Anastasija Ropa and Eddy Rops (Latvian Academy of Sport Education)
Transcript:
While socializing at the annual May Count Festival, an event which brings fantasy and history together, in May 2024 we overheard how a martial arts coach, who also took his trainees to LARP events, described one game:
“On the first day, we massacred the entire team… Then we played a bit, and, on the second day, all the other teams got together and massacred us.”
This description raises the question: is LARP all about massacring each other munchkin style?
LARPs in the Baltics in the early 2000s were characterized by a number of features, which make them unique and distinct from LARP games of the following decades and of the way Baltic LARPs are played today.
First of all, the demographic of the population should be considered. The players were all born and received their early education in the USSR. As a result, they suffered from the discrepancy between the childhood ideology of “all for one – one for all” and the new ideology: “we are all rivals to one another”. There was another conflict, that between two ways of playing: computer game tactics (kill everyone) vs. “live theatre” – playing out daily life situation, “living into” one’s role. The final aspect to consider is the fact that when one has spent up to a year developing one’s “character,” preparing the costume, thinking of the mentality, etc., one does not want to get this character “deleted” on the first day.
The LARPs were also somewhat different. There were both short 1-day events or longer games lasting 3-4, even 5 days, with night playtime, though nighttime fighting was usually prohibited for safety reasons. The game could be divided into roughly three thematic categories: fantasy, pseudo-historical, or post-nuclear. Players could enter as individuals or as team members
The play dynamics included both Individual quests allocated to each player and conflicts, emergencies and “natural disasters,” either player- or master-made, affecting entire teams or locations.
The players could use different strategies to ensure they “survived” and did not get killed during the game. These include using one’s best fighting skills (archery, shooting, fencing, etc., depending on the world and the rules) or, alternatively, using one’s best networking skills (forging alliances, avoiding monsters, ensuring that one has sufficient supply of food, drugs and magical aid). Of course, a combination of the two was likely to produce the best results, but not all players are good fighters or good negotiators, and also the quality of arms and armour would depend on the chosen character.
For this paper, we used 3 LARPs from the period of 2000-2010 as our case studies: The Silver Arrows of Robin Hood (fantasy medieval); Inter-Baltic Game based on Anrdzej Sapkowski’s Witcher; and Ertha III (medieval-style fantasy).
Using interviews and autoethnographic observations on the use of conflict and cooperation in games led us to the following conclusions. Some players and teams prefer fighting and would go for fighting, no matter what. However, for most players, the choice of strategy is based on the choice of character, but, even then, some characters are subjectively more valued, so that the player would use extra care to ensure the character does not get killed. Sword buckling is the surest way of getting killed, whatever one’s character is and whatever enhanced weapons and armour he/she has. Ultimately, most of our respondents agreed that the aim of the game is not “winning,” whatever this might mean, but playing maximally true to one’s character, which should determine the choice of conflict or cooperation in each particular situation.
Always fascinating to read (or, in this case, watch) your thoughts on LARP! It’s not a modality I used to consider when thinking about games – even though I myself LARPed during my teens.
In videogames, there are quite a few models of player motivation (Bartle’s typology of killers, explorers, socializers and achievers being probably the most famous). Are frameworks like this useful at all to think about social interactions in LARP events?
Thank you for your question!
I would say it depended on the masters’ team. We can remember a few games where the rules tried to limit fighting in various ways, but it also depended on how well the rules were written and whether players complied with the rules or tried to find their own ways of playing the way they wanted. The Silver Arrows of Robin Hood was one game where you can earn money and stay afloat (and even get rich) by honest work, with no need to fight. The masters did create a disbalance whereby tax collectors only took a fraction of what the peasants were earning, which lead to the sudden rise in prominence of a very well-off village, and the villagers sort of spontaneously solidified.
I would say most games would have a number of killers, too, but this is more about taking video games approach into LARPs, because there is no reason a LARP should have a strong fighting component. Overall, if the masters and players have an experience of video games (and chances are they do, nowadays), Bartle’s typology would apply. However, I can think of some one-day games which are built entirely around socializing and people coming to explore different parts of their characters.
Thanks Anastasija and Eddy, this is a really interesting and important perspective. Were you able to identify any clear connection between the demographics you describe and the behaviours you identify? Would you expect to see similar trends in groups with other cultural experiences?
Thank you for your question, Rob!
I would say the early to mid2000s were the time when most LARPers came to playing with a bookish background behind them. You read the Lord of the Rings, The Witcher, other fantasy and sci-fi novels (we wrote about the Machine Gun Ballad last time), then you play. For the Silver Arrows of Robin Hood, there were a lot of players who read primary medieval sources (in translation). Many players had played video games, but bookish culture still defined the way games were played. There was much more lateral thinking and improvisation, thinking outside the box and the “improvisation theatre” was encouraged. In some games, you could get kudos from masters for being artistic, even if your character or your team had less resources from the outset, so it made sense to invest more in playing. Setting and costume could be very minimalist, but being artistic and living into one’s role compensated for this.
One of the reasons many LARPers withdrew from active LARPing (ourselves included) is that later LARPs tended to favourise better settings and costumes, which would require more financial investment but less creativity and preparation. Also the players’ approach changed: the behaviors and choices are modeled on the way video games are made, with players trying to guess what options the masters “programmed” for them and then choosing the “right” one.
For us, socialising and experiencing the games was always the main attraction, so it was a little off-putting to see the new way of playing, which is a cross between cosplay and video gaming, with a heavily monetized component.
