"Missing Out" - The OOC complications of IC choices

Community Larp discussion
#1

I’ve often noticed that the majority of Larpers tend to desire to be included in absolutely everything. Every IC event, every game, every plot, every moment. Some even go so far as to desire to be a part of every single available Larp regardless of time clashes or issues. I’ve seen and felt these feelings of wanting to be included, or rather, not missing out, personally as well. It’s only natural, as so often we feel that if we are not there, if we are not included, others have fun without us, experience things we are not part of, etc. etc.

Obviously time, location and funding hinders this desire, but what about when something else prevents a player from attending an event? What about when the choices a character makes means that they are not welcome at the Prince’s Castle for his grand ball? Or if the wealthy landowner would never really be seen dead at a gypsy fair and fireside dance party? When a player has chosen to portray a specific character, and has made choices that character would make, it seems correct to me that the character should be excluded from events that don’t make story sense for them to be at.

Yet very often I see that some characters are included anyway, and this is often because of the OOC sense of being unfair to the player by excluding them. Indeed, there is often great social pressure on event organisers, be they GMs or other players, to include everyone. “GMs must accept every character concept put to them.” "I don’t care if it’s Player XYZ’s event and I am playing their mortal enemy, I am invited to attend!"
Clearly there is a room for middle ground, but what I often see is the expectation that the organisers bend their plans to accommodate a single individual.

My questions for the floor:
How do you balance the desire to include every player?
Do you agree that it is right and fair to exclude certain characters from events that just do not make sense for them to attend?

#2

In my opinion, balancing player desires is impossible 90% of the time. People will wrench the world, the plot, and their own understanding of their character so far in order to get the most out of a game. I don’t necessarily see this as a bad thing, but it can be frustrating. It’s a mark of how much people like a game, to be sure, or how much they like the characters and players that inhabit it. “Oh, another game of x, with characters y and z! I love y and z! Sign me up!” I’m guilty of this as well, thinking of how many times I could travel to Auckland on my paychecks, catching games in Hamilton and Christchurch.

In my experience as a GM, though, I’m not interested in balancing those desires as my first priority. If a character wouldn’t be at an event because it’s being run by their mortal enemy, I would much rather that player NPC their way through that event, especially if it’s part of a game where relevant NPCs are plentiful. I’ve been invited to many casual Crucible events, for example, and while I would like to experience more of the game, I feel like my character would be sorely out-of-place. I’d be more interested in finding someone I know and saying 'Is there someone you’d like me to play?'
For me, the boundaries of the story are the key, like a bag with lots of pockets, where your characters are so many varied items. If you can explain where in the bag your item fits, or how you’ll sew a new pocket in to fit said item, that’s fine by me. But if your proposal is to cram the item in, so that it’s sitting haphazardly, or so that it tears the bag and other items fall out, or if your proposal is to put your can of pepper spray amongst the cans of silly string? Not so keen.

I don’t think GMs should have the power to restrict players from events if it doesn’t make sense for the character to be there - after all, if someone is willing to pay money and jump the hoops, they should be allowed in. But as a player, I’m incredibly mindful of whether or not my character belongs somewhere. It’s our job to step back from narrative events as needed - to an extent, anyway.
If my character makes choices that mean they’re not welcome at the castle, I’m not going to rock up and demand entrance; I may, however, request that a friendly PC smuggle me in while I’m pretending to be the Earl of Rodrigo, and then when my character inevitably fucks up the ruse, then the story becomes even more interesting. My wealthy landowner wouldn’t be seen dead at the fireside dance party; I won’t go as him, or I’ll request that one of my connections insisted we go to show me what life is really like. In both these cases, though, I may be settling myself in for a night of sitting in the corner under arrest or having a bad IC time. I have a right to make reasons for my character to be at something. I don’t have the right to demand the plot move mountains to ensure that my character has a good time.

#3

If your character wouldn’t go, but the player wants to, I suggest crewing.

#4

If your character makes choices that would mean the player cannot be involved in certain things, then this is how you deal with it: You accept it as part of the game. Yes, IC choices can and should affect OOC things, because they affect IC things and there is an OOC person behind each IC character.

It is right and fair to exclude characters from things that it makes no sense for them to be at.

This extends to things besides events, of course. If your character makes some decision that leads to their death, or being unwelcome in some player group, or anything else which might make you unable to participate in some part of the game which you might otherwise be able/want to participate in, this is not ‘ruining your fun’. It is how the game works. You make decisions, they have results. If they result in you being unable to participate in things, well - too bad. Find some other part of the game to participate in. Or, as musicforwolves says, find a way to participate anyway - accepting that the consequences will probably escalate.

#5

As a GM… well, with my game, it is relatively small, so we worry more about including more people than excluding them.

But for certain parts where it would not make sense for some characters to be there, I do not advocate banning them, as the GMs, from the scene/event. I prefer to say something like “If you come, the likely consequences fall into this range. If that’s okay with you and you think your character would do it, then sure - but don’t say I didn’t tell you so.”

#6

One way to placate this desire, as a GM, is to not run exclusionary events; i.e. make all events exclusionary and of the type that all characters could easily make reasonable excuses to attend.

Of course, if you want to run an exclusionary event, I think it’s entirely reasonable that you only whitelist a selected collection of the player bases characters. Invite only larps and events already exist and are perfectly legal.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that wanting to attend every event is an impractical and unreasonable desire, for both IC and OOC reasons; character consistency and logistics being the most important two.

