I think you might be seeing hostility that isn’t there, Jared.
I like hearing opinions and preferences. But I also enjoy hearing the reasoning behind them. If someone is laying out a set of guidelines, I’m interested in how they reached that conclusion. If I can’t grasp the reasoning then I’ll ask for an explanation that makes sense to me.
I would never challenge anyone’s right to their opinion or preference. I’m just curious about how they are formed, so I ask a lot of nosy questions and apply logic to the answers.
I find it frustrating when it’s not possible to have a discussion about a difference of opinions without it being construed as hostile or destructive. I appreciate the value of people playing peacemaker, but there’s no war here mate.
Why the hell do all our larps have violence, or at the very least a “combat system”? [/quote]
If you have to ask, you’ll never know.
Over the years I have been in three really serious, real world, fights. Twice I was out numbered and the other time they had a weapon. In only one of these fights did I have to even touch a person. I won all three. These were combats. I did not harm them in any way so there was no violence on my part. There is a difference between violence and combat. They are not interchangeable. Just because the prese slurs the meanings of the word violence and force doesn’t mean we have to.
[quote=“Exquire”]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.
[/quote]
The statement says that writers are allowed to write. It does not say that they are forced to write a particular style or amount. If you want to write your way, that is fine, but please do not try imply I am trying to pressure into writing in my style.
What this manifest is trying to say is Live Role Play is fun, so have fun.
I know certain people like the concept of “rules-free fully-improvised dramatic play”. Nothing wrong with this. I feel that under the old definitions of Live Role Play this is more properly classified as improvisational theatre, but what the hell, there will always be a small hardcore fringe group in any activity. It will also always be a small part of Live Role Play I suppose. It has been around at least 7 years now and seems to have very small followings in several countries. I notice it hasn’t replaced Nero or Amtgurad yet. What I am concerned about is that the intolerance of certain “rules-free fully-improvised dramatic play” people seems to be damaging the main stream live role play of Auckland. From Hamilton experience, we would be expecting Auckland games to have turn out on an average day of about 100-150 people and on good days 200 plus. It would appear from a distance that at least part of this small turn out is due to the lack of main stream Live Role Play in the Auckland region. Hence the Manifesto. It will not be for the more extreme groups, but for those of us who run LRP daily and want to have fun, I believe it is a good start.
Perhaps you are right, maybe I seeing something that is not there.
But I think other people do feel some hostility.
Some peoples postings are even made to provoke people, to generate the uexpected reply, there is fault there.
Sometimes the replies miss the original point altogether and the discussion ends up bearing little resemblance to the first statement.
I also write this because on reading some threads I’m thinking “what a bunch of crap this is” and I feel mortified and guilty that I even took part.
And I wonder if this damages Larp in NZ.
I’m not making a new statement here I’m just concerned cause of the way this makes me feel and I would like people to consider what they say.
Jared
Simply put, they don’t. We could play a Shortland Street larp where people played doctors and nurses dealing with sick people, government funding, cheating partners etc. It’d probably even almost be fun. Heck we could do a CSI game that never had violence as well.
But I’m guessing we wouldn’t get the same numbers attending as a dungeon bash.
Most people seem to like the whacking aspect of larp. I’m one of them
Personally, I thing the whole Manifesto thing is a big pile of doggy doo. What works for one game doesn’t for another. You can break all the rules and still have a fun game.
I agree with Craig that high noon situations are much more fun than actual combat. Some combat can be fun, but it should have a build up. Something like a hostage situation would be good (man wearing a bomb takes over air traffic control tower with players playing hostages, police,terrorist etc).
This discussion seems to touch on the good old “linear vs freeform larp” discussion. Most larp groups seem to start as very “linear” and some move on to become more “freeform”. Pretty much all the ones I’ve encountered have “whacking”.
When I first started larping we pretty much ran linear games. The GM would dream up a bunch of encounters and the PCs would wander down the path encountering them one after another. The NPCs would dash from encounter to encounter getting changed into different costumes. Usually, you’d have a brief discussion with a creature before whacking it. Lots of fun, when you’re 15 years old.
