Dogma 2007

Community Larp discussion
#1

After all the fun with the crap of Dogma 99 I have decided to write my own. Here goes…

[size=150]Vow of Chastity - Dogma 2007[/size]

1.) Characters are allowed a back history. This is allowed to have exciting events in it.

2.) Writers are allowed to write the game. This may even occur as the game is being played.

3.) Plots are allowed to affect all the players in the game without their direct interaction. All players have the right to try and reverse these effects.

4.) Game mechanics, while essential, should be as unobtrusive and natural as possible. Objects can be used to represent other objects. The game system can be complex as long as it is simple to play.

5.) No person has complete knowledge either in the game world or the real world. Secrecy is often not only required in a game, but it is essential.

6.) Live Role Play can be inspired by any source. This includes books, films, television, table top role play, card games…

7.) In most Live Role Play games combat is often required. All players are responsible for their violence both in game and out of game.

8.) Organizers are responsable for their own actions and players are responsible for their actions.

9.) Live Role Play is for the fun of the players, not the organizers. Live Role Play should ultimately be fun at some level.

10.) NPCs and Monsters are allowed to have fun too.

Furthermore, I note that to call myself an artist would be solely to massage my own ego and to compensate for a small penis. Therefore I promise to develop Live Role Play for the sake of Live Role Play and not for my own ego. Thus I take the Vow of Chastity

Alista Fow.

Any comments invited. If you want your name on this just let me know and I will edit it on.

Happy adventuring
Alista

#2

Do you consider these universal constants, or just your preferred style of play?

#3

To quote Einstien " There are only two things that are universal…"

I would say that these primarily apply to Live Role Play, especially fanatsy style, but not to improvisational theatre, theatre sports or paper role play.

If you think I missed out something let me know.

#4

I wouldn’t so much say that you left something out, more that you’ve just described one particular approach to play.

For example, what you’ve laid out describes Mordavia fairly well but doesn’t describe some of the other larps that have been kicking around in Auckland. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with them taking a different tack.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with people approaching larp in an artistic way. If anything in larp is compensatory, surely its big manly swords not artistic themes. Larp swordfighting seems like an ideal wish-fulfillment and ego-stroking opportunity, so if small-penis compensation was the bane of your existence then I’d have thought violence would be the first thing to go… on the contrary, you endorse violence as “often required”.

#5

Note : I said that combat is often required. There is a difference between combat and violence. That is why I also stated players are responsable for their ‘Violence’.

Also, I think the term artist is like the terms ‘sensei’ and ‘hanshi’. These terms are confered upon people but can never be demanded by that person.

Most artists I know are embarresed by the title. And most people I know who want to be called artists aren’t. It is like the job of president of the USA. Those who most want to be called an artist are the least suited to actually be an artist.
Being arty farty about anything usually ends up as ego mindwank and art spelt with a great big capital ‘F’.

#6

You seem to have sidestepped the point that sword-waving is a much more likely candidate for compensation than artistic pretension.

Enlighten me.

I’m not against violence or combat in any given larp, I think it can be fun/challenging/emotionally charged. But I’m inclined to think it’s over-emphasised in larp in general. Dogme99 is correct about violence often being superficial action, chewing-gum for the sword-arm.

I wish more larp was artistic, regardless of how it gets there and who calls themselves what. I suspect that telling people not to call themselves artists could be taken to imply that you don’t think artistic expression itself has a place in larp, which is unfortunate. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.

#7

Pistols at dawn, anyone?

#8

Haha Ange, are the pistols to be symbolic or luteral representations… and if this follows Dogma99 shouldn’t the pistols then be real working pistols with real live ammo?

I love these arguments.
I think Alista point here is that if you call yourself an Artist then you’re stroking yourself but if someone else labelled what you do artistic then you might feel embarassed about the label but at least you’re not pretentious.

Adam on the other hand wishes (it seems) would like to see Larp being a little more artistic.

And my take on it?

