LARP Musings
I haven't been able to attend an OWBN game in several months, for a couple of reasons, mostly school and WoW, which I simply prioritize higher. I am still on the Vite-OOC list and some Nosferatu clan lists.
The recent argument over what-happened-at-the-last-LARP is so commonplace it may as well be a formula. People legitimately have differing recollections of what happened. An event may be as short as 3 IC seconds, and almost always under a minute, but of course in Real Time that could be hours. Things are discused, revised, and rehashed during play, as well as afterwards.
Inevitably, the same drama ensues again and again. "That's not the way it happened." "We were at location X not Y." "The order of events was A, B, C not B, C, A, and you totally forgot D."
I feel like the lonely prophet shouting at the wind, because it seems obvious to me what the issue and answer is (of course, its really just my opinion but we all love our own opinions):
Simulationist LARP is just broken.
What does that mean? It means that the MET Vampire/OWBN LARP style attempts to use its limited rules toolset to "simulate" reality. Combat Rounds approximate Real Time at a fixed rate. We use things like Ammo, and Range, and such. Most of the rules are devoted to accurately simulating combat via Vampire powers.
The limitations and drawbacks are obvious. I can recall when the Brujah rolled Piers, the Combat took like 3+ hours, yet IC it lasted a few minutes. This led to major disconnects... Everyone else had Roleplayed hours ticking by. Everyone remembers events differently, so there can be no true objective truth.
Even though MET has some rudimentary social rules, generally speaking, everyone has 100% control over what they have their Characters do, say, think, etc. Only Supernatural Abilities and Physical Combat can "force" an outcome.
And how are conflicts resolved? Piecemeal. A 'conflict' in MET OWBN is "I want to punch you in the face." So when we do challenges, each individual challenge only mediates one punch, kick, or Discipline use. This is why TimeStops take FOREVER.
What does this mean? It means that every scene is going to be intepreted many different "true" ways, leading to OOC and IC arguments. It means that there is no way to, /in this game/ secure an outcome except through Supernatural or Force elements. Your PC can have an IQ of 75 and I could have 14 Socials, Persuasion x5 and Natural Leader, etc. and the only way I can "convince" your PC of anything is if you decide to allow it.
This means there is no channels of escalation. The only two ways of accomplishing anything are by mutual consent or absolute force. (I say that because face it, even subtle uses of Social disciplines will come back up as gross and egregious violations).
So what is my solution if I say we are just all "doing it wrong?"
Stakes based conflict resolution with escalation.
What the hell does that mean? It means that it is a metagame solution. Now, before I proceed: Metagame is NOT a dirty word. It simply means that it is something agreed between Players. Just like we all understand how Puissance works, etc.
So, how would it work? Simple. Steve and Bob are roleplaying. They come to an impasse. this is recognized as a conflict. Stakes are set.
Example: Steve and Bob have an argument. Steve thinks Bob should apologize for calling the Harpy a whore. Since Bob is less than inclined to agree, it becomes a Conflict. What are the Stakes? For Steve, success is that Bob apologizes. For Bob, success is that Steve backs the fuck off and probably looks foolish for challenging him.
This conflict would be resolved by whatever mechanics are used. In our Vamp experience, typically RPS, etc. The ENTIRE conflict is resolved at once, not just a micro-challenge (one punch, followed by another punch, etc.) Obviously skills and powers will affect the outcome. If Steve is Melvin Milquetoast and Bob is Badass, it seems unlikely he'll succeed at intimidation, but there is always some randome element.
Now, this is where the diehard simulationists balk. Because social outcomes are decided. My argument there is straightforward: It is a game. Your Character may respond differently than you would like. Buy Willpower or whatever mechanism will aid you in social challenges :-p
How does this play out IC? Once the Conflict is resolved, the parties RP it out. One or the other will back down.
OK, so now what if either party is unhappy with the resolution? That is where escalation comes in. So Steve succeeds, and Bob will have to eat his words. But, Bob's player is like "No way, I have a rep to maintain!" so he /escalates./ Escalation from Social is to Physical. So in our example, Bob has been beat, but he can't take the hit to his rep, so he growls and pops claws, telling Steve to get out of his face!
The escalated conflict is Physical. Steve either backs down or it is resolved again, this time using Physical mechanics. Again, set the stakes: For Bob, he is going to claw the smile right off of Steve's face. For Steve, he is going to grab Bob's wrist and judo toss him to the ground. Resolve the physical challenge. Play the results. A Physical challenge will usually end with someone at least wounded.
STILL NOT SATISFIED? Well, you can escalate again! How many "levels" of escalation there don't really matter, you can have as many as your game needs, but there are always at least 3 - social, physical, and death.
If Bob loses again, he can up the ante and say that his character will not abide such insult and this will only end in death. Steve can relent, allowing Bob to win, or keep on, knowing the next challenge may end in death for one of them.
The beauty of this system? For the most part, people choose their own death... No pointless, wasted deaths... You only die if you believe that the stakes of the challenge are something your character would willingly die for. Otherwise you can always relent.
How does this remove the drama? Because Conflicts are meta-adjudicated, the IC results are agreed upon in the stakes. "This is what happened..." Every punch, every micro-transaction is not separate. Narration rights usually go to the victor or the ST.
