Lots of opinions about LARP.

[Levi]

BASIC GOALS…
We come to LARP games for different reasons, looking for different stuff. None of us is restricted to looking for one thing, but we are all looking for somewhat different things. I’ve been thinking about this a lot. So, on that note, here are some things we come looking for:
Discovery: A LARP is a big thing, and many LARP games have a lot going on in them. Many players like to roam around and try to keep a handle on what's actually going on in the game. They want to explore the game as it plays, and feel like they've discovered cool things.
Empowerment: Many players enjoy feeling empowered; their character is someone big, and there's a fair bit of a thrill to that.
Immersion: For a fair few players, one of the great benefits of LARP is being able to get the sense of "being somewhere else" and "being someone else.
Interaction: Players in a LARP get to interact with one another as different people. For some, the thrill in this comes from interacting in a different context. For others, it comes from interacting as different people. And for still others, it comes from the actual nature of the interactions, which tend to be more intense than otherwise.
Pageantry: For some, LARP is partly a chance to dress up, look good, and show off that look to others, and a chance for them to see others doing the same. It's a pageant.

…APPLIED BY ENGAGING EACH OTHER…
All of these goals are best served by engaging with the other players in a variety of ways. But each of those goals is met in ways that differ – they don’t exclude each other, but they do bear thinking about. And it’s a good thing if a game lets us engage one another in ways that suit the
Discovery: Engagement for discovery happens most when characters are motivated to discover things from other characters by engaging with them.
Empowerment: Engagement that furthers empowerment happens most when one character gets to do their “schtick” or have other people respect and bargain for them to use their “schtick”.
Immersion: Engagement in immersion happens most when the context and characters are always internally consistent; things need to make sense. In addition, staging, costume and props must be set up so that they do reinforce and do not distract from the context.
Interaction: Engagement in interaction happens most when the context and characters remain interesting and outside the everyday experience of the players, and the stakes for things between those characters are relatively high.
Pageantry: Engagement for pageantry happens most when players have a chance to “showcase” their appearance, props, and the like, and when those who aren’t engaged in the same thing aren’t getting in their way. Again, this often involves rules for staging.

…AND PUT IT INTO PRACTICE
So let’s look at each of those methods of engagement, now, and see what the minimalist version of a game that used those tools would look like. Based on that, and whether it sounds like something you’d want to play, you’ll know if I’m right.

AN INTERESTING SETTING WITH INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
A good LARP setting is thus one that is interesting to think about and act within, which has strong possibilities for good costuming. It must also possess it’s own internal logic, meaning that it should either match things that players already understand, or should give them a common ground for understanding it.

ATTAINABLE, USEFUL INFORMATION
If, in a game, players have useful information that it’s worth trading on a regular basis, they have things to talk about. It shouldn’t be of any real benefit to “hoard” the information, but it is worth making it so that a degree of secrecy is available (to better fuel intrigue in investigation).

STRONG STAKES
Because the vast majority of conflict and in a game should be between players, there must be things in the game that can be obtained, lost, and traded which are of value. These include positions of authority and relations, including things like mentorship, romance, and so on. They can also include effective forms of currency, and items which act as “weapons and defenses” in terms of the game.

USEABLE, MARKETABLE SCHTICKS
There should be any number of basic capabilities in a game, but they should all be things that make other players want to have you “with them”. The ability to generate currency, to force different kinds of action from other characters, to remove characters from play on a temporary or lasting basis, to muck about with positions of authority; these are all viable schticks.
An Example: A gangland game might have a number of schticks, where each player chooses their best, second-best, and so on; these might include Thug, Sniper, Demolition Man, Crooked Accountant, Corrupt Cop, Made Man, Snitch, Rum-Runner, and so on, each with their own distinct specialties.

COSTUME AND PROPS THAT REINFORCE, DON’T DISTRACT, AND SHOWS OFF
Any LARP should work to encourage costuming and props that look good and fits with the actual setting and context of the game itself. It should also set a “base state” – such as stating that if you can’t come in costume, wear dark or black, logo-free clothing (I cal this the Rule of Black). This can be part of the reason for selecting the setting of the game itself, in some cases – and certainly can tie into the ‘props’ used in the mechanics of the game – the sound of rolling dice in an intrigue-heavy salon is a mild irritant.

