I disagree. What we need to start talking about is "What KIND of larp do you like to participate in?"
That's pretty much exactly what I was saying. My only point was that if we broaden the definition of "LARP" to the degree to which you suggest, then "I like LARPing" becomes a nigh-meaningless statement, along the lines of "I like music" or "I like audiovisual entertainment." More specifics are required to convey anything useful.
And my solution was to have fuzzy borders. That being said, the difference between those larps and acting classes are almost nil.
Fair enough, and my point in raising this was that the people running such LARPs should be aware, if they are not, that they're in established territory, if only so that they can make use of what's gone before, rather than entirely reinventing the wheel. (or, given that the term "LARP" has become very broad, maybe it would make more sense to simply use the "acting exercise" terminology to distinguish this style from, say, boffer LARPing.)
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.
See, here's where I think there's clearly a fuzzy border. In a separate comment, you mentioned that in your view, LARP is selfish. I've never thought of it that way. Speaking for myself, I put a lot of effort - and not just as a GM, but as a player - into making sure that the game works and that other people are enjoying it. On many occasions I have been tempted to walk out of a shitty game, or to ignore my character's specified goals in favor of something that seems more fun. But I never do it, because I know perfectly well how that can fuck things for everybody else. As I see it, my job at a LARP is to make sure everyone has a good time.
(I would reassess that at a different type of LARP; in the unlikely event that I were to participate in Fat Man Down, I would make it my job to commit to the exercise.) My point is that I don't think of LARPing as a selfish activity; it should ideally be fun for me, but it's just as important if not more so to make sure that my role contributes to, and does not detract from, the experience that the other players are having.
I disagree. There is conflict in The Final Girl: the characters versus the enemy.
I could as easily say "That script you're writing with Bob? It's about a war. War is conflict, therefore scriptwriting is playing a game." But that would be stupid.
There is no conflict between the players in Final Girl. Or, to be more precise, there is a completely regimented and deterministic method for resolving the conflict between the killer and the players. (For those who haven't played, in each scene one player takes the role of The Killer. The Killer chooses a victim at an appropriate moment, and each player turns over a card; if the Killer's card is higher, the character dies. Otherwise, the Killer picks a new victim. None of the player's choices have any bearing on the outcome, therefore it is not a game.)
Therefore, my goals are to have my character (whoever it is in that round) survive longer than yours.
But you can't actually do anything to influence that outcome. Flipping a coin and proclaiming that heads means I win and tails means you win is not a game, either. The actions your character takes are strictly for role-playing purposes. Which, again, there's nothing wrong with. But it's story-telling and not a game. (Technically speaking, The Killer has some minor influence over the outcome, as s/he can decide what victim to go after first. But The Killer has no character of his/her own and therefore no incentive to influence the decision other than in pursuit of a better 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.
I think that all the rebuttal I can muster here is "Duh."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2012-05-30 01:24 am (UTC)That's pretty much exactly what I was saying. My only point was that if we broaden the definition of "LARP" to the degree to which you suggest, then "I like LARPing" becomes a nigh-meaningless statement, along the lines of "I like music" or "I like audiovisual entertainment." More specifics are required to convey anything useful.
And my solution was to have fuzzy borders. That being said, the difference between those larps and acting classes are almost nil.
Fair enough, and my point in raising this was that the people running such LARPs should be aware, if they are not, that they're in established territory, if only so that they can make use of what's gone before, rather than entirely reinventing the wheel. (or, given that the term "LARP" has become very broad, maybe it would make more sense to simply use the "acting exercise" terminology to distinguish this style from, say, boffer LARPing.)
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.
See, here's where I think there's clearly a fuzzy border. In a separate comment, you mentioned that in your view, LARP is selfish. I've never thought of it that way. Speaking for myself, I put a lot of effort - and not just as a GM, but as a player - into making sure that the game works and that other people are enjoying it. On many occasions I have been tempted to walk out of a shitty game, or to ignore my character's specified goals in favor of something that seems more fun. But I never do it, because I know perfectly well how that can fuck things for everybody else. As I see it, my job at a LARP is to make sure everyone has a good time.
(I would reassess that at a different type of LARP; in the unlikely event that I were to participate in Fat Man Down, I would make it my job to commit to the exercise.) My point is that I don't think of LARPing as a selfish activity; it should ideally be fun for me, but it's just as important if not more so to make sure that my role contributes to, and does not detract from, the experience that the other players are having.
I disagree. There is conflict in The Final Girl: the characters versus the enemy.
I could as easily say "That script you're writing with Bob? It's about a war. War is conflict, therefore scriptwriting is playing a game." But that would be stupid.
There is no conflict between the players in Final Girl. Or, to be more precise, there is a completely regimented and deterministic method for resolving the conflict between the killer and the players. (For those who haven't played, in each scene one player takes the role of The Killer. The Killer chooses a victim at an appropriate moment, and each player turns over a card; if the Killer's card is higher, the character dies. Otherwise, the Killer picks a new victim. None of the player's choices have any bearing on the outcome, therefore it is not a game.)
Therefore, my goals are to have my character (whoever it is in that round) survive longer than yours.
But you can't actually do anything to influence that outcome. Flipping a coin and proclaiming that heads means I win and tails means you win is not a game, either. The actions your character takes are strictly for role-playing purposes. Which, again, there's nothing wrong with. But it's story-telling and not a game. (Technically speaking, The Killer has some minor influence over the outcome, as s/he can decide what victim to go after first. But The Killer has no character of his/her own and therefore no incentive to influence the decision other than in pursuit of a better 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.
I think that all the rebuttal I can muster here is "Duh."