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 very limited control over the players and even less over runtime. Player absences, plot-prioritisation decisions, and just sheer random chance of bumping into the right person before they have decided between their possible directions can convert that real threat-or-at-least-glorious-failure into a total fizzle. It sucks when that happens, but in many ways it is simply the medium.
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.
My 2c is that Jon's post doesn't dig deep enough into the problems. I think that I can understand the symptoms he experienced, but not what caused those problems, or how they could be fixed. Maybe those game writers can untangle from his symptoms what they need to fix about their games, but I doubt it - there's nothing to substitute for actual play experience and a genuine fresh and thorough perspective. 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? To me, that sounds like knowing a certain percentage of your players aren't going to have a good time and not caring, and that doesn't sound that acceptable to me.
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.
Or, you know, let the buggers win? If you're going to cast someone as protagonist then they need to have story control and authority. If you're setting up a PC to be some other PC's punching bag, I question your whole design philosophy.
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 others. Its not poor game design so much as the limits of player attention.
Example: In Achaean, I played Aegisthus. One of my primary goals was to overthrow Agamemnon as revenge for the sins of his father against my own. That didn't look immediately achieveable, so I ignored it until the very end of the game, when I was nagged into it by Clytemnestra.
As for "bumping into the right character", there's pixelbitch plots (who's got the Macguffin? Who knows the secret?), which are a sign of lazy game design (though I plead guilty on occasion). But the bigger problem is that people are just damn busy. At Insubstantial Pageant, I was run off my feet, and frequently had to tell people "not now, I'm busy". I've got no idea what plotlines they wante dme for, or how important I was to them, but its quite possible that I took a great steaming dump over someone's major storyline (and game enjoyment) by doing so.
And that's the medium: limited player attention. Limited time. More plot than you can possibly handle (because if there wasn't, people would rightly bitch about there not being enough to do). Players make metagame choices, and they affect other people's game enjoyment, and we just have to cope.
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.
I found my game as Seda was initally very boring. 6 goals. 1) win the tournament - I can't do anything about this until the tournament occurs. 2) Keep Esen away from Amatus - ongoing. 3) Find McGuffin - I was effectively told "we'll tell you when you see it". 4) Hurt rival House - I assessed this as a goal of opportunity, something to do if an opportunity presented itself. 5) Prove to teacher how much you've improved - which I figured would dovetail into goal #1, so didn't take active steps towards. 6) Get information on rivals - which I did, boiled down to several 1 minute conversations. So despite having 6 goals, I didn't actually have much to actively work on.
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.
In Table Top games, there has been a massive evolution of game designs re-orienting different aspects to suit different gaming needs. I think 10 years ago there were a lot of GMs who had the sense you do about LARP - that there's just some limiting boundary on what you can achieve. GMs who really challenged those boundaries got some complete disasters, but also improvements arose.
The bottom line is that if you think LARP as experienced at Hydra is the unimprovable pinnacle of the form, then I think it's going to be a good chance for me to say "I told you so" when improvements in game design are made in another handful of iterations.
[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.
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 completely. And because most games are run once, maybe twice, its difficult to build up enough data to find out where the problems are. Camelot is unusual in that it has been run at least 5 times in NZ (and that many overseas That I know of) - but even then, Ryan's only run two of those games. While I expect he'll be getting feedback, his direct experience of the game is quite limited, and I expect there will be some reluctance to tinker with a published product.
(There was an article I read once about "should I rewrite my larp" which went into the problem of working out whether a problem was design or runtime; sadly it seems to have disappeared)
Or, you know, let the buggers win? If you're going to cast someone as protagonist then they need to have story control and authority. If you're setting up a PC to be some other PC's punching bag, I question your whole design philosophy.
Not my design philosophy. I don't write games with "heroes" and "villains" (but I do write ones with villeins). As for those who do, and are consciously emulating a genre which says the villains should lose, they'll stack the odds a bit, but it won't be impossible for Evil To Triumph. And if they're sensible, they'll make that clear to the relevant players.
Which is exactly what happened when I was cast as the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow. While I could potentially uncover the outlaw Robin Hood and hang him in front of Prince John, usurp the crown etc etc, and I tried to do exactly that, I knew going into it that I was probably going to fail, and that part of my job was to chew the scenery and do my best Alan Rickman while getting my well-deserved comeuppance. I was fine with that, and I had a great time doing it.
Other GMs treat villains as NPCs; I think this is what Paul and Jenni did in their superhero wedding reception (Dale and Nick Wolf could comment on that specifically). But when the NPCs are largely undirected, that's really just a matter of labelling.
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 completely
I'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.
