That’s because you run a fantasy campaign.
And because most larps are fantasy campaigns, most larpers want to play fantasy campaigns.
No, Dogma 99 is quite different (and I mean quite different) to improv…
The people that brought us Dogma 99 also brought us fate play. As it says in their site, you could do it on a stage. It is exactly improvisational theatre. This is how “The Blair Witch Project” was created. Dogma 99 even calls the writers “playwrights”.
Dogma 2007 is therefore meant to be a Manifesto for Live Role Players and Live Role Play.
This is not correct. Improvisational theatre is generally marked by several characteristics that aren’t generally true of Dogme99 larp:
-
Improv theatre is performed for an audience. While improv can be performed with no audience in practice or just for fun, the medium is traditionally aimed at an audience. Dogme99 is specifically not aimed at an audience beyond the participants, as any audience would have to ignored. That would violate Dogme99.
-
Improv theatre is almost always carried out in a single play space, and all players are aware of all actions taken by all other players. This results in full information dispersal, where every player theoretically is fully aware of every action in play. This would violate Dogme99, where a player of a character who would naturally want to abscond themselves and hide information during play would also be hiding that information from other players.
-
Improv theatre requires all players to create and define the setting and each other’s character during play. Dogme99 seeks for players to solely inhabit their characters and does not allow them any creative license beyond their characters.
I see improv theatre and all forms of larp/lrp as closely related variations of the same thing. That thing is playing pretend or make believe. However, Dogme99 is a tightly defined variety of this activity, and improv theatre is overwhelmingly of a very specific variety that is significantly different to Dogme99. Identifying them as the same is just wrong.
[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]
This is not correct. Improvisational theatre is generally marked by several characteristics that aren’t generally true of Dogme99 larp:
- Improv theatre is performed for an audience. [/quote]
But usually has to do with none. That is why it is considered most improve is for the actors and not the audience.
[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]
2) Improv theatre is almost always carried out in a single play space, and all players are aware of all actions taken by all other players. This results in full information dispersal, where every player theoretically is fully aware of every action in play. This would violate Dogme99, where a player of a character who would naturally want to abscond themselves and hide information during play would also be hiding that information from other players. [/quote]
Dogma 99 quite clearly states “All secrecy is forbidden.” Also all of the Dogma modules I have found have been carried out in a single play space.
I don’t know what improv you have done, but the improve I have done the director is responsible for creating and defining the setting and the actors sole reposability is to inhabit their character. Their creative liscence is through their character.
[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]
I see improv theatre and all forms of larp/lrp as closely related variations of the same thing. That thing is playing pretend or make believe. However, Dogme99 is a tightly defined variety of this activity, and improv theatre is overwhelmingly of a very specific variety that is significantly different to Dogme99. Identifying them as the same is just wrong.[/quote]
I too think that they are related like a Lion and a Banana are related. They are related but how closely?
What you have described above in relation to Dogma 99 is pure improvisational theatre.
Dogma 2007 is instead a manifesto for Live Role Play.
Improv is often performed in front of an audience and for the benefit of the audience, the Dogme99 prohibition against secrecy is specifically against secrecy in the setting not between characters/players, in most improv all the players can define anything at any time so long as it fits previous contributions or setup.
Apparently they’re closely enough related that there are events that I’d call larp and you’d call improv.
Hey, I never said combat was neccessary, I said combat rules are neccessary, even if it’s just the type of weapon you’re allowed to use (ie larp-safe).
I also have a super idea; instead of debating about what larps we want to write/play in, just write the damn thing and everyone else can play/not play if they want to. Stop wasting internet space with this b/s
Yay go Ange!
It gets a bit semantic at this point. When two friends play rough-and-tumble, is there a rule in place that they won’t hurt each other? Or is it just an unspoken social contract? Couldn’t an unspoken social contract also govern the pretence of violence in a larp?
Thanks for your anti-communication contribution.
If you want a larp-like style that really does look almost exactly like improv, look up Jeepform. The creators don’t claim that it’s larp (they developed it from their local style of tabletop RPG and see it more closely resembling that) but I see it being in the fuzzy area between larp and improv.
I concur 100%. If you cut out the combat rules what else are you going to cut out. May the communication rules, ie no talking or writing. Maybe remove the mobilty rules. No walking or running. When you try and remove something totally from a game which has a potential of occuring in that game then you are intentinally disorting that scenario for no good reason.
[quote=“Ange”]
I also have a super idea; instead of debating about what larps we want to write/play in, just write the damn thing and everyone else can play/not play if they want to. Stop wasting internet space with this b/s[/quote]
Don’t worry there will be a game there on Feb 23. So lets get ready to rumbbbllllleeeeee!
Not having rules doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen. Nibelungen players needn’t worry about knowing combat rules, but I have an inkling that there’s going to be combat.
There are always rules, sometimes they are called Physics.
Obviously. But we’re not talking about that, we’re talking about “no rules that players have to remember” - and obviously this comes with a set of responsibilities that barely need to be spoken. We are talking about “rules that players need to layer on top of reality” like hit points, “advatages” and “XP”. Don’t pretend that I’m suggesting that you’re free to shoplift, or come crying to me when you can’t see through walls (even if you say your character can).