That’s super interesting – and bittersweet.
We’ve known for a while that many lessons and practices from older forms of gaming didn’t carry over to videogames. But to know they’ve been displaced by new media is heartbreaking. Especially considering we’ve been struggling so hard to promote different kinds of engagements in videogames (e.g. by cheering on games that are not focused on violence).
Video games are algorithm-based, so it would be impossible to carry over certain aspects. At least the way video games are created these days.
We did have a couple of interesting LARP sessions during Covid over Zoom, and some interesting role playing in the chat as well. I can’t clearly think how to do it now, but maybe there’s potential for gamer-lead video games that are based on the gamer choices, using crowd-sourcing and AI perhaps. Something about gamers writing their own games in collaboration with other gamers. But I am not sure it will be a video game any longer.
Thanks Anastasija! Vinicius is right, it’s a depressing situation. I can see some parallels between the drive for more expensive, impressive and ‘authentic’ gear in LARPs and a similar trend towards expensive ‘authentic’ high-fidelity audio-visuals in computer games. Modern MMORPGs (and Action/Adventure/etc.) are often beautiful and visually impressive, but we’ve lost a lot of the freedom of the old MUDs in the process.
I’ve been thinking about how to encourage/enforce roleplaying in computer games recently. In some ways I think restricting choices can be helpful here – something like the limits Crusader Kings III places on the actions available to characters with different traits. Do you think this sort of system is viable? Or is it too restrictive for effective roleplay?
Really interesting! LARP is something that I’ve always looked at and read about but never got around to doing unfortunately, most of my experience is with TTRPGs. Often with those, the ruleset chosen has a very big influence on how people play. If one wanted to revive the more “bookish” type of LARP as seen in the 2000s, how would one go about it in your eyes? Has the demographic changed too much or could different rulesets and mastering change the general player’s approach?
That’s a good question Sam! We know from experience that today’s youth rarely read books, and that’s the hard truth. Also it’s hard to make players “play” with only rulesets, although one specific that could help, would be limiting formal advantages (nobody is obliged to react a certain way just because it says somewhere that a character A possesses a certain trait, player must act that way). Having said that, a game favouring socialising and networking is more likely to lead to players interacting and eventually trying to live out their roles. It would also require to have a few “old schoolers” to set the examples for the younger players, and the regional (location) masters who will give kudos to the players who are more artistic.
This is actually easier to do in a small-format game, even a TTRPG. We used to have this type of game, played indoors, where the number of players would be limited to 20-30 people, depending on the size of the premises, with 1-3 game masters present. In this case, the master could immediately give bonuses to the players who play, and it’s a very intensive experience.
We are actually part of one slow-moving game which we started playing even before we got married, some of it played as a LARP on location, some as TTRPG, and some in online chat. The number of players overall never exceeded 20, with up to 15 players actively involved on each occasion. In this case, the masters and other players are able to tutor “newbies” and raise the overall level of artisticity. But it would be harder to do in a field game with 100-200 players, and there is a question of whether there is market for this sort of games.
Hi Rob!
For some reason I can’t reply directly to your last comment/question, but thank you very much for asking it!
I am in no way opposed to better costumes and equipment, but there’s a world of difference between someone who spends a month or so making their costume or even adapting something bought in a charity shop and someone ordering a beautiful outfit from Ali Express.
Someone noted recently on a Baltic LARPs FB group that photographs from recent games have cinematic quality. This is true, but unfortunately the same can’t be said of being part of one of those games. Now if we think of games as helping us to play out problematic or threatening situations, today’s LARPs can do it only to a limited extent.
We all know some old films that are very minimalist in terms of costumes, scenery and special effects, almost like theatre, but they have a special feeling to them and you want to watch them again and again. And there are some very expensive films that don’t really touch your heart. For me it’s the contrast between the 2002 Polish Wiedzmin TV series (I wonder if anyone has watched it) and the Netflix Witcher. Now the Polish series have a dragon that looks like it’s an inflatable toy, but everyone treats him seriously and you tend to believe it’s a real fire-breathing thing. And of course we can never have anything close to a dragon in a LARP, so the role play has to compensate for this. And it’s not just the dragon NPC playing well, it’s the entire atmosphere of the game which makes monsters so scary. After the Latvian Witcher game, I found myself shuddering every time I went outside and something rustled in the bushes, and Edgar was swearing “d’hoine ad muire” when driving.
Of course limiting character choices can help, and some games like Ertha had limitations based on class (e.g., clerics could not fight). However in addition to these restrictions, I think it would be helpful to have rewards for making the good choices and acting according to the character traits even if it’s going to lead to some disadvantages. For instance, you got killed because you made the choice that was appropriate for your character, but there were some clerics nearby who prayed for you, and the gods rewarded you by resurrection. Something of this kind. Though of course there’s always the risk that you wouldn’t be resurrected, even if you did all the right things for your character. And that’s what makes the whole thing really frightening and very close to life. And this kind of role play, whether it’s LARP or TTRPG, would make players more resilient in a variety of challenging life situations. We spoke about it last year when we argued that, in many games, the players created their own Apocalypse because they feared that some day there would be something like it. But, because you have already experienced it as character X (and most likely many times in a single year), you know how to deal with this crisis, and you have formed strong ties with other players who can help you outside of the game world. Now we don’t have a statistics on this, but we do know that many players have continued to keep in touch even after they quit playing.
So in a summary I would say limitations + rewarding good choices would be the starting point.
Thanks so much for this very thoughtful response Anastasija, you’ve given me a great deal to think about!