The Forge Archives

Hi folks, I've been doing some thinking About LARPs and GNS. What I've written below is potentially the first in a series of articles about applying GNS ideas to LARP design. Have a read, poke holes, I need to make sure I'm on the right track with my current thoughts if I'm to go any further. Hopefully I can convince Mods here to let me post this up as an article after I make revisions based on people comments and give it a general tidy up.

Addressing the problems with Applying the GNS theory to LARPs

I'm only going to discus one of the many types of LARPs here in the hopes that those of you that know other types better will be able to extrapolate some of the similarities and differences and how they affect the other styles.

The type that I am most familiar with is the Ongoing Political/Social LARP which is typified usually by some or all of these aspects:

- Indoor play, usually at a hotel, function room or university campus
- Based on a commercial RPG, usually High Concept Simulationist  
- Several-hour sessions based around a social occasion of some sort
- Player-created characters within the system
- Resolution mechanics simplified from the commercial system
- Primarily player vs player conflict
- The game runs multiple sessions  
- a fixed amount of time between sessions with a 1:1 relationship between Game Time and Real Time
- Moderately large player base (between 15 and sixty seems about normal)
- Ref team resolves between session actions

I have used the word LARP throughout this discussion, however please take it to mean the sort of LARP detailed above rather than generically possible to apply to all the many and varied styles of LARP.

A little background about me

As you can see, most of my experience lies with the Camarilla style of play. Although I have run games within the Camarilla, most of my experience comes from running similar games completely unrelated to the Camarilla organization it's self. Most of the games that I have run have been Abashed or Incoherent attempts at Simulationist play and I have always eventually given up in disgust due to the games drifting away from the Simulationist Creative Agenda without ever being able to work out why, or even understanding what it was I was trying to achieve.

I've recently discovered the GNS theory and after much reading and rereading I have realized that despite general feeling on the forums that you cannot apply GNS easily to LARPs, it is indeed possible, even easy to use it as a diagnostic tool and design aid if you think about both GNS and LARPs in a slightly different way.

How to think of GNS Theory

The first and most important thing to remember about GNS theory is that it is about how the player plays the game. It is not about System, except where system affects how easy it is to drift from one Creative Agenda to another.

The second thing that you must keep in mind is that although a lot of parts of Ron Edwards articles look at GNS theory as it applies to a role playing group as a whole, it is first and foremost concerned with the wants and actions of the individual player. This then becomes the wants and needs of the group through the use of the Social Contract (or doesn't and becomes dysfunctional).

How to think of LARPs

The most common mistake made when thinking of a LARP is that it is like a typical role playing group only bigger. Unfortunately this is rarely the case. Unless the group is small, the players are already familiar with each other or the game is amazingly well designed there is a major difference between LARP and Table Top.

That difference is in the social contract.

Ideally within a table top group all the players will normally start the game knowing at least one other player or the GM. The GM will then normally discuss with the players what the game is about, what his goals are and work to create characters. At this stage it will normally become clear to the players what creative agenda they are expected to be working towards. This is also the stage where the Social Contract becomes established, whether verbally or not.

In a LARP, this stage is often completed with only the first few players of the game. With later players potentially turning up on the night with a character sheet and the expectation that they will be able to play. This means that they have no prior information on the social contract of the game (especially regarding Creative Agenda, which,  Ron Edwards has pointed out at various times is often ignored even in commercially published TT games never mind amateur LARPs).

This lack of Social Contract and most importantly the lack of information on the encouraged, supported or even allowed Creative Agendas means that to state that a LARP is Narrativist or Gamist can become even more redundant than saying the same thing about the rules for a TT RPG.

Another big difference between a LARP and a tabletop game is the mistaken belief that the game can be viewed as a cohesive whole. Most LARPs present multiple arena's of conflict (often, physical, political, social) and different players will gravitate to different arena's based on personal taste. You will also get characters who do not gravitate towards any of these arena's and are happy to potter about on the side lines.

Because of the multiple areas of conflict (often accompanied by some form of group allegiance) it is entirely possible for some players to never even talk to each other, never mind actually actually spend any time role playing together.