These days I prefer a bit more free form and a bit less whacking. I like that games tend to start at a point and be “let free”. It’s not that I dislike the linear games, but I’ve done enough of them and they get a bit like EverQuest or one of the MMORPGs where you go whack things 'til you go up a level. Entertaining but very much the same-old-thing-again-and-again.
I now prefer situations where you’re not playing a World Saving Hero TM but are playing someone in an ethical dilemia*. Games where good and evil are not clear cut. Games a bit more like real life but with a twist.
an ethical dilemia isn’t “should I kill the goblin before I kill the troll?”
Thanks Derek
Thats the kind of reply that I’ve been waiting to see.
I add this point.
Freeform LARP and linear or non linear plot lines written into the LARP can co-exist. Side missions and subplots added by NPC’s can exist in free form LARP. In fantasy Larp they are almost necessary.
Even the most linear of plot lines will distort into at least partial free form with contact with NPC’s and PC’s because we are free to form the characters we play.
[quote=“Derek”]
This discussion seems to touch on the good old “linear vs freeform larp” discussion. [/quote]
Huh?
In Quest most of our modules tend to be free form. They often have pre-written enounters and these can be free form, fixed in space, fixed in time or fixed in space and time. We still run the occasional linear module. This usually happens in micro-modules or where the terrain in not conducive to free-form modules.
I am not sure how the linear/free form thing has anything to do with the manifesto that I posted. It is about the organizers respecting the playes, a thing that seems quite rare.
What do you think it was about Mordavia (which maxed out at around 80 participants at an event) that wasn’t your idea of mainstream?
I think size and quality tend to be poorly related. For example, in the UK the largest event is the Gathering. But it sounds kinda rubbish compared to Maelstrom, which is a third of the size or less. NERO and Amtgard also sound unappealing.
What makes a game large and what makes a game fun aren’t necessarily related. For example, online RPGs like EverQuest and World of Warcraft get their huge numbers via an addictive levelling up structure, that keeps players doing repetitive crap in order to increase in power.
Levelling up is the appeal of NERO too. And D&D. If that’s what you mean by “fun” then I agree Mordavia could have been larger if it included levelling up. Even my fiance, who generally isn’t interested in roleplay, loves to play things like Baulder’s Gate for the levelling up.
Personally, I don’t find levelling up that satisfying. What satisfies me in roleplaying is immersion in a fictional situation, preferably one that has interesting interpersonal conflict with well-portrayed characters and morally difficult decisions to be made. I like whacking things with swords too and can cope with levelling up in small doses, but it doesn’t have the same perpetual appeal to me as immersion.
Mordavia in many ways reflected my personal preferences in a larp. It was the larp I would like to play in (at least when it was designed, I’m now more partial to a player-led model). I believe that there’s nothing wrong with people creating the larp that they’d like to play in. If everyone tried to just create the most mass-market larp they could it would be a dull hobby.
As Craig pointed out, your manifesto just says anyone can do anything. You say larp should be fun, but you don’t say what you think will help people to achieve fun. Do you mean levelling up? That’s what D&D and NERO have in common, and you’re pointing to them as a model.
s long as players have any involvement in a situation, there will always be a requirement for combat rules, even if the GMs don’t intend for there to be combat. It’s always possible for the player to decide that the only solution is force of arms.
[quote=“Alista”]
Huh? In Quest most of our modules tend to be free form … It is about the organizers respecting the playes, a thing that seems quite rare.[/quote]
I think there is a bit of a scale here. At one end you have:
(1) Players walk down path, encouter 1, encounter 2, … encounterN:
Somewhere in the middle you have:
(2) Players arrive on site, creature 1, creature 2, … creatureN are all on site as well. Depending on what the players do, they may or may not encounter creatures and may or may not fight them
At the other end you have:
(3) Players arrive on site, everyone is a player, shit happens…
They’re all fun, and they all appeal to different types of people for different reasons. Labeling games and pigeonholing them is probably only going to annoy/insult/inflame/aggravate people…
In Quest we have done all three types. The Manifesto I proposed is to allow all three of these styles. Previous manifestos that we have been discussing are to restrict people to one style of play.
Contrary to what various authors have said previously, the Dogma 2007 Manifesto puts strong constraints on some aspects of the game. It stops people from to much ego wank and recognises that any Live Role Play is a co-operative effort between players and organisers. It should not be solely for the benefit of one group.
