Her Most Regal Majesty, the Queen of Snark

I'm back from my annual trip to The Smoke (https://the-smoke.org/), a weekend freeforming convention in London, and the best place I know to experience a wide variety of European/Nordic style games in the UK. Nordic LARP is not hugely to my taste. I generally prefer it if the writer of the game creates coherent characters, setting and story, and then gives me the freedom and time to interpret and explore that. Having said that, I think I'm warming more to Nordic Style collaborative larps. While they often feel more like vignettes than stories, I'd say that one can perhaps gain a more focused and meaningful experience by exploring themes personal to you rather than to the author of the game.

So my weekend was:

1) I keep some coffee warm for you. This was a game about the end of a friendship group, which I initially wasn't looking forward too that much, but I found it actually worked quite well. Characters were based on two song lyrics chosen by the players. I wasn't familiar with either of mine, but they basically lead to a character who was uncertain of their role or place, and who thwarted their own ambitions. It was set in a university, and we all made mistakes and ended with my character apologising for her failings as she left the univesity due to being kicked out for not working. I felt like perhaps she had more story, but the experience felt complete as a slice of life.

2) Strangers. I ran this game, having played it two years ago at the Smoke, and having found it really interesting and different. It's an abstract larp with no talking, and characters expressing themselves by movement to music and gesture. The setting simulates in an abstract way the experience of moving from one culture to another. The workshopping prior to the game is essential in building up the routines that form the two "cultures" in the game. I was happy with how it ran, alhtough I felt my own difficulties with silence meant that I perhaps didn't give people as much time to get into things as was ideal. Feedback was positive, and it seemed to provoke the same kinds of thoughts that I had had after the run I played. I'm encouraged, and will probably try to do another run at Consequences.

3) Voices. This was a small and personal larp which was fairly abstract in nature. I was playing a disembodied voice being heard by another player, which was surprisingly challenging. I drew heavily on my own anxious thoughts in creating that character, and was very concerned that I didn't push things too far. I think it lead to one of the most intense larping experienes with another player that I've experienced. I felt the game perhaps didn't have a clear enough sense of the distinction between schitzophrenia and multiple personalities, but it did seem to me to be respectful of the theme of mental illness (although I can't really speak for the other couples as I was pretty focussed on my own player).

4) Finally, I played Trojan Women. This was an extemely heavy game, again quite abstract in nature, about the aftermath of the Siege of Troy. I was careful not to indiccate preference when the "casting" was happening, and was disappointed to find that I was cast as Helen, who is a character I wouldn't necessarily have chosen for myself. Particularly as I was hoping for Cassandra, who I have always identified strongly with in the stories, and who did not appear to be in the game. It turned out that there was a mid game twist (probably not too surprising if you know the myths) after which I re-entered play as Cassandra, and I couldn't have been happier (although the game was bloody miserable in the best sort of way). I played two outsiders. As Helen, I had to wear a mask the entire time to signify my cultural seperation from the other women, which felt incredibly alienating. As Cassandra my role was to tell the blunt truth as I saw it, and her strangeness kept her at a distance still. The game had mechanics for destroying societal values as tragedy struck again and again, and for grieving publically together, and I found the whole thing very moving, although, perhaps due to being an outsider, I found the whole thing more difficult to engage with emotionally than I might have hoped. This was definitely my game of the weekend though.

I have booked two weeks off at the end of August for the sake of my sanity. Suggestions for something to do that don't involve paying over the odds or large crowds of people most welcome.

Waitlisted for Shogun. :( Very very :( I have played the last 14 weekend freeforms. Legendary flakiness of roleplayers, do not fail me now. (Due to high demand, places were assigned by lottery this year.)

It makes me miserable. The ratio of pleasant/interesting conversation to awful political bile drags me down with it. I may well quit. Which would leave this as my only active social media account. And mostly shouting into the wind. It is hard to be positive today.

by Sesquipedality (sesquipedality@gmail.com)

This is a short piece intended to address some difficulties I've had playing Nordic style larps recently. It's not intended to be critical of those writing and running this type of game, who are doing an excellent job. Rather it's intended to be a way of starting a discussion on the one part of this style of game that for me, and a few others I've discussed this with, isn't really working yet.

Here is the thing. People come to games to play games. An hour sat in pre-game is an hour that is not playing a game. (Some people actually do find workshopping a game background an enjoyable part of the process, but for me at least, I want to spend at least three times as long playing the game as I did creating the setting.) A Nordic game will often involve generating characters and setting, so is already going to be longer than a traditional briefing, which means it's super important to keep it lean and focused.

There's a bit of a tendency to over explain things in these briefings. I think it comes from nervousness, and the idea that Nordic is different from what people may have experienced before. The thing is, it's really not all that different, particularly given the way UK games tend to take Nordic influences rather than being a full on wholesale adoption of the style.

In a traditional larp no one includes in the briefing that you will be physically embodying your character. It's obvious. So in a Nordic game, try not to explain at length the obvious stuff. What's obvious is probably more than a game runner might expect, particularly when dealing with a crowd of experienced freeformers. If its obvious to the person running the game, it will probably be obvious to those playing too.