STAGING THAT REINFORCES, DOESN’T DISTRACT, AND SHOWS OFF
The goals for staging should match those for costume. Where possible, staging should have areas that allow players to perform all the basic functions of pageantry – a main space with an eye-catching place for making an entrance. It should also allow for people to spread out and cluster in smaller groups as needed. It should show off the setting where possible – with props or furniture pieces, and the like. Where that isn’t possible, it should avoid distractions – control of lighting, placing sheets over out of place elements, and the like are all useful ways to get at these things.

------------

So…

Your thoughts? Am I right, wrong, missing things?

[DariusSolluman]

... Wow.

You are deeply correct :)

The only one I might question is 'Empowerment'- and that's just cause I come from an MET LARP background, and Empowerment is weakened in favor of Immersion- but this does get to the players, given time, so... hm. *ponders*

[Levi]

The only one I might question is 'Empowerment'- and that's just cause I come from an MET LARP background, and Empowerment is weakened in favor of Immersion- but this does get to the players, given time, so... hm. *ponders*

I think MET has been slowly grinding towards more Empowerment and less Immersion, as the books and revisions have come along. The newest version has mechanics that can very much break Immersion in favor or cleaner, cooler, more empowered characters.

Personally, I think they went a bit too far for my tastes. But those are just my tastes.

[Matt-M-McElroy]

I think MET has been slowly grinding towards more Empowerment and less Immersion, as the books and revisions have come along. The newest version has mechanics that can very much break Immersion in favor or cleaner, cooler, more empowered characters.

Personally, I think they went a bit too far for my tastes. But those are just my tastes.

Not just you, I pretty much agree with that assessment. While clumsy in a few different areas...I much prefer the old MET system to the new one.

All-in-All, your original post was spot on. Not everyone will want or apply all of those things, but just about any LARPer will fit into that somewhere.

Regards,

Matt

[Redfeild]

MET player here as well.

I have/had problems with the discovery portion of the game. Even with a decent bit of influence i still leard about things a month to late or was blocked often.

Also, in the old days, I never seemed to be able to learn anything. Puzzles wraped in enigmas. I finaly gave up and just started just hanging out. Now a days I don't have time to mess with it.

[Merten]

I'd add the physical representation of character and the physical interaction with surroundings and other chartacters, somewhere into the list. Also, the physical interaction is connected with the real-time continuum often apparent in live-action games.

Physical representation is about being able to feel your surroundings, touching, smelling, eating, using and reading body-language and all that. Staging and costuming are very much related to it.

Real-time continuum is something with which MET (the old version, haven't read the new one) wreaks a havoc for me.

[Levi]

I'd add the physical representation of character and the physical interaction with surroundings and other chartacters, somewhere into the list. Also, the physical interaction is connected with the real-time continuum often apparent in live-action games.

Physical representation is about being able to feel your surroundings, touching, smelling, eating, using and reading body-language and all that. Staging and costuming are very much related to it.

Real-time continuum is something with which MET (the old version, haven't read the new one) wreaks a havoc for me.

At first look, I'm thinking these should be added in "immersion support" - does that sound right to you?

[Merten]

At first look, I'm thinking these should be added in "immersion support" - does that sound right to you?

Perhaps that would be the best place; physical reality is pretty much upon what the immersion is built in live-roleplaying.

[Ryan Paddy]

Cool Levi, your approach feels fresh. I think everything you've mentioned is worth looking at.

It doesn't feel entirely complete though. I'm having trouble putting my finger on what needs work. I'll try below.

First off, empowerment. While you've hit the nail on the head that feeling like your character has status and matter is a big motivator, I think there's more to it than that. Many players enjoy the sensation of getting things accomplished. In that instance it's not about the enjoyable social status that comes with power, it's about the feeling of accomplishment of actually making what you want to happen, happen.

That sense of accomplishment isn't necessarily just for in-game achieval. After an intense roleplay where your character has come out badly, you can still have a sense of achievement at the quality of the interaction. Perhaps this comes under Interaction then. The classic example is when you feel your character has had a "good death".

