*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 19, 2017, 08:13:13 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 154 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: [1] 2
Print
Author Topic: [Jeepform] DOUBT, a Jeepform Narrative LARP  (Read 12975 times)
Moreno R.
Member

Posts: 389


« on: May 21, 2007, 08:28:05 AM »

Hello!

At the last Italian Ambercon (April 21-22 2007, in Modena, Italy), the Italian "roleplaying movement" Flying Circus hosted a presentation of "Jeepforms" given by two international guests, the game designers Tobias Wrigstad (from Sweden) and Frederik Berg Olsen (from Danimark).

What's "jeepforms"? They are the kind of "freeforms" created by the scandinavian group "http://jeepen.org/dict/

After the presentation (that sparked a lot of discussions) they demonstrated these techniques using "The Upgrade", a jeepform "that works much like a showcase for Jeepform techniques. It uses telegraphing, contextualisation, monologues, insides and outsides, supporting characters, dissolves character ownership, repetition, etc." , and after this an Italian GM from the Flying Circus, Lorenzo Trenti, GMed an italian version of the recent award-winning (best story and the at this year's Fastaval) jeepform "Doubt". As far as I know, there were the very first jeepforms ever played in Italy.

I listened to the presentation (asking questions about what they meant by "premise"), and played both these games. And I was convinced that Jeepforms are something that I didn't believe was possible in LARPS: With the jeepform techniques, it's possible to create narrativistic (in the Big Model sense) LARPS, that provoke the adressing of a premise from players, with agressive framing, shared character ownership, and a lot of other techniques that I believed exclusive to tabletop role-playing.

[By the way, in the nordic scene, the Jeepforms are accused to be "too much like tabletop rpgs". Even their authors don't consider them LARPS, so take that "narrativistic LARPS" I wrote above as something from my point of view. In the Italian - and, I think, English - scene, these are full-fledged LARPS, but not in Sweden or Danimark]

To demonstrate this thesis, I will describe here my playing of "Doubt". But I invite everybody interested to play this game themselves. It's available in an english translation in pdf files (with other Jeepform games) at the game download page in the jeepen site, here. This is the COMPLETE game, playable even in your own home without any prop (jeepforms use only "simbolic" props) or preparation. To play "Doubt" all you need are 4 players (2 men, 2 women) and a GM, 2-3 hours of time, and a single room.

I know that many people here already know about and Jeepforms (apart from people who live in scandinavian countries, I noticed the link to their site in some blogs I follow), but for the people that don't know about it (and until a month ago I was one of them) I will describe the game as if you don't know anything about it. Sorry if I will say things that you already know.

I you are curious about the Ambercon from the intenational guests point of view, Tobias Wrigstad wrote about it in his blog. In the comments there is an actual play report, but written for people who already know well the game. I will try to be more clear here.

I will write the actual play in my next post, to lessen the risk of losing the entire posting after writing it.
Logged

Ciao,
Moreno.

(Excuse my errors, English is not my native language. I'm Italian.)
Moreno R.
Member

Posts: 389


« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2007, 09:04:04 AM »

Hi!

Before delving into the playing of "Doubt", it would be better if you read the "Jeep Truths for Gamewrights and Game Masters".

(if you are offended by the use of the word "truth", read this explanation from the same page:
Jeepform as we see it is a subset of freeform, used by The Jeep for "their" kind of freeform games. It is mostly distinguished from freeform in order for Jeepers to be able to say, "why, that is not Jeepform" about a freeform game without having to claim that whatever it was wasn't really freeform.<(I don't consider "message" and "premise" as equivalents, and so asked about this at the jeepform presentation. From their answer, I got that some jeepforms have a message, others have a premise, and only these last ones can really be called "narrativistic" in the Big Model sense. Both "Doubt" and "The Upgrade" had a premise)
- Assume your players can handle difficult form.
- Assume your players can understand complex stories.
- Assume your players are interested and motivated to do the best possible thing with your game.
- A story can often benefit from having less lead characters than actual characters. There is no rule that says everyone should have equal direct impact on the story or equal screen-time.
- Keeping player number low and keeping players close together, such as in the same room, enables you to do cooler things with the form, helps keeping a unified vision and facilitates telegraphing.
- Form should be tailored to the telling of the story at hand.
- Focus is on the story, which takes precedence over both total immersion and play-for-show.
- Transparency is important to facilitate collaborative play -- there should basically not be any secrets. For this reason, and others, split party is banned.
- The meta play is as important to the game as the actual play.
- The existance of characters is almost mandatory; characters and story should be made to support each other.
- Character ownership is optional; a character can be played by more than one player.
- Role monogamy is optional; a player can have more than one character.
- The inner thoughts and feelings of the characters should preferably be expressed in the play using appropriate techniques.
- A high degree of player freedom is desirable.
- Actual props and well-prepped gaming locations are generally bad things as they become obstacles to the immersion (what am I allowed to do with this prop?) and constrain the game to move outside of the prepped location (which is sometimes desirable).
- That a game is not a rail-road is not an excuse for a lousy story.
- The most important aspect of a story is how it affects the characters in it, not whether the characters manage to save the world in the end.
- Everyday drama is more interesting than epic drama.
- There are very few situations where the Game master should be playing the extras. Extras are good. Non-player characters are not.