Art is an expression or portrayal of the thoughts and/or feelings of the protagonist (also potentially refered to as an artist)

By that definition Larp (LRP) can be art. So can the costumes. Or the portrayal (expression) of ones character.

On a side note: Larp combat is a lot of things. Freudisms aside. It serves a purpose and can also be quite intense, especially if you play a vulnerable character or you face something dark and sinister. If you like Larp combat because you like have to “win” at Larp then you deserve to call yourself an artist (ie. a wanker)

Thats all for now
Jared

#9

You seem to have sidestepped the point of the manifesto. If you would rather discuss minute instead of the main concept.

Both sword-waving and artistic pretension can be compensations. In combat it depends on why you fight. Artists do art because they want to express or see beauty. People who want to be called “artists” do art because of some perceived Kudos they will gain or some alleged superiority they will feel. Or as one honest ‘Artist’ said, I needed the money.

By definition violence is the unlawful use of force. Hence the players can be held responsable for it both in or out of game. Combat is an inevitable part of biological and ecological struggle. Go figure.

There is no reason that Live Role Play can not be art. It is just those who think it is or try to be artistic about it often do it for their own vain glory and at the expense of the players. You will always find some people that will do anything, artistic Live Role Play, drinking cyanide, but why would I do that when I can have far more people having fun?

#10

I think the initial point of this thread, gleaned from the post at the top (and my own super-duper skills of deduction), is:

Let Me Write My Own Larp My Way And Stop Putting Stupid No-Fun, So-called ‘Arty’ Restrictions on It Because You Don’t Like My Rules.

Heck, it’s how I’d make mine. Please tell me if I’m wrong, Alista.

Please excuse me for adding to the hostility. No offense meant to the creators of those neat larps coming out (eg Ravenholme etc)

#11

From what I can tell the main point of the manifesto is that it’s okay to run fantasy larps the orthodox way. I agreed with that in my first post, in saying that Mordavia was run in the style the manifesto describes. I wouldn’t have run it that way if I didn’t think it was a perfectly valid way to run a larp. Having agreed with the general thrust (but not that it’s the only way to run larp), that left me with a couple of objections to specific points.

To cut to the chase, your objection to “art” in larp in the manifesto was too sideways and broad-brushed to create a persuasive argument. You imply that all people who attempt to make larp artistic are wankers. It’s an argument ad hominem, you’re attacking the person and not addressing whether a larp being more artistic is a good or bad thing. I could apply the same weak argument by saying all people who like to fight in larps are bullies. Sure, some of them probably are, just as some people who want more artistic content are pretentious and attention-seeking. Labelling and attacking people is easy, but not persuasive because it usually involves the sort of overgeneralisations you’ve used.

I’m guessing you put it in to make a counterpoint to the Dogme99 thing about regarding oneself as an artist. No problem with objecting to that, but it needs a better rationale. What is your real objection to wanting “to express or see beauty” in larp, to use your own definition of the artistic urge?

Your definitions of violence and combat are not common usage. “Violence” just means the use of force to hurt people. It is not unlawful by definition. Police frequently use violence to subdue suspects lawfully, and violence can be used in war following the protocols of international law*. When discussing violence in larp I’m assuming that we mean the simulation of violence (just as we mean the simulation of combat) not actual violence. That’s what Dogme99 means when it refers to the superficiality of violence, it doesn’t mean players actually injuring each other. The word “combat” means a fight. A fight using violence. Nothing to do with biology or ecology is implied. Combat and violence are relatively interchangable words, which is why I used them interchangably.

Ryan

  • I’m a pacifist so I’m only talking about laws on violence as they are written, not my person views on right and wrong.
#12

I don’t think Alista is implying people who want to make artistic larp are wankers. I would reconsider how he defined those who would call themselves artists i.e. those who consider themselves qualified for the title are often the least so.
Nothing is wrong with more artistic larp is fine as long as that the art is for the sake of the larp and not oneself.