From what I have seen this often results in the formation of cliques who share similar Creative Agenda's spending more time role playing together and often coming to dominate one aspect of the the game, while other cliques with other social agenda's gravitate towards other aspects.

So how do you apply GNS to a LARP then?

In order to apply GNS to analyze an existing LARP you need to look closely at the groups of player that have formed within the game. [I'm going to make some sweeping generalizations now for the purpose of examples, please don't take them too closely to heart].

You will often find the gamists gravitating towards the political or physical aspects of the game, while the Simulationists often gravitate towards the social aspect, while touching on the other two. Unfortunately you will usually find the Narativists out on the sidelines role playing amongst them selves having failed to convince any of the other players to engage with the premise they are trying to explore.

This means that most games will have people attempting to follow various Creative Agenda's regardless of the original intention of the game.

Surprisingly this can actually work just fine, assuming that all the people in each arena of conflict are following the same Creative Agenda. Within such functional groupings a Social Contract will gradually form amongst the Clique based on what is and isn't acceptable behavior, and this contract may be radically different from that envisaged by the GM.

Problems are caused however when a new player (whether new to the game or new to the Clique) following a different social contract is introduced to the arena of conflict. The gamists who have been quite happily competing amongst them selves on the political arena may become most upset when a Narativist joins the arena and makes apparently irrational actions in pursuit of their premise. Likewise a Gamist can run amok within the simulationist in the Social arena should he start using the actual rules system put in place rather than the "just role play it out" method required by their Social Contract.

By looking past a LARP as a monolithic entity and to look at the players and groups of players within it, it is fully possible to apply GNS theory to a LARP. The trick it to apply the GNS theory to small groups or individual players.

Needless to say the above problems are no different from those that can arise within your average table top game. Allowing us to look at the problems as if each Clique within the game was in individual TT group with it's own social contract.

The Next Step?

So what now? We can recognize where the problems are likely to arise in a LARP, but how do we make sure that they don't happen? Well, that's a big topic and I have some ideas, but I'll leave that to another forum post.

I'm impressed.

There have been a number of threads about LARP by people much more familiar with the form than I, including quite a few from our Scandinavian contributors and from one of the originators of the LARP form. You might poke around and see what you can learn. Not being a LARPer myself, I don't remember too much about these.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: mindwandersThe type that I am most familiar with is the Ongoing Political/Social LARP which is typified usually by some or all of these aspects:

I reckon this is a good thing to be mentioned. Here are the common aspects from my LARPing career.

- Usually indoor play; some games outside (in the... Woods), or a larger area (city) with hotspot locations.
- Very rarely based on commercial RPG/LARP rules, even then heavily modified.
- Usually over 6 hour long games, with varying themes.
- Organizer-written characters.
- Resolution mechanics simple or non-existing (with the notable exception of MET-based games)
- Usually one-shots (with few exceptions).
- Usually 20-40 players, with few 100+ player games.
- Usually following at least some principles of the Turku Manifesto/eläytijist  (was that right?)-movement.

Quote from: mindwandersThe most common mistake made when thinking of a LARP is that it is like a typical role playing group only bigger. Unfortunately this is rarely the case. Unless the group is small, the players are already familiar with each other or the game is amazingly well designed there is a major difference between LARP and Table Top.

That difference is in the social contract.

Agreed, though I've rarely experienced this. I think the major contributing factor is the familiarity/unfamiliarity of players - not only with each other, but also with the social contract under which the game has been written. It seems to me that social contract, at least around here, is usually an unwritten one, communicated through the scene which influences the game in question. In this case, scene also means cliques, which seem to form around the different kind of players. For example, in Scandinavia (or at least Finland), the eläytijist-clique is strong (and inbred, pardon me for saying) - the players usually have pretty clear picture of the social contract involved with a game organized by someone inside the clique beforehand, which quite effectively eliminates other kind of players.

Not that an existing Good Buddy -system wouldn't help with that as well.

However, and based on my experiences only, games around here tend to mention at least some parts of the social contract with other pre-game information.