After reading this, there shouldn't be any surprise reading that in "doubt" we:
- played all the characters (there was no GM characters, but every player played multiple characters)
- there were two "protagonist" and the other characters were supporting cast (but with a twist - read the next post about the actual rules)
- Players could (using a specific jeepform technique) express what their characters were secretly thinking without going out-of-character.
- The players could decide the way the story goes, and what happened before.
- "Doubt" is a love story. About cheating on your partner.

["Doubt: a love story" would be a better title for this thread. I am sorry I didn't think about it before...]

Next: the rules
Logged

Ciao,
Moreno.

(Excuse my errors, English is not my native language. I'm Italian.)
Moreno R.
Member

Posts: 389


« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2007, 11:41:51 AM »

I don't know if I will be able to post the entire acrual play today (I type really slowly in English) so I will continue to post short messages about single parts. Please refrain from asking question until I will post the final part (I really would enjoy answering questions about the game, after that final part)

From the description of the game in the site:

"Doubt" ("Tvivl"):

A serious story of love. About how one glance can stop time. About daring to love and daring to move on.

Doubt is two stories about each other. A life and a play. Tom and Julia love each other. Both on stage and off stage.

Doubt is about temptation, the importance to love and be loved. About constant choosing. About living with one person, and at the same time dreaming about others.

In Doubt, the players are responsible for the story. Decide the fate of Tom and Julia. Play the play to its final act. Two players play Tom and two play Julia. And extras. And lovers.

A beautiful scenario about love.


So...  how's about the Premise?

The premise of "Doubt" is really simple: the protagonists are Tom and Julia, and the question is "will one of them cheat on the other?" [in the couse of play often the question becomes "will they stay together?", but this question is a consequence of the other)

One (male) player play Tom. One (female) player play Julia. The other two players (one male, one female) play all the rest of the characters that meet Tom and/or Julia.during the game

But there is a twist: Tom and Julia are both theatre actors. During this phase of their life, they are playing "ON THE OTHER SIDE OF YOU - scenes from a relationship", a drama about a couple that break up, dreaming about other partners.   Their characters, in the theatrical play, are Peter (30 years old, a stock broker) and Nicole (29, a Fashion designer). There are only two other characters in the theatrical play, and both are dreams that Peter and Nicole dreams about the people they would rather be together.  Nicole dreams about Lewis<Maude<I played a dream in theatre play played by an actor that I played in a role-playing game. )

In the couse of the game, play alternates between "real-life scenes" (with Tom and/or Julia and and/or supporting cast) and "theatre scenes" (with Peter, Nicole, Dream-Maude and Dream-Lewis). What happen in the "play scenes" is predetermined by a "play script" given to the players that tell, in very broad detail, what happen in every scene (so the players can add details or decide how to get a result, but not the result. For example, in a play scene, Dream-Lewis has to convince Nicole to leave Peter. The player can decide what arguments Dream-Lewis use and how he use them, and Nicole's player can decide how she reach that decision, but the plot is pre-written). In the "real-life scenes" instead the players can improvise what they do, without any pre-written script.

Citing the game manual (I will do this often, to avoid getting across a wrong impression of the game with my broken english):


In the game, there are 11 pre-plotted "play scenes" and 11 "everyday scenes". Of these, the first 3 are already defined in the game rules. The other 8 are to be defined by all the players, all together, in a sort of "pitch session" like the one in PTA  before the start of the game, before even assigning the characters to the players. ("defining a scene" means deciding where is set and who is present in that scene, WITHOUT deciding beforehand what will happen)

During the game, every player (GM included) has two additional "fast scenes" that he can ask for during the game, deciding locations and the characters who are present, without having to declare them in this phase.