Also, there's the question of challenge. I really enjoy feeling that there are challenges in a larp that I may or may not be able to overcome. This isn't exactly empowerment, although related. It's about aligning with your character's goals and enjoying the process of attempting to overcome obstacles. Even if your character fails in their goals, thus perhaps disempowering you by proxy, you can still have enjoyment in the process of striving and knowing that the challenge is real, not fake. This is like the enjoyment of playing a great game of chess, but losing. You approeciate the process, and enjoy thinking about how you could do better next time.

Finally, physicality. Athletic enjoyment. In the case of live combat the joy of physically striving is a big motivator for many players.

[Levi]

Drama and Challenge?

[Morrius]

I dunno about this, Levi. I've played in half a dozen different LARPs and all of them were incredibly cliquish. When you're a newbie in a LARP and you know only a few or none of the other players, you spend most of your time not knowing what is going on. None of the experienced players would give me the time of day. Furthermore, the amount of power creep made me extremely weak against the most basic of foes, while the veterans were rolling everything in sight. Most of them weren't thrilled to be coming to the rescue of a "clueless newbie". How can these situations be avoided?

[Ryan Paddy]

Drama and Challenge?

Starts to sound like GNS, eh?

The point about physical challenge that you've not mentioned is an interesting one. Perhaps athletic challenge doesn't interest you in larp, but it does interest some people. Likewise, some people really aren't in it for the pageantry or whatever.

There seems to be a bit of an assumption in your model that all of these things are desired by some people, so the ideal larp should maximise them all. The athleticism point puts lie to that, as some larps just aren't physical in that way. I think that's probably true of all your areas, they can be prioritised totally differently for different larps.

[Levi]

...yeek. Forgot all about this one.

Starts to sound like GNS, eh?

A bit, sure - but my main argument with GNS is that it's based around the idea of categories rather than goals.

I'm not interested in playing to a category.

I am interested in helping players achieve goals for play.

There seems to be a bit of an assumption in your model that all of these things are desired by some people, so the ideal larp should maximise them all. The athleticism point puts lie to that, as some larps just aren't physical in that way. I think that's probably true of all your areas, they can be prioritised totally differently for different larps.

I expect you're right, now that you point it out.

[Graham W]

Hi Levi,

I like this.

Perhaps another player goal would be exploring the mechanics. When I played MET Vampire, players would spend ages working out how to tweak the system and use it tactically. Similarly, I'm running a Meat Loaf LARP at a convention soon, and I'm hoping that half the fun in that will be using the mechanics.

You're putting a lot of emphasis on costume and staging. I'd argue that it's not a necessary part of every LARP, even if it's a common one. When I run LARPs, I prefer people not to worry about what they wear at all.

Graham

[Levi]

Perhaps another player goal would be exploring the mechanics. When I played MET Vampire, players would spend ages working out how to tweak the system and use it tactically. Similarly, I'm running a Meat Loaf LARP at a convention soon, and I'm hoping that half the fun in that will be using the mechanics.

You're putting a lot of emphasis on costume and staging. I'd argue that it's not a necessary part of every LARP, even if it's a common one. When I run LARPs, I prefer people not to worry about what they wear at all.

Hey, Graham.

...This is where I turn into a snob. I apologize in advance if this bugs you; I am open to being convinced that I'm wrong.

Deliberately serving the goal of exploring mechanics, or downplaying the emphasis I have on costume and staging, strikes me as a move away from the very things that make LARP distinct and different.

Moving towards those things, to me, strikes me as a move away from LARP and into the grey area that sits between a tabletop and a LARP.

Now, I'd like to say that's "all good and well", but here's the thing - I've never seen it done in a way that I enjoyed, and I have seen it done in ways that ruined my own enjoyment of play.

If your experience differs, then I can even tell you how to convince me that it can work: Tell me about it, and why it was cool.

[Jiituomas]

Tell me about it, and why it was cool.

I'm sure Graham has his own examples in mind, but I can give you a couple as well. Both of these were convention larps (from Ropecon 2004 and 2005, respectively) and rpg theory test games (reported in Dissecting Larp and Role, Play, Art). Due to the situation, I was not able to use costuming or stage props of any kind. So I concentrated on making interesting mechanics (in addition to character material, of course).