Having said that, I've been involved in games with a clear lack of social contract as well, resulting with pretty much similar effects you've had.

QuoteThere have been a number of threads about LARP by people much more familiar with the form than I, including quite a few from our Scandinavian contributors and from one of the originators of the LARP form.

I've had a look at a few of them and they are very interesting. A few that I would reccomend are:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11306
On tools for running LARPs

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3512
General Stuff on LARP (including stuff from Walt Freitag-the person who started character map based free forms)

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9984
On Social Contracts in boffer larps (not had a chance to read it properly yet)

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4646
Narrative larp example

I should point out that most of the stuff I've run accross seems to be concerned with the idea that Narativism in larps is hard. Something I'll probably have to cover later.

QuoteAgreed, though I've rarely experienced this. I think the major contributing factor is the familiarity/unfamiliarity of players - not only with each other, but also with the social contract under which the game has been written.

In my view that's the fact that they have actually had face to face time with the person writing the game and therefore are in a similar boat to the first players in an Ongoing Social/political game.

QuoteIt seems to me that social contract, at least around here, is usually an unwritten one, communicated through the scene which influences the game in question. In this case, scene also means cliques, which seem to form around the different kind of players. For example, in Scandinavia (or at least Finland), the eläytijist-clique is strong (and inbred, pardon me for saying) - the players usually have pretty clear picture of the social contract involved with a game organized by someone inside the clique beforehand, which quite effectively eliminates other kind of players.

I would agree that that is also true in Ongoing Social/Political game, however usually in order to get larger numbers of players the GM's will try and push thier game to multiple cliques. This involving people who have a totally different social contract without declaring what the one for the LARP is.

Quote
Not that an existing Good Buddy -system wouldn't help with that as well.

not a phrase I've heard before. Mind expanding it?

Quote
However, and based on my experiences only, games around here tend to mention at least some parts of the social contract with other pre-game information.

For my games there might have been a few lines on the website, and possibly 20% of the players would have looked at the website before coming along.

QuoteHaving said that, I've been involved in games with a clear lack of social contract as well, resulting with pretty much similar effects you've had.

It's good to hear I seem to be on the right track with what I'm thinking.

I believe it is totally possible to get a coherent and unabashed LARP in any style. However I would say that the Ongoing Social/Political game is probably a much younger style than both Boffer and Freeform (how what you normally play would be described over here) and there has been much less thought put into how to actually run it well as opposed to getting it to run at all.

I'll pass thinking about solutions to the next thread in series.

Quote from: mindwanders

Quote
Not that an existing Good Buddy -system wouldn't help with that as well.

not a phrase I've heard before. Mind expanding it?

I think there's a proper English term for it, but it escapes my mind; basically, when cliques are established, they soon began to promote themselves and exclude other cliques. This quickly leads to invitation only-games, as you mentioned in the next thread.

Personally, I'll have to admit that I'm a strong supporter of the mentioned system. But that's just me.

Quote from: mindwanders

QuoteHowever, and based on my experiences only, games around here tend to mention at least some parts of the social contract with other pre-game information.

For my games there might have been a few lines on the website, and possibly 20% of the players would have looked at the website before coming along.

That's very, very low percentage. If you have or would have a social contract printed on the pre-game information handed to every participating player week before the game happen, do you think it would be read, understood and followed? If we, for a minute, think that the said contract would cover the Gamist/Simulationist/Narrativist-factions?

QuoteThat's very, very low percentage. If you have or would have a social contract printed on the pre-game information handed to every participating player week before the game happen, do you think it would be read, understood and followed? If we, for a minute, think that the said contract would cover the Gamist/Simulationist/Narrativist-factions?

I think printing things off and leaving players to read and understand things on thier own would work in only a small percentage of the cases. I've generally found that anything that requires obvious effort on the part of the player will generally not get done.

However I think sitting down with 2-3 players at a time to discuss the the game before they gen up characters would go a long way towards enforcing a cohesive social contract. I'd also say that it's much easier to get accross the concept of a a single Creative Agenda (or even a small subset of it) face to face than it would be to discuss all of the GNS theory either on paper or in person.