Of coure, OWBN is well beyond the point where changing the rules can even by suggested let alone contemplated, but this is why I think the problems are inherent and will never be resolved. Because the way we do it is like the worst possible method. Abbreviated tabletop is a sucky LARP system :-p
The recent argument over what-happened-at-the-last-LARP is so commonplace it may as well be a formula. People legitimately have differing recollections of what happened. An event may be as short as 3 IC seconds, and almost always under a minute, but of course in Real Time that could be hours. Things are discused, revised, and rehashed during play, as well as afterwards.
Inevitably, the same drama ensues again and again. "That's not the way it happened." "We were at location X not Y." "The order of events was A, B, C not B, C, A, and you totally forgot D."
I feel like the lonely prophet shouting at the wind, because it seems obvious to me what the issue and answer is (of course, its really just my opinion but we all love our own opinions):
Simulationist LARP is just broken.
What does that mean? It means that the MET Vampire/OWBN LARP style attempts to use its limited rules toolset to "simulate" reality. Combat Rounds approximate Real Time at a fixed rate. We use things like Ammo, and Range, and such. Most of the rules are devoted to accurately simulating combat via Vampire powers.
The limitations and drawbacks are obvious. I can recall when the Brujah rolled Piers, the Combat took like 3+ hours, yet IC it lasted a few minutes. This led to major disconnects... Everyone else had Roleplayed hours ticking by. Everyone remembers events differently, so there can be no true objective truth.
Even though MET has some rudimentary social rules, generally speaking, everyone has 100% control over what they have their Characters do, say, think, etc. Only Supernatural Abilities and Physical Combat can "force" an outcome.
And how are conflicts resolved? Piecemeal. A 'conflict' in MET OWBN is "I want to punch you in the face." So when we do challenges, each individual challenge only mediates one punch, kick, or Discipline use. This is why TimeStops take FOREVER.
What does this mean? It means that every scene is going to be intepreted many different "true" ways, leading to OOC and IC arguments. It means that there is no way to, /in this game/ secure an outcome except through Supernatural or Force elements. Your PC can have an IQ of 75 and I could have 14 Socials, Persuasion x5 and Natural Leader, etc. and the only way I can "convince" your PC of anything is if you decide to allow it.
This means there is no channels of escalation. The only two ways of accomplishing anything are by mutual consent or absolute force. (I say that because face it, even subtle uses of Social disciplines will come back up as gross and egregious violations).
So what is my solution if I say we are just all "doing it wrong?"
Stakes based conflict resolution with escalation.
What the hell does that mean? It means that it is a metagame solution. Now, before I proceed: Metagame is NOT a dirty word. It simply means that it is something agreed between Players. Just like we all understand how Puissance works, etc.
So, how would it work? Simple. Steve and Bob are roleplaying. They come to an impasse. this is recognized as a conflict. Stakes are set.
Example: Steve and Bob have an argument. Steve thinks Bob should apologize for calling the Harpy a whore. Since Bob is less than inclined to agree, it becomes a Conflict. What are the Stakes? For Steve, success is that Bob apologizes. For Bob, success is that Steve backs the fuck off and probably looks foolish for challenging him.
This conflict would be resolved by whatever mechanics are used. In our Vamp experience, typically RPS, etc. The ENTIRE conflict is resolved at once, not just a micro-challenge (one punch, followed by another punch, etc.) Obviously skills and powers will affect the outcome. If Steve is Melvin Milquetoast and Bob is Badass, it seems unlikely he'll succeed at intimidation, but there is always some randome element.
Now, this is where the diehard simulationists balk. Because social outcomes are decided. My argument there is straightforward: It is a game. Your Character may respond differently than you would like. Buy Willpower or whatever mechanism will aid you in social challenges :-p
How does this play out IC? Once the Conflict is resolved, the parties RP it out. One or the other will back down.
OK, so now what if either party is unhappy with the resolution? That is where escalation comes in. So Steve succeeds, and Bob will have to eat his words. But, Bob's player is like "No way, I have a rep to maintain!" so he /escalates./ Escalation from Social is to Physical. So in our example, Bob has been beat, but he can't take the hit to his rep, so he growls and pops claws, telling Steve to get out of his face!
The escalated conflict is Physical. Steve either backs down or it is resolved again, this time using Physical mechanics. Again, set the stakes: For Bob, he is going to claw the smile right off of Steve's face. For Steve, he is going to grab Bob's wrist and judo toss him to the ground. Resolve the physical challenge. Play the results. A Physical challenge will usually end with someone at least wounded.
STILL NOT SATISFIED? Well, you can escalate again! How many "levels" of escalation there don't really matter, you can have as many as your game needs, but there are always at least 3 - social, physical, and death.
If Bob loses again, he can up the ante and say that his character will not abide such insult and this will only end in death. Steve can relent, allowing Bob to win, or keep on, knowing the next challenge may end in death for one of them.
The beauty of this system? For the most part, people choose their own death... No pointless, wasted deaths... You only die if you believe that the stakes of the challenge are something your character would willingly die for. Otherwise you can always relent.
How does this remove the drama? Because Conflicts are meta-adjudicated, the IC results are agreed upon in the stakes. "This is what happened..." Every punch, every micro-transaction is not separate. Narration rights usually go to the victor or the ST.
Of coure, OWBN is well beyond the point where changing the rules can even by suggested let alone contemplated, but this is why I think the problems are inherent and will never be resolved. Because the way we do it is like the worst possible method. Abbreviated tabletop is a sucky LARP system :-p