 |
 |
|
LARPing can be a lot of fun, but in my experience it poses a different set of challenges to both GMs and players from the more traditional tabletop style. First and foremost, I think the biggest challenge to face anyone running a LARP is player boredom - it can be difficult to keep everyone involved in the game. Bored players sit and stare, they spend half the game out of character in the in-character areas, they attack each other (combat demands instant GM attention) and they swarm (and swamp) any possible plot activity they detect. This article is focused around making sure everyone has something to do. If you have any thoughts on these techniques, or better yet actually test them out, please don't hesitate to give me feedback! Tabletop GMing and LARPs - What's the Difference? Player to GM Ratio The key to the difference between Live Action and Tabletop is in the number of GMs to players. Your average tabletop game probably has one GM and probably from 3 to 6 players (there are plenty of exceptions to this rule, of course), your average LARP probably has 10 or even 15 players to one GM, and that's if it has a full complement of GMs - the ratio might be even higher. Now, obviously in this case each player is going to receive a much smaller amount of attention from the GM than in a tabletop setting. In a LARP the GM is going to need to keep people interested and having fun, despite the fact that they may only have a small amount of time to spend with each player in any one session. Inter PC Conflict vs PC to NPC Conflict In your standard tabletop game, generally the PCs act in a united (well, hopefully!) fashion against NPC antagonists or world frame situations. The GM plays these antagonists and the PCs work more or less together to overcome them. Most LARP GMs I've spoken to realise that in a LARP most of the conflict needs to come from interaction between PCs. That is, the PCs often oppose each other, in groups or individually, and ideally can engage in this roleplaying with very little GM help at all. Now tabletop games do include inter PC conflict, and LARPs do include conflict with NPC antagonists, but on the whole a LARP will run better if the PCs interact with other PCs rather than requiring the GM's time as an NPC. After all, the GM doesn't have enough time to spend running NPCs for everyone without the game slowing down to a crawl. On top of that, there is a limit to how many people can interact with one NPC in any given situation without it becoming ridiculous - generally NPCs will be played for only one (or perhaps a small group) of PCs. Conflict What is it? So far I've said a lot about conflict without actually explaining what I mean. Conflict, in any story, is what causes the discrepancy between some desired situation and the one that actually exists - the difference between what a character wants and what a character has, and the obstacles which stand between the character and that goal. It is the driving interest in any story - the struggle to overcome some kind of problem, or resolve some kind of tension. The simplest level of this is physical combat. In this case each character wants to be alive and unharmed, whilst wanting the other injured and possibly dead. Conflict exists because they will each try to prevent the other from achieving that goal, forming an obstacle between what each character wants and what each character has. To swing to the other end of the spectrum, conflict can exist within a character as well. For example, a character who cannot decide if they are a good or bad person might struggle with their conscience and their conflicting desire to do something effective but evil. This attracts the attention of the audience (or the player) as they wonder which way the character will swing - will they be redeemed or will they fall into iniquity forever. Circumstances, of course, will make it very difficult for such a character to follow their conscience - if it is easy to be good, then there's no conflict. In the middle of the road, conflict might exist between two characters who don't actually wish each other harm, but both want the same thing. For example, two good friends might love the same woman, and vie for her attentions. It is interesting to note, that in this case the woman's conflict is internal - which one will she choose? Will she take neither? Will she find some way to have both? So, that's what I mean by conflict. Without it, any roleplaying game (or book, or movie for that matter) would be boring and uninteresting. Conflict is the stuff which goes between "The character wants X" and "The Character gets/doesn't get X". Without it, there is no story. Who creates it? This is the killer question. In a tabletop game, it is most often the GM who creates conflict, by presenting the PCs with enemies, obstacles, temptations and problems. The players will try to achieve goals (either of their own devising, or presented to them by the GM) and the GM will make it difficult for them. In a LARP, thanks to the lack of GM time, most people will tell you that it's the players' job to create conflict. It is hoped that players will somehow go out there and do stuff, interact with other players and generally make the game interesting for themselves. When players get bored, GMs will often try to explain that it's up to them to interact with the game. Now, some players do just this, which is why this idea persists at all. These players are wonderful, and should be treasured like the gaming gold that they are. However, the majority of players tend to fail at this, resulting in standard LARP GM wail No. 1 "Why do they expect me to hand them everything on a platter!" These players might just not know how to create plot for themselves, might not be motivated enough to do so, might never be able to do so, or some combination of the above. I think it is naive to expect them to, especially if they're expected to do it without any