Hearing the Nordic Larp 101 every time such a game is played is simply not necessary for most or all of the players. And the players are smart, they can figure this out as they play, taking cues from the more experienced players if they have to. They can also ask questions, so if a game runner is clear that the players while in a group or individually throughout the game can ask questions, there is absolutely no need to explain the basics in more than a couple of sentences.

Safety systems do often require greater emphasis in the Nordic style, because such games frequently deal with serious themes that could be upsetting. They are important, but they are designed to be simple and easy to use, which means that a demonstration is probably unnecessary. If you cannot summarise each call/action in your safety system in two sentences, it is probably too complex to serve its purpose and should be rethought. For example, "the door is always open" (you can leave the game at any time without needing to give a reason) is a safety system, and I absolutely just explained it in one sentence. If a game runner spends a lot of time explaining these systems, players will start to worry that they are expected not to enjoy the game, which is clearly far from the point.

If using veils (topics that for what ever reason the players do not want to be a part of the game) this needs careful handling. Players will generally be uncomfortable about saying if there is something they don't want in the game, and different players will find different methods easier. Allow players to email veils in advance if you can, and advertise ahead of game that players will be allowed to declare subjects veiled if they wish, so that they can think about what they might like to exclude. A list of suggested veils can be helpful, but again risks giving the generally false impression that the game is entirely full of awfulness.

In pre-game, veils are best done by writing them down, and I recommend asking those who have no veils to write "I do not have any veils to request" on the paper, so that no-one knows who is requesting veils. Remember accessibility - it may also be worth letting players know that they can tell you their veils privately, if there might be any difficulty with writing.

Demonstrations in general are another thing that are best kept to a minimum. Sometimes a mechanic will genuinely be such that players need to see it done at least once before they understand how to do it, but most things are self explanatory.

Practising mechanics is dull and usually even less necessary. I'll single out practising pulled blows here as something I'd really rather never do in a larp again. Pretend to hit someone but don't touch them is not a difficult concept. (There is, however, a school of thought that says practising safety systems makes people comfortable and familiar enough to use them in game, and for this reason game runners might want to practice those regardless.)

Many games have a number of stages, and mechanics that come into play at each stage. There is a temptation to explain the whole lot up front. This slows things down, and people generally cannot take in all of the mechanics at once. The game runner will inevitably need to explain them again at the time that they happen. I have two tips for dealing with this. Hand out a 1 to 2 side rules summary that the players can read before the game and/or refer to when necessary. This will allow the brief to be kept short. Don't explain more than is necessary before the time it's needed. Invariably it will be explained again at the time it's needed anyway.

Perhaps the most controversial thing I'm going talk about is workshopping. There are two types of workshop. Generally people enjoy brainstorming characters and backgrounds, but it's the game runner's job to make sure this stays focused, because the point is to get to the game. It's a delicate skill that probably requires someone wiser than I to offer fuller advice than that on.

The second type of workshopping is improv and trust exercises. These are intended to avoid players having to come at a game cold and to build relationships between the players. The thing is, your game will probably do that better than the exercises would.

I am likely now straying more info the realm of personal preference than I have in the rear of this article. And I should say that I was a dirty thesp long before I was a roleplayer, and I hated warm up exercises even then. However, I think it's a wider cultural thing than that.

Players will often feel silly and embarrassed doing these kind of exercises. This is probably not the frame of mind a game runner will want them to start the game in. There are those that believe these type of exercises do encourage greater buy in to the game, but if not having a cold open is important to your game, it might be better to run small short background scenes (with the players broken into small groups in necessary) as a way to build rapport instead. This has the added bonus of combining ice breaking and world building.

So to summarise, here are my tips for running a Nordic game brief.

1. Pacing is important. People are there to play the game not the briefing so the goal is to keep it as brief and snappy as it possibly can be.


2. Trust the players. For everything in the briefing, consider whether it really needs explaining, or whether players will already know or be able to work it out


3. Safely mechanics are important, but don't overemphasise or overexplain them. It sends the wrong message to your players.


4. If your game needs it, then give your players plenty of notice to think about things they don't want in the game ("veils"). Make sure they can let you know about any veils they might like in the game without having to announce them to other players. Provide multiple methods of giving you veils where possible to make it as easy as possible for people to let you know.


5. Demonstrate mechanics where necessary, but remember that they are probably the least interesting part of the game. Really think hard before getting players to practice mechanics for this reason.


6. Ground exercises to build player bonds or set mood in your world building where possible. Players will enjoy them more, and the game may be richer as a result.


7. Workshopping can drag, and it's important to keep up momentum in this part of the pre-game, although care must be taken not to railroad the players.


