I’m certainly in the “no unnecessary rules” camp. If you decide you need combat then it needs to be toned back from real combat. However, things like picking locks and computer hacking can be done for real don’t need rules.
Obviously you can’t “turn off” the laws of New Zealand for a game.
Define “unneccessary”?
Define “unneccessary”?[/quote]
If it can be done (without breaking law, social taboos or spending lots of money) then it doesn’t need to be represented by a rule. It is an unnecessary rule. For example:
Examples of areas I believe are Necessary Rules
Unnecessary Rules
Whether there are rules or not, participants are always responsible for their (real world) actions. So if you seriously hurt someone then you might find nobody wants to play with you any more.
But I think the “hurting someone” argument is a knee-jerk here (for both sides of the argument) because we all know that only sociopaths would willingly cause serious injury during a game, rules or none.
Thank you Derek for the list of challenges.
Stuff I must prove possible without rules:
Alista, I don’t really know any very good examples of rules-free systems (if you can call them systems). My thoughts are that it’s like pure play-pretend or straight improvised theatre… but at the length and level that we expect of larping. I ran a game called May Day that had no rules and it was a blast!
I gotta go but let’s keep talking about no rules 
The closer the system is to the current reality the less rules you will need. But you still get the problem like the door posed earlier.
I am one of the few people in NZ that is legally allowed to own lock picks, that gives me a huge advantage. Or if I break the door down, which is not hard, who pays for it.
Also all Role Playing systems I have ever seen have a combat system. We have a character interaction system as well as we are not really allowed to torture people.
However a bigger problam is we like Live Role Play and this involves acting and by pure definition this means representing something that one is not. If I play a theif character it is often because I am not this character in real lfe and therefore I will not have the real life skills. In reality I study the combat arts, but prefer to play a mage. If we make all skills reality based then we lose this escapist element that is a strong attraction to players.
In Quest we have over 450 pages of rules. That is a lot, a huge amount in fact. However, we also believe in the concept that the rules should allow people to do as much as possible and in play be as simple as possible. However character development and out of game stuff can be as complex as we want… While there are 450 pages of rules the average player only needs to know 4 of them. This allows us to make a complex yet very simple system that most players can learn in less than half an hour. The reason for all these rules, we are a fantasy game and we want to represent things that are not, have not been and never will be.
I’m working on a larp set in Greek Mythology at the moment. The actual rules will be under a page and cover combat, death, magic, love and sex.
There will however be supporting material as well. This is to assist players in preparing for the game and will be some pictures of costume, armour and weapons, a list of what to bring, a little bit of culture, food etc… The intent is to give players an overview of what the genre covers and doesn’t cover.
I meant to run it last year, but work got in the way. It’s summer again and I’m determined to get it done while the sun is blazing!
I read an article once which described a system where sex could be ‘symbolically’ represented by touching people’s hands and arms.
I remember you mentioned this a year ago when I said we needed rules for sex. That’s what I’m planning for the Greek larp sex rules.
That way we can all look at two guys shaking hands and nudge and wink and snigger. 
Remember in Greek society sex between man and woman was only for the purposes of procreation, the only true love was between man and man. Will this be included in the system? Or do we get the modern Christo/judeaic version?
Thats also not strictly true.
Since the above comment deals with setting and background, not implementation, it might be best to continue it in the thread which discusses that setting.
I’ve got to admit, I find categorising larps into generations to be confusing terminology. I’m happier not having to translate ‘first generation’ into ‘cowboys and indians’.
The original point of classing LRPs as generations was as the original labelling of anything. It would be to group various things together that have similar properties, in this case in their play or in their game mechanics. The order of the numbering of the generations has to do with historical order that they were catalogued.
I suspect that generation numbers have always been of more use to designers and writers than to player.
Also just because something is a latter generation does not always mean that it is better. For example, CDs are a later generation of sound reproduction than vinyl records, yet it is demonstrable that they have a lower quality sound reproduction. What ever generation of game you are in, play hard and have fun.
[quote]
I suspect that generation numbers have always been of more use to designers and writers than to player. [/quote]
When I’m talking about the back-end of a larp, or the front end for that matter, I find it more useful to use terms like ‘Player-driven’, ‘theatre-style’, ‘boffer’, ‘live steel’, ‘symbolic representation’ and so forth.
