Free e-book on psychological experience of LARP

Community Larp discussion
#21

This is exactly the path they’ve been down, the experimental Nordic larpers. Running boundary-pushing events, having psychologists present, finding that nobody wanted to talk to the psychologists, carry on running such events, and now analysing this whole phase they’ve gone through and assessing the risks.

Personally I wouldn’t like to judge anyone based on the types of larp they like to play. People’s motivations are more complex than they may seem from the outside, and there’s a cultural context that we’re not privy to.

By the way, I don’t think jeepform larp implies boundary-pushing subject matter, I think there’s a danger of the two things being equated just because some jeeps are risky. Jeep is a style of larp that somewhat resembles improv theatre. The focus is on the improvised story instead of player identification with and control over characters, which is why people can swap in and out of playing the same character. It has a whole range of techniques, many of which would seem unusual to most larpers but which could sometimes be used in a non-jeepform larp. More about Jeepform: jeepen.org/

We have played jeepforms in NZ. “A freeform Soap Opera” was played at the first Chimera I think. Very light-hearted.

#22

I find the light hearted, comedy games the least worth while for me. I’m the complete opposite of Viperion in my like for games. I like them dark and horrible. For me, as a person, a comedy game is a quick laugh and then I forget about it, but a good horror, it will push me, it will force me to empathise with elements I usually would not, see things a different way. Most importantly, horror larps have taught me a lot about my self and helped me extend my boundaries. As I see it, good dark games, help a person grow.

I find that action games are great for wish fulfillment and the winning fantasy, in the same way as comedy games, they are about fun, the difference is that they tend to be more about adrenalised fun.

#23

Thinking on it further.

As I see it, it is not a cast of

but what turns a person from someone who is ‘generally good’ into someone who is nasty. These games illustrate and should help to understand that under extreme conditions, humans react in ways they would never believe that they could. I think it is vital for us all to acknowledge these effects. I think games should illustrate effects such as the Stanford Prison Experiment, Milgram’s experiment and the case of Kitty Genovese. Larp has the power to do this in a more controlled way than the experiments. By this, I mean that a larp can show you the effect of Milgram or the Stanford without traumatising the participants.

#24

I wasn’t referring to comedy games specifically (that was your idea :wink: ) or even necessarily light-hearted (I enjoyed Teonn, frex), but games where I’m able to become “more” than I am in my mundane life, not “less” - as I define it of course. You may - and do - define it differently.

Having said that:

(emphasis added by me)

I could not disagree with this statement more. A larp is much much less controlled than a (properly-run) psychological experiment, and things such as the Stanford Prison Experiment should - again, in my opinion - be held under very controlled conditions. Of course an advantage of larp is that if it gets to a point where you really are uncomfortable with the subject matter or the characters, you can simply remove yourself from the scenario, no questions asked. Which is usually not an option in a psych experiment.

#25

[quote=“Viperion”]

I could not disagree with this statement more. A larp is much much less controlled than a (properly-run) psychological experiment, and things such as the Stanford Prison Experiment should - again, in my opinion - be held under very controlled conditions. Of course an advantage of larp is that if it gets to a point where you really are uncomfortable with the subject matter or the characters, you can simply remove yourself from the scenario, no questions asked. Which is usually not an option in a psych experiment.[/quote]

Of course, the Stanford Prison experiment was not properly controlled. That’s why it’s infamous.

…and having an out is a very important factor in these things. I know I feel a lot safer in Larps than I would in an actual experiment. But also, we do this for different reasons than those experiments. It’s not as much about seeing how humans react to a situation. It’s about finding out how we would react, and about why people do the things they do. It builds empathy and understanding. But it’s not for everyone, and it’s not an easy thing to explain to people who don’t get it. It’s cathartic, in that you go through the experiences as someone else, or as a different part of you. When the game is over, you get to let it all go.

But it’s not the same reason you would play other sorts of Larp. It’s also not fair in any way to insult the people who play these larps. We could just as easily insult you for not understanding them.