It seems that every time this topic comes up, we get down to the following issue:

LARP is often dysfunctional due to lack of a unified social contract or creative agenda.

Which is intereresting to me, as you could apply that statement to lots of traditional play, LARP or otherwise. Same problem, amplified by scale...

-Matt

Quote from: mindwandersI think printing things off and leaving players to read and understand things on thier own would work in only a small percentage of the cases. I've generally found that anything that requires obvious effort on the part of the player will generally not get done.

There's a large cultural difference here, then. Around here, the player usually receives a fair amount of material before the game (including, but not limited to: character background, statistics, relations to other characters, personal briefing, group briefing, game briefing, setting briefing, rules briefing). Usually some of the material will be displayed on a webpage.

The player is expected to read and digest the information. The personal briefings before the game will be kept to bare minimum (which quite often doesen't work and they drag on and on and on).

Quote from: mindwandersHowever I think sitting down with 2-3 players at a time to discuss the the game before they gen up characters would go a long way towards enforcing a cohesive social contract. I'd also say that it's much easier to get accross the concept of a a single Creative Agenda (or even a small subset of it) face to face than it would be to discuss all of the GNS theory either on paper or in person.

Agreed. We have a habit (which could be used more often) of collecting the players whose characters belong to same group (family, work buddies, political parties, clans, whatever) together to talk about the characters and the game. The goal there is to be able to create bonds and shared history between the characters before the game (and trying to avoid the classic "It's great to see after all this years... Was it Ralph?"-ankwardness). Such group briefing/discussion is something that usually clears the Creative Agenda/Social Contract to the players quite well, as the GM participates in the discussion; you can lead the discussion towards the important subjects and emphasize them.

Of course, someone intrested in the amount of skills and use of them might not be intrested in discussing about character relationships, which sort of makes this a self-fullfilling prophecy of sort.

Quote from: MattIt seems that every time this topic comes up, we get down to the following issue:

LARP is often dysfunctional due to lack of a unified social contract or creative agenda.

Which is intereresting to me, as you could apply that statement to lots of traditional play, LARP or otherwise. Same problem, amplified by scale...

I think the problem is emphasized in LARPs; the GM usually has a lot less power over the game in them (if any), and the social contract/creative agenda can't be emphasized during the game. Whereas in tabletop gaming the GM and meta-discussion level are usually present, and the GM (or players) can address the issue during the game if needed.

QuoteThere's a large cultural difference here, then. Around here, the player usually receives a fair amount of material before the game (including, but not limited to: character background, statistics, relations to other characters, personal briefing, group briefing, game briefing, setting briefing, rules briefing). Usually some of the material will be displayed on a webpage.

The player is expected to read and digest the information. The personal briefings before the game will be kept to bare minimum (which quite often doesen't work and they drag on and on and on).

There is.

Annoyingly it doesn't seem to be something that is specific to the players, rather than specific to the LARP style.

To give an example:

I once ran a Camarilla Werewolf regional event (like a convention that lots of people travel to). I had decided that in order to introduce new players I would set up the game with most of the plot centred around a large relationship mapped freeform and just let the regular players interact as they want.

I had no problems with the players playing the pregened characters, however the problems with the players of player created characters were even worse than normal for that larp (possibly because we had a lot of traveling player with even less of an idea of our games social contract now I think about it).

I think it's a bad habit picked up early on because most people are introduced to this form of LARP by very slapdash attempts at games.

QuoteSuch group briefing/discussion is something that usually clears the Creative Agenda/Social Contract to the players quite well, as the GM participates in the discussion; you can lead the discussion towards the important subjects and emphasize them.

It's good to hear that my theory works :-) I've never actually had a chance to try it out.

Quote from: mindwandersI had no problems with the players playing the pregened characters, however the problems with the players of player created characters were even worse than normal for that larp (possibly because we had a lot of traveling player with even less of an idea of our games social contract now I think about it).