Go away and find your authority source to quote, but try not to back-peddle too fast from it when I disagree with it.
And if they're sensible, they'll make that clear to the relevant players.
I guess that's right - if I pitch you a character as one who's destined to go down and you play it, it's on you if you don't like losing. However, I seriously doubt that virtually any player characters are actually written that way. I haven't seen the character sheet Dale got for his "antagonist" role, but I doubt his stated objectives were "Chew the scenery and try to make Nick look awesome as he takes you down". His character would have been written with goals from his own perspective rather than the needs of the game. So straight away, there's a real design and communication problem here that was rescued by a talented player.
I'd further point to your idea that PC and NPCs are distinguished only by a "label" if a GM isn't there to pull the strings as a bit one-dimensional. The real key difference is that PCs exist to be the centres of stories, and NPCs exist to facilitate those stories. So there is a complete structural inversion in the goals, personality and structure of NPCs that should be reflected in the way they are designed and written up. If that isn't being reflected in game design, then I'd point to that as one major and conceptually easy leap forward that needs to occur right now.
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, either because the GM screwed up, the "right" character wasn't available, or the information they provided to aid casting was wrong or useless), a runtime problem (counterparties just too busy; plot triaged), or even a player problem (player or counterparty just having a bad day). With a limited dataset, its difficult to identify which, and with an only ~50% chance that the game will ever run again (yes, really; as of last year only 48 of 106 NZ theatreforms run in the last 5 years ran more than once; dataset here) there is little incentive to waste flops trying to improve the existing game, rather than writing the next one.
The article was Steve Hatherley's "If it ain't broke, don't rewrite it". It appears to no longer be extant due to the demise of his FLAR site, but may show up at the UK Freeforms wiki eventually.
I guess that's right - if I pitch you a character as one who's destined to go down and you play it, it's on you if you don't like losing. However, I seriously doubt that virtually any player characters are actually written that way.
The Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow was certainly a player character. He was the protagonist of his own story. That story was most likely to end in failure, but it certainly wasn't destined, and in any case he didn't know that. I as a player knew, but that was part of the process of ensuring that I was well-cast (specifically, that I didn't mind losing - a question which is now common on casting surveys).
In the absence of a character sheet, I can't comment on super-hero wedding reception.
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 very limited control over the players and even less over runtime. Player absences, plot-prioritisation decisions, and just sheer random chance of bumping into the right person before they have decided between their possible directions can convert that real threat-or-at-least-glorious-failure into a total fizzle. It sucks when that happens, but in many ways it is simply the medium.
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.
My 2c is that Jon's post doesn't dig deep enough into the problems. I think that I can understand the symptoms he experienced, but not what caused those problems, or how they could be fixed. Maybe those game writers can untangle from his symptoms what they need to fix about their games, but I doubt it - there's nothing to substitute for actual play experience and a genuine fresh and thorough perspective. 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? To me, that sounds like knowing a certain percentage of your players aren't going to have a good time and not caring, and that doesn't sound that acceptable to me.
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.
Or, you know, let the buggers win? If you're going to cast someone as protagonist then they need to have story control and authority. If you're setting up a PC to be some other PC's punching bag, I question your whole design philosophy.
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 others. Its not poor game design so much as the limits of player attention.
Example: In Achaean, I played Aegisthus. One of my primary goals was to overthrow Agamemnon as revenge for the sins of his father against my own. That didn't look immediately achieveable, so I ignored it until the very end of the game, when I was nagged into it by Clytemnestra.
As for "bumping into the right character", there's pixelbitch plots (who's got the Macguffin? Who knows the secret?), which are a sign of lazy game design (though I plead guilty on occasion). But the bigger problem is that people are just damn busy. At Insubstantial Pageant, I was run off my feet, and frequently had to tell people "not now, I'm busy". I've got no idea what plotlines they wante dme for, or how important I was to them, but its quite possible that I took a great steaming dump over someone's major storyline (and game enjoyment) by doing so.
And that's the medium: limited player attention. Limited time. More plot than you can possibly handle (because if there wasn't, people would rightly bitch about there not being enough to do). Players make metagame choices, and they affect other people's game enjoyment, and we just have to cope.
Reply
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.
I found my game as Seda was initally very boring. 6 goals. 1) win the tournament - I can't do anything about this until the tournament occurs. 2) Keep Esen away from Amatus - ongoing. 3) Find McGuffin - I was effectively told "we'll tell you when you see it". 4) Hurt rival House - I assessed this as a goal of opportunity, something to do if an opportunity presented itself. 5) Prove to teacher how much you've improved - which I figured would dovetail into goal #1, so didn't take active steps towards. 6) Get information on rivals - which I did, boiled down to several 1 minute conversations. So despite having 6 goals, I didn't actually have much to actively work on.