help or guidance. I think that it is the GM's responsibility to make sure that everyone is having fun, and to help create fun situations for their players. Now this is not as simple as it sounds - as previously noted, GMs in LARPs don't have the time to dedicate themselves to leading every player through the plot by their nose. Most react by trying to introduce more NPCs and more difficult situations which they then have to run. The trick, though, is to try to create and support more conflict between the PCs. Creating Inter PC Conflict Insufficient Resources The simplest way to get PCs interacting with each other with the minimum of GM effort is to create a lack of desirable resources. Initially PCs will have to fight and scheme to see who gets what and then when things have settled down PCs who want something scarce will either have to bargain with other PCs for it, or try to wrest it away from whoever has it. So, for example, lets say that in your world frame horses are a desirable thing. If horses are in plentiful supply, and there are enough to go around, there's no conflict. If, however, horses are scarce, only some of the PCs will have one, and others will miss out. If a horseless PC needs or wants to use a horse, they have two options - they can try to borrow a horse from someone (involving numerous negotiations and perhaps some kind of payment) or they can try to take one (which might require some kind of theft, intrigue to have the things confiscated, the use of allies to help them, and some kind of plan to escape punishment). This kind of thing happens in the real world all the time. Think of all the financial and political dealing, not to mention outright wars, revolving around the world's dwindling oil supply. In order to make the game interesting, there will probably be a whole range of resources which some people want, some don't care about and some may wish to destroy outright. Different PCs will want different things. The GM's job is to make sure that many of these things are in scarce supply, and that interaction of some kind with other PCs is required to get them. Resources Must Mean Something For anyone to care about struggling for resources they have to be worth having. This is very, very important. For example, in Vampire LARPs there is a mechanic covering influence in the mortal world, with a variety of different kinds of influence that vampiric PCs can have, covering a range of mortal institutions and societies. This is absolutely perfect for creating inter PC conflict. Step one is to make sure that there is a limited amount of influence to be garnered in any one area - only so many people can control one organisation after all, and that whatever this amount is, it isn't enough to satisfy all the Vampires of the city. Next, and this is where most games fall down, that influence has to actually be useful for something. People will not struggle for something they don't need. It is up to the GMs to make sure that this influence is useful and desirable. Take any given vampire. Lets say they have a friend/lover/servant. As GM, you could have that person investigated by the police, who are threatening to arrest and imprison them. This vampire does not have police influence, so they can't just "arrange" to have it all go away. A different vampire, however, does. The PC has several options here. They could try to bust the person out or hide them somewhere, but this will mean their lives are ruined, or they become useless as a servant, not to mention the investigation it would spark (and vampires must stay secret, so they don't want any police nosing around). They could go to the policeman in charge and threaten or magically command them into dropping it, but if they do, the GM can inform the player with police influence that something odd is going on - hopefully they will want to know what, and might well be annoyed at the infringement on their territory. Or, the PC could try to get some police influence of their own, effectively driving away the other character (who will presumably react). Finally, they might go to the other person and ask or demand that they exercise their influence on their behalf. Regardless, with only a brief scene explaining the problem the GM has sparked off a conflict in which most of the options involve another player. To summarize the key to getting PCs into a resource driven conflict is to make them need the scarce resource, and need it badly. How you go about making them need something, and what they will need, will depend on the nature of the game and the character. The important trick is to use as light a hand as possible - you want to majority of the scenes involving the conflict to be resolvable without your direct presence. Revealing Secrets Another interesting way of getting players to interact with each other is allowing them to stumble across each other's secrets. Think about what each of the PCs is doing behind the scenes, or what secrets they are holding close to their chest, and find ways to get others involved. This could involve revealing reasons for two PCs to oppose each other or it might bring two unlikely PCs closer together when they discover that they have more in common than they thought. For example, if one character is trying to overthrow the ruling body of the game you could subtly help evidence for that scheme to fall into the hands of another PC. Depending on the PC you choose, they might realise that the other is a kindred spirit, and join their struggle. They might blackmail them with the secret. They might act surreptitiously to stop them. They might reveal their secret to the ruling body. Whatever happens, interesting interaction is likely to result. Ideally, however, the GM needs to choose someone to discover this secret who is likely to do something with it that will make the game more interesting. A character who would kill the conspirator on sight, or otherwise quickly resolve the