Yes, physics. Also, there are the mostly-unspoken rules of society like “don’t hurt your playmates”.
The point is, do you need rules for walking in your rulebook? No. And you don’t need absolutely rules for combat either. Without rules, people will just use common sense if a combat situation arises. They will use the implicit rules of the social situation.
In a larp that’s designed to have a lot of combat, rules for it may be a good idea. I prefer high-combat larps to have explicit rules for combat.
In a larp that’s not designed to encourage combat, for example Mike’s cabinet meeting larp (which isn’t that hypothetical, I’ve run a larp called Executive Decision that fitted it exactly), explicitly including rules for combat is not required. The implicit “rules” of physics and the usual unspoken social contracts apply. The odds of a physical combat occuring in such a larp are astronomically small if the players grasp the situation and their characters correctly, and dedicating written rule space to it would be a complete waste of time.
To go beyond the cabinet meeting, imagine a larp in an alternate reality where no-one feels aggression. Might be boring (aggression is as much a social phenomena as a physical one), but you could be sure that any explicit combat rules would be a waste of space. Any player initiating combat in such a setting must have drastically failed to understand it.
Another argument for removing explicit rules for combat (and rules for everything else, for that matter) is that they create mental clutter. In a larp that is intended to be as immersive as possible, where players are trying to maximise their identification with their characters in a way resembling method acting, you don’t want them thinking about the rules. You want them “inhabiting” their character’s mental space, and that doesn’t have OOC rules in it. Rules require mental time that could be spent thinking “as the character” about what to do next, or what you feel about a situation, or remembering something your character did earlier. Some people believe that thoughts about rules inhibit this kind of mental character identification. It’s bad enough that they have to think “even though my character would hurt this guy, I can’t because that would be wrong OOC” without them having to think about specific OOC mechanics governing the interaction.
[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]
Another argument for removing explicit rules for combat (and rules for everything else, for that matter) is that they create mental clutter. In a larp that is intended to be as immersive as possible, where players are trying to maximise their identification with their characters in a way resembling method acting, you don’t want them thinking about the rules. You want them “inhabiting” their character’s mental space, and that doesn’t have OOC rules in it. [/quote]
Please don’t mention the Konstantin Stanislavsky and his method acting in regards to Live Role Play or LARP ever again. Method acting has done huge amounts of damaging to acting industry, I don’t want to see that in LRP. Have you ever heard of ‘Acting’?
Actually that is probably being unfair to Staninslavsky. It is probably Lee Strasborg we have to blame for the current method mess.
If I ever hear those words " but what is my motivation?" again, I will throw something very sharp at them.
I still vote for acting.
Oh hell yeah lots of damage, like moving it from pretending and into a true art form, yeah the film industry really suffered from that 
method is just one more tool an actor can use to figure out the character they are playing, it is not the be all and end all of acting, it is just one more way of doing it, alot of actors dont use it, and a lot of actors do, it really is a matter of whatever works for you.
just like Dogma is one more way of running a LARP, not the only way.
Dogma is however the perfect way to stop LARPS from getting started, because all everyone does is argue back and forth about Dogma is right or Dogma is wrong AND NEVER GETS ANY BLOODY WORK DONE. 
A problem with imperative statements (such as “You must have combat rules”) is the likelihood of unnecessary restriction. Conceptualising a larp is a creative process - why restrict your ideas to conformance with an arbitrary paradigm ?
Sure, if you are going to develop a game where combat is an important part of the setting (fantasy, Stargate etc), then it would be advisable to spend time developing a combat system (i.e. combat rules).
But if you are designing a larp where combat essentially non-existent, why would you spend valuable time developing rules for combat when you could improve other aspects of the larp instead ?
One of the ironies here is that my game (Skirmish) consists entirely of combat rules (or rules that support combat, such as price lists for weapons etc).
Which reminds me of David’s assertion that: [quote=“Wulfen (David)”]“A LARP waged by comittee, is a LARP already lost.” [/quote]
Skirmish is run by a committee. It may well be lost, but it works and is a lot of fun to play (which, IMHO, is one very good way to measure a larp).
Absolutely wrong. Inspired by Dogma, I’ve run May Day (last year) and spent a long time creating a new larping environment in Auckland that’s designed to
a.) be cool/ allow for "combat"
b.) not require a formal rules system.
And I’m just one (already busy) guy that believes in this. Removing your rules system means you can stop writing rules systems and get on with getting the bloody work done!
Alista may well agree with this statement, sans sarcasm. He seems to think that artistic effort is for wankers.
In terms of larp, I’m happy with the idea that immersive roleplay and method acting are similar. They are both playing a part by attempting to fully empathise with the character, rather than just portray the character. I certainly want players in immersive larps to think about their motivations and try to inhabit their characters, to feel their characters emotions. I don’t think it’s required of all larp, but I think it’s a perfectly valid approach.
All the telling me not to mention method acting in the world won’t stop me mentioning it. You might as well tell me to stop thinking.
Method acting.