Group1Part2

A roleplaying game system which has grown in popularity since its creation, one of the most commonly known. The average game consits of one dungeon master or game master, and from 3 to 5 players. Variations are also possible, but offer different issues.

The way the game works makes it possibly difficult to get into. Creating a character - the vessel of each individual player in the fictional world of the game - can take quite some effort if one does this on their own. Also, the DM/GM takes charge of the story and world creation (up to a point), which can make it quite a top-down experience.

A certain fixation on numbers and rules can inhibit players from fully roleplaying, instead fetching the rulebook every so often to see what the rules actually say, turning it into a rule finding game instead.

Obviously, these are downsides, and there are upsides, however for the goal I have in mind, this system might not be what I am looking for.

A roleplaying game system which is relatively new, although older versions exist. This system focuses more on the roleplaying aspect, giving players and game masters (like in D&D) more freedom of expression and allowing for a deeper exploration of possibilities.

Instead of telling the players what is happening, the game master asks the players what they are doing/thinking, and gives them the results of their actions. It makes for more of a dialogue than a straight storyline being played out.

On the downside, it requires a certain mindset for people used to RPG's, since certain rulings can feel counter intuitive. The way character creation and world building is handled can mean the game itself starts when the group meets, instead of having to do some amount of homework up front like in D&D.

The rulebook is somewhat hefty, so preparation is still a necessity for at least the game master.

This one came as a surprise, even though I have known of this type of roleplaying for some time.

Perhaps the videos to the left might bring a better understanding than I can give at the moment, as the persons in the videos do a pretty good job at this. Parly because they are at the forefront of the Nordic Larp community. What I took as very important are the collaborative and creative elements of the game.

However, the nature of the game - the possibility for actually roleplaying a role without relying on stats (Strength, Health, Intelligence, Damage, etc) or anything in that direction - makes this one of the more interesting variations I have seen so far. That, and the fact that these larps are usually of a serious nature, for example about the Cuban Missile Crisis, dealing with becoming old or living in another age, makes this rather of interest regarding the themes that come up within our minor.

In order to actually do a Nordic Larp, quite some preparation is necessary. What will the larp be about? What are you trying to say or find out? Just doing one to do one is seemingly not enough.

For a Nordic Larp, only the context or beginning is set. How the game goes from then on depends on the players and the possibilities they can take from the context. Sometimes events are staged, sometimes it is entirely free. Games can go from 5 minutes to an entire weekend.

Lastly, my interest was sparked by Jaakko (bottom video) talking about the definition of Nordic Larp, and how the discussion about this is an ongoing thing, something that seems to correlate to the theme of our past presentation.

On The Philosophy of Improvisation by Gary Peters
- my reading thus far

My understanding of the text might not be perfect, and will require more reading on my part into the subject. Thus far I find that in the writings of Peters an understanding of the irony of improvisation. The way it is commonly used - either as an artform where individual freedom is celebrated or a mockery of art and a commercial gimmick - isn't what the book is trying to explain. Rather than giving a theory on what it exactly is, Peters attempts at giving insights on how he vieuws the properties of improvisation.

Coupling it to a history, wether a moment in time or not, supposedly makes something constricted. Peters argues that the improvisation is always connected to a history, as the history gives the necessary context for an improvisation to take place.

This gives me the idea that this 'restriction' can actually give more freedom, but maybe this depends on the definition of freedom - something I have yet to formulate for myself.

This book by Jaakko Stenros and Markus Montola dives into Nordic Larp, showcasing a number of larps, talking about the rhetorics and terminology, the inspirations etc. I am currently reading the book, to see what I can take with me for a possible workshop on the 17th.

https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo6485465.html

From januari 11th until januari 18th I guided a roleplaying game which was played solely through WhatsApp.

A group of 18 people were gathered in one WhatsApp group, wherein some were strangers to one another. There, I gave them a short context description: Who are you, where are you, and what's happening. From then on, the players were free to explore the setting within their roles.

To shortly elaborate: the context of the game had the players situated at a feast in honor of a baron's victory at a tournament. However, just as the baron was making a toast, he seemingly choked and died. From then on, the players had a week to find out what happened. One of the players was given the role of murderer and tried as much as possible to cover up their actions, but eventually tried to look guilty in order to get the play going. Eventually, the murderer was near unanimously forgiven for their deeds, yet punished in a way which would serve the community.

There are many things I could write as a reflection. Like how it became clearer to me how these people functioned in a group, what some of their traits and/or skills were, how I prefer soft guidance over hard pushing.

Below is a transcription of the entire game, which might prove near impossible to read in its entirety, but serves more as a proof and documentation of the event. Images and so-called Stickers are omitted. (Warning, it's in Dutch!)

Together with some fellow minor students I played a session of Dungeons and Dragons. This was about 2-3 weeks before the end of the minor. I hoped to see if and how a roleplaying game system like D&D could be used (as inspiration) for further development of something like a roleplaying system or guidelines for a future creative scenario. This was to see if it could be proven that such a thing could help facilitate a collaboration on a transdisciplinary level.

After the event, I have to say I found it hard to prove my point. Mostly because the system of D&D does not easily allow for hacks or changes as it is quite intricate. In order to play with the system a broad knowledge of the game is required and this is not acquired in one or a few sessions. On the other hand, the input and involvement of the players seems to be something to further research, for I think it is there that lies the most promise.

An example of hacking such a system which is still rather close to the original is Homebrew. This is the name given for a collective of changes to the game yet without totally breaking away from it.

Below is a filmed documentation of the session where parts of the session are portrayed. (Warning, it's in Dutch!)