matter is less rewarding than one who would start conducting schemes of their own. The advantage to this technique is that it often gives players a chance to express hidden sides of their characters, something they generally love to do, and rarely find the opportunity to do in any way that doesn't seem highly contrived. Players tend to want their secrets revealed unwillingly, and find it hard to engineer such situations themselves whilst playing characters who would be doing all they can to hide it. Character Backgrounds The best place to find possible hooks to draw PCs together is in their character backgrounds. Many GMs encourage players to write them, but only a few actually seem to use them, and fewer still use them co jointly with someone else's background. It is a very good idea to sit down with all the GMs of the game present, and all of the character backgrounds, and to compare what all of the PCs have been up to, or are up to. This should reveal possible opportunities for creating conflict and interaction between players. Things which one character wants (or could be made to want) and another has are ideal fodder for conflict. Secrets which might be interesting if revealed to key people make for low GM effort fun, and surprisingly similar backgrounds in seemingly different characters can lead to fascinating interactions. Coincidences can be arranged to bring people together in interesting ways. Characters whose backgrounds don't immediately yield results (or who haven't written up backgrounds) can be thrown into conflict simply because they have something that someone else wants. Ultimately, it is best to focus on those elements of characters which won't require a GM to play an NPC for more than a short scene, and only occasionally require further GM input. Friends & Enemies - a Rule of Thumb Generally speaking, as GM you want to make sure that every PC has at least one PC enemy, and one PC ally. If everyone has a nemesis in one of the other player characters they will have someone to hate, someone to plot against and generally someone to conflict with. Conversely, a close PC friend will give them someone to have in depth conversations with, someone to support them in their schemes against their enemies, and someone to generally aid them in any conflict they encounter. Now, both of these other PCs will have connections with still other PCs, so whilst the starting point is only two people, it will likely end up involving them with a significant chunk of the game. Avoid Game-wide Plots One of the basic tenets of tabletop gaming is that the GM should try to involve all of the players in one plot, as much as possible. This works in tabletop gaming because when a group of PCs is together, the GM can give them all attention at once - if they split off to pursue different things, some players need to sit idle whilst the GM focuses on the others. This does not follow for LARPs, although most LARP GMs seem to think it does (probably because most people have had more experience with tabletop gaming). Whilst involving as many of the PCs as possible in a single plot seems like an efficient way to spend GM time, it has a number of big drawbacks which I think make it a particularly bad idea. This is not to say that the game can't have overarching themes, or occasional game-wide events, just that these should always take a back seat to PCs' personal plots. Overarching Plots Overshadow Inter PC Conflict First of all, players are trained (by tabletop gaming) to expect the GM to hand them plots. Not only this, they are also often trained to think that pursuing their own private character interests will distract from the main focus of the game, and thus should be kept to a minimum. Finally, GM introduced plots tend to be large, very threatening and exciting - they are often more important to the PCs than their own smaller scale stories. To paraphrase Gareth Hanrahan in "A Game of Powers" (the LARP supplement for Nobilis) game-wide plots (or big arcing plots) tend to overwhelm inter PC conflict. Players stop interacting with each other and start interacting only with the GM run story and NPCs - with all the aforementioned difficulty of spreading GM attention too thinly. For example, if the GMs decide that PCs' city is about to be invaded by someone/something, the PCs will usually start to unite in the face of this common threat, putting aside their personal conflicts. This is a disaster, as their personal conflicts are the things that make the game manageable. Game-wide Plots are Quickly Overwhelmed by PCs Game-wide plots also attract what I call the "stacks on" effect. Because inter-player conflict has dropped off in the face of the GM run story, players find themselves fighting for scarce GM time. They get bored, basically, because there are only so many people who can interact with a plot successfully at any one time (this number depends on the GM to player ratio). This means that whenever anything plot related happens, all of the players in the game will rush to interact with it, and overwhelm it with sheer numbers. The scene will slow down as everyone tries to get their actions and comments in, and as a range of PC abilities are indiscriminately directed at the situation. Players will get frustrated, as their actions are overlooked by harried GMs, and as what should have been a short scene starts to take forever. Overarching Plots Take up Too Much Time Finally, I've noticed that many LARP GMs seem to just have no time to focus on the little details of character background and generating inter PC plot. This is because game-wide overarching plots eat time like nothing else. The GMs will be completely overrun, because all of the players suddenly need their attention for the game to progress. This is a vicious cycle - the GMs have no time to encourage conflict which doesn't involve the GM, so they create simple plots aimed at the maximum number of players, which