Editorial note: This article was originally published in the Knutpunkt 2026 book Seasons of Larp. It has been reprinted from there with the editors’ and authors’ permission. It has not been edited by Nordiclarp.org.
Relationships are complicated – oftentimes way more complicated than we are aware. This is a great thing for larp designers, because it gives us a lot to work with.
In this article, I’d like to present shadow relations, a relationship mechanic that is inspired by the psychological mechanisms of transference and projection.
In simplified terms, transference is the process of repeating emotions, behaviours, or patterns from a past relationship in another, unrelated relationship (American Psychological Association, 2018).1 It is why we might have an irrational aversion towards a person we just met, perhaps because something about them reminds us of our last boss; or we instantly trust someone who laughs just like our sibling. Projection, on the other hand, means attributing something to others that is actually a part of us (McWilliams, N.). In its simplest form, it means expecting another person to be like us: a compulsive liar might expect others to constantly lie; a self-loathing person might assume everyone else hates them too. Both concepts are intricately connected: transference can be described as projecting one’s image of an important person from the past onto another (APA, 2018).
These psychological mechanisms can be narrative gold when it comes to character stories; they allow you to connect the present with the past, and other characters with oneself. But their potential for larp design goes beyond that, because luckily as larp designers we are not always bound by reality, and this is where it gets interesting.
What are Shadow Relations?
A shadow relation is a pre-written relation between two characters in which at least one character (usually both) projects a shadow – their image of someone or something – onto the other. If the player is playing their character as if the shadow is part of the diegetic reality, they are playing on a shadow level; if they are playing without the shadow, they are playing on a real level.
We developed shadow relations for the larp Blankspace (Germany, 2024), a surreal horror larp about people literally haunted by their past – the mistakes they made, the patterns they fail to shake off. To bring this past into play and allow characters to repeat or break their toxic patterns, they project people from this past (or other concepts important to them) onto other characters. Over the course of the larp, this shifts from normal transference to a full-on delusion that the other character actually is this shadow.
Here is a simple example what a shadow relation could look like:
Let‘s say the captain of a spaceship acts as a mentor and role model for their young first officer. Both have a complicated parent-child relationship in their backstory. The first officer reminds the captain of their ten-year-old child, whom they have aban-doned; the captain reminds the first officer of their dominant, absent parent. In the beginning, the captain is simply a mentor to the first officer. Gradually, they become more and more of a surrogate parent as the two build up a bond that is unusually strong and emotional for people in their positions, but still logically plausible considering transference. Towards the end, the captain believes that they really are the parent, and that the first officer is ten years old. The first officer accuses the captain of the things their real parent has done.
You can see that a shadow relation between two characters is actually three relations in a trenchcoat: the real relation and the two projected ones. In this case:
- A normal relation between captain and first officer
- The relation between the first officer and their parent, the image of whom they project on the captain
- The relation between the captain and their child, the image of whom they project on the first officer
The difficulty is that the last two only exist for one of the characters – a player only ever sees two of these three relations. When two players play a shadow relation, they initially play the same relation but gradually begin to play two different ones.
Nevertheless, none of the players ever changes their character or plays an NPC for the other. The only thing that changes is how they view each other.
So how is this supposed to work?
At its core, playing on the shadow level is about playing past each other together. A relation only needs to make sense in its player‘s mind. When we receive a pre-written relation and only read our side, we construct an image in our head of what the other side will look like – what we expect the other character to know, remember, think, feel, and intend about ours.
As long as everything the other character says aligns with this image, we can play entirely different stories without noticing. As long as their actions make sense within our story (and vice versa), we can follow its flow and have meaningful play no matter what is going on in the other person’s mind. And as long as the themes and core experience of the two stories align, we can still have a shared, connected experience together.
Thus, whether or not a shadow relation works depends primarily on whether these three relations are similar enough that they feel like the same relation and players can play unimpeded even if their interpretations differ, without being so similar that they become redundant.
This works best if there is not too much focus on worldbuilding, factual details, and consistency, and more on emotions and relationship dynamics. It also means that playing with shadow relations works best intuitively. The fewer specific names or places there are, the less characters can contradict each other, and the less you think about logical consistency, the less it matters.
In the case of our example, that might look like this:
Both players center their play on the emotional dynamic between the characters and avoid mentioning specific, insignificant facts, such as in which city or how many years ago it all happened. Whenever one of them does, the other simply ignores it or quickly changes the subject. When the captain sings to the first officer the lullaby they used to sing to their small child, the first officer’s player decides to simply add this detail to their own backstory. They deliberately leave open whether they really heard the same song back then, or whether it just represents the same feeling – it is not important for the game.
Why would you use Shadow Relations?
Make hard-to-access aspects of your fiction actively playable
You can make almost anything or anyone appear for individual characters without somebody actually having to play them (or it). The most obvious use case is creating play with people from the character’s backstory – even dead, distant or imagined ones. But as you‘ll see later, you can also externalise inner conflicts by having characters project aspects of themselves onto others, playing out relationships towards abstract themes or concepts, and more.
Guide and pace the fiction
By having a transition from a real level to a shadow level, you can naturally bake in a specific development potential to characters without explicit railroading or offgame instructions beyond those in normal relations. If a relationship they project developed a certain way in the past, players are likely to either repeat or purposefully break this course of action. You can also let characters develop specific emotions or motivations towards one another.
Give more complexity, nuance, and range to character relations and play dynamics
You can build intense relationships be-tween characters who have never met before (e.g. by projecting someone very close to them), and easily create complex or contradictory feelings. The transition between two relations also opens up a new range of possible relationship dynamics and character concepts. You’ll find examples below.
What are the constraints?
Effort and complexity
The biggest and most obvious downside is that shadow relations add cognitive load. This goes for players, who have to manage the additional layers and all the information involved, but especially for character writers, who will have to plan their networks with an extra dimension in mind. From our experience, creating shadow relations only really works with a very design-centric approach to character creation, where you plan dynamics out before you start writing. It also requires repeated iterations between character, backstory, and relation writing, since they are intricately connected.
Less realism and factual detail
You’ll need to either find a diegetic explanation (e.g. magic, delusion, scifi tech) for the shadows, or choose to view them as an element of surrealism or magic realism, both of which limit the larp’s realism. As we saw above, the player’s ability to play on facts and details is limited since those often differ between characters. This makes the mechanic difficult for larps where plot, secrets, or high-resolution worldbuilding are central.
Difficult in groups
Shadow relations are not transitive: relations of relations do not logically fit together. Just because Alice is the shadow mother of Bob and Bob is the shadow father of Charlie, this does not mean that Alice is the shadow grandmother of Charlie. This means that playing with multiple characters at once on a shadow level tends to amplify logical inconsistencies; the consequence is that players are nudged to play less in groups, and more in scenes with close individual relations. While you can adapt them to work in groups, complexity scales up rather fast.
Designing Shadow Relations
Besides the normal character and relation design, most of the design work creating shadow relations goes into the balancing act of matching the three relations by just the right amount so that they are playable without becoming redundant.
Matching real relation and shadow (in one character)
Usually, characters will slowly transition from the real relation to viewing the other as the shadow, so on one hand, these two need to be connected to provide a consistent, meaningful experience. On the other hand, any shadow you introduce should add something that couldn’t be achieved without it – otherwise it’s just unnecessary cognitive load.
The easiest way to achieve this is for the real relation to be a light version of the shadow. A new friend could become the best friend you lost, a mentor becomes your parent. The purpose of such a shadow can be to escalate the emotions, raise the stakes, or nudge the character to make the same mistakes again with a different person. While the shadow adds intensity and new dynamics, everything that was present on the real level still feels logical.
But the shadow could also be the opposite of the real relation or a very different take on the same themes. Such a shadow can contrast or twist what is already there, or lead characters on new paths. In this case you’ll have to think more carefully about the arc this will create: if there is supposed to be a gradual transition from real level to shadow level, you will need some kind of middle ground or “in-between” that is playable, too.
Matching the two shadows (between both characters)
The two shadows can be factually quite unrelated. Structurally, however, they need to be quite similar – specifically, the imagined other side of each shadow needs to be roughly the same as the actual other shadows. More specifically: What player A – after reading their shadow – might imagine or expect to be written in player B’s character sheet needs to be roughly the same as the shadow player B actually has.
If I have a positive relation (shadow or not) with my parent, I might expect them to view me as someone they need to guide and protect, to remember how much I cried when I lost my favourite plushy, and to love me. As long as these things are part of the other character’s shadow as well, it doesn‘t matter much if in their story, I am actually their little sibling and the lost plushy was a broken bike.
To match with each other despite factual differences, shadows need to fulfil three symmetries:
Role symmetry
What type of relationship is it? Are the roles the two characters take for each other the same in both relations? Are they on an equal level or is there a power difference?
Examples of different relationships that still fulfil role symmetry:
- Personal, power difference: parent/child, mentor/mentee, bigger/smaller sibling
- Personal, equals: best friends, siblings, close work partners/allies
- Impersonal, power difference: guard/prisoner, boss/employee
- Impersonal, equals: business competitors, enemies by fate
Narrative symmetry
Do the stories behind the relations follow the same narrative beats? Are the events that shaped the relationships structurally the same?
Examples of different relationships that still fulfil narrative symmetry:
- Alice betrayed Bob but is trying to regain their trust: Alice cheated on their romantic partner Bob but now tries to win them back, or Alice stole their colleague Bob’s work to further their career but now tries to rebuild the friendship.
- Alice and Bob are growing closer but Alice is a bad influence on Bob: Alice is lovebombing Bob to trap them in an abusive relationship, or Alice and Bob are becoming closer friends but Alice is influencing Bob to take drugs and drop out of school.
Emotional (and cognitive) symmetry
Do the thoughts and feelings both characters have about each other match what the other would expect?
Examples of very different relationships that still fulfil different emotional symmetries:
- Remorse vs hurt: a remorseful criminal and their former victim, a parent and their child they just lashed out against, a person and their abusive partner whose ego they just accidentally offended.
- Love-hate or co-dependency: ex partners who can’t live with or without each other, a rebellious teenager and their conservative parent, a person with low self esteem and themselves.
The shadows don‘t have to be perfectly the same to fulfil a symmetry – rough strokes are enough. Nor do you always need all of them: As a rule of thumb, at least 2 out of the 3 symmetries should be fulfilled, the third you can purposefully break or twist. Small inconsistencies make things interesting, and they can be the spark that leads characters in a new direction – but it tends to be a fine line to walk.
A detailed example2
Consider the following two characters who only just met each other a few days ago:
Static used to be an idealistic lawyer. The crushing injustice of the world and their inability to change anything led to self-destruction, drug abuse, burnout, and eventually a breakdown. Static gave up, became nihilistic, hopeless, and hedonistic, and now loves to talk down to others for their own fun.
Lucid, on the other hand, used to be a hedonistic rich kid who on paper was studying law, but in actuality was spending all their time with parties and drugs. When their best friend died of an overdose, Lucid turned their life around: they dropped out of college, became a spiritual leader, and strictly renounced all physical pleasures to strive for mental clarity.
STATIC’S RELATION WITH LUCID
| Real relation: Rarely have you met a person whose stick is so far up their ass as Lucid’s. They preach abstinence and the renunciation of all pleasures to make the emptiness of existence look a little less sad compared to the emptiness of their own life. You couldn’t care less – if anyone falls for this, it’s entirely their own fault. But it is an exciting thought: if you were to throw everything away, would it really bring you more clarity? Is there a greater truth somewhere that you haven’t yet rejected? | Shadow: When you were still trying to make the world a better place, you only had one ally in a small law firm. The fight against windmills made you close friends, and it was actually sad when you switched sides. You miss them, working together on something bigger. You’re ashamed of your betrayal and of what you are now. At the same time, you definitely don’t want to end up as joyless as they – and even less do you want them to end up like you. Are they a way out, or are you dragging them down? |
LUCID’S RELATION WITH STATIC
| Real relation: Static spits in the face of hope, but their spiteful rants entertain you. You deem yourself more evolved and don’t take them too seriously. It is still kind of freeing to think about. What if everything is bullshit? Why not unburden yourself from everything you have worked for years and years? You want it. This destructive freedom, powerful and selfish. But no. You are better now and can handle them. This is a good test of how far you have come. | Shadow: Your best friend from law school who died. You always loved that no rules seemed to apply to you when the both of you were together. You are drawn to them and want to get lost together again. Maybe you could rewrite history. Maybe you could save them, or you would go down together. Did you not deserve death more? Could you bargain for their life with yours? Whom do you have to bribe for this exchange? You just really want to know how to make it right… |
These are the relations both characters have with each other. On the left side you find the real relation, on the right side in italics the shadow.
From this, we can derive a few expectations Static might have about their former friend: they used to consider Static an ally and close friend, but now feel betrayed and judge them. At the same time, they are very unhappy and joyless with their doomed endeavour.
Lucid might have expectations about their dead friend such as: they cared a lot about Lucid and both kept pushing each other harder. Now they are dead, which they really dislike (remember, it’s imaginary), and they blame Lucid for not saving them.
Matching real relation and shadow
The shadows are extensions of the real relations: On real level, both characters are confronted with a person holding the values and lifestyle they themself once used to have. On shadow level, they are confronted with a person they actually knew in that time, who most strongly represents this past life.
Gradual transition from real level to shadow level amplifies and grounds the feelings and dynamics already present on real level. It twists their status dynamic from moral high ground towards doubt and guilt. And thus, it lowers the barriers keeping them at distance (Lucid’s extreme self-control and Static’s arrogance and inability to take anything seriously) and allows two otherwise rigid and controlled characters to open up to each other and potentially fall back into their old habits.
Matching the shadows:
While there are quite a few factual differences (including whether or not one of the characters is even alive), the relation fulfils the different symmetries in various ways:
In both relations, the characters used to have a close and special relationship but are now opposites. Both also consider Lucid’s path morally superior (role symmetry).
In both stories, the two characters initially share their values and are very alike. Due to their mutual lifestyle, something bad happens to Static/Lucid‘s friend. This prompts one of them to turn their life around, resulting in fundamentally opposite values and the end of their friendship (narrative symmetry).
Emotional symmetry is only partly fulfilled: Both miss their time together and feel guilt and regret over how it ended, but both also blame themself while expecting the other to blame them.
What else can I do
The above examples involve the most straightforward case of shadow relations: two characters projecting another person from their past onto each other in a way that is quite similar to transference. However, there are other ways shadow relations can be used.
Relationship structures that defy logic
Shadows allow to bend the rules of how relationships can look like and make metaphorical representations of dynamics real.
Example: a group of characters whose central theme is generational trauma and people passing on the violence they experienced to the next generation. The shadows of these characters form a literal circle, with each character being both perpetrator and victim to another, allowing this cycle of generational violence to be perpetuated (or broken) within the very short timespan of the larp.
Self projections
Characters can not only project others, but also themselves, their past/future or alternate reality self, or parts of themself onto others, allowing them to act out their own feelings towards themselves. They can treat these other characters like a “devil on their shoulder” or a voice in their head.
Examples: Two very self-destructive best friends projecting themself onto each other, treating each other just as cruelly as themself; A tortured artist addicted to the inspiration they draw from suffering, who projects their inspiration on a person who is abusing them.
Abstract shadows
Shadows can be abstract concepts played as human-like personifications.
Example: an obsessive historian who projects all of history onto a very old character. During play, the historian can study their field and work on their research project by interacting with this character and diving into their personal story and conflicts; thus replacing a solitary activity with active roleplay that creates meaningful personal play for two characters.
Different realities
By combining several shadows under one theme, you can open a new narrative reality for an individual character or a group.
Example: a group of characters whose shadows tell a fairy tale, opening a shared second layer of reality.
Special character concepts
Using the structural elements of shadow relations (like the transition between two relations) allows one to implement unique mechanics for character concepts that are otherwise hard to create.
Example: a character whom other people increasingly forget the closer they get to them. Most of the shadows others project on this character are variations of ”a complete stranger” – but each with a twist that enables meaningful emotional play even after the other character forgets them (e.g. being paranoid about or strangely drawn towards them). The player can experience the emotions and stories that arise from the character being forgotten without becoming isolated or locked out of play.
Bringing internal play to the surface
I believe that there are a multitude of possibilities still unexplored, especially when it comes to twisting the mechanic for a specific larp concept. Shadows could enable dual characters to blur over the course of the larp, or lost memories to gradually return. They could give access to past lives or predetermined fates, or construct a second reality slowly taking over the original world.
What shadow relations are best at is bringing internal play to the outside. They can make backstories come alive, externalize inner conflicts, and enable direct interaction with distant or abstract themes. Thus, they can be a valuable tool for character-driven larps to deepen both character relations and the inner lives of the characters themselves.
Bibliography
American Psychological Association (2018): Transference. In: APA Dictionary of Psychology. Available at: https://dictionary.apa.org/projection (Accessed: 26 November 2025)
McWilliams, N.: Projection. In: Brittanica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/science/projection-psychology (Accessed: 26 November 2025)
Ludography
Blankspace (2024) Hartung, L., Saß, A., et al., Erndtebrück, Germany, Fractured Reality Studios
This article is republished from the Knutpunkt 2026 book. Please cite it as:
Hartung, L. 2026. ‘Shadow Relations.’ In Seasons of Larp eds. Erlandsson, A., Svanevik, M., Holkar, M., and Brind, S. Gothenburg. Knutpunkt.
- This is primarily used to describe the relationship with a therapist, but in its generalized meaning transference can also be part of any other human interaction. ↩︎
- All relation examples in this text are from the larp Blankspace and were designed and written by Tobias Mühlau, Orin Safron, Afra Spies and myself. ↩︎