#26

[quote=“Uncle Vanya”]By this, I mean that a larp can show you the effect of Milgram or the Stanford without traumatising the participants.[/quote]There was someone who spent their Saturday at Chimera feeling pretty damn low, after attending your Stanford Prison game. (I don’t know who it was, sorry, I heard this second hand from my sister, and she didn’t remember their name.) Are you sure you’re managing trauma as well as you think you are?

The big takeaway for me, from reading about the real Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments, is that they were controlled experiments, and the researchers did get a nasty surprise about what other people would do in the right stress conditions, and what they would do in the right stress conditions. Like, one of the Standford experimenters being told by a ‘prisoner’s’ father that he didn’t think his son was coping, and the researcher’s automatic reaction was to talk the father out of his opinion by implying that his kid was a sissy, so that the experiment wouldn’t have to stop. Or getting so caught up in the fiction that when the prisoners started planning a jailbreak, they panicked and called a real prison to help contain it. It took an outside observer coming in to be objective about how crazy things had gotten and put a stop to it - and the participants in the experiment spent their whole lives being affected by it in negative ways. That’s not something to play with lightly.

And it’s all very well to say “Oh, people can just use a safeword and walk out”, but there’s a whole lot of praxis out there about when and why people won’t - like if they don’t see anybody else using the safety and don’t want to label themselves as ‘not hardcore’, or they’re too stressed and that’s shutting down their feeling of agency.

#27

[quote=“Adrexia”]But it’s not the same reason you would play other sorts of Larp. It’s also not fair in any way to insult the people who play these larps. We could just as easily insult you for not understanding them.[/quote] :blush: I didn’t mean to come off insulting… my earlier comment was not directed at the participants in the “Bad Dreams” style larps, but the “GR” type (see first page of this thread) which thankfully don’t get run over here (that I know of).

My apologies if I have offended anyone.

#28

[quote=“Stephanie”]There was someone who spent their Saturday at Chimera feeling pretty damn low, after attending your Stanford Prison game. (I don’t know who it was, sorry, I heard this second hand from my sister, and she didn’t remember their name.) Are you sure you’re managing trauma as well as you think you are?
[/quote]

People feel down after games for all sorts of reasons. You also write games where people feel down afterwards. I suppose the important factor would be whether they regretted playing it, and to what extent.

Bad Dreams was my favourite game at Chimera. It was a very worth while experience. I felt down for a while afterwards too, and I wouldn’t change it for anything.

#29

[quote=“Viperion”][quote=“Adrexia”]But it’s not the same reason you would play other sorts of Larp. It’s also not fair in any way to insult the people who play these larps. We could just as easily insult you for not understanding them.[/quote] :blush: I didn’t mean to come off insulting… my earlier comment was not directed at the participants in the “Bad Dreams” style larps, but the “GR” type (see first page of this thread) which thankfully don’t get run over here (that I know of).

My apologies if I have offended anyone.[/quote]

I figured that was the case. Personally I wouldn’t play GR either. I feel there is a place for that sort of “game”, but it’s nowhere near me. If it helps others in some way though, I wouldn’t judge them for it. Experiences are relative. Drunk, on the other hand, I would play.

#30

Sure I do. And I pay a lot of attention before the game on how to build up trust between the participants and letting people know they have an easy out if they need it, and monitoring the game while it’s happening and checking on people who look like they’re maybe not coping, and after the game giving people a debrief phase to walk out of that headspace. And I try to engineer things so that people have a reasonable chance to get some kind of positive resolution by the end of it, because I’m not actually about the misery. Regret they played? I hope not, but I guess that’s always a risk. But at least I’m thinking about it, y’know?

The story I heard about Bad Dreams is that the game ended and you were all sent straight to bed without any kind of ‘talking it out’ phase. Maybe that got garbled in transmission, and actually there was really great game management with lots of best practice stuff going on, and that one person was just really unlucky. But it’s still worth thinking about.

#31

To be fair, Vanya gave people multiple options to back out if they were uncertain after explicitly expressing the ‘dark’ nature of the game and the necessary level of maturity required for it. I think being responsible for this sort of thing is a two-way system, and if a player has any lack of trust or doubt of their own abilities or that of the GM to play through the game in a sensible way, why are they playing? Likewise, if the GM has the same concerns, why are they letting that person play?

