Sure. But if I ask you "What do you like to listen to?", then "music" is not a useful answer. I didn't say that LARP couldn't be an all-encompassing word, just that when it becomes that broad I'm not sure it serves as a useful indicator of what you are actually interested in. And, it may be even less useful when the ever-broadening definition of LARP starts to overlap with other fields, as in...
I disagree. What we need to start talking about is "What KIND of larp do you like to participate in?" The broad term is fine. "Improv" can be too broad, does it mean comedy improv or theater, or both? But people still use it. So larp is fine, and as the medium gains more recognition, people can start to see the lines between genres of larp. If I ask someone "what do you like to listen to", "music" at least separates it from "audio books", "news", or "Rush Limbaugh."
larp has a form that's different than acting exercises and long form improv
Always? The "Gang Rape" and "Fat Man Down" LARPs read to me (again, from a very brief summary, so there could be points I'm missing) like acting exercises. Aside from the extreme content (and we've already agreed that content doesn't define form) I can easily see these being performed in an acting class. So what attributes distinguish them as LARP?
When I was writing my essay, I ran up against this dichotomy. And my solution was to have fuzzy borders. That being said, the difference between those larps and acting classes are almost nil. I consider improv acting classes to be larps.. However, as soon as you add an audience watching it (besides an instructor), it moves to theater. Because the purpose is to entertain the audience, not the actors. And in fact, when I was in acting class I talked about larps, and the teacher knew exactly what I was talking about, and my experience in larp helped me in the class, and my experience in the class helped me in larping. And sure, larps can (and have) been used in acting. "The Road Not Taken" by Mike Young is directly out of psychodrama therapy.
I see those fuzzy borders as things being "larp-like". So improv exercises and ARGs are very close, and may actually be larp. Larps on TV, like the upcoming "Realm of Larp" series, is getting closer to acting performance. I see nothing wrong with this, and in fact I love the fuzzy borders.
Simple - there's no conflict (nor quantifiable outcome, for that matter.)
There's a pretense of conflict, in that the characters in the game presumably wish to live while the killer wishes them to die. But no player has goals that differ from those from another player - you don't have a particular character you want to preserve, or a particular outcome you want to make happen. You're just telling a story. And there's nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not a "game", any more than it would be a "game" if you sat down with a collaborator to write a movie script. It's just storytelling.
I disagree. There is conflict in The Final Girl: the characters versus the enemy. The conflict is artificial, as the definition requires. And there are rules on how to enact that conflict, and the quantifiable outcome is that there is only one survivor. But which one? In fact, the rules to TFG, IIRC, specifically asks that players play their characters to win. Therefore, my goals are to have my character (whoever it is in that round) survive longer than yours. I can be easily swayed, but I want mine to survive. In our run, the character I most wanted to survive didn't. I think the one that survived was everyone's #2 choice, but not their #1 choice of survivor.
Like "Final Girl" or "Fat Man Down", there may be rules, but the players all have the same goals. Not true. The players do not have the same goals other than "I want to participate in and finish this activity." That, to me is too broad a phrase.
Oh, and one more... You're just telling a story. So a D&D campaign isn't just telling a story? A Choose Your Own Adventure or Infocom game isn't just telling a story?
Just because it's a game doesn't mean it's not a story. Just because it's a story doesn't mean it's not a game.
no subject
I disagree. What we need to start talking about is "What KIND of larp do you like to participate in?"
The broad term is fine. "Improv" can be too broad, does it mean comedy improv or theater, or both? But people still use it. So larp is fine, and as the medium gains more recognition, people can start to see the lines between genres of larp. If I ask someone "what do you like to listen to", "music" at least separates it from "audio books", "news", or "Rush Limbaugh."
larp has a form that's different than acting exercises and long form improv
Always? The "Gang Rape" and "Fat Man Down" LARPs read to me (again, from a very brief summary, so there could be points I'm missing) like acting exercises. Aside from the extreme content (and we've already agreed that content doesn't define form) I can easily see these being performed in an acting class. So what attributes distinguish them as LARP?
When I was writing my essay, I ran up against this dichotomy. And my solution was to have fuzzy borders. That being said, the difference between those larps and acting classes are almost nil. I consider improv acting classes to be larps.. However, as soon as you add an audience watching it (besides an instructor), it moves to theater. Because the purpose is to entertain the audience, not the actors. And in fact, when I was in acting class I talked about larps, and the teacher knew exactly what I was talking about, and my experience in larp helped me in the class, and my experience in the class helped me in larping. And sure, larps can (and have) been used in acting. "The Road Not Taken" by Mike Young is directly out of psychodrama therapy.
I see those fuzzy borders as things being "larp-like". So improv exercises and ARGs are very close, and may actually be larp. Larps on TV, like the upcoming "Realm of Larp" series, is getting closer to acting performance. I see nothing wrong with this, and in fact I love the fuzzy borders.
Simple - there's no conflict (nor quantifiable outcome, for that matter.)
There's a pretense of conflict, in that the characters in the game presumably wish to live while the killer wishes them to die. But no player has goals that differ from those from another player - you don't have a particular character you want to preserve, or a particular outcome you want to make happen. You're just telling a story. And there's nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not a "game", any more than it would be a "game" if you sat down with a collaborator to write a movie script. It's just storytelling.
I disagree. There is conflict in The Final Girl: the characters versus the enemy. The conflict is artificial, as the definition requires. And there are rules on how to enact that conflict, and the quantifiable outcome is that there is only one survivor. But which one? In fact, the rules to TFG, IIRC, specifically asks that players play their characters to win. Therefore, my goals are to have my character (whoever it is in that round) survive longer than yours. I can be easily swayed, but I want mine to survive. In our run, the character I most wanted to survive didn't. I think the one that survived was everyone's #2 choice, but not their #1 choice of survivor.
Like "Final Girl" or "Fat Man Down", there may be rules, but the players all have the same goals.
Not true. The players do not have the same goals other than "I want to participate in and finish this activity." That, to me is too broad a phrase.
Oh, and one more...
You're just telling a story.
So a D&D campaign isn't just telling a story? A Choose Your Own Adventure or Infocom game isn't just telling a story?
Just because it's a game doesn't mean it's not a story. Just because it's a story doesn't mean it's not a game.