[Artemisia]

Time to clarify Darklord, am I any closer to what you mean?
How can you play a character convincingly unless you know the social attitudes and structures of that setting?
How do we create this in a way so that players can participate without needing to have a degree in history or anthropology?
Most of our LARP references come from fantasy stories and films which are often simplistic and merely a sketchy framework within which heroes have adventures. The majority of players want to be heroes or at least have some powers, yet how do they convincingly interact with their peers, people of higher or lower social status, different genders or races?
We have some beautifully constructed fantasy landscapes, adrenalin pumping encounters and brain hurting plots. The ‘foreground’ Darklord mentioned, is where characters exist. What do they talk about? Often these conversations are superficial due to lack of …knowledge? Much of our daily, real life conversation can be superficial chat. Contrast this with times when we engage in deeper more challenging talk (– a bit like this topic strand!). So… how do we help people to achieve this, without becoming anal about accuracy?
One thing I say to the children when they are experimenting with historical role play at school, is to research the period first, then let their character live in that world yet concentrate on the quality of character interaction, rather than go for historical reinactment.
So if you want your buzz from action, have an event with lots of combat and not much chance to talk. When your buzz comes from character interaction, you need space and time in an event… and ‘foreground’. Hence the need for a range of opportunities.
As a thought… consider a setting in a Drow society. How would you men plan to play male drows within a ruthless matriarchy? How would you interact with female drows? How would you cope with being lower status? We have become much more egalitarian these days and have little regard for status – but as a drow? And who is to say how that society works – you would need some sort of concensus.

As an afterthought…I watch a Bruce Willis action movie for the thrill (leave your brain at home), a Merchant Ivory film for the carefully constructed detail and subtleties of character interaction (aah, beautiful, touching) and The Name of the Rose for a complex plot (and it has Sean Connery in it) – Hmmm, that list dates me!

Thank you for this strand -it certainly kept Chris, Ryan and I talking whilst we were working on the Inn, prepping it for a couple of events!

[The Darklord]

Even if it was a requirement for all players to have a degree in history it wouldnt automatically help - much of the academic study of history is about the broad sweep rather than the social niceities and there is no guarantee we would agree on how to interpret a given idea.   You ask how can people play a character convincingly unless they know the social attitudes and structures of a setting?  Well I'm sure people can still play a character without this (they have been in most roleplaying games I've ever seen) but it would be nice if some of the little touches were there in the background for people to read and bear in mind when creating a character and playing them.  I remember the 1st eldoria event chris ran.  Infomation was sent out to players just detailing bits of background, from social structure down to common colours people tended to wear.  It was a fantastic event and people put just that little bit extra into their character and cosutme.  It was I am sure harder work for Chris than average but I would hope he would agree worth it.  There is no reason that players cannot take a hand in this creation if they and the gm are happy to do so.  All to often human society isnt that well detailed because (I presume) people dont feel its needed compared to detailing the workings of non human societies.  This I suspect is why we end up with a generic "non culture" in many settings.  Sure you can play without it but just a bit of thougt could add some depth and create opportunities for interaction which is what its all about surely.

I have no problem with people wanting a buzz from combat, and in many ways I would rather have a combat heavy event and chat at a different time.  What I have a problem with is the idea that combat or puzzle solving or anything else becomes an excuse to stop playing a role, to stop acting. 

The forground is what matters, and for the sake of story I am happy for it to dominate, its the meat in the stew.  The background is kinda the herbs and the spices, leave it out and you don't get the flavour you could...

[Scaryfatmaniffer]

Been away a while some interesting points coming through here :-

Foreground = common sense (a bit of effort and rigour with your ROLEPLAYING) - decent players don't need the background - allow mean example (nothing more)

We're all sat in the tavern - we could be at the Prancing Pony trying to whip Frodo's ring off him (ooh err), or hding out on the edge of Sherwood avoiding the Sheriff it doesn't matter. We are talking and drinking - we could be talking about the weather, lifes little niggles and problems, where to get the best sword from, the quality of the a) tavern, b) mead c) bar maid's bottom d) all of the above.
It doesn't matter - this is real life - whether you are in 1960's LA, Victorian England, Middle Earth or whatever this is a basic roleplaying skill - nay THE roleplaying skill - you don't have to fight, have expensive costume, know what a "lethal" is, have been to the athering or whatever - like Gary says these are your spices - the meat of the stew is your ability to roleplay.