I agree quality and numbers of players have little to do with each other. Again see NERO and Amtguard. However we as writers and organisers we should note that people will Live Role Play if they feel they are getting something out of it. In New Zealand this is not money, nor members of the opposite sex, so it is probably entertainment. Big games tend to mean that lots of people find it entertaining, little games tend to imply few people it worth the effort of participating. There has to be a large pull towards LRP to overcome the downsides of LRP. ie The sporadic nature of play, the fact you often have to travel distances, the cost of adventuring gear, the cost of participating. and so on. I would tend to judge a systems success on how many people are therefore attending. The quality of the game is for the egos of the organisers, the number attending shows the success with the players. Your arguement therefore appears that it is more important for the organisers to be enetrtained and amused than the players. This is what the manifesto I proposed is trying to counter.
It is all very well to have great little games that very few people want to play, but I would also like to see large games that lots of people want to play .
Okay, I’ve never much liked lists of rules. Reminds me too much of Women’s magazines. I’m bored at the moment, so I thought I’d attack some of them, purely for the heck of it.
I pretty much agree with this, but think it’s redundant. The term “character” implies some kind of persona to me and that most characters won’t have just appeared in a puff of smoke the instant the game begins. So, having a back story is usually part of having a character. Some backgrounds do annoy me though - when some n00b turns up and their history includes defeating an army of 100 single handed it tends to make me want to crull them into the ground as a lesson in humility. I respect their right to do that though I prefer if heroic highlights are “earned” in game. But that may just be me and it depends on the game you’re playing.
Reminds me of something that happened last week. I was at an event and overheard an archer telling someone that his arrows “cut through 2mm steel like butter”. I told him he was full of it and got my helmet for him to try and put an arrow through it. He failed, arrow broke, as I knew he would. I digress…
If you have writers, they write… seems a bit redundant to me.
This mostly seems like an explanation of what “plot” and “player” are. I can’t imagine a game where plot didn’t affect the players and they couldn’t try to reverse it. Actually, I take that back, I’ve played some very bad RPGs, I an imagine it.
Agreed. K.I.S.S and we can physrep stuff that is dangerous of otherwise difficult/expensive to do for real.
Agreed. The GM (if you have one) doesn’t need to be privy to everything. Also, secrets that are really secret work better because players don’t have to worry what their characters know.
I’m going to digress again here. The “hands on head” type invisibility really annoys me. If people want to be hidden, can they please hide behind a tree?
Except Stargate. Oops, did I say that out loud?
This just reinforces what NZ law already insists on. Redundant.
This just reinforces what NZ law already insists on. Redundant.
Everyone should do it because it is fun… Actually, if people hate it and want to come along, I say we let them providing they don’t stop other people having fun. After all, we need the numbers.
Yep, see above. Possibly change these to say “the fun of one person should not be at the expense of another”. Unfortunately, if two people can only have fun by winning and they go head to head, someone isn’t going to enjoy themselves…
If people want to call themself a larp artist, I really don’t care. I know artists in many different media from pottery to pixels and I don’t think the title is anything special. Now people who go around calling themselves “programmers” without earning the title, sheesh, they annoy me.
But, I don’t see larp as an artform, so I think I may agree with this. I also don’t see it as a sport or a type of contest.
Actually, if I was going to have a set of guidelines for larp games I’d probably limit it to something like:
(1) All participants should try to play a character and interacts with the imaginary world as their character would.
(2) Where the participant would have to act in a way that is physically/socially/legally difficult (such as magic, sex or combat) they may physically represent these actions in a way that is easily understood by and consistent with other participants.
(3) Attention should be given to costume and props to create an atmosphere that improves the game.
(4) No cheating.
I think that about covers it. I’m not convinced about (3) though.
I don’t think that’s a fair statement, there won’t always be combat - or at least that you don’t always need rules around it. If you create combat rules you’re probably going to get combat. In May Day there were no combat rules, but when (at the end) one of the characters stabbed another with a collapsible knife physrep, everyone knew what to do.
Noooo, keep playing!
I think we’re still failing to think outside a certain genre here, partly because a lot of our community does like bashing stuff with swords. I don’t like bashing stuff with swords, I just like larp, so I’m frustrated that this is still the case.
