Post originally by Mike Young at 2003-11-12 07:09:20
Converted from Phorums BB System
Thank you for the review.
I wanted to add that we ususally have online samples from our books on the website, but don't for the Book of LARP. Nonetheless, you can see a sample at:
Post originally by Eric Johnson at 2003-11-12 09:57:46
Converted from Phorums BB System
Since I've run most, if not all, of the games in The Book of LARP, I wanted to add my thoughts on how they run. Let me say upfront, however, that I am an Official Interactivities Ink. Evil Minion and therefore am loosely affiliated with the company.
First, all of the games run pretty well, despite not being plot intensive. This is, in my opinion, because characters are well written and have some set of goals. When the characters are allowed to mix and then put into a stressful situation (such as being stuck in an elevator), everything slowly starts to come to the surface.
That being said, two games have emerged as being truly exceptional really-short form games. The first is "All The Presidents Zombies," which seems fairly average upon the first reading, but plays VERY well. I've been involved in many runs of it with some very diverse casts, but it has run well each time. It can be serious or silly, satire or parody without changing a word. It's all in the interpretation of the game by the players. The second is "Humans vs. Monsters: Diplomacy," which is, simply put, a riot. It's a chance to play an unabashedly silly larp, which makes fun of a number of fantasy cliches. It has brought out over-the-top roleplaying (intentionally) from some of the least likely sources.
In general, I think it's easy to write off these really-short form games (my own term, as far as I know), but they run surprisingly well, especially considering that they require almost no setup or preparation. If you get a chance I'd strongly suggest running some for your friends, or, if you're smart, convincing one of your friends to run them for you.
Post originally by Christopher Allen at 2003-11-12 14:30:48
Converted from Phorums BB System
My biggest problem as I note in the review is not the games themselves, but their inclusion in a more generic book that is teaching how to write LARPs.
In my opinion, the hardest thing for a LARP designer to create is a plot that drives to some type of satifying conclusion for most of the players, and is not unbalanced.
I have some English friends who LARP, and they would call all 6 of these LARPs "free-forms" -- all are legitimate examples, but of such a small subset of the possibilities that I'm not sure that they are very instructional.
The second hardest thing is to write the character writeups. I think the LARP examples in the book succeed in the latter, but they are missing a lot of the "whys" that a budding LARP designer might want.
Post originally by Mike Pohjola at 2003-11-12 14:38:33
Converted from Phorums BB System
Many of the LARPs seemed well balanced and able to provide interesting endings for all or most of the characters. I've ran "I Shall Not Want" a couple of times, and typically all of the characters have some sort of a turning point during the game.
However, I don't understand what you mean when you say none of these games had plots but only roleplaying. What kinds of plots do you mean?
And yes, you're right. The British would consider these free-forms. Just as the Americans would consider them player-vs-player theatre-style.
Post originally by Christopher Allen at 2003-11-12 15:10:07
Converted from Phorums BB System
Mike Pohjola wrote:
> However, I don't understand what you mean > when you say none of these games had
> plots but only roleplaying. What kinds of > plots do you mean?
In many kinds of LARPs, the plot is driven not only by roleplay, but also by events that happen as a result of consequences in the game. This can be through assembly (8 parts and a recipe are needed to assemble artifact X) through external forces (the atomic bomb will explode unless 4 experts disassemble it) or through revelation (a seance reveals a secret unknown to all). But I'm not a LARP expert -- the authors of the book should be covering all of these aspects if the book is to be *THE* Book of LARP.
I tried to find an example LARP that had some of these elements online, and after a few minutes of looking found:
http://www.rpg.net/larp/scenario/whately.html
The closest of the example games in this book is the "Fundraiser".
> And yes, you're right. The British would > consider these free-forms. Just as the
> Americans would consider them player-vs-
> player theatre-style.
Hmm, I don't think your "player-vs-player theatre-style" is an "American" term -- maybe for your group, but it isn't a term that any of the three very different LARP groups that I play with here on the west coast use.
