Another weekend of LARPing, another weekend where I was left sad and angry and disappointed. There were either issues with the character, or issues with the game, or both. ( Read more... )
I've played Camelot twice now (once as Merlin, once as Gawain), and the problems with unequal distribution (and timing) of plot were apparent both times - though usually not for the Kings. And I am wondering how badly your experience was affected by the absence of Mark and the Cornwall faction.
LARPing is a cooperative venture, where you work with others to tell an interesting story. In Stephen Covey speak, it’s about finding the win-win, the way that you can all have a great time. Too often these game become about win-lose: someone has to lose for the other person to win.With villains, the trick is to find a way where you can lose gloriously, so you get the achievement of having provided a worthy antagonist and some fun from chewing the scenery. Being poisoned in the first hour definitely isn't losing gloriously, and its a shame that the fallback ghost mechanic didn't seem appropriate (but I can totally see why). But its very difficult to address this in game design, at least within the framework of theatre-style, where we have
( ... )
It sucks when that happens, but in many ways it is simply the medium. I realise I'm something of a LARP agnostic, but that sounds like straightforward defeatist nonsense. I think it's very easy to say "it's just the medium" about problems in Table Top too, but I think we can see with the explosion of diversity in solutions that while a lot of these problems are difficult, they're not insurmountable. Of the things you list above, "Plot-prioritisation" decisions sound an awful lot like "I don't want to write stories for all the characters in my game", and if you're leaving 'bumping into the right character" kinds of loose ends, you've clearly not built the game environment well enough
( ... )
I realise I'm something of a LARP agnostic, but that sounds like straightforward defeatist nonsense. I think it's very easy to say "it's just the medium" about problems in Table Top too, but I think we can see with the explosion of diversity in solutions that while a lot of these problems are difficult, they're not insurmountable. Of the things you list above, "Plot-prioritisation" decisions sound an awful lot like "I don't want to write stories for all the characters in my game", and if you're leaving 'bumping into the right character" kinds of loose ends, you've clearly not built the game environment well enough.
Plot prioritization is by players, not GMs. As a player you are presented with effectively a menu of possible story options. Which one do you follow, and in what order? Some players ruthlessly triage at game start - "this looks unachieveable / uninteresting / I don't want to go there so I'm just not going to bother". Others just find that one of their plot threads ends up eating all their attention to the exclusion of
( ... )
Plot prioritization is by players, not GMs. As a player you are presented with effectively a menu of possible story options. Which one do you follow, and in what order? Some players ruthlessly triage at game start - "this looks unachieveable / uninteresting / I don't want to go there so I'm just not going to bother". Others just find that one of their plot threads ends up eating all their attention to the exclusion of others. Its not poor game design so much as the limits of player attention.It's also worth pointing out that some goals are 'ongoing', and many are nebulous / unclear. A couple of games one of my goals was "Hurt other faction", which can range from verbal slapdown to actually killing one of their characters. One of my goals in Insubstantial Pagent was to keep two characters apart. So in some ways there are goals of opportunity, vs goals you actively work towards
( ... )
Ah, sorry, I did not appreciate the origin of the "problem" from your comment.
But the bigger problem is that people are just damn busy.
Isn't this just the flip side? Both are game design flaws, one trying too hard to "solve" the other.
Players make metagame choices, and they affect other people's game enjoyment, and we just have to cope.I guess I just don't accept that's the case. Of course things can get derailed by players who deliberately or through incompetence don't understand the medium they're in. You can't design a game that can withstand any arbitrary player going off the rails if that's what they want to do. But that is far from throwing our hands up and saying "It's the Limit of the Medium". I think there's a much wider dialogue that's gone on in the past about improving the design of these games learning from the tendencies of players and adapting to a different sophistication in RPG design
( ... )
[Player busyness leading to triage] Isn't this just the flip side? Both are game design flaws, one trying too hard to "solve" the other.
You never see anyone complaining about "too much" plot. You do hear them complaining frequently about too little. This sets a clear design incentive towards more plot. Its inefficient writing, it means that some things don't trigger, but its more likely to lead to a successful game than the alternative.
In terms of overall design and what we can achieve: obviously I think we'll continue to design better larps (not least because writers and players get more experience of what works, and also because we're part of a global community which talks to each other, allowing innovations and knowledge of what doesn't work to spread). At the same time I think there are fundamental limits to what we can do while respecting player agency and avoiding runtime GMing (I've been toying with doign a proper post on this, riffing off Eirik Fatland's Knutpunkt 2014 presentation on Larp design : theory and practice).
Reading that you've been aware of the imbalance in Camelot for a long time makes me think that there were chances to fix this that were simply not taken - is that acceptable? Not my game, not my players, and so not my problem. I'm responsible for my design choices, not Ryan's
( ... )
Not my game, not my players, and so not my problem. I'm responsible for my design choices, not Ryan's.
Does that affect the validity of my comment? You brought up the imbalance in Camelot, and for you to back-peddle away from your own example with such rapidity makes it hard to move the conversation forward in terms of an example leading to a general case.
