Maxicon XII

[essentialsaltes]

Once again I announce: "All hail popepat!" And Mrs. Pope and Minipope. They once again opened up their house for (can it be?) the 12th Maxicon (which is still ongoing, but I moderated my participation to Saturday only... stretching into Sunday).

First up for me was Garrett's Dead Space RPG. I had played the demo, which made me the most knowledgeable about the source material I think. Which is not a problem, since the whole point is to scare the pants off you with the unexpected. It went well: fast-paced, high tension, limited resources, stressful timing deadlines. If there was any problem, it was that the gods of luck smiled on us too much in the final showdown. Good scary fun.

Next up, aaronjv ran The Tribunal, an award-winning LARP created by jiituomas. The 12 players play soldiers in a totalitarian state, faced with a difficult decision: whether to value honesty over expediency. I'm torn about how much I should or shouldn't reveal. One part of me says it doesn't matter since whatever happens is almost entirely the product of the players; the other part says that hearing the rationalizations or bullshit produced by one set of players might affect future players who read about it, and thus color whatever they would ultimately produce. I'll err on the side of caution and step back a bit.
I enjoyed the experience. This is perhaps controversial. Some people (named Aaron) have denigrated the idea that LARP is merely (?) an enjoyable pastime. It is Art with a capital A. I don't have a problem with that, except that in its extreme form Art becomes Pollock and Rothko. You're a rube if you expect to enjoy it, it's Art fer crissakes. Art!
I had my doubts about whether I would enjoy being an ant in a totalitarian army. But I came in to the game with not only an open mind, but a willingness and readiness to do it right. And the other participants probably saw me red-faced and shouting more in those couple hours than in the rest of their experience of me. Anyway, my awesome role-playing (relatively speaking) is beside the point; the point is that I enjoyed the experience. But am I supposed to enjoy my Brussels Sprouts?
My answer is that I don't care. LARP for me is an enjoyable pastime, and as long as I enjoy it I will continue to participate. It may also be Art; it may also be therapy; it may also be escapism; I don't care: Philistine that I am, I'm only interested in doing it if I enjoy it.
Anyway, stepping back in. I liked the way that character names instantly invoked associations that helped to establish character, and aided others in remembering same. I liked the way that the game was essentially entirely created by the players rather than directed from outside. The game relies on the players being willing to play, and I'm glad we had a group up to the challenge.

Following that was an impromptu meeting of the Live Game Labs & other interested parties, wherein we plotted the future of American LARP while simultaneously solving the problem of monetizing LARP and trading juicy gossip.

Comments

[ian-tiberius.livejournal.com]

First of all, I don't disagree with any of your larger points (LARPs can be art, content doesn't define form, etc.) But enough friendly agreement - on to the quibbling around the edges!

I think it is useful to continue using a word that encompasses both boffer-fests and "Fat Man Down" because words like "literature" encompasses both Fifty Shades of Gray and The Great Gatsby. Or words like "music" encompasses Beethoven's 9th, Jimi Hendrix's "Star-Spangled Banner" and "My Humps".

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...

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?

One of the most common is Salen and Zimmerman's, from The Rules of Play: "A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome."

By that definition, why is The Final Girl NOT a game?

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.

(Since you bring up Viola Spolin: obviously words can have more than one meaning, especially in different contexts, and improvisers use the word "game" to mean something else entirely. Most improv games are what I would term "exercises", were I to be pedantic. Like "Final Girl" or "Fat Man Down", there may be rules, but the players all have the same goals.)

[aaronjv.livejournal.com]

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.

[ian-tiberius.livejournal.com]

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."

[aaronjv.livejournal.com]

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.

But, "I like movies" or "I like reading books" are often used to describe people. Each begs a further question, sure, but not many people say "I like reading fantasy fiction..." or do they? As larp is a young term for an ancient art (IMHO), I can only hope for the day when people ask what kind, or someone can say "I like fantasy larps" or "I like Nordic style" or whatever. I wish.

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.)

The Nordic larpers are aware of this, and I can direct you to a few papers dealing exactly with this. Larp is not a new wheel, not at all (not to me). It's a new name for an old, under-utilzied wheel that has been in the trunk of artistic culture for a long time. And since, to me, boffer larping is larping like FMD or acting exercises, the term larp still works. I want to be inclusive, not exclusive. Which is why I am trying to figure out if transmedia and ARGs are larping, or larps are ARGs, or both, or... But I am building a bridge between them, for the same reason I want to build a bridge between theater and larp. Although one essay says its more pragmatic to pair larp with performance art instead of theater art.

(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 won't debate that that is your approach, but that's interesting. Do you thus ignore your characters own goals so someone else can achieve theirs? Either way, larp is still a separate (but closely related) art to theater.

There is no conflict between the players in Final Girl.
By that logic, Arkham Horror (or any other cooperative game) is not a game, because the players are not in conflict. Dungeons and Dragons is usually not a game, because the players are adventuring together. It seems like you are saying that only PvP games are games.

[ian-tiberius.livejournal.com]

I can only hope for the day when people ask what kind, or someone can say "I like fantasy larps" or "I like Nordic style" or whatever.

