Author: Drew (---.aol.com)
Date: 12-23-2000 23:30
I don't think what was described as a LARP in the above column is a real one, more so a sort of Platonic LARP. Scott talks about the action of the LARP, the costuming, the props, and so forth making up a level of detail that can be shared by all, rather than interpreted by a single player as in tabletop. This, I think, is troublesome. Anyone who has been in a large LARP combat (esp non-boffer) can tell you that, despite action, costumes, and props, descriptions remain pretty much subjective. Even if players have a card table to represent a lord's feasting table, each player will see it differently. Each player will regard another differently than anyone else, especially the player in question. LARP requires more skills (acting, costuming, swordfighting, etc) than tabletop (imagination), sure, but the gap of skill is still made up by imagination.
For example, I can not simulate, or even identify, a Welsh accent. Yet I play a Welshman in a local LARP. I can remind people, 'Yo. I'm welsh' all I want, but because I can not do the correct accent, people will make up what my character sounds like. I am bound by my lack of 'Welsh Mimicry' Skill.
As Steve wisely pointed out, my friends still look like my friends. The 5'2" player must be imagined to have an extra foot of height, the fat must be seen skinny, and sometimes, the male female (tho this touches on a more hotely debated column on here). The act of imagination that transforms a bunch of college kids and a handfull of classrooms into a scheming populace of vampires and a gothic-punk city is remarkable and unique to each player.
LARPs have plots and players, just like tabletop. Sure, there's more of them, but I would hardly place all plot in their hands. Likewise, I would not say that in tabletop the GM guides the plot. Most GMs have been saddled with players who stubbornly refuse to follow plot threads, and I'm fairly sure they'd agree to the notion that plots are likewise in player's hands at the table. A LARP GM (LGM) can not tailor the game to each player, sure, but I think they can tailor the game to several archtypes of players (weepy pathos hounds, uberfite'n munchkins, scheme'n bastards, etc) and make the game appeal to them just as a good GM tailors their game to those about the table.
What Scott described as a LARP I would think closer to a MUSH, MUCK, or MOO (maybe a MUD, I dunno. even in my telnet days I had no truck with them). There, for the most part, plot and action is totally in the hands of players (esp. in big MUSHes where running plots is like herding cats). There action forms the base for description and everybody's imagination can be based off the same input, be they poses, descs on rooms, and so on. Of course, this act of imagination remains unique to the players, but at least the starting ground, unlike LARP, is the same for all.
Gah. I ramble. Too much eggnog.
-Drew.
|
|