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.
In Table Top games, there has been a massive evolution of game designs re-orienting different aspects to suit different gaming needs. I think 10 years ago there were a lot of GMs who had the sense you do about LARP - that there's just some limiting boundary on what you can achieve. GMs who really challenged those boundaries got some complete disasters, but also improvements arose.
The bottom line is that if you think LARP as experienced at Hydra is the unimprovable pinnacle of the form, then I think it's going to be a good chance for me to say "I told you so" when improvements in game design are made in another handful of iterations.
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
Not my game, not my players, and so not my problem. I'm responsible for my design choices, not Ryan's.
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 completely. And because most games are run once, maybe twice, its difficult to build up enough data to find out where the problems are. Camelot is unusual in that it has been run at least 5 times in NZ (and that many overseas That I know of) - but even then, Ryan's only run two of those games. While I expect he'll be getting feedback, his direct experience of the game is quite limited, and I expect there will be some reluctance to tinker with a published product.
(There was an article I read once about "should I rewrite my larp" which went into the problem of working out whether a problem was design or runtime; sadly it seems to have disappeared)
Or, you know, let the buggers win? If you're going to cast someone as protagonist then they need to have story control and authority. If you're setting up a PC to be some other PC's punching bag, I question your whole design philosophy.
Not my design philosophy. I don't write games with "heroes" and "villains" (but I do write ones with villeins). As for those who do, and are consciously emulating a genre which says the villains should lose, they'll stack the odds a bit, but it won't be impossible for Evil To Triumph. And if they're sensible, they'll make that clear to the relevant players.
Which is exactly what happened when I was cast as the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow. While I could potentially uncover the outlaw Robin Hood and hang him in front of Prince John, usurp the crown etc etc, and I tried to do exactly that, I knew going into it that I was probably going to fail, and that part of my job was to chew the scenery and do my best Alan Rickman while getting my well-deserved comeuppance. I was fine with that, and I had a great time doing it.
Other GMs treat villains as NPCs; I think this is what Paul and Jenni did in their superhero wedding reception (Dale and Nick Wolf could comment on that specifically). But when the NPCs are largely undirected, that's really just a matter of labelling.
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 completely
I'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.
Go away and find your authority source to quote, but try not to back-peddle too fast from it when I disagree with it.
And if they're sensible, they'll make that clear to the relevant players.
I guess that's right - if I pitch you a character as one who's destined to go down and you play it, it's on you if you don't like losing. However, I seriously doubt that virtually any player characters are actually written that way. I haven't seen the character sheet Dale got for his "antagonist" role, but I doubt his stated objectives were "Chew the scenery and try to make Nick look awesome as he takes you down". His character would have been written with goals from his own perspective rather than the needs of the game. So straight away, there's a real design and communication problem here that was rescued by a talented player.
I'd further point to your idea that PC and NPCs are distinguished only by a "label" if a GM isn't there to pull the strings as a bit one-dimensional. The real key difference is that PCs exist to be the centres of stories, and NPCs exist to facilitate those stories. So there is a complete structural inversion in the goals, personality and structure of NPCs that should be reflected in the way they are designed and written up. If that isn't being reflected in game design, then I'd point to that as one major and conceptually easy leap forward that needs to occur right now.
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, either because the GM screwed up, the "right" character wasn't available, or the information they provided to aid casting was wrong or useless), a runtime problem (counterparties just too busy; plot triaged), or even a player problem (player or counterparty just having a bad day). With a limited dataset, its difficult to identify which, and with an only ~50% chance that the game will ever run again (yes, really; as of last year only 48 of 106 NZ theatreforms run in the last 5 years ran more than once; dataset here) there is little incentive to waste flops trying to improve the existing game, rather than writing the next one.
The article was Steve Hatherley's "If it ain't broke, don't rewrite it". It appears to no longer be extant due to the demise of his FLAR site, but may show up at the UK Freeforms wiki eventually.
I guess that's right - if I pitch you a character as one who's destined to go down and you play it, it's on you if you don't like losing. However, I seriously doubt that virtually any player characters are actually written that way.
The Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow was certainly a player character. He was the protagonist of his own story. That story was most likely to end in failure, but it certainly wasn't destined, and in any case he didn't know that. I as a player knew, but that was part of the process of ensuring that I was well-cast (specifically, that I didn't mind losing - a question which is now common on casting surveys).
In the absence of a character sheet, I can't comment on super-hero wedding reception.
Reply
Leave a comment