Post originally by Kelly MacDougal at 2003-11-12 18:50:43
Converted from Phorums BB System
I will start by saying that while I do not work for Interactivities Inc. I do know the authors of this book and we are friends. I was a playtester for the elevator game and the reviewer is right about needing good role-players for it. It would have been a very different game if I had been with other players - but then this is true of most LARPs I think. I have run or played in one particular LARP close to a dozen times and it is distincly different each time it is run. I would like to see that a distinction made though - good role-players does not necessarily mean experienced ones. I've met some people who have LARPed for years and they may be very nice people but they aren't very good at it. On the other hand I've been in games with fabulous people and been surprised to hear that it was their first game ever. So, just because a game is small and doesn't come with thirty pounds of support material doesn't mean it isn't a good game.
Post originally by Mike Pohjola at 2003-11-13 02:53:48
Converted from Phorums BB System
"In many kinds of LARPs, the plot is driven not only by roleplay, but also by events that happen as a result of consequences in the game."
Right. But in several of the games in the book, the events happens as a result of the roleplaying in the game. If we consider an event to be something that changes the course of the game for most characters, then an important announcement by a character (or in "I Shall Not Want", the reading of Mr. Rosenthal's letter, or conceivably any of the eulogies given by the characters) is just such an event.
In my mind the fact that these are not arbitrary or artificial events makes these games stronger and more interesting.
Typically most theatre-style games are player-vs-player, but this doesn't really need to be the case. Both are terms I've learned from the East Coast Americans
Post originally by John Kammer at 2003-11-17 18:24:07
Converted from Phorums BB System
First let me divulge that I am the author of one of the games in this book and secondly that at some point after writing the game I too became an officially associated evil minion of Interactivities Ink. Mevertheless my opionions herein are totally unbiased :-)
As Eric, I have run most of the game that appear in the book, have played in many of them, and each run I've seen has been successful with caveats I'll list below.
Mosters vs. Humans: This game has a very simple set-up and doesn't look like much. But the runnings I've been to and the one I played in were totally hilarious. I watched one running that nearly had me bust a gut I was laughing so hard. As the reviewer points out this is all driven by the players as there aren't really any events in the game that force something to happen. But if you've got good players able to play it a bit over the top then this is NOT a game to be missed! The one running of this game that I'm aware of that was mediocre occured at a con and two of the players were simply too young to understand the game (I think they were 9 and 12 - their parents brought them along). Also note that while each of the players have stats and the potential for die-rolling I think in five runings of MvH I've seen one die roll.
All the Pres Zombies: I've only seen a couple runnings of this but both have been fairly amusing. I've not seen anyone approach the scenario seriously, but maybe in a future running some day. Again it's an easy set up and with players willing to go over the top it's a blast.
Lost in the Stacks: if you don't have enough players to fill this game it doesn't work as well in my experience. I've been to one running that was short a person and another that was short several. Frankly the game confused me at first, but then I think it is supposed to. The players seemed to like it however this one is definitely more tricky to set up.
I Shall Not Want: I've not played this game and frankly I probably wouldn't be interested in doing so. Not that it's bad, just simply that it's not my style. That said I have run the game once and (fearing that the players would hate it and blame me) was pleasantly surprised to find that the players all seemed to enjoy it quite a bit. I will say that of the games in the book this one is very different than the rest as it involves the characters doing a lot of internal reflection. It's a neat concept and it takes a different approach than the others. This one is fairly easily set up but requires a mature audience.
Trapped: Haven't played, read, or GMed it so I really can't comment intelligently. Not that that would usually stop me :-) Unless I need to GM a game I try not to read it until I've played it. I'm not avoiding the game.
Fundraiser: I wrote this one so I won't talk much about it. I will answer one of the reviewers questions though. How did I go about creating this game? In some random thought process one day (probably involving at least one or two beers) the name Narky "the Narc" Narkleson occured to me. I knew immediatly that I needed a vehicle in which to use that name. Fundraiser grew out of that.
Linear Mode