#7

QFT!! (Quote for Truth)

If you as a player, make a conscious decision as a character, which means you won’t be invited to an IC event, then that’s your decision, go as an NPC instead. The biggest issue I see with this, is IC vs OOC knowledge. If you find out anything during the event that your PC won’t know, then you have to be able to forget that information during the game.

Some events are held to spice up the game & flavour etc, not everyone would attend them, rather than force a character to make impractical choices, just so the player can attend, seems to me, to be a game killer, not just for that player, but for others as well. In some games with factions / families / etc, it might not be practical for people to turn up. But it’s not the intention of the hosts to exclude the player, just the character. Which takes me back to the NPC / Crewing option.

#8

[quote=“Robza”]
My questions for the floor:
How do you balance the desire to include every player?
Do you agree that it is right and fair to exclude certain characters from events that just do not make sense for them to attend?[/quote]

You don’t. If a player wants to be included in everything, then it’s their responsibility to include themselves. If they can’t figure out a way that makes sense, then see point two.

Yes, I agree it is right and fair. I prefer as close to realism as possible, though, that is a person preference. If I want to desperately go to something out of character, but that has been denied to me or makes no sense, then I just don’t go. It’s seriously not the end of the world.

#9

There’s a relevant new term out of Nordic larp called “steering”.

Here’s a PDF about it: dymaxion.org/talks/KP14-Steering-Final.pdf

Steering is choosing to have your character do things because you think it will make for a better larp, for yourself or others. We all steer to some degree, and it can be a positive thing.

The opposite end of the spectrum is becoming “one with the character” and doing whatever they would do, regardless of OOC consequences. The way I see it, it’s a question of balance. Immersion is enjoyable and can add to the experience, but taking an authorial stance can also bring benefits sometimes.

So if you don’t think your character would attend an event, but you’d like to play in it as them and you think it would add to the event, it might be worth considering “steering” the character so they would attend. Work with other players to come up with a rationale for it. Maybe they are currently a captive, or they have been specifically invited under a peace agreement even though they may still be considered an enemy. Perhaps they’re in disguise. Maybe they really want to see a particular character who will be there, so they have overcome their other objections to attend. As long as it’s not going to spoil the styling of the event for the organisers, and it doesn’t stretch the believability of the setting too much, seems like an option.

#10

I don’t think becoming ‘one with the character’ regardless of OOC consequences is necessarily contradictory with ‘steering’. Every person, real or imagined, has a range of possible responses to any given situation - you can stick to a character entirely and still steer to some extent.

For purposes of driving plot and fun, this mostly means just steering yourself hard to the dumb end of your range. Stupid actions make for great RP.

#11

I know I’ve missed out on plot shenanigans in LARPS due to the kind of character I choose to play-- I tend to play characters who aren’t great at combat if not outright terrible-- and in live combat LARPS this is for a health and safety reason. I chose to play that kind of character, so if I can’t come along on the bloody combat or the monster-slaying adventure I’ll just have to find out what happens later from other characters. If my character offends somebody important and is banned from X event, but I as a player want to go and there’s no incentive for my character to go-- crewing, or just staying home and getting the news from other people later. :smiley:

#12

A related 2c-- I’m a disabled LARPer. When I started doing campaign and live combat LARPs it was under the understanding that my motor skill and sensory processing issues would restrict me from participating in some aspects of the LARP and some LARPs would be inaccessible to me for one reason or another. It is nice when organisers leave room for disabled LARPers (Crucible has done this quite well) but it’s also not always possible, sometimes due to venue or to the ins and outs of plot or whatever. So when I started LARPing it was with the understanding that I wouldn’t be able to take part in certain events due to it not being within my abilities, and that’s fine!

I can’t always be included OOC due to the ins an outs of who and what I am as a person, so similarly I can’t always be included IC due to the ins and outs of playing my character. It’s a similar mentality for me.

#13

I understand fear of missing out, and I understand wanting to be with your mates and getting to play with them, especially friends from other cities you don’t get to see frequently. I also get that this is a hobby and it’s fun, and not something that people will be graded on for being 100% consistent all of the time.

But when people do all the things, all the time, regardless of if it’s reasonable to expect that character to be doing some of them, it makes it really hard to roleplay consistently against that character. Unless their concept was already established as a ‘stick my nose into everything all time/risk taker/pot-stirrer’ sort. And when things get too improbable/don’t make sense, I tend to shy away from interacting because I either don’t want the conflict that should occur.

Also, and this will sound inflammatory, but it’s not meant to be - but sometimes it can appear a little bit selfish if someone is involved in something that really clearly seems like their character would not do. There runs the risk of a situation that was supposed to be about X, suddenly being about “why is person Y here and what do we do about it?”. And that can make for great roleplay to be sure. But it can also take attention away from the planned story, or from the people who were meant to be the focus of a scene/situation. Again, this is where I’d personally be more likely to just act like they’re not there both IC and OOC because I want to focus on the task at hand.

I’m sure people aren’t -at all- trying to be selfish. I’m sure it’s enthusiasm and a want to have fun and a want to forge more character connections and just get to play their character. I understand that. But it’s good to be self-aware enough to wonder if it’s really logical for a character to actually participate in X or Y?