8. Rather than explain everything, make sure that players have the opportunity to ask questions about what they aren't sure on both collectively during the brief and individually before and during the game

Again, I am enormously grateful to those bringing Nordic style larp to the UK. It adds to the richness of the hobby, and has produced some amazing games. I hope that this has been a constructive exploration of how to do that even better than it already is being done, but it's really only one person's opinion, so feel free to pick and choose anything that I've covered that seems useful according to taste.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Another thought on ethical stances and judgment. In order to not be singling out the Jews, let's pick another example. Some evangelical Christians believe that it is wrong to marry someone who is not themselves a Christian. ("Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" 2 Corinthians 6:14) Ignore for a moment the tone of that verse, which I don't think is terribly helpful, or much embraced by those who follow the modern version of that belief. Now a Christian can say that it is not a value judgement, and that it is about removing obstacles to their own personal practice of righteousness. They are not making a moral judgment about others, merely about what is best for them. The problem with this stance comes in the fact that underneath that reasoning, it has to be accepted that the reason unbelievers are problematic within the internal logic is that they are doing something wrong.

The point I'm getting at is that we might wish to be morally permissive, to say that our ethics are personal and we respect the views of others, but at the bottom of that, we do believe we are right about our ethical stances (perhaps with some degree of doubt, but it would be a very odd or unusual person who embraced an ethical framework they regarded as on balance incorrect).

The problem is that by making a choice, a person is essentially saying the other choices are less good/more wrong. It's intellectually honest to admit that they might be mistaken and respect the choices of others. I'm not sure it's as intellectually honest to say that their choice does not criticise others, because an ethical stance is a value judgment. While it's important to respect the ethical stances of others, I'm not sure we can go as far as to say we don't regard them as acting sub-optimally from an ethical standpoint.

So, the results of no social media month are in. I missed it very little, and it became very clear what a huge time sink social media has become for me. (Although I was sad to miss out on communication with cool people, I did not feel quite as lonely or isolated as I feared.) As I result I shall be keeping my social media presence minimal. This account will carry on existing for now, and may get used for organisation from time to time, but I'm definitely going to keep my presence here minimal. I'm not good at happy medium between total abstinence and excess, but I'm going to try only doing social stuff on Twitter, where it is difficult to get into prolonged engagement. (I am @sesquipedal there, and would very much welcome your friends requests.)

I still have nowhere to live come October. If anyone has any suggestions of cat friendly 1-2 bed places with good links to Chancery Lane and Oxford, they would be most gratefully received. Thanks.

Did anyone complete NaNoWriMo and not have any interest in buying Scrivener. In which case, could I have your 50% discount code, please?

These instructions should still work:

http://smworth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/how-do-i-claim-my-nanowrimo-discount.html

It's possible you've already seen my comments on the Bechdel Test, but if not, first, a quick recap.

The Bechdel Test (not in fact devised by cartoonist Alison Bechdel, but by a friend of hers, Liz Wallace) as originally expressed was a criterion for which films to go and watch. Wallace would only watch movies if they contained

1) at least two female characters
2) who have a conversation with each other
3) about something other than a man.

The test has become increasingly popular in modern years, and there's even a website which now indicates how much of the test films manage to pass. The problem is that of course it doesn't test a great deal. The point of the test is as a conceptual tool to demonstrate the narrow confines into which women are placed (particularly within film and television), as appendages to the really important male characters. But increasingly people are using it as a metric for a film's feminist credentials, which it was never really intended to be. Indeed, in Sweden, one chain of cinemas is now giving films a Bechdel rating. Consider that all the St Trinian's films pass the Bechdel Test with flying colours. Now I quite like the St. Trinian's films, but they are about as feminist as Bernard Manning.

After last night's trip to the cinema, I have an excellent example of a film I regard as feminist which utterly fails the Bechdel test. That film is Gravity. There are only two female characters (from a cast of five, only three of which are seen alive on screen), who never speak. But the lead character is an excellent female character. While she is out of her depth in a way that the male character is not, there are sound plot reasons for this (he is a retiring veteran astronaut, she a rookie on her first mission) and she is demonstrably an extremely capable scientist in her own right. The second and third acts of the film focus almost exclusively on her solving her own problems by her own agency, and the story is really about her rising to the challenging circumstances which she encounters. She is demonstrably capable, without in any way being "a woman with something to prove" (another lazy stereotype that plays into patriarchal story telling rather than subverting it). She has family related backstory that's possibly slightly playing to stereotypes, but actually it would work just as well for a father as for a mother.

Now it's not a perfect film from a feminist perspective. The unnecessary male forename ("my father wanted a boy", ugh - I do wonder if in early drafts the character was male), and a few very male gazey long body shots when she's outside of her spacesuit spring to mind, but it is a film that gives a female character her own arc, motivations, and reality.

I suppose my point is that "this film is misogynist because it fails the Bechdel Test" really isn't something we should be saying. The point of the Bechdel test was to demonstrate that Hollywood marginalises and dehumanises women, and it's doing that that makes a film misogynist. The Bechdel Test was a valuable tool in that it drew attention to this behaviour, but isn't it time we looked beyond the manifestation of that behaviour as expressed in the test to the underlying behaviour that causes so few films to pass it?

(Final paragraph edited to make the point a little clearer.)

A friend on Facebook has just mentioned to me that he imagines the character of Patience in Scott Lynch's "Republic of Thieves" (I haven't read it yet, no spoilers please) as me. Would you indulge my self-obsessed curiosity and tell me what fictional characters remind you of me, please? I will return the favour if I can.