparate power levels (would it be a big problem getting people to play mortals if some are playing gods?)

Daemonworks wrote:
Just thought I'd add one brief comment... From my experience, there are really one major thing to keep in mind when planning a LARP: Plan Loose. LARPs generally have far more people than sit-down games, so you've got that many more wildcards - this effect is much stronger if there are people you don't know all that well (or at all) involved. The more detail you stick in, the more likely you are to get messed up by somebody deciding to get creative... or stupid.

Never underestimate the power of raw, directed stupidity.

You're there, dude. :)

Each player is a god and a mortal and must play equal time - I think this could be a hell of a lot of fun! There's even multiple ways to approach it:
A) The mortal is the god incarnate - Leverage this play rule by making the mortal abilities reflect the god abilities, but in a different context or location. For instance, you must be in god-mode to get into "Elysium," which is where you can use your god powers. Conversely, you must be in mortal-mode to get onto "Earth" and use your mortal abilities. Makes for an interesting choice for players as to where and how to effect change in the game situations.
B) The mortal is the god's "favorite" mortal - Using the same "influence zones" as above, but the mortal is not the god, per se, nor should the mortal play as if they are a god's favorite unless the player... uh, tells himself that he is... hmmm. OK, maybe this one is sort of wonky....
C) The mortal and god have nothing to do with each other - This merely means that the mortal and god do not have an intrinsic relationship of identity (incarnation) or of favoritism. Yes, there are ways to do this (see Great Ork Gods below).

As for "same amount of time" in each form: maybe so, maybe not. If you create a clear tension between god powers and mortal powers (rather than just making mortal powers inferior to god powers) then there is no real need for a time constraint. Folks can choose whatever "path" they like to their own goals... but, of course, the situations that emerge in-game might well shift which path (form) has the most efficacy.

By the way, you should check out Great Ork Gods some time, as it is a rules-light tabletop game in which each player plays an orc and a god and there's little real reason to play favorites. That game's checks and balances seem to rest on god-to-god negotiation and orc-versus-orc competition, which lends an interesting ebb-and-flow to player-to-player interactions. And that leads me to....

Worshippers = power level - I think this one is interesting... but scary. From my own LARP experience, I would worry about any game system in which other players can de-power a player in any non-trivial way. It's one thing for a player to use an ability to, say, force another player to stay in one place for a few moments. It's quite another thing to let a group of players deny another player the opportunity to use an ability at all. In other word, you have an interesting check... but no balance.

And in general, any system you develop that comes from your notion of "punish mortals" is heading for trouble. I assume that punishment is not all a god can do to curry favor (there's gotta be a carrot to offset every stick, right?), but I don't think you want a game whose principle checks are ability denial and some other nebulous "punishment." I see serious shouting matches and the occasional real scuffle.

Back to you;
David

FWIW, I really like the ideas floating around re mortals and gods -- and yeah, if you're playing a long-running game, you want to make sure people have the freedom to play around.

What might work is if there were only a certain number of gods, but each was sufficiently aspected such that they had multiple mortals playing their various aspects.  In fact, you could have people sign up for both a mortal and a god-aspect at the same time; maybe even making them related.  People could switch between them during a session (so if their mortal was relevant, they'd probably play him or her, but if not, they could switch over to their god aspect for a while), and maybe in terms of what the "whole" god did (when/if it mattered), there would be a 'quick' poll of foo-aspected characters/players.  People could even deterine which they favored through an experience mechanism allocating their points to their god or their mortal, depending on which was more important to them (if desired; this could be done in a non-newplayer harmful fashion by just having them shift points around between the two as they emphasized one over the other; a new player could choose their split, or could always start as 50/50 and shift in one direction or the other depending on preference).

Hi all,

I thought about the 2nd check (carrot and stick).  It would work better for tabletop because the worshipers would probably be NPCs and the "narrator" could chose to emphasize paying attention to worshipers or not.  In LARP, I would rather have a mixture of gods and mortals.  ***I'll need to add an addendum for LARP***

mneme wrote:
FWIW, I really like the ideas floating around re mortals and gods -- and yeah, if you're playing a long-running game, you want to make sure people have the freedom to play around.