There is a list of locations allowed, and characters usable. There is no need to use all of these. So every game of "Doubt" can be in different location with different character played in a completely different way (the descriprion of each are really short, a couple of paragraphs each, and don't tell much. All the rest has to be improvised by the player who play them)

The Locations can be chosen from this list::


The supporting characters can be chosen from this list:

Women:


Men:


It'd important to undestand that these characters can even not exist, if they are not refenced during the playing the game. They are a list of choices. If nobody ever use Max, for example, it's possible even to play the game with Julia that don't do jogging. If the players decide so, she can ever be paralized on a wheelchair, just to use an extreme example. They are really "pieces" that the players can use to build their own story, different from a game of "doubt" to another.

The players, in deciding what happen in the "everyday scenes", have to follow seven rules:

The seven rules of the game

<

This means that all temptations are of heterosexual nature.
The reason for this is to lower the number of possible relations to keep them manageable. Doubt is not a game about coming out or fighting hetero-normativity but about partner-relationsships.

Interpret that however you want. Our interpretation is that possible flirts in Paris will be secret, that any mending effects on a relationship a trip to Paris may have will cease when back home again and that the love the bartender girl felt for Tom in Paris cools off once she is back behind the bar disk, serving beers again.

This means that there must be at least two scenes with a temptation before Tom or Julia may fall. As the game is also about what it means to fall for a temptation, we leave it to you to define what that means. It is your game.

Of the scenes created by the players in the prepatory phase, at most one may take place in Paris.
<
Only the game master may introduce flash backs and dream sequences.<The first act have three fixed scenes: AT THE DOOR, Coming home after a great show and The Video Camera<

The purpose of the scene "Coming home after a great showThrowing some event in there is a good trick to provoke Tom and Julia to act and thus force them to make decisions about their relationship.

In The Video Camera

This is the game structure, from the game manual:

Preparation
The preparatory phase of Doubt is a tad unorthodox even for freeform. Apart from choosing characters, some of the scenes must be discussed and the players must get an overview of premises, places, persons and the rules of the game. After having greeted the players, you should:
<Look at all characters
You walk the players through the play (your interpretation)
Look at all places
Look at all rules
Create eight scenes and add them to the scene list
Casting

After this, the game starts.

OK, I think I explained enough how the game works. I cited a lot of game text to help even people who didn't read the game manual  understand the actual play.

In the next post (later) I will describe what we made of this premise in our game, last month.
Logged

Ciao,
Moreno.

(Excuse my errors, English is not my native language. I'm Italian.)
Moreno R.
Member

Posts: 389


« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2007, 08:51:20 PM »

Hi!

Some things that I forgot to write in the last posts:

- The room where you play should have a "out of stage" area for the GM (in the role of the audience) and for the players that aren't "on stage" in that moment.  You stay in character only "on stage" and when you are out-of-stage you can discuss your next scene with the other out-of-stage players

- Any player (GM included) can ask to repeat a scene if he isn't satisfied (no scene was repeated in our game, but this "safe net" help to lessen the "stage fright". People play better if they aren't worried to "ruin" the game trying something.)

- Every "theatre scene" begin with a monologue given by one of the protagonist of the play. What is in this monologue isn't pre-plotted. These monologues can be used to comment (indirectly, because they are part of the theatre play) on the actions of the Protagonists of the story. The GM should prepare some monologues himself, and use them to start the scenes of his choice. (remember that the GM and the players that play the protagonist of the theatre play can't decide the ending of the game. Only the two Protagonists, the players that play Tom and Julia, can decide that. But this let the GM and the other two players a manner to comment "in stage" about what the two protagonist are doing)

- The GM often ask question to the characters, that the players answer in-character. Some were questions about what the character is thinking in that moment, some were question about other things. In a dinner scene, the GM  asked what we were eating, for example.

- The GM can go "on stage" when he wants to tell something to any character, like "you notice this" or "you hear this". For example, in the scene with the camcorder, he can say to a character "you notice that he forgot to start the camcorder".