Haalistuvia Unelmia (Fading Dreams) was about society's rejects sitting in one room, waiting for their turn to see the social services worker next door. The game was just about sitting there and killing time. That's it. The trick, however, was that everyone had to speak in grammatically correct phrases, and they could not interrupt anyone else. Pretty soon, everyone was talking slowly and seriously about either social injustice or insignificant, small things. It became a functional larp version of the movies of Aki Kaurismäki. Players reported during the feedback that they really enjoyed the changes in their behavior, and the new way in which they paid attention to each others' actions.

White Stains I've now run twice. All of the characters are dream-states, not personalities, and based on the poems of Aleister Crowley. They all have a constant need to communicate, but cannot hear one another unless they're in direct skin contact with the people they are talking to. So to touch is to communicate. After playing for about an hour, people started experiencing strange things. They begun to instinctively block out conversations that they as players heard, but their characters did not. So, in essence, the game system became (almost) real. Not everyone liked the game (particularly heavily non-immersive players), but others really, really enjoyed it.

Neither of these is like a tabletop game in any way, or are they?

Normally, I too love it when people make great costumes and do good staging, but to get hung up on that is to limit the range of expression. Larp can be much more than that.

[Levi]

I'm sure Graham has his own examples in mind, but I can give you a couple as well.

Intellectually, I agree completely with what you've just said.

I can't connect your example to my experiences in LARP as much as with Improv theatre, though.

I may be having difficulty with it because of my conception of "game".

[Jiituomas]

Intellectually, I agree completely with what you've just said.
I can't connect your example to my experiences in LARP as much as with Improv theatre, though.
I may be having difficulty with it because of my conception of "game".

The major point is that these people connected to the rules in manners that are completely alien to improv theatre: by focusing (often immersively) on their characters as the primary point of reference, and by experiencing the rules as a part of the game's "innate reality".

In some ways, I think the worst damage to the potential of larp as an art form and a medium was done by the adding of the word "game" to the common description. "Role-playing" is the interesting part, "game" an aspect that is currently highly over-emphasized among far too many larp communities.

But, like I said, some people did not find these larps to their liking. You might have been one of those.

[Levi]

In some ways, I think the worst damage to the potential of larp as an art form and a medium was done by the adding of the word "game" to the common description. "Role-playing" is the interesting part, "game" an aspect that is currently highly over-emphasized among far too many larp communities.

This assumes that LARP-as-art is inherently desirable.

For communities that don't think of it in that way, placing an emphasis on "game" may enhance their enjoyment greatly.

But, like I said, some people did not find these larps to their liking. You might have been one of those.

I think I'd have enjoyed them, but I would have thought of them as something different from LARP as I normally use the term.

Which irritates me, because they're still so obviously "Live Action Role-Playing".

[Jiituomas]

This assumes that LARP-as-art is inherently desirable.

For communities that don't think of it in that way, placing an emphasis on "game" may enhance their enjoyment greatly.

Don't get me wrong: I still consider that a valid approach. I simply feel that far too often, people from the "game"/"enjoyment" camp(s) tend to have a too limited view of what else can (actually "may" would be closer) be done with larps while still calling them "larps". Emphasis is fine, demanding that all larps should only fit a part of what they actually can be isn't. (For the record: I hate the "only art" and "only a tool" approaches just as much as the "only-a-game" view. It's just that the last one is far more prevalent.)

To limit is to kill a part of the potential. Especially since the different styles give each other crucial benefits (ideas, mechanics, tools) the others wouldn't otherwise have.

(Insignificant side note, inspired by the conceptual discourse: As some of you may have noticed, people from the Nordic area have a habit of treating "larp" as a common lowercase-written noun, not an acronym. That's because over here it actually is. Much of the non-playing public here knows these days what the word means - or at least, the stereotype of running in the woods with boffers.)

[Levi]

Okay.

Color me convinced enough.

So, look at that opening post. How would you rewrite it to reflect what you're saying?

(Feel free to either give a breakdown of what you'd change, or actually grab it and rewrite it, as desired).

[Jiituomas]

So, look at that opening post. How would you rewrite it to reflect what you're saying?

I like you basic division, so I won't interfere with that. Off the top of my head (may need revision/clarification later):

Basic - Discovery: ...a big thing, a strange thing, or both. ... , ... explore the game as it plays, possibly explore the new, alien experiences it provides, ...

