jhkimrpg ([info]jhkimrpg) wrote,
@ 2005-07-07 11:52:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:larp

LARP Report #3
So two and a half weeks ago (June 18), my usual Buffy group played one of Shifting Forest's Parlor Larps series -- their sole science fiction game, entitled "Garden Station 4". This was for 4 to 8 players, and as it turned out we had only four (plus me as Director). The scenario was that scientific teams from two rival nations (the Union of Planets and the Cerian Empire) were stranded on an alien space station. We had:

Liz as Sandy Applebaum, the independent explorer stuck there for 5 years.
Bill as Jansor Tantorian, the UP journalist.
Heather as Yurla Fels, the UP computer specialist.
Madeline as Jan17 Grey5 Ellisville, a Cerian guard.

The Parlor larps have a system where all characters are classified as Emotion-oriented vs Goal-oriented; Dark vs Light; and Simple vs Complex. The full set of eight characters will have all combinations of these three dichotomies. It is often a little unclear in practice, but here are the assigned ratings of the four characters played:

Liz : Sandy : Goal-oriented / Dark / Complex
Bill : Jansor : Goal-oriented / Light / Complex
Heather : Yurla : Emotion-oriented / Dark / Complex
Madeline : Jane17 : Emotion-oriented / Dark / Simple

It was clearly stated in the event description that this was soft science, but suspension of disbelief was stretched a little thin as we tried to reason out the consequences of some things. It would be easier if it fit into a well-defined genre, but there wasn't an easy handle for it -- in particular how we had interstellar action with no faster-than-light drives.

During play, there was one important assumption clash. There were five computer terminals set up, each of which had a set of controls -- out-of-game represented by a photocopied sheet with a list of functions, invoked by informing the director. Bill's character did something at one of the terminals, and Bill thought it would keep going after he left -- but the phrasing of the function was unclear. So it wasn't until twenty minutes later that we confronted the different interpretations. Not an event killer, but a significant distraction. In larps, everything has to be really crystal-clear to the players -- much moreso than in tabletop games where you have constant GM interpretation and explanation.

In a blog post, one player wrote: Played a larp with the Buffy gang Saturday night. My character was the only one who didn't get killed at least once (it's a long story), but I think I ended up "losing", in the sense that my character utterly failed to achieve any of her goals. I guess I had a hard time getting into character -- I was supposed to be a spy for a Brave New World-esque authoritarian galactic empire. Oh, well, at least I had fun.

I would note that the character Yurla was classified by the game as "Emotion-oriented" rather than "Goal-oriented". As for the character, I think the background of the game was a little too obscure. It would have worked better if there were more simple genre hooks to understand the situation and the rival sides (UP and Cerian Empire).

Liz mentioned that she appreciated the "garden" symbolism and had fun that her character had "Nature Poetry" as an ability (Liz being a poet herself).

Overall, I think it was a great idea for a scenario, but could use some work on the explanations and description. To be fair, it is listed as Director difficulty of 4 out of 5 -- i.e. difficult for the director (me), and I'm not that experienced with directing larps. Some of the problems could potentially have been averted if I was more familiar with the scenario and could explain things more handily.


(Post a new comment)


[info]bob_goat
2005-07-07 08:02 pm UTC (link)
How does being emotion oriented or goal oriented affect gameplay? What is the difference between the two?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]jhkimrpg
2005-07-07 09:42 pm UTC (link)
The labels are descriptive, not part of the game mechanics. All characters are assigned a nominal goal, but for goal-oriented characters that is expected to be a major part of their play -- while for emotion-oriented characters it isn't so much a big deal. Very roughly, goal-oriented characters are a little more gamist -- i.e. good for players who want to try to beat the challenge. Emotion-oriented characters are a little more immersive -- i.e. good for players who don't mind if their character is put in a no-win situation or wins through no effort on his own part.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2005-07-08 07:28 pm UTC (link)
Wasn't it my character who set the thing in motion? Perhaps it was Bill too, but it was me who pushed the Shiny Scary Button and thought it was a process running in the background unless somene actively stopped it. I assumed that when the description said "10 per minute" it meant that the you-know-whats would start winking out of existence, 10 a minute. That's why I timed it like I did. For purposes of extreme dramatic tension, I wanted a whole lot of the you-know-whats to be toast, but not ALL of them, so I didn't want to hit the button too early.

Part of what went wrong I think was that you could not bring yourself to believe I really intended to eradicate ALL of the you-know-whats. But of course!

I was very fond of this character, and would love to play the game again with a different combination of people.

- Liz, aka "Applebaum", the Garden of Eden Torah-referencing wild-eyed babbler!

(Reply to this)

(Anonymous)
2005-07-08 07:32 pm UTC (link)
Oh, and wasn't there a complete howler of a science thing of "nothing going through the shields but sound and vision" with it seeming like the author's intentions were to make the you-know-whats weapon-proof, and then, our realization that the weapons were LASERS.... So if you can see through the shield, you can certainly shoot LIGHT through it...

I accepted that we didn't have any FTL travel or messaging tech, but the Guardians did. For me that was no problem.

- Liz

(Reply to this)
Mechanics?
[info]jonaskarlsson
2005-07-11 09:24 pm UTC (link)
Hello John,

I'm really curious about the system used in Shifting Forest's Parlor LARPs. I've read your Knutepunkt report and that the players found it mechanics-heavy, and it would be great to know something about the mechanics used. Is it for resolving conflicts, or what is it for? A part of it seem to be built into the scenario ("if you push that button, this will happen"), and I can't see that as something interfering, so there must be something else.

I recently GM:ed a Swedish freeform scenario called From Atlantis to Blekinge (I describe the preparations here and the result here, if anyone's interested) and we used the above form of system. Some interaction between player and scenario prompted a change of location or situation, but there were no general mechanics for resolving conflicts or checking if the characters would succeed at things. If I'd tried to introduce that, I think the players would've objected, mainly because it would be unnecessary. I'm really interested in the Parlor LARPs, but it would be a shame to buy them and find out that I would have to cut stuff out of them. From the descriptions on Shifting Forest's website they sound like freeform scenarios, so are the mechanics needed?

It's an interesting journal you have, by the way!

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…