Some jeepform techniques used in the game:
- Jeepforms use "Symbolic props", to let players have the freedom to decide themselves what objects they want to use in the game. From the link: "In most situations, the players should have complete freedom to add symbolic props as long as they respect where the story is heading, i.e., it should be allowed to introduce the pen-as-knife at any time, as long as the current situation or story clearly does not dictate the opposite. Table-top role players should throw away their equipment lists and larpers should not hesitate to try this, even though it might seem ridiculous at first. It isn't. It is not any more rediculous than the fact that you are a symbol for the character that you are playing. ". In the game we played, for example, an empty coca-cola paper cup lying around the stage became in different scenes a camcorder, a barist's shaker, a bouquet of flowers, a vine glass and a bottle.
- To use Symbolic props, jeepform use the tecnique called "Telegraphing". Citing again: "[...] when you want to give flowers to your date, and the only available physical prop is a pen; hand the pen over while saying "I wanted to give you red roses, but they only had white". Interestingly, the pen can be handed over, smelled, be put in a cup and broken, just like a real rose. To make telegraphing work, learn to accept facts brought into the game by other players"
- To let everybody know the "inner world" of a character (what he is thinking, feeling, what he want, what he fear, etc.) without going-out-of character, there are many different techniques in jeeform. One is "the GM ask questions" seen above. Others are "Insides and outsides", Sitting and standing play and "Monologue". These can all be described as a way to let the player express the thoughts of the characters talking in character, as if he talked to a theatre audience ("Monologue"), as a short comment ("insides and outsides") or using a formal signal to indicate thoughts ("Sitting and standing play").. The last one require a formal way of signaling thoughts, so isn't used in "doubt". Of the others, we used Monologues in the theatre scenes, but in the "everyday scenes" we weren't used to these techniques so we didn't use them very much. The GM questions were used much more often.

I hope I didn't forget anything this time. Lets' talk about our game.

The GM was, as I said in the first post, Lorenzo Trenti, a founding member of the Italian "role-playing movement" Flying Circus, that organized the demonstration and translated the game in Italian.

The other players were: Claudia (we play together in the same group, and she read and write on the Forge), her husband Michele, and Benedetta.

This is the description of the group that Claudia wrote in her actual play comment in Tobias Wingstad's blog (I will cite her often in this post, both to include her comments and to avoid re-typing what she already wrote). She wrote it to Tobias, and when she say "you" she referred to him.

Quote from: Claudia
The players were:
Benedetta<Moreno<Michele<Claudia<Alice, Cecilia, Miriam, Jennie, Mary-Anne, Robert, Garrison, John & Samson, and of those only Jennie, Mary-Anne and John were used more than once (we first identified in John and Jennie the Temptations.

So, at the end, we played:
MorenoTom and Dream-Lewis in the play
Claudia: Julia, and Dream-Maude in the play
Michele: Peter in the play, and all the "real-life" male supporting characters
Benedetta: Nicole in the play, and all the "real-life" female supporting characters

Before that, as Claudia said, we had already decided the 8 additional "real-life" scenes. At the beginning everybody simply suggested a couple of scenes, then at the end we looked at the list and made some corrections until we all agreed to the list of scenes and their position. I suggested Jenny as a temptation for Tom so we put her in various scenes, and the same thing happened with John. All the other supporting  characters appears in a scene only because they were useful in that specific scene, but there was no motivation to put them in a lot of scenes. (we usually had to limit the number of characters in any scene, to be able to play them all with 4 players, and at the same time we tried to avoid having scenes with only two players, to let everybody play more)

This is the list of scenes, with the "theatre scenes" in UPPERCASE, the 3 pre-set "real life scenes" in italics, and the 8 "real-life" scenes decided by us in bold.

AT THE DOOR
Coming home after a great show (Tom & Julia)
At the restaurant with Garrison an Cecilia.
The video camera
The Party (Tom & Jenny, Julia & John)
<John shows Julia the dream apartment.
MARTYR
THE DREAM OF THE IDEAL
Tom and Julia in their current apartment
Julia in her dressing room with her stepmother Mary Anne, then Tom arrives.

A GOOD DAY
SURRENDER
Julia brings Tom at the dream apartment, then John arrives.
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE
LIT CANDLES
ALL OUT WAR

AT THE DOOR

I am not really sure about the succession of real-life and theatre scene with each other. I mean, I am sure about the succession of real-life scenes and the succession of theatre scenes is already written (The GM can change it but Lorenzo didn't), but I don't remember well how the two succession intersected each other. We talked about this before posting the Actual Play to Tobias' Blog but we remember different things. Anyway, it's not really important.

We misunderstood the rules and we didn't notice that the 2 of the predetermined "real-life scenes" were already set even in location and characters in the book, so we decided location and characters even for them. It's interesting that we decided the exact same characters given in the book, anyway.

