Communication. It's a good thing, part 2.

[coffee_lifeform]

The LARP itself is great, though. I'm at a stage of comfort with it where I think I get where we're going and what we're doing, where we've come from and how we've gotten there. Which means I can now start making changes to how things are done. One particular issue is troubling me; there's no politics in the game. The PCs are all united as a court

Comments

Let's see if any of the following makes a lick of sense.

[craigoxbrow]

This is all off the top of my head without knowing who or what the external enemies are, so I'm guessing the Sabbat or something like them, which is what united the Camarilla and sidelined the Anarchs between first and revised editions. (I am Antediluvian and remember when the Sabbat were an offscreen mystery and conflict came from within the Camarilla and Anarchs almost exclusively. And werewolves had clans named after their animal totems.)

So how much could the external enemies limit resources? A state of siege which cuts off ready access to prime hunting grounds or other resources could lead to more conflict.

Of course there's also the issue of player comfort, presumably they generally like not being actively under siege and at each other's throats. Most people I know who LARP seem to be there more to dress up and hang out than for the Plotting and Scheming. (Then there was the guy whose Vampire LARPs always ended up more violent and gonzo than Underworld, but never mind.)

But still, the outside force is definitely something the STs can use. A less brutal change of tactics could still have an impact.

Equally, a previously unavailable resource coming up for grabs could also see suitably bastardy Kindred turn on each other. A "gold rush" caused by the death/torpor/disappearance of a significant NPC who had a controlling interest in something important can bring out the ugly and vicious competitive side of those interested without penalising those who aren't as they aren't losing anything they had before.