If you are at all interested---and no reason you should be---the essay I refer to is called "Larp, Theatre and Performance" by Marjukka Lampo, and is available for free in the "Think" book of Knutepunkt 2011, here (http://rollespilsakademiet.dk/kpbooks/).
I still believe that Final Girl is a game because there is a structure to it, rules of things we can and cannot do. Those rules are artificial, and there is a quantifiable goal: decide which character survives. The people are the randomizers, their role playing ability. Does it lie in the fuzzy realm between collaborative storytelling and game? Absolutely. But so, too, do many games. And those are usually the kinds of games/events I like. FWIW, I enjoyed Fiasco the most of the three indie RPGs I played (Final Girl and Geiger Counter being the other two).
If you missed it, I think this is an "is/ought" argument, that Mike has said. I think I am arguing what larp *is*, and you and the others were talking about what larp *ought* to be. In the long run, does that knowledge matter in us making or playing a good larp? It might not to you, but this knowledge and framework helps me. But for most others, they can probably go on participating in kick-ass larps without ever knowing what "bleed" is.
I forgot most of what my arguments were, and what yours started as, and I have other things to do (as I am sure you and everyone here has to do), but I'd love to debate this more, later, over beers.
no subject
I still believe that Final Girl is a game because there is a structure to it, rules of things we can and cannot do. Those rules are artificial, and there is a quantifiable goal: decide which character survives. The people are the randomizers, their role playing ability. Does it lie in the fuzzy realm between collaborative storytelling and game? Absolutely. But so, too, do many games. And those are usually the kinds of games/events I like. FWIW, I enjoyed Fiasco the most of the three indie RPGs I played (Final Girl and Geiger Counter being the other two).
If you missed it, I think this is an "is/ought" argument, that Mike has said. I think I am arguing what larp *is*, and you and the others were talking about what larp *ought* to be. In the long run, does that knowledge matter in us making or playing a good larp? It might not to you, but this knowledge and framework helps me. But for most others, they can probably go on participating in kick-ass larps without ever knowing what "bleed" is.
I forgot most of what my arguments were, and what yours started as, and I have other things to do (as I am sure you and everyone here has to do), but I'd love to debate this more, later, over beers.