This is what we decided beforehand about the real-life scenes (all 11 of them):
- Coming Home after a great show (Tom & Julia) - here we made an error,  we decided to set this scene in the taxi taking them home after the show, not thinking that we should have used one of the listed locations.
- At the restaurant with Garrison an Cecilia (we didn't decide anything beforehand for this scene apart for the characters and location. We inserted this scene here to avoid having two consecutive scenes with only Tom & Julia, and keep it here even after we modified the following scene)
- The video camera (Tom and Julia, next arrive Mary-Ann and Samson).  We discussed this scene quite a lot, because it didn't feel right using two consecutive scenes with only Tom & Julia, and even after inserting the restaurant scene we were unsatisfied, but we had some difficulties finding the right way to insert another character, until someone suggested a surprise visit by Julia's parents with the father showing off to the camera. At this we laughed and agreed). After the game, reading the game manual, I discovered that they were already supposed to be in that scene. We choose the right characters even without reading that part of the book!
- The Party (Tom & Jenny, Julia & John) we decided to use this scene to presents Jenny and John to the "audience", keeping the meetings separated from each other
-
.(we decided beforehand that in this scene Jenny would go to the show - having been given free tickets by Tom - and would go to the dressing room afterward to talk to Tom. And in this scene there would be some beginning of a "spark" between them, and Julia would arrive. We always left the specific of every scene to improvisation)
- John shows Julia the dream apartment. (nothing was decided beforehand for this scene, apart from characters and location)
- Tom and Julia in their current apartment (nothing was decided beforehand for this scene, apart from characters and location. But we asked the GM to put "the dream of the ideal" between the previous real-life scene and this, to have a sequence of "real-life apartment of her dreams- dream apartment in the play - rented apartment where they live now". We didn't choose at any time between us to make the apartment a big deal and the principal straining in the relationship, but thinking about it afterwards when we choose this sequence "because it would be fun" we set his importance)
- Julia in her dressing room with her stepmother Mary Anne, then Tom arrives. (this scene was to let Julia talk to someone about her feelings)
-
. (this scene was at first to let Tom talk with someone about his feelings, but was fast turned in a comic relief scene. This was the most pre-built scene. We couldn't stop adding fun bits at the planning stage, so it was the most fun moment before playing. (but playing it was a little too constrictive, like redoing another time an already-played scene. Thinking about it now I am happy we choose to leave all the other scenes much more open to improvisation)
- Julia brings Tom at the dream apartment, then John arrives. (all we decided was that here Tom would learn about John. We didn't decide beforehand what he would learn, because we didn't know what John and Julia would do together)
- (nothing was decided about this scene, but we felt that it would be the right setting for a final tantrum or love scene between Tom and Julia. When played it had instead a very different meaning than the one we imagined)

After this, I have to quote a really long description of the actual play by Claudia, with some bits added by me, so it's better if I use another post instead of a big quote block...



Logged

Ciao,
Moreno.

(Excuse my errors, English is not my native language. I'm Italian.)
Moreno R.
Member

Posts: 389


« Reply #4 on: May 21, 2007, 09:11:08 PM »

Much of this was written by Claudia, with correction and some bits added by Lorenzo, Michele and me, and taken from this Actual play report.  Some of the informations from the previous post are repeated to facilitate the reading without having to reference the previous post.  Having the "game board" with all the places and characters description and the "theatre play script" would help. (both are included in the game that you should have dowloaded from the links in the first post)

-------------------------------------------

AT THE DOOR<Coming home after a great show (Tom & Julia)
(here we made an error, we decided to set this scene in the taxi taking them home after the show, but not thinking about it we should have used one of the listed locations).
Information added by this scene<At the restaurant with Garrison an Cecilia.<The video cameraMoreno here<The Party (Tom & Jenny, Julia & John)<<<RETURN TO THE SCENE OF THE CRIME
Nicole is sitting, Dream-Lewis arrive. Dream Lewis asks for forgiveness very sweetly and humbly. Nicole seems touched and readily forgives him. She is nostalgic and sweet with him. He ask her to return to him, closing the scene knelling with his head on her lap.

John shows Julia the dream apartment.
(nothing was decided beforehand for this scene, apart from characters and location)
Julia is clearly in love with the apartment. John is flattering and hitting on her. She treats it as a joke and dismisses it. It becomes clear the apartment is very expensive.

MARTYR<THE DREAM OF THE IDEAL<Tom and Julia in their current apartment<Julia in her dressing room with her stepmother Mary Anne, then Tom arrives.
(this scene was to let Julia talk to someone about her feelings)
Julia is not her usual self, she seems nervous and uncertain. Mary Anne express her worries and suggest she should leave Tom. Julia is appalled at the suggestion and seems desperate at the idea.
Tom enters to say something to Julia and the conversation stops. She is different with him now, more reserved.