Steph, it sounds to me like you’re implying Vanya (or the others who were helping him run the game) didn’t think about how players may react to his game, but I don’t think you mean that. I don’t think that’s a fair assertion from second hand knowledge, especially when there’s been no claim that the game itself was the cause for this person to feel negative in a way beyond what would be desired (by that, I’m referring to the fact that many players chose Bad Dreams: Trust specifically for an emotionally engaging and challenging experience). Even assuming that said person was feeling down because of the game, we can’t just assume it was due to some mistake on the GM’s behalf. Obviously, if that were the case things would be a bit different. This is a supportive community though, so I would like to believe that such issues could be sorted out constructively for all parties involved.

I can’t help but feel we’re drifting from the topic a little though.

#32

Actually, “bleed” is precisely the topic of the thesis Zanni linked to.

Bleed is when a game affects your real life, or your real life affects a game. Especially emotionally.

#33

I know that the GMs for that game were really upfront about letting people know that it was going to be a challenging heavy game. Which is a good thing. But I also heard that someone’s hand got cut on a plastic knife that broke during the game (why not a larp safe knife?), and heard a rumour that someone had a bad emotional outcome. So it’s worth asking about, especially when one of the GMs is saying that larps are more controlled than famous psych experiments that affected people in negative ways for the rest of their lives, and where the researchers themselves got pulled into the fiction.

Also, for the record, I’ve heard a lot of people saying great things about the game. Just, some of the comments have made me wonder a bit.

[quote]especially when there’s been no claim that the game itself was the cause for this person to feel negative in a way beyond what would be desired[/quote]Can I get a clarification on what you mean? Whether the game itself caused someone to feel bad vs some other event? Or that the game was expected to cause someone to feel bad but was more so than expected?

[quote]I think being responsible for this sort of thing is a two-way system, and if a player has any lack of trust or doubt of their own abilities or that of the GM to play through the game in a sensible way, why are they playing? Likewise, if the GM has the same concerns, why are they letting that person play?[/quote]Look, if you haven’t already, I recommend you take a look at the “Safety in Larp” talk that Idiot posted a link to a while back. There’s a lot of stuff in there about theory and practice and what works and what doesn’t for games that are designing for emotional bleed - including games that put in safety features like cut/break rules or OOC areas and what has to happen at game management level for people to actually use them when they need to.

#34

Okay, firstly, I haven’t been replying because I have found you incredibly insulting Steph and was waiting to calm down first. So lets go through this point by point.

Between the game description and the emails I sent out, I have actively encouraged people who were not confident in themselves to step out. I was explicit with what to expect from this game.

At the Pre-Game briefing we reiterated all of the warning, gave people the outs for within the game.

Within the game, as explained in the Pre-game, we had Porl as a psychiatrist IC but he was alos there for people who felt uncomfortable and wanted to privately discuss their issues.

The plastic knife incident, was an unexpected problem. It was a Gm that got scratched, it was supposed to be a one off prop.

The Gm’s were wandering the area the entire time, we were pushing people but also working to make sure they were not going too far.

The point of the game was to illustrate how humans can and do react in that sort of situation. Which is negative. It should disturb people because it is a disturbing part of humanity.

Saying that, at the end of the game we held a comprehensive debrief. Where we explaing the experiments, the point of everything we did, why it is problematic.

I had a player break into tears and he loved the game for it.

#35

He also had a blurb which was utterly uninformative, and which did not create any possibility of informed consent. While I understand that he did inform people of the nature of the game later, it’s not exactly best practice either - both from a safety POV, and from an “attracting players who are a good match for the game” POV.

Once you’ve signed up, there are social barriers to backing out. Those barriers are higher once you actually get to the venue. Which is why it is absolutely vital to give people enough information up front to decide whether they really want to go there.

People can be mistaken about their own limits. They can have misunderstood the information provided about what will happen in the game. They might have understood that information, but things may have gone beyond what they implicitly consented to. They can have been actively deceived in order to avoid spoilers. These are real problems with edgy games, and they need to be addressed seriously by GMs, not just shrugged off and dumped in the players lap.