Ange hits close to the mark too!

Jared

#13

Here’s my take just quickly.

Firstly, I wouldn’t have called it a vow of chastity and put my name to it just yet if I were you, Alista. There’s spelling mistakes and everything :wink:

More importantly, I think this is way too “anything is ok” to be a real manifesto. If the communist manifesto said “if you’re a landlord you can charge rent that’s fine” then it wouldn’t have been worth talking about. So if you say “Characters are allowed to have a back-story” it’s not chastity against anything!

This is written very much as a “response” to Dogma 99, and gloats as if Dogma 99 has been “proven wrong” or something. I don’t think this one offers anything “new”, either, so why not call it Dogma 89?

#14

On combat=violence:

Why the hell do all our larps have violence, or at the very least a “combat system”? I don’t think violence (or combat) is necessarily a necessary outcome of conflict (something that all larp must have). I think that violence and combat in larp is nearly always sucky and nearly always semi-out-of-character and good game design doesn’t have too much of it (especially not governed by rules instead of players and physreps).

What’s better:
I like games where there is threat of violence. That’s a purely emotional thing that can be conveyed through larp a hundred times better than actual violence.

I have a new emerging mantra that “Mexican standoffs are better than shootouts”. You might like movies where machine-gun-totin’ robots blast up nameless henchmen, but they translate awfully to larping. So instead you do something more natural to larp - like a computer hacker with his finger on the execute button… and a gun to his head.

#15

Okay.

I’m booked up pretty much all the rest of the time anyway!

#16

Number 2: “Writers are allowed to write the game”

I don’t think this is really right - unless you’re calling all your players “writers” too. I don’t think anybody gets to write a larp game - it just happens as it happens. You might write a bunch of briefs for NPCs but those people should ultimately go in there and write their character’s part in the larp. At best, a writer should write setting. I think game creators should make a great setting that’s ready for drama then ensure I’m playing a character that can be involved in what might unfold. In Nibelungen, I’m quite prepared to let nothing happen (because I don’t get to decide that). But I have a rich setting that’s ready to respond to the players’ unique potential stimuli.

I’m not allowed to write the game - but I’m allowed to write fiction separately if I want. Writers should get their kicks from imagining the countless directions their setting could go in depending on player action.

#17

Oh dear!

Jared

#18

What needs to be said about this discussion and should be said by this discussion, is ignore Dogma and such like and play it (LARP OR LRP) the way your players like and you like.

To say one disagrees is fine. That is the nature of OPINION. To say one is wrong is destructive.

I say this in all seriousness, that some of the discussions, and the points taken in this continuing debate and those like are, in my opinion, destructive and harmful to LARP or LRP.

Even if not intentional, there are points being made that are saying "your way is crap, our way is much better, you should be doing it this way"
It should be, we do it this way and we like it. If you like it you could also do it this way. If not do it your way.
Don’t over look this as no LARPer or LRPer should endanger what we do with destructive comments.
This is my opinion.
Jared

#19

I made it very clear that this is just my opinion.

Of course it’s a matter of opinion, but so are a great many “progressive” movements, which is what I’d consider this kind of chat. Naturally, opinions are my own and not representative of nzLARPS or the Diatribe project (which are both neutral). Personally I push the agenda of “rules-free fully-improvised dramatic play” because I’ve liked it the most of any larping I’ve had the pleasure of doing. I also think it’s the best approach to take to make larp have a wider appeal and to be able to play more relaxed. I don’t think you can knock the idea of hands-off larp creation (on the part of the “GM’s”) until you’ve been in a good one so I’ll debate it fiercely thanks!

I think we all agree that “if you like doing something then good for you”, Jared. I don’t think anyone’s disagreeing on what’s valid but what’s possible and what might be best. The purpose of this stuff is constructive to the max :smiley:

#20

Everyone should keep this in mind. Despite peoples best intentions some discussions seem hostile and destructive, and don’t achieve this goal.
Jared