Most of the articles in this series have been discussing ‘conventional’ larps. In this article I’m going to be talking about meta-techniques, which are more often used in convention based short larps. These are dramatic techniques that focus on a level different to the conventional ‘character-to-character’ level; instead they deal with information on a player-to-player level. In this respect, this contrasts with last month’s article which focuses purely on in-character information flows.

If this sounds strange, remember that any off-game call used to pass information from one player to another is a meta-technique. For example, calling ‘Double’ when hitting someone with a foam sword to tell the other player what effect that has on their character could be viewed as a meta-technique.

Consider for example a meta-technique ‘You can speak your character’s inner monologue to express their thoughts and feelings. Take a step to one side and raise your hand to indicate you are doing this. Other players will stop and listen, but their characters will not hear what is said.’

This technique is non-immersive; a player has to operate mentally at both player and character levels, rather than focusing as hard as they can on immersing or simulating their character. There is an argument made by Narrativists that perfect immersion is impossible to achieve (which may well be the case) but that doesn’t undermine the fact that attempting to achieve it / coming close may itself be a good thing. For obvious reasons meta-techniques also don’t support Gamist playing styles. This is meta-gaming in the literal sense, and competitive play cultures will consider it ‘cheating.’

The benefit of this technique is that it allows for dramatic irony, where players have access to information their character doesn’t, and can use that it inform their play to make for higher drama. If you know off-game someone is wooing your character purely for social advancement or is secretly the traitor feeding information to the enemy, you might act differently around them, or at least seek to create scenes where your character has conversations with that character to explore this relationship.

The drawback to this technique is that it can replace the more subtle levels of communication between characters. If a potential traitor is being interrogated, the players around them can read their body language, follow their eye movements and use other forms of subtle communication – assuming the player is properly immersed in their character. Reliance on use of meta-techniques can actually suppress this level of deeper in-character communication.

Another drawback to this technique is it disrupts the natural flow of play – speaking a monologue breaks a conversation. One variant to overcome this can be to make all character information open before play, but make less use of ongoing monologues as play proceeds.

Other examples of meta-techniques:

• Another player speaking for a fragment of a character’s personality. This ‘shadow-guide’ technique is used by Wraith: The Oblivion.
• Time jumps. Rather than playing out straight linear time, some mechanic exists to play out flashback scenes that inform the current situation (the Highlander TV Series made a lot of use of this), or to fast-forward past the boring parts of play (as is often done in tabletop role-playing). One way to implement this is a special side room where players can go to play out such scenes while the regular play progresses.
• Related to this is the concept of basing play around dramatic scenes rather than linear time. In some respects, this is the principle behind the ‘campaign larp with downtime’ format, where each larp represents dramatic points in the characters’ life.
• Exchanging characters. We already accept a player can play multiple characters (even if players aren’t allowed to, NPCs certainly do). The extension of this is more than one person playing the same character, perhaps each one in a different way to highlight a different facet of the character’s personality.
• Use of metaphor or narration. For example, use of verbal description or symbolic action can be used to represent actions the characters perform that the players do not wish or are not able to actually perform (e.g. torture, physical intimacy), but need to communicate between themselves what takes place and want to share a strong emotional scene.

One variant form of meta-techniques is to try to integrate them into the setting. This is often not possible in an absolute sense, but can be used in a limited way. For example:

• A character with a telepathic ability can be represented by the player of the telepath being able to make other players speak their character inner monologue.
• Coming back to the original example, damage calls in combat can be ‘dressed up’ with in-character statements (e.g. ‘take that’ means ‘triple’).
• Wraith’s use of the Shadow-guide as a literal psychological Shadow explained by the setting’s metaphysics.

Another, slightly different example of a meta-technique is the use of ‘safe words,’ particularly if those are woven into play. Rather than only having a ‘time out / stop’ safe word, some larps also include a ‘keep playing in character, but don’t push me any further here’ safe word and also a ‘I’m fine and as a player can take this. Push me further if you want to’ safe word. The words chosen can be slightly unusual words / phrases the character might say in context, to avoid breaking the flow.

Much of this style of play with meta-techniques is more appropriate is smaller intense games, or to ‘freeform’-style convention games such as the Jeepform style. (jeepen.org) However when designing even a conventional larp it is worth being mindful of possible meta-techniques and considering the value of including any of them.