[asamoth]

Let’s start by saying, WOW! That was an interesting read.

It seems things have swayed somewhat off topic, but then a lot of other interesting ideas have been discussed which is always good. So I think I will attempt to express my two cents over the sexism thing…

As a setting it could be interesting to try, I am unsure how well I would fair with it, but it could still be interesting to attempt. If it was a regular thing I could see various problems which other people have already mentioned: Spending leisure time being little more than an adornment for your lords arm isn’t likely to be a laugh a second. Being beaten for expressing an opinion that does not conform to what your husband has said etc Trying to bring in new players would also be extremely difficult.

I am all for trying new ideas. One that had crossed my mind would be to run a “Table Top” for a LARP, so that players could see fully what the GM envisions for the game, how non-human’s are treated by the general public, if there is a slave class, how they fit into the world, what sort of technology is present or magic, religions, those sorts of things. Then when the players are familiar with what the GM wants them to know, you start your LARP, people should now be able to write a character with a background that fits with the game world. They would know that playing a human slave in a Drow kingdom is likely to result in death pretty swiftly, that sort of thing.

As to rules systems or other constraints, they are only important to help keep everyone roughly on the same page. As an example, if I hit someone in the chest with a quarter staff, is that person staggering back a bit, cursing me because I’ve bruised them, laying on the floor with broken ribs or dead from a punctured lung? If it is purely up to the players there will be disagreements, as one persons cleaving blow, is another persons flesh wound unless there is some form of guidelines.

Back to the first thought, I would be all for either attempting to write, or playing in a Tyrannical Matriarchal Drow Kingdom/Outpost. As stated with the current numbers, there could be two Drow houses, using males to try and achieve their objectives. It should be difficult all round, and thus interesting. 

Think I will leave it at that for now.

[Scaryfatmaniffer]

I am not entirely sure what you mean by a table top for LARP exactly - I have two ideas and they both seem pretty good.

1) You run a fairly low key roleplay in the sense that characters get a chance to feel the world from a slower perspective in which you can go out of character at any point to get gamesmaster clarification, and realise that some things in this system are beyond the pale or just daft. or..

2) You gather players together in some sort of pub meet / informal seminar in which you explain the world in some detail and give players a chance to think and ask any questions they may have about the system.

Jackie said to me the other day that one thing that may cause problems is that people are assumed to know what to do or what is acceptable at an event without any formal briefing/training.
To do something different relies that people know what to do - and as Gary once said to Nick on the Forum - just turn up to a tavern and play a blacksmith isn't good enough. Even to those of us who are very experienced trying something knew requires a little more explanation.
I would like to do stuff with realistic combat, and I am sure loads of people like Azamoth just said would get a different perspective - thus we need a briefing beforehand as to what is expected.
Monsters need very solid briefings if they are able to play freeform. If a player gets maimed by a single hit the average monster has to do the same. Things can vary a bit but Azamoth is right to sing off the same hymn sheet one has to first have seen the said hymn sheet!

[The Darklord]

The hit from the quaterstaff is an intersting point but one that isnt truly answerd by having rules either.  In reality a hit from any weapon could result in pretty much anything ranging from nothing to death.  In most systems with multiple damage levels staffs and daggers rate very lowly compared to swords axes etc.  Yet in real life all of these weapons are about as potentially deadly as each other - they can cause death!!  The difference is in use, reach, armour penetration, skill level and luck.  The trick is getting players on the same page in terms of being honest (with themselves as much as anyone else).  If a solid blow lands then you should take it as incapacitating, if its a skim you should still react to it.  I didn't notice any real problems when we ran the Derarkshire adventure years ago (spawn of gethron).  Chris, Tom, Jane, Alex and several others where on it - how did it go running rulesless then?  All we can do is try it and tackle the problems as they arise - I do not think we will resolve the idea any other way.  Yes it will need briefing, maybe even some "training sessions" if we can all get around to the idea that lrp is worth learning about and experimenting rather than just doing what we've always done.

The tabletop idea has some potential, not least cos I have always liked the idea of mixing tabletop and live.  Azamoth are you thinking of it almost as a prelude to the main plot - like the intro to a horror movie almost, various scenes to set the tone and mood of a game and then launch the main plot?  Or am I off in left field again?