Old Larp Advice Essay

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

I've been going through my zines from old issues Alarums and Excursions, and I found a piece I wrote on larping. I think it still holds up. This is from 2000, just after we went to the Intercon in Timmonium.

ENJOYING AND SURVIVING LARPS

I talked with Josh about what I could have done in two of the games to have had a better time -- I enjoyed them, but could have enjoyed them more -- and what I could have done to survive two of them. He came up with the following two sets of rules. Sometimes they overlap; sometimes they contradict each other.

Enjoying a larp:

1. If you have a chance to make a scene, do it.

2. If you have a chance to help someone else make a scene, do it.

3. Make friends. (*)

4. Make enemies. (*)

(*) These are corollaries of rule one. Both will help.

5. Pay attention

If you are about to do something you don't really want to do, but you feel is in character, if you pay attention, you can usually find an in character reason not to do it.

Pay attention to what's on people's badges, to what they -are- at the moment. This is particularly true in games where badges have coded information on them.

6. If you're going to go down, go down gloriously.

7. If you're not going down, it may still be advantageous to go down gloriously.

8. If you have a choice between going down gloriously and succeeding without doing something, go down gloriously.

Surviving larps and succeeding at your goals:

1. Subtlety is useful.

This is a contrast to the rules for enjoying larps. For enjoying larps, subtlety is good in extreme moderation. Another way of putting it: Subtlety is only good if someone else knows about it.

2. Make friends.

3. Be useful--or seem so.

Comments

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

Excellent advise, and not unlike enjoying a one shot tabletop game. You don't have that much time, so go for sweeping gestures and help others do the same.

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly.

This went double for the tale-within-a-tale, aka mini (if not micro) larp I played within the overall larp where I was dealt the villain. Literally dealt -- for the tales in this larp, we were handed characters at (almost) random.

I looked over the character sheet and thought, roughly: "Subtle... no. I'll stress, plus this guy should be an over-the-top, mustache-twirling, utterly despicable villain. They'll have a blast taking me down, and so will I."

And that's basically how it worked out.

One shot table top games -- you're right that the same advice applies, but it can be easy to forget this. I need to think about why this is.

[selki.livejournal.com]

One shot table top games -- you're right that the same advice applies, but it can be easy to forget this. I need to think about why this is.

Larps encourage improvisational drama more than table top games, right? Also, I think my family upbringing with board/card games means my competitive drive kicks in easily there, but n/a to RPGs/LARPs.

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

Larps do encourage more improvisational drama, yes.

Also, the gm's role is different, resourceswise. That is, in a larp, as the writer, I've set things up so that, I hope, there are enough resources for certain things to happen -- for PCs to accomplish certain things.

This is also true of tabletop one shots.

But, once the game starts, as a gm, I have far less control of the average larp than of the average tabletop. In a larp, I generally can't steer plots per se, or make certain conversations happen. Usually, anyone a PC talks to in a larp is also a PC.

So, if I'm on the right track, a tabletop gamer can play more conservatively. There are usually fewer people, and it's fairly easy to tell who has the resources to solve the problem. That applies to a one shot that is about problem solving to begin with -- and many one shot games are, whether the problem is Cthulhu rising, looting the dungeon, or rescuing someone.

If one can go into focused problem solving in a one shot table top, a lot of folks will.

Group dynamics are different. Many one shot tabletops have utterly unified groups, whether by authorial design or by player choice. Okay, there might be a single traitor. There might be a rogue. But, if we're talking two sides or everyone at each other's throats, one of two things is more likely to happen -- either folks go very much into competitive boardgame mode, reducing the emotional component, so that the safety net of "It's Only a Game" is loud and clear, OR folks dive into the thick of their characters, and you start getting more larplike dynamics.

All of this is heavily theoretical and generalized as is all of what follows.

In a larp, the NPC roles a gm plays in tabletop are generally PC roles. Confronting your nemesis? PC. Trying to get information out of a close-mouthed source? Could be mechanical or a GM playing an NPC, but more likely to be a PC with a full agenda of its own.

So, as a GM, I will usually play my "helpful" NPC types such that they deliver their information or artifacts or whatever. This is the default unless you do something that makes me think "Okay, you've insulted / alienated / whatever this guy, and he won't help you now."

In a larp, as a PC, when you come to me, also as a PC, asking for information or a mcguffin, I am not trying to get you your plot coupon and move things along. I want a scene! Or, at least, I want fun interaction.

Now, this doesn't mean I'll be difficult. Generally, information needs to flow. It was fascinating seeing how, in that wonderful ten hour larp, "Across the Sea of Stars" -- running again at Intercon I! -- players slowly realized that the key to success was sharing their resources. Some of us knew that from square one, and I think, as we got together and spread the wealth, folks saw the effects of this, and it rippled.

And, there was really excellent roleplaying going on there.

In "Dance and the Dawn", I regret not doing certain types of scenery chewing. I do not regret passing on what I'd learned to all and sundry. This was necessary.

Items, though, are another matter. We get very attached to our cool props in larps. Indeed, that's something zrealm brought up when discussing the Dark of the Moon systems with us.

zrealm: Okay, so, you don't want killing. You don't want people being knocked unconscious and losing their items. My PC wants a McGuffin from your PC. All I can do is ask nicely. If you say no, is there anything more for me to do, or should I just go to my hotel room for the rest of the weekend and play with my Wii?

We're still mulling that one. But, the point is, you want an item? You have to find it and get it, generally with no help from the GMs.

[jl8e]

"Make enemies" is not always good advice for enjoying a game: In Alice at this past Intercon, about five minutes after making an enemy, I was out of the game because it was stupidly easy to kill people.

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

Point taken.

I admit I'm tempted to say it worked out for you because you didn't have to play anymore -- but that's not actually a feature.

The games I recall you enjoying, of course, were ones where you did have enemies. But, I note:

1. Not only was killing non-trivial, I think it was nigh impossible, in one game.

2. Your character sheet had enemies built in.

3. Your worst enemy was played by bigscary.

Hm. I think I might have had more fun in Forgive Me Father if I'd been able to make enemies. As it was, I think I had more fun than a lot of players did.