If we were making cars and someone said “cars should have better fuel efficiency” and everyone else said “Hey man, we just want cars to get from A to B! You are damaging the whole car industry by all this heathen talk of fuel efficiency - just let us keep doing what we’ve always done”
No, my point is that it’s fine for organisers to run a type of game that they would want to play themselves, even if they know it won’t attract the maximum number of players. So long as they achieve the number of players needed for that style and those players enjoy it, it’s a success.
It has little to do with whether the organisers are entertained or fulfilled, it has more to do with whether the players who like that style of larp are entertained or fulfilled.
People have different tastes. Lots of people like blockbuster movies. Some people like crazy weird little movies. Some people like a bit of both. Are movie-makers who don’t focus on just blockbusters just stroking their own egos by not appealing to the largest possible market? No, their movies have an audience too that would be poorer without them.
I agree. I’m not sure what your manifesto has to do with creating those large events though.
[quote=“Ange”]s long as players have any involvement in a situation, there will always be a requirement for combat rules, even if the GMs don’t intend for there to be combat. It’s always possible for the player to decide that the only solution is force of arms.
And with that, I wash my hands of the subject[/quote]
in my experience i remember the cardinal rule of all Roleplaying, rules and scenarios never survive contact with the players.
if players want combat , you’ll end up with combat.
I also have a bastardisation of a saying that feels appropriate that this time.
“A LARP waged by comittee, is a LARP already lost.”
And now I’m with you Ange. pass me a towel please.
Again I will state their is a reason that Dungeons and Dragons is the most popular Role Play Game in the world. I am open to how you would do Dungeons and Dragons and therefore any inspired without any combat system. Maybe I can challenge Sauron to a game of cards, the winner takes middle earth. Maybe I will just ask that vampire to a dance. You don’t like combat in games, fine make a pascifist character. But when you try to remove combat from the game and not just your character you are denying others the right to a game they want to play.
As to the other issue. From our experience if there is no game in Auckland with a regular attendance of over 100 per module, then there is probably something wrong somewhere in the Live Role Play community of Auckland. I just haven’t figured out what it is.
Again I will state their is a reason that Dungeons and Dragons is the most popular Role Play Game in the world. I am open to how you would do Dungeons and Dragons and therefore any inspired without any combat system. Maybe I can challenge Sauron to a game of cards, the winner takes middle earth. Maybe I will just ask that vampire to a dance. You don’t like combat in games, fine make a pascifist character. But when you try to remove combat from the game and not just your character you are denying others the right to a game they want to play.[/quote]
I disagree with the assertion that combat/violence is a necessary component in a larp. Sure, as long as you have “character freedom”, it is entirely feasible that they could mount an attack on any other character at any time.
But what about a larp set in a cabinet meeting ? Would it be plausible for someone playing, say, the prime minister to pull out a glock and shoot the finance minister ? Or even punch them ? I think it would be totally out of character for the setting - and therefore an example of inappropriate roleplay.
Have you considered the possibility that no-one in Auckland is trying to run larps in a way that would maximise attendance, that everyone has other priorities?
I’m not saying that high attendance is a bad thing. It’s possible to run large high-quality events. Size has a quality of its own, playing exactly the same game with 70 or 700 players has a very different feeling to it.
Organising events for 100+ players is a lot of work. Recruiting, logistics, and event management all take much more effort and time at that size. Time spent organising larps, and possibly not with your loved ones. It’s no coincidence that the largest larps in the UK and USA are run as for-profit businesses. When you’re spending that much time organising larp where is your time for another job?
Also, if mass recruitment if your goal then you can’t be as discriminating in who you larp with. You need mass advertising. You may want to invite all ages, as The Gathering in the UK does. They get thousands of participants… but I’d rather play something smaller and more descriminating.
All that aside, I still don’t think that your manifesto describes the specific things that make for a larger larp. Mordavia followed the manifesto, but wasn’t as large as you think it should have been. Perhaps we didn’t advertise enough? Your manifesto is clearly not specifically a prescription for size if it doesn’t mention advertising. When I was running larps as Portal Games I once brought in 30 new players in a fews months by advertising in games shops. And regretted it… they were mostly 16ish with weak social skills and the quality of the larps went pear-shaped.