Applied - Discovery: ...other characters by engaging with them, or the game's reality, or game mechanics, by experimenting with those.

Practice: Add to "schticks" the following. "Schticks can also be passive, as long as they are impressive enough to be interesting."

To the last two, replace "shows off" with "emphasizes that which is important in the game". Then insert something about the theme-emphasis most often being served by showing off into the descriptive text. Because showing off is indeed good for the great majority of larps.

To the second-to-last one, add "If the game requires it, the base state can of course be 'come as you are'."

To the very last one: "...functions of pageantry, unless that would be against the theme of the game." and "distractions that deduct from the game experience" instead of distractions. (I for one love using meta-level distractions; in our last game we had a gynaecological operating table as a prop, just to make player uneasy, meaning that their characters would be nervous, too.)

I think that covers it well enough. I would still disagree with some on principle, but that's only because I like to experiment with rules. For example, an illusion of marketable skills insteaad of having such skills is more appropriate for some larps.

I understand that you have to work with normative language here, and I do think your basic system is quite good. So I'm sorry if I force you to accept too many exceptions.

[Levi]

So I'm sorry if I force you to accept too many exceptions.

Not at all.

This started as "my personal opinion".

If it can grow into "the opinion of a few people" - as well as becoming a more flexible tool that LARP organizers can use to help them see what things will help them get what they want...

...That would be awesome.

There'll be a "take two" of this thread, given time, with a lot of rewriting.

[Graham W]

Levi,

See, you're changing the terms of the argument. I thought we were talking about what different players looked for in LARPs. And many players enjoy playing with the mechanics, even if you don't. So, on that basis, I think that one of your goals should be "Discovery of the mechanics" or similar.

But now you're asking me to convince you that playing with the mechanics is fun and that's a different thing.

But OK. I played a Billy Bunter (English boarding school) LARP. Part of that LARP was a wonderfully simple skill system: every time you used one of your skills on someone else, you gave them a token; every time you showed one of your weaknesses, you claimed a token from someone else. Skills were things like "Leadership" and "Fighting" and weaknesses things like "Bad at fighting" and "Always gets told what to do".

So, one of the things I really enjoyed about that LARP was playing with the mechanics: using all my weaknesses so I got more tokens, then going round using my "Leadership" skill to tell people what to do. Playing with the mechanics was fun.

Similarly, in White Wolf MET Vampire games, I liked using my Summon command in imaginative ways. Once, I summoned the Police Chief into a massage parlour, then turned it into a press scandal. Again, that was playing with the mechanics.

Jiuthomas' examples are good too. Those are mechanics I'd enjoy playing with.

Graham

[Levi]

But now you're asking me to convince you that playing with the mechanics is fun and that's a different thing.

For a reason, though.

Because I can't capably refine what I'm saying here into something that includes what you're describing unless I understand it well enough to believe it.

Otherwise, I'll just end up condescending to it...

...And that sucks.

Despite that, I think that the two of you have generally done that for me - I "get it", though it's still a bit foreign. Thanks!

[tetsujin28]

Being a Pageant Pageant Pageant person, I think you've nailed it pretty well :)

[NERO Aeon]

I think that getting to know/understand the mechanics of a game system is a symptom of a goal, and not a goal itself.

In my experience those who pour over the game system are looking to understand it so that they can achieve their goals. Whether this goal is simply to master the game so they can exercise their goal of discovery, personal empowerment, immersion into the game world, better interact with others in the game, or in one such game I have the rules directly incoroprated aspects of pageantry.

Learning the rules set for the sake of learning new rules fits into the realm of Discovery, as defined by Levi, but may also be a symptom of desiring the other goals that he has provided.

[bink]

I like, but the SCHTICKS section bothered me beacuse I found its very fun to be horrible at something. Also being horrible at something can make you desirable for other characters to be "with them". like the ability to be bossed around easily. And having a schtick thats negative can even become a unification of misfits. Even causing other players to pity or hate you is benificial, any response is normally better then no response.

Pageantry is something that was always there and I never really thought about much and is a big reason I enjoy gaming in larp. In fact not being able to larp has caused me to go looking for other places where I can play dress up.