What might work is if there were only a certain number of gods, but each was sufficiently aspected such that they had multiple mortals playing their various aspects. In fact, you could have people sign up for both a mortal and a god-aspect at the same time; maybe even making them related. People could switch between them during a session (so if their mortal was relevant, they'd probably play him or her, but if not, they could switch over to their god aspect for a while), and maybe in terms of what the "whole" god did (when/if it mattered), there would be a 'quick' poll of foo-aspected characters/players. People could even deterine which they favored through an experience mechanism allocating their points to their god or their mortal, depending on which was more important to them (if desired; this could be done in a non-newplayer harmful fashion by just having them shift points around between the two as they emphasized one over the other; a new player could choose their split, or could always start as 50/50 and shift in one direction or the other depending on preference).

David wrote:
You're there, dude. :)

Each player is a god and a mortal and must play equal time - I think this could be a hell of a lot of fun! There's even multiple ways to approach it:
A) The mortal is the god incarnate - Leverage this play rule by making the mortal abilities reflect the god abilities, but in a different context or location. For instance, you must be in god-mode to get into "Elysium," which is where you can use your god powers. Conversely, you must be in mortal-mode to get onto "Earth" and use your mortal abilities. Makes for an interesting choice for players as to where and how to effect change in the game situations.
B) The mortal is the god's "favorite" mortal - Using the same "influence zones" as above, but the mortal is not the god, per se, nor should the mortal play as if they are a god's favorite unless the player... uh, tells himself that he is... hmmm. OK, maybe this one is sort of wonky....
C) The mortal and god have nothing to do with each other - This merely means that the mortal and god do not have an intrinsic relationship of identity (incarnation) or of favoritism. Yes, there are ways to do this (see Great Ork Gods below).

Back to you;
David

Hi all,

I just close a thread on the connections board.  If you are interested in playtesting, PM me and I will email you a copy of the rules.  I took the link off my website that let you download the rules for the time being.

While I am still working on editing the rules, I have posted a free LARP adventure for Divinity.  Hopefully, I have incorporated all of the lessons gained here to make this simple adventure available.  I'll let everyone know when the main ruleset will be available again.

BTW, not completely inspired by this discussion (actually, more coming out of a much longer series of insights), I posted a four point checklist for LARP design on my shared blog here:

http://labcats.livejournal.com/12886.html

Also, Adam, if you want to continue our discussion there, I'd be happy to.

Josh,

You made some very good points on your blog about LARP Design.  I'll admit push and pull are fine hairs but I do see the difference.  You have to be able to "push" the plot forward and you have to be able to pull others towards you (vice versa as well, I think.)

Thanks,

Sean

Indeed.  You need a way to Do Stuff, but others need a reason to play with you (and these aren't always the same).

As magus mentioned (there), I left out a big important one -- goals!  Mostly because it was obvious enough that it just didn't make my list. :)

My imput here is going to be a small one; but one I think has been overlooked/overshadowed to some extent.  It is my personal opinion and might not be shared; but I think it has some validity to it.

I Saw this post as the query of asking how much to write of plot and how much to guide along the game with or reveal to the players; I could be wrong; this is just how I interpreted it!

I think the most visable differences I've seen in tabletop versus larp is that in a table-top, it is easier for the ST to control/guide/influence the story.
In a Good L.A.R.P., The storyteller needs to at times; sit back and just let player plot happen. 

In a table-top, there is always some player plot, but often the players are guided or hanging by what the ST has created for them to defeat, go after or need to accomplish.  While this is true in a L.A.R.P., this factor actually can hinder the game very quickly!

The best L.A.R.P.'s that I have seen, will give way to player plot over storyteller plot.  In a good L.A.R.P., a storyteller will still introduce plots but be willing and MUST be willing to allow that plot to be completely screwed over by player plot/interaction.

The only things that must be absolute before you begin larping; is the world properties/definitions, the potential abilities, interactions and changes, and the rules of which they all operate.  Are there NPC'S that will always exist?  Evil, Good, Tangible, Interactive from the start?  Have a set of absolutes, and then have things that can be altered.

