Jeepform, themes etc

Community Larp discussion
#1

(Moved from Chimera)

Certainly, but they’re not necessarily to everyone’s tastes (and others may just feel a bit intimidated by the concept, while being willing to try it). Still, I am glad that someone is doing it, both here and overseas.

Or you can just steal the techniques. I’ve seen the monologue / aside to camera pop up in non-Jeepforms, and I can see how it could be useful in a more traditional LARP format (though obviously not in every LARP. It wouldn’t work in political intrigue games, for example)

And I have to say that I am quite taken with the mechanics for guiding scenes (sticking stuff to the bottle) in “Drunk”.

Definitely (or at any other con). And you can always have an assortment of games and see which ones people like.

#2

For sure, subject matter is a question of taste.

I think it’s a matter of perspective too. When I first heard about some of the darker Nordic larps, like Europa which was set in a refugee transfer station, I thought that they had a weird idea of fun. I thought larp was only useful for having fun (a simplification of my views, but something like that). After reading a bit more about the player experience, I began to mentally wander down the “maybe larp can be used for other things than fun too” corridor. To make a movie analogy, a person who likes romantic comedy movies and thinks that movies should be about escapism can re-orient their views and grow to like movies of harsh realism too, for different reasons. But there’s no particular need for anyone to do so, it’s just an option.

Some techniques are better for stealing than others. I used to suggest stealing improv techniques for larp, but in retrospect I think some of them were inappropriate. Like the “yes, and…” stuff, where you basically cooperate to create shared backstory with characters through play. This works in improv and works in Jeepform because everyone can hear what everyone says and use it, and there’s no organiser-created backstory to conflict with. Not so appropriate in most larp.

I think the main objection some people might have to Jeepform is the story focus. The creation of a story is the point of Jeepform play, the players don’t really own the characters so much as they cooperate to create the story. Jeepform is not about experiencing being the character, so it’s okay if you know things the character wouldn’t. This ties in perfectly with techniques like Transparency (all the players know everything that’s happening, so that they can all help to build story, nothing is hidden), making some Jeepform techniques more of a bundled package than they might first appear. But transparency is impossible in most larps because the players know character and setting secrets, and because play is distributed in space and time. Other techniques, like the camera aside, work very well to support the Jeepform story-focus but are more transferable as you point out.

#3

I’ve also got an idea that there are “sweet spots” of larp design, where techniques that work particularly well together are combined to a good effect.

If you look at the Kapcon larps for example, there is a combination of organiser-generated characters, one-off play, an emphasis on social intrigue, highly inter-related characters, and low organiser interference during play. Each one of those characteristics could be seen as a setting on a continuum of possible approaches (you can have characters that are more player-generated, lower levels of character-relatedness, etc). Those Kapcon settings are often seen in combination in international larp. Similar larp styles are labelled “freeform” in UK and Australia and “theatre-style” in the US. In Nordic larp, this larp style is by far the most common one and doesn’t really have a name because it’s “normal larp”.

If Jeepform hits a sweet spot then it’s presumably the same one that improv theatre hits, because in terms of characteristics they’re virtually indistinguishable activities. It’s like larpers have re-invented improv almost unintentionally, just by a series of evolutions/revolutions.

Presumably it’s also possible to combine techniques that work really poorly together and hit a “sour spot”. For example if you have player-generated characters, low character-relatedness, and low organiser interference during play then chances are your larp will suck because nothing will happen.

#4

My perspective is that larp is naturally a fun exercise. That is, it is more natural to engage in larp with respect to creating enjoyable experiences. This is consonant with most of the larps I have partaken in.

However, I can see the draw of a larp that challenges social mores (such as GR) - it allows the participant to acknowledge a (rightly) non-respected social activity.

Sometimes the most important thing is not what we like, but that which challenges and changes us, that counts.

#5

I’ve been thinking more on that Kapcon-type “sweet spot” concept and opened up a discussion on that kind of thing here: forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=397333

#6

You could call it ‘character-centric Larp’ maybe? All the character interactions are the core of that kind of Larp, as opposed to the more adventurous ones where character interactions add a lot of richness, but you’re still likely to have a good time if they’re minimal.

Although trying to rename concepts that have taken hold is generally really hard to accomplish, no matter how logical the new name is.

#7

It has a million names already, what’s the harm in one more?

The problem with “character-anything” is that larps with player-written characters can be character-something as well. But only GM-written characters can have built-in idiosyncratic intrigue webs.

#8

I use “theatreform”, since its a lot less kludgy than the “interactive drama” language.

#9

The funny thing with any terms is that they’re as much a matter of culture as actual meaning. “Freeform” and “theatre-whatever” are not just names, they are communities. They’ve identified themselves by those names, and in turn the names have come to mean “whatever those guys do”. So both “freeform” and “theatre” have come to imply abstract resolution because that happens to be the way those communities play, even though it’s fundamentally irrelevant to the style whether resolution is physical or abstract.

In the UK I have read serious discussions where people say that “LRP” is with foam weapons, and “LARP” is not, because people have seen the terms used by communities using those styles.

There are several problems with terms that define the community more than the activity. One is that these communities are splintered all over the world, and what they do is different even though they use the same name. “Freeform” is particularly bad for this, it has several uses that aren’t even larp. Another is that there are groups out there doing activities with fundament similarities, but using different names for it and not sharing their experiences because they can’t see the common purpose.

I think we’re approaching a stage where the international larp community is getting more chatty, and some more practical and clearly-defined terms would be handy.