<A GOOD DAY
we skipped this by mistake.

SURRENDER
Peter wakes and monologues about the difficulty of their relationship, the little time she has for him. He hesitates, than goes to sleep next to Nicole.

Julia brings Tom at the dream apartment, then John arrives. (all we decided was that here Tom would learn about John)
Julia hopefully and nervously shows Tom the beauty of the apartment but he replies talking about money. She gets cold and silent. John arrives and Julia leaves the 2 men talking about money.
John and Tom recognize each other and Tom realize John was talking about Julia.
Tom says to Julia that they will, in fact, buy an apartment. He changed his mind. But not this one. Some tense, whispered exchange followDIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE<LIT CANDLES
The dinner proves cold and unpleasant from the start. Peter and Nicole quickly starts arguing and Lewis and Maude suggests evil things to say.
(Here it helped a lot that Michele playing Peter was my husband, while I was playing Maude. It allowed us to get a bit phisical. It was just a hug and a kiss but it seemed right for the scene.)

ALL OUT WAR<<AT THE DOOR
Nicole comes home finding Peter sitting at the table. Suitcases are near the door and he is leaving. They agree this would be the right thing to do. Everything is cold and sad.

Here we finished our planned scenes and decided to use a fast scene to play the real life finale.
Moreno and I discussed briefly. Breaking up would seem the natural outcome but it felt a bit obvious. He proposed an unheard monologue of Tom to Julia recognizing his faults and begging her not to leave him.
I liked it and we entered the scene with Julia assuming the same sitting position of Peter while Tom walked around like Nicole, in the theatre after the curtain falls, people leave and all is silent. . He gave his monologue to Julia while she stares at the floor. When it ended she met his eyes. We felt this open ending was poetic and very satisfying.



Logged

Ciao,
Moreno.

(Excuse my errors, English is not my native language. I'm Italian.)
Moreno R.
Member

Posts: 389


« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2007, 09:37:43 PM »

Logged

Ciao,
Moreno.

(Excuse my errors, English is not my native language. I'm Italian.)
Claudia Cangini
Member

Posts: 38


« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2007, 06:16:22 AM »

[...]
The rule that say that only one of the protagonists could cheat on the other create tension and a sort of "adversity" during the game. You really don't want your "partner" cheating on you, both because you are emotionally linked to him, and because this would limit your play options. And at the same time this is an incentive to cheat, before your partner do it.
[...]

Reading this I realize we began the game with totally different expectations even if we enjoyed it the same.

I, for instance, didn't stop to ponder about the consequences of who would cheat first.
I'd say I didn't even felt like I knew much about Julia before playing her, I entered the game without much reflection and feeling totally open to any possible development.
And Doubt delivered big time.

I totally recommend this game, it's very easy and extremely fulfilling if you love collaborative storytelling and dig the romance theme.
I found it has much in common with a PtA, the structure is elegant and functional and it's been one of my best gaming experiences so far.
Logged

--
Claudia Cangini

http://claudiacangini.deviantart.com/
(artist for hire)
Jason Morningstar
Member

Posts: 1428


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2007, 06:42:28 AM »

I think people are ignoring this thread because it has the word LARP in the title.  Which is funny.
Logged

Moreno R.
Member

Posts: 389


« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2007, 07:43:50 PM »

[...]
The rule that say that only one of the protagonists could cheat on the other create tension and a sort of "adversity" during the game. You really don't want your "partner" cheating on you, both because you are emotionally linked to him, and because this would limit your play options. And at the same time this is an incentive to cheat, before your partner do it.
[...]

Reading this I realize we began the game with totally different expectations even if we enjoyed it the same.

No, I don't think so. The expectations were very similar, as demonstrated by the way our imput blended in the game. The bit above is my reflection after playing the game, and it's more an indication of the way my brain works, replaying again and again the "movie" of the game and analysing (or over-analysing) the effect of the various rules and limitations on our playing.

Quote
I, for instance, didn't stop to ponder about the consequences of who would cheat first.

Me, neither. It's not like you have to ponder the effect of a rule for it to take effect. The pondering arrive after the game, when you think how the game would have changed if we had made some different choice.

Talking about the way we played the game, the most noticeable difference I saw is about this:

Quote
I'd say I didn't even felt like I knew much about Julia before playing her, I entered the game without much reflection and feeling totally open to any possible development.