These absolutes are things that players cannot alter, or would have an extremely hard time altering. (never say never...)
Then, write up a loose plot, watch your players and go off of their playing cues...If they get lazy, throw them some wild cards; if things are frantic; toss in another kink or a moment of rest with a well timed NPC.

That's my imput on how a L.A.R.P., "Should" Be designed.    Hope it is of some use.

This discussion might be somewhat correct in saying that there are elements of participationism here, but there's no railroading going on by any useful definition of that word. If a player goes into the game knowing that he's supposed to reveal something at time X, that these are the rules of the game, then he has no expectation of having control over this. Railroading is only a meaningful term in a derogatory sense when it means that the GM (or other player) is taking away a players ability to make some decision that he expects to be able to make. That is, if you're told that you can have your character "do anything" and then the GM forces you to go left at a particular turn, that's railroading. Otherwise the GM saying, "Your character is getting wet, because it's raining" is railroading.

Everyone playing an RPG expects that the GM will control certain elements. As long as everyone's expectations are the same, and these expectations are upheld, there's no violation of social contract, and no essential problem. Now, where those lines may lie may affect how much somebody prefers one game or another, sure. But there's no reason that even tightly controlled games can't be fun.

The key, and everybody above is commenting on this in various ways, is to ensure that "agency" that everyone mentions - basically that the players get to make a contribution to the game that affects the course of the game in some manner. Not neccessarily the outcome of the game, but even just the color along the way can satisfy some players. There's lots of lattitude in between, and even heavy handed event dropping can facilitate player power rather than preventing it, if it's done correctly.

As such, the idea of forcing players to reveal information can simply be another way of producing bangs in play. Given that it would be hard for the GMs to dissemminate all of this information in play, I can see this being, at the very least, an expedient way to play.

Mike

Indeed!  Sesere (a see-sense-reveal system described on my labcats blog, which I link to upthread) is intended to be a different way to make bangs appear in play, but especially in a longer game, you don't usually want to rely on this all being done by the players without any prompting at all.

Hi all,

All of you have continued to make good points here.

IndigoDreamer wrote:

In a table-top, there is always some player plot, but often the players are guided or hanging by what the ST has created for them to defeat, go after or need to accomplish. While this is true in a L.A.R.P., this factor actually can hinder the game very quickly!

The best L.A.R.P.'s that I have seen, will give way to player plot over storyteller plot. In a good L.A.R.P., a storyteller will still introduce plots but be willing and MUST be willing to allow that plot to be completely screwed over by player plot/interaction.

The only things that must be absolute before you begin larping; is the world properties/definitions, the potential abilities, interactions and changes, and the rules of which they all operate. Are there NPC'S that will always exist? Evil, Good, Tangible, Interactive from the start? Have a set of absolutes, and then have things that can be altered.

These absolutes are things that players cannot alter, or would have an extremely hard time altering. (never say never...)
Then, write up a loose plot, watch your players and go off of their playing cues...If they get lazy, throw them some wild cards; if things are frantic; toss in another kink or a moment of rest with a well timed NPC.

mneme wrote:
Indeed! Sesere (a see-sense-reveal system described on my labcats blog, which I link to upthread) is intended to be a different way to make bangs appear in play, but especially in a longer game, you don't usually want to rely on this all being done by the players without any prompting at all.

I agree with your points but they teeter over the edge from plot to ST style.  I guess that leads to another question:  When you design adventures for others, how much attention do you pay to "ST style."  Do you just present the plotlines, rules and a list of facts/events or do you include a primer on play style? 

Right now, I have the former.  I have a timeline of what can happen if events are left unchecked but I have left the task of "teaching roleplaying" to other people.  I have my list of rules and etc.

Actually Indigo,

When I am writing this, I know I am splicing hairs and perhaps I am restating the obvious...I started this thread because I have a game I am working (imagine that... :)) and I wanted to add some scenerio suggestions to it and I have never worked on adventures for LARP style play (I feel like my rules are 'open' enough for that style of play.

In other words, the 'adventure' I wrote isn't the game en toto.  I have the rules available as well as the scenerio I wrote based on those rules on my website.  I should have more free time in about a week, so I can really work on tweaking the game and scenerio.  I want to add more scenerios as well work on another project.