Yes, exactly.

Although one essay says its more pragmatic to pair larp with performance art instead of theater art.

That sounds right to me. I didn't mention it because I was already writing too much, but somewhere above you mentioned that the distinction between theater and LARP is that one is for an audience and the other is for the players. I'm not sure that's the sole difference, but I agree it's a key one.

Do you thus ignore your characters own goals so someone else can achieve theirs?

Quite the contrary.

For one thing, I don't equate achieving your character goals to enjoyment. But beyond that, I assume that the person running the LARP has made a careful effort to put players on different sides of issues and give them opposing goals. Players A and B want to elect X as mayor, while players C and D want to elect Y - for example. If I'm player A and I flake on pursuing my goal, then I'm not only screwing B who was probably counting on my help, but I've taken the challenge away from C and D. I choose to assume (even though it's often not true) that a LARP is a finely tuned machine that relies on me to make a reasonable effort to pursue my goals in order to keep everything ticking properly. (and if I do so and everything doesn't tick properly anyway, well at least it's not my fault.)

Anyway, when I said that I want to make sure that my role contributes to the experience that the other players are having, I was partially talking about this - making sure that the other players have the level of support and/or challenges that the GM intended - but I was also talking about role-playing. If the other players leave the game feeling that my role-playing enhanced the mood and contributed to the feeling of immersion, then I've done my job. (At more than one LARP where I've observed a low level of role-playing energy, I've taken it upon myself to really commit, and even though I'm the only one doing it, I'm hopefully giving the other players the idea that it's okay to put themselves out there and do likewise. It's surprising how often it works, at least a little bit.)

It seems like you are saying that only PvP games are games.

No, but I realize I left that unclear in my list of three elements, because I said "...player has goals to pursue which are not in perfect union with everyone else's" and did not clarify that "everyone" should be interpreted to mean "including the GM, or the computer, or for that matter a set of rules that constrain the player's ability to advance towards their goal."

A better way to put it, upon reflection, would be to say that there must be an antagonist whose purpose is to thwart players in their pursuit of their goals. That antagonist could be another player, or it could be the GM, or a set of rules, but there has to be something which offers one or more players a chance of failure.

(That antagonist may be partially friendly. For example, most GMs don't really want their players to fail. That said, if it's clear that the GM *will not let* the players fail no matter what they do, then I would say it has crossed over from "game" into "collaborative storytelling".)

[aaronjv.livejournal.com]

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.

[ian-tiberius.livejournal.com]

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.

It bears mentioning that I'm not claiming that the definition of "game" that I was using is the only valid one; hell, it's not even the only one that I'll use. If someone says "What did you do last Saturday?" I'm going to answer "Played some games," not "Some games plus a storytelling exercise."

The only reason I drew out all those distinctions is because you wanted to know what I meant when I said "there's no 'game' per se" to "Final Girl". And I see what you're saying, but if I wanted to be really technical about it I still say that when no player has a particular set goal and the mechanics don't really give you any option to protect "your" character anyway, that's a lot more like writing a script than playing chess. But I've said all I have to say about it and it's not like I'm going to fight anybody who uses a different definition.

I have yet to play Fiasco, though I'd very much like to. I am told that Final Girl is based on Geiger Counter, but I don't know if GC is more of a storytelling exercise in that sense or if it's more "game"-y. Either way, hopefully I'll have an opportunity to check it out at some point.

If you missed it, I think this is an "is/ought" argument

Hmm. Maybe. I think we've touched on a number of subjects - what the term "LARP" ought to encompass, where the distinction between "game" and "not a game" is drawn, and so forth. For the record, although I don't feel any need to impose my own definitions on others, I do feel that the discussion helps highlight the way different people think about the form. And some of the terminology being developed by the folks who take it seriously as an academic discipline can be useful - "bleed", for example, is a damned useful word for discussing LARP, once everyone understands what it means. Long story short, I completely agree that the knowledge and framework is helpful.

but I'd love to debate this more, later, over beers.

I've never yet said no to yakking about LARP over beer.

[ian-tiberius.livejournal.com]

(continued)

So a D&D campaign isn't just telling a story?

No, it's also a game. A D&D player has goals to pursue which are not in perfect union with everyone else's, obstacles established (either by another player or by the GM) which may keep him/her from achieving those goals, and the ability to influence the (quantifiable) outcome. That constitutes a game. But remove any of those three elements and it's no longer a game (in my definition. I cheerfully concede that others are welcome to their own definitions of "game.")

Final Girl: at any given time, no player has both the ability to influence the outcome and a goal other than storytelling. Not a game.

Infocom-style interactive fiction: goals (finish the game), obstacles established by the programming of the game, and the ability of the player to affect the outcome. Game.

Fat Man Down: To the extent that I understand it, it seems as though the players' "goal" is to humiliate the Fat Man. The outcome of that does not seem to be quantifiable. Therefore, not a game. (Hell, it's the definition you cited that DQ's this one.)

Just my opinions. Remind me, why are we arguing over the distinction of what is or isn't a game?