As far as systems of nomenclature go, there’s usually some good or bad to both.
I’m all for grouping things with similar properties together
Thing is, you’re using the primary identifier of generation. As systems go, it identifies the order in which your game systems evolved. It lends some order to the mass of data. In that way, it’s better than nomenclature which simply involves phrases reduced to acronyms, (which are meaningless in themselves, have no regular system aiding in identification, and incomprehensible to the uninitiate (I dislike acronyms intensely).*)
My first objection:
If you can break up the description of the game into elements that belong to the various generations, how do you describe these elements? Do you find yourself using regular names for them? And does Third Generation have to involve ‘real world’ settings AND symbolic representation of conflict? What about Unity, which from what I’ve read involves a real world setting and a ‘you can do what you can do’ implementation (if I’m incorrect here, AJ, sorry). If I understand the generation system correctly (and I may not), that would make it a Third Generation setting with a Zero Generation implementation. It seems to me that games fall too easily across the borders of the categories. Why not categorise them by the elements inside the generations instead?
My second objection:
What if a group in Finland chooses to call their nifty new electronic/dice/Rhine card interaction system Fifth Generation and another group in Nigeria feels that Fifth Generation is an appropriate title for their new system that evolved naturally out of the one that went before, and these are totally incompatible? Over a large planet filled with larping groups, absences of communication can happen. How do we decide which style gets the coveted Generation title?
shrug Which is why I’m not entirely happy with a generation system of nomenclature.
ps:
My sister would like to know if you’re referring to Larry Niven’s Dream Park books. If so: way cool.
pps: This may not be the appropriate thread to ask this, but Ryan, I’ve seen you use the term ‘granularity’ several times, and I’m not sure what you mean.
I also find the properties of the larp a better way to define larps than “generation”
To each their own. Labels like "‘Player-driven’, ‘theatre-style’, ‘boffer’, ‘live steel’, ‘symbolic representation’ " tend to bedescribing different properties to the old generation system. It may have passed it’s time which is why the Aucklanders don’t use it any more while the more backward country yokels find it of use.
Another attempt at clarifying. 0G, 1G and 2G rules are really defined by their character generation system. The difference between 1G/2G syatems and 3G systems is the character interaction system. A 4G system is a hybrid system. Setting is irrelevant. It is irrelevant if you use water pistols or paper swords or real weapons. The era it is set in is irrelevant. Only the character interaction system and the character generation system are of import in this nomeculture.
Sound engineering geekery belongs in the Random forum. This forum is for roleplaying geekery.
Ive moved the sound discussion to a new thread in Chit Chat so our sound geeks can have a seperate discussion. Have fun.
I think I’ve picked this term up from computer programming.
A highly “granular” thing has large globby components. Big grains, and usually few of them. A less granular system has more moving parts, generally smaller ones.
In Mordavia, the Advantages often glob together a number of skills and benefits. For example, the Noble advantage gives you:
This is more granular than allowing players to buy each of these sub-advantages separately. The reason I consider granularity important is that I believe simplicity to be the core of a playable larp system. The more granular a system is, the few things you have to remember in play, which I believe makes it more playable. In larp you have to store everything in your head, you (usually) don’t have a character sheet to refer to. If it comes in big chunks it’s easier to store.
Hmmm, I am also a computer programmer, and when I use the term “highly granular” I mean the exact opposite. i.e. a high degree of granularity means that the components are smaller, not larger.
That being said, I agree with the concept of granularity adding value due to simplification. It also adds power-gaming vectors which need to moderated in some way. PCs with experience in the gaming environment can determine which groupings of skills offer best bang-for-buck based on how useful/frequently used are the component skills from a grouped skill. e.g. literacy and increased income could be seen as highly advantageous with respect to Noble.
To continue the Nobel Advantage example, the moderator was the requirement to have a retinue in order to obtain the full kopek allowance.
Yeah, I’ve heard “highly granular” used both ways. Better terminology is “fine-grained” and “coarse-grained”. I advocate coarse-grained systems for larp, they’re easier to store in your head in play and easier for non-gamers to grasp (less of a barrier to entry).
Which is about power balancing, really. A whole 'nother can of worms, whether it’s important to balance power in all larps.