Thanks,

Sean

My thoughts were that when you do give the scenario as a possible storyline, perhaps suggest a plausible timeline?  Some storytellers are better than others at "time management"  He he...

I'm a staunch supporter of tabletop games turned larp and honestly, and imo, the biggest difference is just the 'chaos' and player interference factor that larps bring that tabletops cause less of.  (due to sheer amount of people playing!)  Everyone knows there's a million ways for a small tabletop to 'rain' on the storyteller's parade, and in a larp, that's just magnified.  I've seen S.T's practically pull out hair when their players cause the st's plot to completely wash.

So therefore, the solution to the biggest problem is considering every possible way that someone might try and react to the timeline/story and make sure that it can do no more than delay or slow things down, or speed things up.  (depending on what you want to happen in the story)  -possibly get some friends to screw with your system and help you figure out ways to break it?)

Will you be posting progress and how the story is working out?  (playtest, how it's working out, and the like?)

I'd be really interested in seeing how someone else goes about the transition.  (I'm doing one myself)

IndigoDreamer wrote:
....................

Will you be posting progress and how the story is working out? (playtest, how it's working out, and the like?)

I'd be really interested in seeing how someone else goes about the transition. (I'm doing one myself)

IndigoDreamer wrote:
So therefore, the solution to the biggest problem is considering every possible way that someone might try and react to the timeline/story and make sure that it can do no more than delay or slow things down, or speed things up.

mneme wrote:

IndigoDreamer wrote:
So therefore, the solution to the biggest problem is considering every possible way that someone might try and react to the timeline/story and make sure that it can do no more than delay or slow things down, or speed things up.

Sorry, knee-jerk, but...

If they can do no more than delay or slow things down (or speed things up) you're doing something wrong (or, more accurately, playing a game I like less than other games).

The players' actions should make a difference.

Also -- I actually think it's more important that the GMs have control over timing -- be able to kick things into overdrive or slow things down so the game doesn't end too early -- than that they have control over -plot-.

Actually, I addressed both -- that the GMs need to have a lot of control over pacing (because in the end, the site needs to close on time), but not so much over plot, including the big arcs, once the game begins.  But I may have misenterpreted Indigo.

Hey Joshua,

I wanted to apologize publicly for my incomplete posting of your points.  You were including plot and pace while Indigo was focused on pacing...again INHO. 

Speaking of what to focus on...is it just me or do you find yourselves concentrating on the "macro" when thinking about LARP and on the "micro" for tabletop.    I guess it's obvious but how much disparity in detail level is there?

Thanks again everyone,

Sean
 

Adam wrote: Yes, players have to adjust from Act to Act as they get new information about what happened and what they did. Our players seemed delighted by the surprises. The mechanism is designed to protect pacing of the revelation of the various background plotlines so that a player doesn't resolve everything in Act 1.

What about all the retconning that, you complain, destroys role-play? Imagine a Dogs tabletop game. You go to town and learn from Brother Enos that Sister Constance is cheating on her husband. You and the other Dogs confront her. Now, for the sake of argument, I as GM do something I'd never do in a real Dogs game: I tell you that your character is the one sleeping with Sister Constance.

sean2099 wrote: Speaking of what to focus on...is it just me or do you find yourselves concentrating on the "macro" when thinking about LARP and on the "micro" for tabletop.    I guess it's obvious but how much disparity in detail level is there?

Lisa wrote:
Yes, I consider this different than players and GM (if any) in collaboration saying, "You know, maybe your PC is lying. Can we go with that?" I'm part of the retconning. Here, I just felt -- well, not shafted. Not betrayed. Just -- very, very dissatisfied.

I find it telling that you'd never do it in a real Dogs game. I submit that there is a reason for this.

This was my first larp of that type. I had no warning that my character would change on me in ways I had no control over -- and not no control in the sense that I get from some of the interesting edgy indie games I've bought.

Sure, I know other folks enjoy it, and I've no desire to tell them to stop. Why should they? But man, it's not fun for me. It's neither a larp as I do larps nor a play, and has for me the worst features of both.

Lisa wrote:

sean2099 wrote: Speaking of what to focus on...is it just me or do you find yourselves concentrating on the "macro" when thinking about LARP and on the "micro" for tabletop. I guess it's obvious but how much disparity in detail level is there?