Aside from social contract, I'd think there might also have been a clear lack of ties between the player characters (generated by the players themselves). This one of the reasons why I wouldn't use player generated characters, at least not without an extensive background generation chat between the player(s) and GM.

Characters should be tied to the setting and other characters. IMHO.

Quote from: mindwandersIt's good to hear that my theory works :-) I've never actually had a chance to try it out.

My experiences are from four of five games, usually quite small and played in the cliques mentioned before.

QuoteAside from social contract, I'd think there might also have been a clear lack of ties between the player characters (generated by the players themselves).

This wasn't really true. Most of the traveling players traveled a lot as well as roleplayed via email and IRC with the other players and so were actually reasonably known to the other characters. Hence my conclusion of social contract issues.

QuoteThis one of the reasons why I wouldn't use player generated characters, at least not without an extensive background generation chat between the player(s) and GM.

Characters should be tied to the setting and other characters. IMHO.

I totally agree. And when I run another gamethat's the way I plan on doing it.

My experience with LARPs is very similar:

Quote- Indoor play, usually at a hotel, function room or university campus

Okay, though I'm more used to seeing games run at private residences or historical sites that have been rented out.

Quote- Based on a commercial RPG, usually High Concept Simulationist

I'm not fully up on GNS, so I don't know High Concept Simulationist from a hole in the wall, but the majority of games I've played in on a regular basis are based on a commercial RPG.

Quote- Several-hour sessions based around a social occasion of some sort

Yeah, usually five to six hours. But based on a social occasion? No, not in the games I'm used to.

Quote- Player-created characters within the system

Yes.

Quote- Resolution mechanics simplified from the commercial system

Nope. Usually, the exact mechanics from the TT RPG, or a slightly modified system.

Quote- Primarily player vs player conflict
- The game runs multiple sessions
- a fixed amount of time between sessions with a 1:1 relationship between Game Time and Real Time
- Moderately large player base (between 15 and sixty seems about normal)
- Ref team resolves between session actions

Yes.


Hey, instead of calling this specific group of LARPs "Ongoing Political/Social," how about we go with "Social, Ongoing, And Political" instead? That way we can call 'em SOAP LARPs. Heh, kinda like soap operas for gamers.

Quote from: mindwandersFrom what I have seen this often results in the formation of cliques who share similar Creative Agenda's spending more time role playing together and often coming to dominate one aspect of the the game, while other cliques with other social agenda's gravitate towards other aspects.

I strongly agree with this statement. I've always enjoyed LARPs and play in a few different ongoing games at any particular time. Before I came across the Forge, I noticed that myself and several of the people who I considered "good roleplayers" always tended to wind up in positions of power in game. After reading the articles here, I realized that most of my pretensions (not all, but most) about "good" and "bad" roleplaying were actually just different agendas at work.


As to giving players information and expecting them to digest it, I wouldn't count on it. The best rule of thumb I've heard is to give your players no more than 2 sheets of paper they need to read...and expect half of them not to read it anyway.

QuoteHey, instead of calling this specific group of LARPs "Ongoing Political/Social," how about we go with "Social, Ongoing, And Political" instead? That way we can call 'em SOAP LARPs. Heh, kinda like soap operas for gamers.

I think the players, not to mention the designer of (who I believe is a regular here) Soap the RPG might be very confused by a SOAP LARP :-)

QuoteI strongly agree with this statement. I've always enjoyed LARPs and play in a few different ongoing games at any particular time. Before I came across the Forge, I noticed that myself and several of the people who I considered "good roleplayers" always tended to wind up in positions of power in game. After reading the articles here, I realized that most of my pretensions (not all, but most) about "good" and "bad" roleplaying were actually just different agendas at work.

I had a very similar revalation.

QuoteAs to giving players information and expecting them to digest it, I wouldn't count on it. The best rule of thumb I've heard is to give your players no more than 2 sheets of paper they need to read...and expect half of them not to read it anyway.

Looks like it is a problem with the style of LARP rather than with the players themselves. It certainly doesn't seem to be a regional problem from what I've heard. I would also point out that requirements to read any pre-play information is something that would be part of the social contract, which we already seems to have established has problems.