As I said in my comment, I started playing having already decided to be the one who would cheat. Not to be "the one who win", but because I needed a sort of "guide" to how to play the first acts. I had a scene with Jenny very early, and I had to choose how to play it. I could have started having decided to NOT cheat, it would be the same (the scene wouldn't be the same, but I would have know how to play it anyway). I couldn't play it without knowing what to do.  So when I played the first scenes, I did sown little bit of attrition with Julia, and responded very eagerly to the chance to see Jenny again, and even flirted just a little with her.

This is tied with my need to DO something when I play.  In any scene I have to find some sort of "objective" to follow. (this is probably the reason because I enjoy this kind of narrativist games, or even gamist ones,  much more than the ones based on "feeling your character" or "experience a situation")

I don't have any attachments to these initial objectives. I usually change them a lot of times during the game (you are seeing this in our present tSoY game, too). After a couple of scenes playing Tom I saw a more satisfying way to play him and I took it, dropping the initial objective without any problem.

From your comments, and the way I see you play, I get instead that you don't have to "formalize" these objectives in your head.  I got into every scene with some idea of what I wanted, "pushing" the scene that way, while you "rolled with the events" reacting "in real time" to what happened.

Quote
And Doubt delivered big time.

Well, we can tell it without... doubt!

Quote
I totally recommend this game, it's very easy and extremely fulfilling if you love collaborative storytelling and dig the romance theme.
I found it has much in common with a PtA, the structure is elegant and functional and it's been one of my best gaming experiences so far.

Seconded.  And I would like very much to see the comments or impressions of other people who played it, to compare.
Logged

Ciao,
Moreno.

(Excuse my errors, English is not my native language. I'm Italian.)
Moreno R.
Member

Posts: 389


« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2007, 07:45:34 PM »

I think people are ignoring this thread because it has the word LARP in the title.  Which is funny.

Yes. Maybe I should have titled it simply "DOUBT: a Love story"...

Or I should have added that DOUBT can be played as a table-top rpg without changing anything on the game system or the rules.

Logged

Ciao,
Moreno.

(Excuse my errors, English is not my native language. I'm Italian.)
fjj
Member

Posts: 27


« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2007, 01:57:15 PM »

Thanks for posting this, Moreno. I enjoyed reading it. I've discussed the game with Frederik Berg Olsen and a few others but haven't played it myself. I like the idea of the very tight setup - and of course the number of layers in the story.

I usually prefer tabletop games, but once in a while I come across a game (scenario) that will definately play better as LARP (or with semi-live elements, as we call it in DK, i.e. with symbolic props and with clear scene framing). The written material may not explicitly state that the game is best played with acted out scenes or pure verbal at the table. But when I run such a game, I really don't think the choice is open.

So let me ask you for Tvivl/Doubt: How would it have affected your experience of play, if it was played pure tabletop?

Best regards,
Frederik J. Jensen
Logged

Frederik J. Jensen
Moreno R.
Member

Posts: 389


« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2007, 10:29:17 AM »

I asked Tobias Wrigstad if I could post here his comments about Claudia's Actual Play report, from the Jeepform forum: there they are

Tobias talk about "Dubbio". It's the italian word for "Doubt", and the title of the italian translation of the game.

Quote from: Tobias Wrigstad
Logged

Ciao,
Moreno.

(Excuse my errors, English is not my native language. I'm Italian.)
Moreno R.
Member

Posts: 389


« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2007, 10:35:54 AM »

I usually prefer tabletop games, but once in a while I come across a game (scenario) that will definately play better as LARP (or with semi-live elements, as we call it in DK, i.e. with symbolic props and with clear scene framing). The written material may not explicitly state that the game is best played with acted out scenes or pure verbal at the table. But when I run such a game, I really don't think the choice is open.

So let me ask you for Tvivl/Doubt: How would it have affected your experience of play, if it was played pure tabletop?

Well, this is a question that is at the same time very easy and very difficult to answer. I mean, it's easy to talk about the general differences between the experiences of "live playing" and "tabletop playing", but it's more difficult to talk about the specific differences on the "story" created in this specific game.

In general, "live gaming" is a much more "complete" experience, is more... "real", more colorful, more active, more intense, more engaging. IF a scenario can be successfully played as a "live game", I can't see any reason to avoid doing so.  I met people that told me that they don't play live games because they don't know how to act. For me it's nonsense. Do they don't play tabletop because thay don't know how to vocally simulate the voice of an orc, or an elf, or don't know how to talk like a radio actor? I don't know how to act, I am no actor, I don't even know Impro, I am really sure I suck as an actor, but who cares? Nobody is paying tickets to see me, I am playing a game with my friends, there's no critic around to give rewiews.