It varies. When I plot out an arc for tabletop, I am thinking macro.

When I write what I think is a wonderful detail for a particular larp PC -- or when I hit my stride, performance flow kicks in, and I'm thinking the character's thoughts as I'm typing them -- I am thinking micro.

When I say, "I'll put X in for Josh's PC to react to," I am probably thinking micro.

When I look at five character sheets to figure out exactly what the story behind, let's say, a murder is, I am probably thinking macro.

Does this help?

-Lisa Padol

Adam wrote: Have you ever played in such a larp when you were told in advance that what your character knows will be revealed to you over three rounds? That is, explicitly? If not, you're not talking about the same game I am.

sean2099 wrote:

mneme wrote:

IndigoDreamer wrote:
So therefore, the solution to the biggest problem is considering every possible way that someone might try and react to the timeline/story and make sure that it can do no more than delay or slow things down, or speed things up.

Sorry, knee-jerk, but...

If they can do no more than delay or slow things down (or speed things up) you're doing something wrong (or, more accurately, playing a game I like less than other games).

The players' actions should make a difference.

Also -- I actually think it's more important that the GMs have control over timing -- be able to kick things into overdrive or slow things down so the game doesn't end too early -- than that they have control over -plot-.

Hi everyone,

IMHO...

I think Indigo was talking about story pacing while Mneme is talking about plot...related but different my gut tells me of this point.  I do think one could add to pacing "Put a complete monkey wrench into everything, bringing everything to a screeching halt or making the story change direction."

P.S....

My belief is you should have a "mutable baseline" for the plot and be prepared to adapt to plot changes, which may end up speeding up or slowing down events

I don't think you can completely get away from plot in a LARP.  I know this has been mentioned before but willingness to change in mid-game is important.  You can plan ahead, even on a minute level, especially if you know what type of characters everyone is playing before (i.e., they had to submit a completed sheet or concept for your approval.)  However, you can't plan for everything.

You run into the debate of the advantages and disadvantages of preplanning vs improv. at this point.

You were talking about differing power levels within the LARP.  I help run a monthly LARP with differing power levels.  The game is about gods inbweing mortals with powers.  Different gods can imbue the same mortal.  The mortal minimum is 25%.  A god can then imbue from 25% to 75%.  The chrs which are 25% mortal, 75% gods are _much_ more powerful than the 25% mortal, 25% god chrs.

The reason this works in the game (going on for a year now) is that there are more disadvantages the higher % the chrs go.  low % gods can use technology, high % can not.  As GMs we make sure there are plots which must be solved in ways other than pure power.

So while some chrs can level a building, in the game this is not always the best thing to have.  So long as the in game balance continues, the differing power levels are merely setting, not something which translates into ingame power.

Sorry for going dark for a few weeks -- needed to GAFIATE.  Apology accepted, sean.

Lisa and I are talking about the same game -- we've got fairly extensive experience in "Theater Style" games, minimal (but existent) experience in campaign-style WW-type games, no experience in campaign style live combat games, and a single solitary experience in a pure murder mystery game.

(that said, TS games have a very large variation in how much information is revealed within the game, though it's usually handled organically through the narrative rather than as instant flashbacks).

sean2099 wrote:
Yes, it has helped me some.  I don't think you can completely get away from plot in a LARP.  I know this has been mentioned before but willingness to change in mid-game is important.  You can plan ahead, even on a minute level, especially if you know what type of characters everyone is playing before (i.e., they had to submit a completed sheet or concept for your approval.)  However, you can't plan for everything.

mneme wrote: This is even true in the TS games I'm most familiar with -- where the GMs have written the characters, the opposing characters, the background -- everything; where what the players bring is their interpretation to 5+ page character backgrounds and personalities.  The problem is made -worse- if the GMs assume something that hasn't actually happened -will- happen, that the players won't go their own way once they hit the interface of the game.

Hi folks,

When a thread hits this many pages with only a few participants, it's probably time to take the discussion to a private venue.

It was an interesting topic and a lot of people said neat stuff, so this isn't a shut-down based on anything awful. The time has come, that's all.

Best, Ron