further reduces their time. Dump the overarching, NPC requiring plots and there will be much more time to run the game properly. Conflict Problems Avoiding Binary Conflict By binary conflict, I'm referring to two way, black and white situations - situations which are quickly resolved one way or another. For example, two players may be thrown into conflict over something they both want - if they quickly fight it out and move on the conflict has become binary. This is unfortunate, because a quickly resolved conflict is only interesting for a short time - the best conflicts are the ones which last a little longer. Unfortunately, many players seem to want to seek the quickest possible solution to any problem that comes up. I think there are two main reasons for this. First of all, players are told that good players cooperate with each other. These players want everyone to have fun, and they don't want to upset other players or ruin their fun. This gets boring in a LARP. Whilst you do want to encourage players to avoid ruining each other's fun, in a LARP setting this focuses more around extremes like avoiding killing the characters of other players, because without some level of conflict the game is boring. There are two solutions to this. First of all, tell your players that they need to be each other's villains, and that some conflict is necessary for the game to be fun. Secondly, as GM you can give them stronger reasons to oppose each other, and importantly, remove reasons for them to put aside their differences (such as game-wide threats). The second reason that players take a binary approach involves physical combat. Some players will have their characters try to assault or kill any opposition as soon as possible. I think there are a number of reasons for this. First of all, combat is simple, and requires no thought - it's an easy fix. Secondly, if players are bored, it guarantees action, and usually GM attention - it's a sure fire way of having something exciting to do, if only briefly. Unfortunately a quick fight is not as interesting as an ongoing animosity, a slow vendetta or a clever scheme to get what you want. There are a few ways of discouraging this as well. First of all, tell you players to avoid combat solutions to their problems, LARP combat is never very exciting unless you are playing in the kind of game that actually plays out combat with boffer weapons. Secondly introduce elements into the game-world which discourage combat and finally, try to prevent player boredom - simple overreaction is usually a sign of boredom, and if players have other ways of having fun they will resort less to extremes. Keeping it Fun for Everyone - Winners & Losers The main problem with inter-player conflict is that someone has to win, and someone has to lose. This is the one advantage of NPCs in a LARP - they can lose without upsetting anyone (assuming that the GMs don't get too attached to them - see my article on the GMPC for more on that), when player opposes player, however, one of them is going to lose. Now, technically most players will be able to handle the occasional set back (and if they expect to win all the time, you're within your rights to tell them to deal with it!) but what about those players who just always seem to lose? Some people are just smarter than others, just better at getting what they want, and in a LARP some people will drift to the bottom of the pile. These people are unlikely to be enjoying themselves, so they probably need a little extra GM attention to keep the game enjoyable. You can give such players the occasional helping hand - let them have some "good luck" from time to time, and stumble across something that will give them an advantage. You can also occasionally give them advice - ask them what their intentions are, and make occasional suggestions if their plans are particularly stupid. Take their character's stats into account, and if they are playing someone who would know better, give them occasional advice to better represent that. The one caveat I have with this is that you need to be subtle and low key. Skilled players will quite reasonably resent it if all their plans are constantly laid waste by someone who had GM aid, especially if the skilled player does so well because they tend to put more time and effort into the game than the other person. Try to be fair to your good players as well, they are the ones who make the game as interesting as it is. The other thing to watch out for here is character conflict spilling over into the real world. The game won't be much fun for anyone if people can't keep it friendly. I'll say more about this shortly, but most of all this is in the hands of the players - they need to be encouraged to avoid crossing the line. However, the GM can still do a few things to prevent bad blood. First of all, make sure it's fair. Don't favour one player over another. I realise this runs counter to my advice of giving the weaker players a helping hand, which was why I suggested basing your aid to them on their stats, and why it is so important to keep such aid low key. Secondly, try to make sure that the consequences of failure don't ruin the game for the player whose character failed. The most obvious way that this can happen is character death - if your character dies it's generally the end of all the stories and themes the you were pursuing, and is virtually never enjoyable. If you make death an unlikely consequence of failure, players will feel happier in opposing each other. Finally, as I mention above, pay particular attention to the losers in any given situation, and make sure that they are still having fun. If you give them other ways of succeeding, they will feel less bitter about their character's failures. If absolutely necessary, you can always give them a quick victory over an NPC to raise their spirits. Briefing the Players - What They Can Do to Help Character Goals The best thing