But I'll also note that it is often difficult to distinguish between design problems and runtime problems. It is not unsuual to have characters or plots that look strong on paper fizzle completelyI'd characterise that differently and say that you have highlighted the general case for a design failure, and in a way that applies to almost all design failures in all fields. I drew this great steel beam detail that looked great on paper, but wasn't buildable: that's a design problem in a nutshell. I wrote this great script for a play that read great, but wasn't performable: that's a design problem. I wrote this great plot for my LARP that failed in the field: that's a design problem
( ... )
Does that affect the validity of my comment? You brought up the imbalance in Camelot, and for you to back-peddle away from your own example with such rapidity makes it hard to move the conversation forward in terms of an example leading to a general case.
Ryan made conscious design choices (some weakly involved / unnecessary characters) to allow Camelot to run with a variable number of players. That has consequences (a poor game for the players of those characters if they are present). I tend to make the opposite choice - I try and make every character I write necessary and involved (note: "try". I don't always succeed). That too has consequences (low variability; meaning the game requires a full cast to run and will suffer badly if it doesn't). Which approach works better depends on whether you have an environment where games reliably fill or not.
I wrote this great plot for my LARP that failed in the field: that's a design problem.It may be a design problem. It may also be a casting problem (someone gets the wrong character,
( ... )
LARPing is a cooperative venture, where you work with others to tell an interesting story. In Stephen Covey speak, it’s about finding the win-win, the way that you can all have a great time. Too often these game become about win-lose: someone has to lose for the other person to win.With villains, the trick is to find a way where you can lose gloriously, so you get the achievement of having provided a worthy antagonist and some fun from chewing the scenery. Being poisoned in the first hour definitely isn't losing gloriously, and its a shame that the fallback ghost mechanic didn't seem appropriate (but I can totally see why). But its very difficult to address this in game design, at least within the framework of theatre-style, where we have ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I realise I'm something of a LARP agnostic, but that sounds like straightforward defeatist nonsense. I think it's very easy to say "it's just the medium" about problems in Table Top too, but I think we can see with the explosion of diversity in solutions that while a lot of these problems are difficult, they're not insurmountable. Of the things you list above, "Plot-prioritisation" decisions sound an awful lot like "I don't want to write stories for all the characters in my game", and if you're leaving 'bumping into the right character" kinds of loose ends, you've clearly not built the game environment well enough ( ... )
Reply
Plot prioritization is by players, not GMs. As a player you are presented with effectively a menu of possible story options. Which one do you follow, and in what order? Some players ruthlessly triage at game start - "this looks unachieveable / uninteresting / I don't want to go there so I'm just not going to bother". Others just find that one of their plot threads ends up eating all their attention to the exclusion of ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Ah, sorry, I did not appreciate the origin of the "problem" from your comment.
But the bigger problem is that people are just damn busy.
Isn't this just the flip side? Both are game design flaws, one trying too hard to "solve" the other.
Players make metagame choices, and they affect other people's game enjoyment, and we just have to cope.I guess I just don't accept that's the case. Of course things can get derailed by players who deliberately or through incompetence don't understand the medium they're in. You can't design a game that can withstand any arbitrary player going off the rails if that's what they want to do. But that is far from throwing our hands up and saying "It's the Limit of the Medium". I think there's a much wider dialogue that's gone on in the past about improving the design of these games learning from the tendencies of players and adapting to a different sophistication in RPG design ( ... )
Reply
Isn't this just the flip side? Both are game design flaws, one trying too hard to "solve" the other.
You never see anyone complaining about "too much" plot. You do hear them complaining frequently about too little. This sets a clear design incentive towards more plot. Its inefficient writing, it means that some things don't trigger, but its more likely to lead to a successful game than the alternative.
In terms of overall design and what we can achieve: obviously I think we'll continue to design better larps (not least because writers and players get more experience of what works, and also because we're part of a global community which talks to each other, allowing innovations and knowledge of what doesn't work to spread). At the same time I think there are fundamental limits to what we can do while respecting player agency and avoiding runtime GMing (I've been toying with doign a proper post on this, riffing off Eirik Fatland's Knutpunkt 2014 presentation on Larp design : theory and practice).
Reply
Reply
Does that affect the validity of my comment? You brought up the imbalance in Camelot, and for you to back-peddle away from your own example with such rapidity makes it hard to move the conversation forward in terms of an example leading to a general case.
But I'll also note that it is often difficult to distinguish between design problems and runtime problems. It is not unsuual to have characters or plots that look strong on paper fizzle completelyI'd characterise that differently and say that you have highlighted the general case for a design failure, and in a way that applies to almost all design failures in all fields. I drew this great steel beam detail that looked great on paper, but wasn't buildable: that's a design problem in a nutshell. I wrote this great script for a play that read great, but wasn't performable: that's a design problem. I wrote this great plot for my LARP that failed in the field: that's a design problem ( ... )
Reply
Ryan made conscious design choices (some weakly involved / unnecessary characters) to allow Camelot to run with a variable number of players. That has consequences (a poor game for the players of those characters if they are present). I tend to make the opposite choice - I try and make every character I write necessary and involved (note: "try". I don't always succeed). That too has consequences (low variability; meaning the game requires a full cast to run and will suffer badly if it doesn't). Which approach works better depends on whether you have an environment where games reliably fill or not.
I wrote this great plot for my LARP that failed in the field: that's a design problem.It may be a design problem. It may also be a casting problem (someone gets the wrong character, ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment