Author: Martin Nielsen

  • Chamber Larps and the Audience Problem

    Published on

    in

    Chamber Larps and the Audience Problem

    Written by

    Can 2016 be the year we make a breakthrough on the subject of how to deal with audience at chamber larps?

    When attending contemporary theatre performances in the past year, I have been following closely what happens when the actors try to involve the audience in doing something. Even though the audience at these kind of performances should not be alien to some kind of interactivity, the bar seems to be extremely high for people to take part. One example I remember well is when Lisa Lie addressed the audience and invited them to “tap three times” in Blue Motel (Black box Theatre, Oslo, 2015). Not a single spectator responded until she had repeated the request three times, with increasing intensity — and frustration. At last, one spectator simply tapped the floor three times with their shoe, and the show could go on.

    Blue Motel at Trøndelag Teater. Press photo from Trøndelag Teater.
    Blue Motel at Trøndelag Teater. Press photo from Trøndelag Teater.

    The norms of non-participation that separate the audience from the actors in the theatre are extremely strong, at least in Norway. We are afraid of misinterpreting the actor or somehow else making a mistake. Even as a larper I find myself insecure – afraid that a misguided response could ruin the piece. I excuse myself thinking there’s always someone else more qualified than myself to make the response – “The Bystander Effect.” Although the “super-audience” – the people who dare to engage in participation and add the extra flavour to a piece — do exist, they are rare. It seems that providing the safety and alibi necessary for an audience to engage in even the slightest participation is a very difficult hurdle for the artists.

    When it’s hard for the actors to get the spectators at contemporary theatre to take part in very simple and limited interaction, how can we as larp designers ever succeed in reaching out to more people than the few brave enough to start out with taking a full-fledged step into the larp as players?

    How to reach an audience of spectators has been a headache for chamber larp designers for many years.  If we could solve this Gordian knot, it could make larp available to a much wider community and bolster its recognition in other circles of performing arts.

    Approaches to the Audience Problem

    Video

    One of the few people who have both legs inside the art circles and are working with larp, is Brody Condon. He uses larp techniques to create improvised action. One of his pieces is The Ziegarnic Effect , which was exhibited at the Nordic Biennial of Contemporary Art in Moss this summer. To sum it up in two sentences, it was a larp-like roleplay with eight players, taking place in a house while being live broadcast via video link for two days. After the first two days, an edited version of the video was on display.

    Brody told me that in his eyes, what he did was at least three pieces: one piece was the edited video showing during the entire exhibition, another was the live video stream, and the third was the roleplay itself.

    From a larp perspective, the latter piece clearly is the most interesting. But for the outside world, it is the video pieces that count, mainly the edited one., partly because that is a format people are used to, but of course mainly because those are  the only pieces that are  actually available to them. Brody reached his audience with two video pieces, – but in the end, those pieces were not larps, but video installations showing a film of improvised action. The larp piece itself remains an experience that only truly reached the eight players.

    Participate, Don’t Play

    With the development of black box larp, the larp scene has also seen an increased liaison with people from theatre and other performing arts. While the first black box larps could be seen as a step backwards in terms of accessibility, the genre has increasingly experimented with ways to make participation just as easy as being an audience at other regular kinds of performing arts.

    Fragile Souls
    Fragile Souls

    One way of doing this has been by moving away from seeing the target group as players, but rather as an audience in a participatory piece. Plays belonging to this school are minimizing preparations and rather focusing on creating a playing area that facilitates interaction and shapes characters while playing. The Nyxxx Collective in Stockholm are among the people who have explored this borderland between larp, theatre, and performance art the most. In his keynote talk at Knutepunkt, Gabriel Widing, one of the Nyxxx members, described immersion as “the excrement of action,” noting that if you succeed in changing the behaviour of people, they will eventually immerse. A handful of larps have followed this approach to solve the audience problem.

    The Temple of the Blind Beings (2013) is one example. Here, the participants were blindfolded and, after a very brief introduction, entered into a room filled with scenography for tactile interaction. The players could enter or leave at any time, removing the need for a common start and ending.

    In Inside Myself Outside Myself (2014), the participants walked into a black box without any preparations and started to explore objects and non-player characters that it was easy to interact with. This worked very well when I played it, but I am not sure how it would work with only non-larper participants. However, an inexperienced player group would probably work well if there were a few instructed players with larp experience as bellwethers in the group. The bellwethers could pave the way and, by taking space, reduce the anxiety that one’s actions would be “wrong.”

    Pieces of You, Pieces of Me (2015) labels itself as a participatory experience. In short, the story is that you will have your personality upgraded to something better. It’s similar to Inside Myself Outside Myself as the players enter the playing area almost without preparations, and their actions and characters are shaped in the “playground for interaction.”

    Pieces of You, Pieces of Me at Stockholm Dramatiska.

    All these three examples are lowering the practical bar for taking part by removing preparations that can often be demanding and require larp experience. Furthermore, they attempt to lower the psychological bar by not expecting the participants to play a character, but rather allowing them to be just participants who explore an area on their own terms. The question remains to be answered if this approach is enough to lure the participation-anxious (at least in Norway) performing arts audience to join in.

    Consecutive Plays

    Another way to address the audience problem is to have repeated runs of the same play, preferably in a theatre. This approach subscribes to the view that in a larp, the audience and players are the same people. Instead of changing the content, the framework and setting is adapted to make the audience feel safe even though they are actually players.

    Consecutive plays is something we are used to from theatre plays, and it could lower the bar for taking part because as the show runs, more and more people will talk to someone who have already tried it.

    I have been hoping to see this for a long time, and while I am not 100% sure it’s the first example, I was delighted to see that Jamie Harper is running eight consecutive runs of The Lowland Clearances at the Camden Theatre in London in January 2016. I am fortunate enough to be joining their dress rehearsal and I’m excited to see how this project will go.

    Integrated Audience

    A Mother’s Heart
    A Mother’s Heart

    One of the most interesting approaches I’ve seen to the audience problem was at The Fragile Life of Souls Gone Missing at Blackbox Copenhagen last month. There are at least a handful of predecessors where audience “play” audience/spectators, such as A Mother’s Heart, where the larp is about a trial and you can be a spectator to the trial. There are also theatre plays where the audience can move around the site with the actors – such as the Punchdrunk plays Sleep No More or The Drowned Man, – but although labelled “interactive theatre,” the audience does not have any role in the fiction and thus not any agency for true interaction.

    I think The Fragile Life of Souls Gone Missing combined the two in a very elegant way. In this larp, the players are souls that are looking for their mission or purpose, but forever going in circles. The spectators were given a short introduction before entered into the playing area. In the fiction, they were explained as deities. Contrary to the players, the spectators were not required/expected to interact, but they were given the opportunity to do so. Furthermore, the way they could interact was clearly sketched out by specific phrases the deities were allowed to say and specific actions they could do. On the other hand, the players were given the choice of playing along or disregarding the audience.

    This made a clear distinction between the players and the audience and provided the audience with a solid alibi for interaction as well as non-interaction. The opt-in mechanism for the audience and opt-out mechanisms for the players provided a safety net that should prevent any action that could ruin the larp, and hopefully prevent most of the anxiety of doing so. I believe the alibi should be solid enough even for the “regular” participatory-anxious crowd.

    Will We Solve the Audience Problem?

    Early pioneers have given us signposts for different ways to approach the audience problem, and it also seems like the black box scene is growing up – such that, after the first years of euphoria over the format itself, we can focus on making more people able to try out what we create. I believe 2016 has the potential to be the year when this scene makes a breakthrough for the audience problem of chamber larps.

    Thanks to Magnar Grønvik Müller, Eirik Fatland, Jaakko Stenros and Karete Jacobsen Meland for comments.

    References

    • A Mother’s Heart (2010). Christensen, Christina and Fatland, Eirik. Larp.
    • Blue Motel (2013/2015). Lie, Lisa. Theatre performance.
    • Drowned Man, The (2013). Punchdrunk. Theatre performance.
    • Fragile Life of Souls Gone Missing, The (2015). Essendrop, Nina Runa. Larp.
    • Inside Myself, Outside Myself (2014). Björkne, M, Burns C, Dumstrei N, Durkan M, Essendrop N, Holm-Andersen M, Karlsson P, Kiraly Thom, Munthe-Kaas P, Nilsson G, Nøglebæk O, Ryding K, Widing G. Larp
    • Lowland Clearances, The (2016). Harper J.
    • Pieces of You, Pieces of Me (2015). Grønvik Müller M, Pierpaolo V, Nordblom C, Dolk C, Brown M. Larp.
    • Sleep No More (2011). Punchdrunk. Theatre performance.
    • Temple of the Blind Beings (2013). Larp. Peter Munthe-Kaas.
    • Zeigarnic Effect, The (2015). Larp/video installation. Brody Condon

    Cover photo: Pieces of You, Pieces of Me at Stockholm Dramatiska.

  • Culture Calibration in Pre-larp Workshops

    Published on

    in

    Culture Calibration in Pre-larp Workshops

    Written by

    With a few exceptions, all larps take place in a set culture. This can be either a fictional culture or a culture based
    on the real world. For the previous larps where I have been part of the organizer team, we have made an effort to define
    the culture together with the players through a pre-larp workshop. This includes facilitating that the players calibrate
    their understanding of the culture. Earlier this month, I facilitated a workshop on this subject based on the larps
    Tinget [The Council] (2011), Till Death Do Us Part (2012) and Huntsville (2013) at the Swedish larp
    conference Prolog [Prologue]. This blog post is based on that workshop.

    I will go through different strategies for communicating cultural understanding and present some suggestions on how to
    use a workshop to calibrate cultural understanding. I will also present some arguments for why I believe traditional
    means of communication has a lower potential than a workshop in order to calibrate cultural understanding.

    What is culture?

    Most larps center on one or a few groups of people. Each group has its own organizational or tribal culture. This is
    defined as «Shared mental assumptions that guides interpretation and action by defining appropriate behavior for various
    situations» (Ravasi and Schultz 2006), or informally “how it works here”.

    Depending on the larp, it is possible to “zoom in” on the organizational/tribal culture. For example, Till Death Do
    Us Part
    is about Palestinian and Scandinavian culture, and it is an important part of the larp how these cultures
    are portrayed. But it is also about families who each have their own “tribal culture”. Similarly, in a larp about a
    company there will be one overall organizational culture, but also a more specific culture in sub-groups in the company
    (e.g. among the graphical designers).

    There are several good reasons to make an effort to promote the players’ understanding of the culture before the larp
    starts:

    • Players feel safe that they are not playing “wrong”, in particular in the early part of the larp.
    • Misunderstandings can be resolved before the larp starts.
    • The players will have a stronger ownership over the culture.
    • If the larp takes part in a cultural setting where some players, but not all, have played before, there will be
      more equal opportunities to take part in the larp.

    Cultural understanding can be achieved through playing the larp. My view is however, that it is much better to prepare
    beforehand. Not only because it’s unrealistic for characters who have lived or worked together for a long time having to
    tip-finger the culture in the early stage of the larp. Due to the lack of opportunities to adjust the culture underway,
    it is also much more likely that a larp that calibrate the culture after starting playing ends up with a stereotypical
    culture or a culture that is limiting the opportunities for play, and were the tools for adjusting it underway are very
    limited.

    Establishing and calibrating

    I will try to introduce the term “calibrating”. What I mean by this is that all participants adjust their interpretation
    of a phenomenon, so that all participants have more or less the same interpretation. By establishing I mean creating
    something from scratch. It’s hard to draw an absolute border between establishing culture and calibrating culture in a
    workshop, but that’s not the point. My point is that even for larps where the organizers wants to have maximum control
    over how the culture is established, there will still be need for the participants to calibrate their understanding.

    An example: The organizers have described the culture as “everyone shares whatever food they’ve got. This happens with
    dignity, and one is expected to show gratefulness towards the ones who share with you”. This is a description of a
    cultural norm that can be interpreted in many ways. Even on the condition that the players have read the instruction and
    do everything they can to fulfill it, it is likely that many players will be insecure on how to actually do it the first
    time they are to share food. If the interpretation is calibrated beforehand, it will promote better play in the larp and
    give more equal opportunities to adjust the understanding to something that is playable and works well for everyone.

    How to communicate cultural understanding to the players

    When the organizers are communicating the culture they want in a larp, they have several channels at hand. Some common
    channels include:

    • Writing a text they want the players to read
    • Base the culture on an existing (real or fictional) culture that the players know (e.g. Battlestar Galactica or
      ancient Rome).
    • Tell the players fragments and leave to them to improvise the rest (e.g. “everyone respects the elderly”)
    • Assume the culture to be a function of the characters
    • Give special instructions to some players and let them lead the way
    • Workshop

    Workshops are frequently used to build trust in the player group, teach certain skills (e.g. a dance or how to stage a
    fight) and exercising game mechanics (e.g. how to initiate a flashback). Some larps also establish characters and
    culture through a workshop, something which usually also includes a fair deal of calibration. I still believe that more
    larps, in particular larps where the organizers have the lion’s share of establishing the culture, should pay more
    attention to letting the players calibrate the culture through a workshop.

    “High resolution larping” (Nordgren 2008) means that the players are enabled to communicate through small nuances in the
    characters behavior. High resolution communication requires a fine understanding of the relations and cultural
    framework. My point of view is that the cultural understanding required for high resolution larping cannot be achieved
    by words alone.

    One of the things I have been doing when not larping, is training for leaders in various youth NGOs and student
    communities. Throughout the years, I have been speaking for several hundred of them about organizational culture. And I
    have yet to meet someone who is able to give an accurate description of the culture in the organization they come from.
    This is not because they are bad at describing, but because of the complexity of the phenomenon, even when not taking
    into account that all members of the organization will have different interpretations of the culture. I believe that we
    who are familiar with larp are very fortunate, because we have at hand a tool that is better than anything else at
    communicating cultural understanding. And we should use the larp tool more actively in workshops to improve – the larps.

    Example of a pre-larp workshop exercise to calibrate cultural understanding

    The three larps I mentioned above all use test-scenes to calibrate the player’s cultural understanding. The test-scenes
    can be roughly divided into three categories:

    • Everyday life (e.g. children playing, meal)
    • Rites (e.g. member leaving the group/death, festival)
    • Taboos (e.g. violence, person of authority crying)

    The method is simple: The players are divided into groups that get to prepare one test-scene each. The organizers should
    give a task to each group to help them getting started (e.g. portray a family sharing food). It is possible to use the
    characters from the larp to calibrate the relations as well as the culture here, but using other, temporary characters
    can cultivate a stronger cultural focus. After a few minutes of discussion on how to play the scenes, start playing the
    scenes.

    both in a workshop and in the larp itself if we have to improvise the cultural understanding as
    we play

    The other participants observe while one group plays their scene. Encourage the observers to take notice of small
    details in the culture, and to observe both “the exotic” and “the obvious”. This is important to increase the awareness
    of how we easily reproduce stereotypes and our own culture, both in a workshop and in the larp itself if we have to
    improvise the cultural understanding as we play. “The exotic” is what clearly makes the culture different from
    stereotypes or our own culture. “The obvious” is cultural norms we take for granted, it can be for example shaking hands
    when people meet, men doing physical work and women caring for children or the distance people keep between them when
    they talk.

    After the scene is over, ask the observers to describe what cultural norms they saw, both “the obvious” and “the
    exotic”. Take notes on a blackboard or flip-over if possible. It is OK if different people have observed contradicting
    norms. When the observers are finished, ask the people playing the scene if they have anything to add. Then, open a
    discussion of whether or not we are satisfied or not with the norms. Criteria for assessing the norms can be:

    • Is the culture in line with the vision for this larp?
    • Is the culture playable for all players?
    • Is the culture sustainable over (sufficient) time?
    • Is there anything we can do to increase playability?
    • (Are changes required due to off-game concerns, such as player safety?)

    The organizers can take part in this discussion along with the players. If the players and organizers agree that major
    changes would make a better larp, the scene should be replayed by the same group or another group and another discussion
    can follow. Of course, time will limit how many scenes you can have, but the more scenes that are played the better will
    the calibration of the culture be.

    At Till Death Do Us Part, we also did a more extensive variant of the same exercise, by playing a small test-larp
    for about an hour. This must not be confused with a prologue where what happens enters the minds of the characters as
    their background. Nothing that happens in the test-larp, is part of the characters’ history when the real larp begins,
    it is just a way to try out understanding of culture, relations and characters and then adjust and calibrate before the
    real larp starts.

    Other approaches to promote cultural understanding

    Culture is usually understood as something you learn by taking part in it, and by following the example of others. I
    believe this is no different in a larp compared to the real world. My point of view is that written information has a
    low potential for furthering cultural understanding, even if we don’t take into account how time consuming it can be and
    that some players sometimes don’t read all the information.

    Even for concrete, physical things, it can be very difficult to describe accurately how something looks. Here are some
    paintings of elephants made by medieval artists who had never seen an elephant, just read descriptions of elephants.

    Elephant

     

    Elephant

    Elephant

     

    My view is that the workshop format has qualities that the other ways of conveying cultural
    understanding cannot match.

    Today, we have professional artists whose job is to make drawings of wanted criminals based on descriptions. Even these
    professionals, who are specialized in this subject and who can do it after two-way communication with witnesses, cannot
    make the drawings look exactly like the real people. But describing a cultural norm is many times as complex as
    describing a physical appearance.

    Some larps are based on TV-series or movies. This can be helpful to kick-start the players’ cultural understanding, but
    it still doesn’t give the players the culture “under their skin” and able to play out high resolution drama.

    My view is that the workshop format has qualities that the other ways of conveying cultural understanding cannot match.
    It is not only more efficient in terms of the ratio of invested time / achieved cultural understanding. It also
    heightens the ceiling for how much cultural understanding the players can carry when they enter the larp.

    Many parts of a larp are subject to individual interpretation. Let’s say your character is described as stubborn. You
    will have large freedom in interpreting how to play out this, and since (usually) only one player plays one character,
    it is not a problem if different players would interpret the description differently. But for some parts of the larp it
    is important that the players (at one single run) have a common understanding. This is particularly true for relations
    and culture, which are the frameworks for the interaction between the characters. While absolute coherency in the
    interpretation cannot be achieved, a thorough workshop can get the players rather close to this.

    Just as a text will be interpreted individually by the different players, will the workshop.  Different players
    calibrating the culture for the same larp at different runs will of course end up with different understandings even
    though the workshop is the same. But at a single run of larp, the players will ha a calibrated common understanding.
    This is because the method is participatory and because its form resembles the form of the larp itself.

    Larp is a powerful tool for learning and understanding, in particular when combined with
    discussions.

    That the process is participatory means everyone takes part, actively, at the same time. That the form resembles the
    form of the larp means the participants will use the same patterns of interpretation in the workshop as they will use in
    the larp. If we want high-resolution role-playing in the larp, it is necessary to use high-resolution methods of
    communication when preparing the players. This is the case regardless of whether the culture is established from scratch
    by the players or it is prepared in detail by the organizers and only the calibration is left to the players. Larp is a
    powerful tool for learning and understanding, in particular when combined with discussions.  Therefore, we should more
    often use larp itself, combined with discussions, as the tool when the purpose is learning and understanding to how to
    play a larp.

    This text was originally published at Alibier.no and is being re-published
    with permission.