(This isn’t just a problem with “edgy” games BTW; I’ve seen character sheets in ordinary games which have contained disturbing, triggering material, with no up-front warning (and worse, it was utterly gratuitious and had no relevance to the story). Please, GMs, think about this stuff. Its not fair on your players to dump this stuff in their lap without asking them first if they want to play that sort of thing).

#36

Hi Vanya, thanks for the clarification. It’s good to know that what I heard about game conduct was garbled in transmission.

Take care,

Stephanie

#37

Ditto. There’s no question that edgy games are fun for some people, and I’m really pleased that people are trying to run them.

#38

This is the email I sent to players initially Idiot. Everyone replied to it saying they wanted in.

[quote]Hey,

This is the confirmation email for Bad Dreams: Trust. You were
allocated one of limited spaces at the game, and we ask that you read
this serious email carefully and give it due consideration. I want to
make sure that everyone in this game is fully aware and acknowledges
the nature and danger of this game. It is based on previous
psychological experiments, as such, there is a real possibility for
this game to get intense. This is a hands on game, that is not
something that you can opt out of. Saying that, I expect all players
to be mature and to never hurt anyone else. We will be pushing buttons
quite specifically, we will be picking on you physically and
emotionally.

This game has been double booked, so if you are having second thoughts
please tell me immediately. This is the safest point to opt out, your
well being is of utmost importance to us and someone else can still
take the place.

Please email me back ASAP confirming that you would like to play.

Thank you,
Vanya[/quote]

The safety of my players is ALWAYS my primary concern but safety is a very subjective term. I have played in a game which had me crying uncontrollably for over an hour and still has an emotional impact upon me. That is the highlight of the game because it was catharsis and it also showed me things about myself that I have never before considered. I am a hard man to make feel helpless so being put into a helpless position was hard but it let me emphasise with people in that state. It was amazing and I consider it to be incredibly positive. So taking care of your players in games like this is a very different ballgame. My favourite games are ones that teach you something about yourself but those lessons can be hard to swallow.

#39

Heya - since I’m half the rumour that Steph was talking about, thought I’d chip in.

On Sunday, I talked with a female player about Bad Dreams. I hadn’t met her before, didn’t know her name, and probably wouldn’t recognise her again - which is why I didn’t chip in earlier because I feel like an unreliable source, yeah?

From what I remember of the conversation, she said that the game finished, there was a short conversation and debrief, and everybody left. She said that she spent most of Saturday feeling sad and weird and unhappy and that the limited wind-out from the game was a direct cause of that sad and weird and unhappy. She didn’t talk about went on inside the game. From what I remember from the conversation.

I’m actually very interested in how Vanya et al. designed the latest Bad Dreams - design goals, structure, safety protocols, what you guys feel worked and what didn’t. If you guys would care to write up your notes in a formal way, I’d be delighted to read them.

I’m very interested in safety protocols right now. I walked the ground of Into the Woods observing Stephanie’s excruciatingly careful safety procedures, and I still got to worry hugely when two of the players had an intense negative experience as a result of the game. There were tears. There were also a lot of hugs afterwards, and unwinding from the game, and people making a point of being nice to each other, and we all seemed pretty happy by the end of it. So I think her safety net worked.

But yeah, as someone who once wrote a game which legitimately gave somebody nightmares, I’m interested in how to keep people’s psyches unfucked, yeah?

#40

[quote=“IdiotSavant”]

People can be mistaken about their own limits. They can have misunderstood the information provided about what will happen in the game. They might have understood that information, but things may have gone beyond what they implicitly consented to. They can have been actively deceived in order to avoid spoilers. These are real problems with edgy games, and they need to be addressed seriously by GMs, not just shrugged off and dumped in the players lap.[/quote]

It’s true that accidents can happen, and a shame when they do. I have sympathy for anyone who goes through something traumatic, regardless of what or how. I think my point still stands though that both GM and player need to take responsibility to ensure to the best of their ability that things don’t get ‘out of hand’ (a definition which, given some of the games that have been written, is clearly not a universal point).

This is the very reason why I wouldn’t try GR (Good lord!), but I felt completely safe throughout the entirety of Bad Dreams. There was certainly nothing just dumped into my lap without a thought.