your players can give you for encouraging player motivated plot is a set of in character goals. If the players devise goals for themselves they'll already have a strong motivation to start doing things on their own without any input from the GMs at all. On top of that, it gives the GMs ready made plot hooks to draw them into conflict and interaction - if they have goals they can be enticed with things which will further or hinder those goals. Some players will have these already, but many will be playing in a highly reactive way - only acting in response to things which happen to them. The more players you have just reacting, the less you have motivating action. It's a good idea to get a list of long and short term character goals form every player. Long term goals will give the character something to work towards (even if they never get there), and will shape the character's choices. Short term goals (which can be subsets of a long term goal) are best for motivating immediate action. For example, a character in a Vampire game might have the long term goal of becoming Prince. One of their short term goals might be to find out how to neutralise the other contenders. This translates into action when they pick another powerful vampire in the city, and start spying on them in order to find out what their resources are. Encourage players to translate their big goals into goals small enough to act on, so that they don't just sit on their plans and never move them forwards. Be aware that players might not be able to devise goals for their characters without having played them for a while - give them a few sessions to get into the swing of things before you start demanding goals. Also, encourage players to change and update them regularly - ask them for updates on their progress every so often. Email between games is probably the ideal medium for this. A Willingness to Persevere When a player gives up on a conflict, the conflict is over. Many players stop trying very quickly in the face of adversity - basically, the GMs need to encourage them to persevere. The first way to do this is to just tell them it's what you want them to do. Tell them not to give up if things don't immediately go as planned - when they keep trying plots become more interesting, and they'll also have more chance of success. Secondly, try to make sure that player perseverance is actually successful from time to time. If it isn't, they'll stop bothering. So, as John Wick said in his "Play Dirty" column in Pyramid magazine, tell them to "Get a helmet". Life is hard, and you'll have much more fun if your character doesn't give up easily. Player Doublethink - Keeping it Fun Revisited Finally, you want to encourage your players to keep meta-game issues in mind as well as in character concerns. Most players are taught that "meta-gaming" (or letting out of character information effect in character decisions) is bad. They're told that the best players are always in character, and will make decisions which are sometimes bad because it's what the character would do. I don't think it's that simple. Some kinds of meta-game knowledge *should* be brought into in character decisions. What I'm referring to are choosing to act in ways which make the game more fun for everyone, and avoiding actions which make it less fun. Ultimately, there is generally more than one thing that a given character might do in any situation. A good player will choose the option which maximises fun. This is quite different to a character deciding to attack the weak spot of a monster they've never even heard of, just because the player happens to know what it is out of character. For example, a PC may have been insulted by another PC. The character now has a range of options. She could get together with a bunch of her friends and kill the offending party; she could ignore it; she could work behind the scenes to make them realise their mistake; she could try to convince them that they're wrong and endeavour to earn the offending PC's regard. Now, the character's personality will have some sway here, but it's often not as simple as it seems. A tempestuous, touchy character might try to kill them, but they also might decide on a more poetic revenge. They might be afraid of the insulter, and do nothing, despite their temper, but rage to their friends. Maybe the player can think of a reason for their touchy character to really want to change the insulter's mind. Now, killing the other character will a) ruin the other player's fun and b) be over very quickly, so that's a poor choice. Doing nothing, whilst it won't upset anyone, is also pretty boring. Working to get a less lethal revenge, or trying to win back their regard, however, have all sorts of interesting possibilities. This is an example of player doublethink - they take into account the various things their character might do, and then skew their decision based on what would be the most fun. This is something you want to encourage your players to do Final Thoughts So, in conclusion,
the biggest thing to keep in mind about LARPs is that they are different
to tabletop games. The sheer volume of players creates a set of
time constraints on GMs that need to be taken into account whenever
planning for a session. Helping the players to create interesting
events for each other is probably the best use of time, and this
requires a great deal of subtlety and the ability to resist easy
seeming solutions like game wide plots. While it is important to
recognize that the players have a responsibility to making the game
fun, GMs can also support their efforts and pull strings from behind
the scenes. Of course, while I haven't gone into it in detail above,
having organised planning sessions with all of the GMs present is
an absolute must - too many LARPs implode under the weight of personality
conflicts between GMs and a lack of organisation! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|