It's the same as when I GM a tabletop game. I play Gods, monsters, not-humans, women, children, ghosts, etc.  And I NEVER use particular "voices". I don't try to talk with an accent, or with a stuttering, or something like that. Even if I was good at it, I find these thing distracting. We are all trying to imagine a different place, a different world, with different people, and the GM that make funny voices isn't really helping the player to do so. The player don't think "wow, that is really an orc!", he say "wow, the GM sure is funny!".

I think we should trust the imagination of the other players. It's the reason they are playing in the first place. I don't have to talk like an orc. I talk normally. But they hear, in their imagination, the voice of an orc.  And I see "live playing" in the same way. If we are playing together, we are imagining another place, and I don't have to be a good actor to make you imagine what I am saying as if was said by my character.

The only reason I see for playing tabletop games instead of "live" ones is that "if" above. In "if a scenario can be successfully played as a live game".  You are really limited in the kind of story you can do in a live game. Much more so if you don't have the resources to build complicated sets (and in any case, it's difficult to justify the expenses to build something that you could imagine in a tabletop). Every "non real" element that you add feels "wrong" (I am really not interested in playing some fantasy LARP I saw in other conventions with people disguised as elves of orcs. Even my suspension of disbelief has limits!). In a tabletop you can add a lot more elements to the shared imagined space without breaking the suspension of disbelief. "live games" are much more delicate, and break easily.

So, I rather agree with the Jeep "truths" 17 and 18:
17) The most important aspect of a story is how it affects the characters in it, not whether the characters manage to save the world in the end.
18) Everyday drama is more interesting than epic drama.

At least in the context of a "live" game.

So, at the end, for a "real life" drama as the one in "Doubt", I see no reason at all to avoid playing it "live" with more intensity, more color, more engagement, more immersion. And losing nothing that you could have at the tabletop.

If the story has instead some element difficult to play in a live game (even a sword fight. I really prefere imagining it than having a embarassing fake "battle" with boffer swords), I would prefere to play it as a tabletop.

I added the fact that "doubt" can be played as a tabletop (and it can, sure) in a "tongue in cheek" way, for the people who is "afraid" of playing live, but I don't really any reason to play it in that way (I mean, other that having only male players. In that case I can see as imagining a woman instead of having to physically court a man could be useful...)

About the specific way that playing "Doubt" tabletop could affect the playing, discounting the intensity I talked above...  I don't really know. I imagine there would be less tension between the characters, and the game would be much more about large scale intents that about small-scale scenes, but I really don't know, without seeing someome playing it like this.
Logged

Ciao,
Moreno.

(Excuse my errors, English is not my native language. I'm Italian.)
Frank Tarcikowski
Member

Posts: 277

Hamburg, Germany


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2007, 10:14:04 AM »

This is one of the most fascinating things in this hobby I've come accross yet. That Jeepers site is fantastic, especially the glossary. Look at their understanding of "Play for Show" and "Immersion"! And note that the whole concept of Reward Cycle and possibly Creative Agenda itself is located in the Play for Show part, while Immersion seems to be a totally distinct phenomenon in which the other players really don't participate at all. That actually goes along the same lines as some stuff I have been thinking about myself for some time, but think that the Play for Show thing is what game design must focus on. Anyhow, I am passing way beyond the scope of this actual play.

Thank you so much for posting this, Moreno. I think you did a really great job writing all this up, it must have taken you many hours. Also, the game itself sounds very intriguing, to a point where I feel a little intimidated by it and wonder whether I could even pull something like that off. It seems pretty demanding, with all the constraints and different characters, symbols, "play inside the play" and so forth. Are there any more beginner-friendly scenarios, do you know?

Also, I find the GM job very interesting. So the GM does not assume the role of a single fictional person. She is only running the game, seeing to it that everything runs smoothly, at some points giving some directions or posing some questions or doing other things as determined by the specific rules of a given scenario. She is, it seems to me, not a bass player here but rather a conductor. Oh, screw these musical metaphors. Anyhow, I wonder how much fulfillment one might get out of this job, and where exactly it would come from. I must read some of these scenarios to get a better impression.

Frank
Logged

If you come across a post by a guest called Frank T, that was me. My former Forge account was destroyed in the Spam Wars. Collateral damage.
Claudia Cangini
Member

Posts: 38


« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2007, 03:42:27 AM »

Logged

--
Claudia Cangini

http://claudiacangini.deviantart.com/
(artist for hire)
Pages: [1] 2
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!