Threehold: discussion and lessons learned
Last weekend Jason and I ran Threehold, a single-session Changeling the Dreaming larp using some of the tools, techniques and mechanics we learned at Dziobak’s Convention of Thorns last November.
For those who are interested our design document is here.
Our organisers’ bible is here.
And our characters are here.
This post is my attempt to document some of my observations and experiences running the game, including improvements for future games. It’s a bit of a grab bag of thoughts and ideas, but I’m happy to discuss any of them in the comments below, on facebook or by email.
Generally I felt the game went very well. People seemed to have a lot of fun, there were numerous very cool scenes and not many discernible lulls or stalls in game play.
The starting workshops were well received and generally seemed enjoyable for most people rather than a chore. They also ran quicker than I had expected, with a group of 14 players we got through the workshops in about an hour and a half. We did safety and mechanics workshops in about 30–45 minutes, and then had about 30 minutes for building character relationships and another 30 minutes for people to make plans in their freehold groups.
In hindsight, we probably could have had a bit more structure for the relationship building workshop. Some people struggled to develop meaningful relationships by themselves and probably needed more assistance. More structure could also have helped to build a shared history and shared world, rather than just relationships between characters. That may have helped add more depth to the characters as well, something that’s often hard to do in a short larp session.
We structured the game with three key events that the characters would drive, an opening blessing, a play, and a closing vow renewal. We really didn’t plan any additional plot. The only extra conflict we added was a dilemma over who would become the new baron of one of the freeholds. It definitely felt like the loosest structure we’ve done for a larp, but generally seemed to work fine. Although allowing the players to request additional events (like dragons to show up) helped keep things lively and satisfying.
As I’d expected the consent based resolution system flowed very quickly and smoothly. Having seen it before that wasn’t surprising to me, but it did surprise several of the players. Even after they’d had the rules explained some people still expected it to be clunky and awkward and were pleasantly surprised at the speed and ease of resolution once they gave it a go. We saw quite a lot of power use, several combats, dancing, hugging and a fair bit of physical play.
The only place I felt the mechanics broke down was in large group combat scenes and interacting with NPCs. We hadn’t really expected either of these to come up in this game, so hadn’t prepared adequately for them, which didn’t help.
During play, one of the players asked if we could have the dragon from the stories turn up. Jason and I conferred briefly and agreed it would be fun. But we leapt into it without really discussing what the dragon would do or what the outcome should be. We also hadn’t properly briefed the players beforehand that they should still seek consent from NPCs, so things got a little wild there for a bit with poor Jason being dragged around the floor by a group of over-excited players.
We also hadn’t thought through his three-headed dragon costume particularly well. He ended up with his face and both hands covered. So it was pretty hard for him to call cut, make an off-game signal or respond to an ok-check-in. It worked out okay this time, and no harm was done, but it’s something I will be much more careful of in future.
Only having one game room also meant there was an issue of consent about interacting with the dragon at all. Normally at Convention of Thorns or College of Wizardry, an NPC like a dragon would appear in a single room at a pre-appointed time agreed with the requesting players. Players can then choose to join the group that is fighting the dragon (if they’re aware of it) or choose to ignore it and stay away. Since our dragon showed up in the middle of the single shared play space, characters were somewhat obliged to respond or interact with the event in some way, even people who hadn’t requested it.
Again, no real harm seems to have been done in this instance, but I don’t feel like we handled it well.
In future I’d try to have multiple game spaces so people can discreetly move to another space if they don’t want to interact with something. I would also like to talk to other people who’ve run these kinds of games about what principles they use to guide how NPCs interact with the players. For example, should NPCs wait to be approached rather than approach PCs directly? Should we be clear on what outcome the players want before we introduce the NPC? If we aren’t clear should we discuss that with the other organisers or just leave it up to the creative improvisation of the person playing the NPC?
We also had a few small breakdowns of the mechanics in large scenes where multiple people suddenly wanted to involve themselves. Negotiation on outcomes between 5 or 6 players is pretty tricky, especially when more people keep adding themselves to the scene. I’m honestly not sure how to handle this. I’d love to hear suggestions, especially from people with more experience with these mechanics.
Despite these issues several players commented about feeling much safer and more in control of their play experience than they usually would. I especially noted female players commenting that they normally don’t take leadership characters in larps because of feelings of risk and lack of control, that they’re making themselves a target. These women said they felt much better supported to play those roles with these mechanics. As a game writer who often writes female leadership characters that don’t get chosen, that alone seems a very good reason to use these tools.
I don’t think we saw much in the way of intimacy per se. I suspect that’s largely because most Australians are pretty uncomfortable even talking about these intimacy in detail, let alone playing it. That’s a cultural shift will likely take a lot of time and the right game to explore.
That said, as the game progressed people clearly became more comfortable with non-sexual touching. There were hugs and pats and soothing strokes, some dancing, and other incidental touching. Since many of the players come from game backgrounds where all touching is essentially forbidden (without first explicitly asking permission to touch), this seemed significant to me.
Starting the game with an opening ritual worked pretty well and is definitely something I’d do again. I think finishing the game with a closing ritual with stronger indications that it would be the end of the game would be good. My intended closing ritual ended up running on as people interpreted it as the moment to initiate new scenes on related topics. That wasn’t necessarily a bad thing at all, as some of those scenes were pretty cool. But I clearly need to do a bit more thinking about the best way to end a game.
Given that we pulled the game together in about two months, there were a few rough edges and problems that we’ve encountered before but didn’t have time to address. Still, it’s worth noting that details like colour coded name tags and a reference list of all characters are expected by Canberra players and help the game run more smoothly. Some palm cards with the standard wording for oaths might also have been a useful addition.
We didn’t use a tool like the “day sleep fogs my mind” that Convention of Thorns used to signal that the player couldn’t remember some detail, but we probably should have. World of Darkness games have a rich and detailed history with a lot of cannon lore that inevitably the players will not recall correctly during play. I saw players struggle with this several times and I wish I’d provided them with an elegant tool to get out of that discomfort. Of course, in future I’m also planning not to use pre-written settings that require such detailed canon knowledge, but in this instance it would have helped.
I took as many photos as I could during play and I’m glad I did. They’ve helped to showcase the game to people who couldn’t be there and appear to be enjoyed by the players. I just took them with my iPhone in this instance, so many of the photos are grainy or blurry. And of course I missed some of the coolest scenes because I was too caught up in the moment or they happened too quickly. Nevertheless, I am now convinced of the merits of having a dedicated photographer for games (especially if you’ve invested in a great venue and scene dressings), even if it’s just an organiser or other volunteer responsible for taking photos. I’m also investing in a camera that is a bit better with low light conditions and action shots. ;)
There has been a suggestion that I run this game at Phenomenon in October and I confess that I’m considering it. It would certainly expose the mechanics and tools to a much wider audience, which is my ultimate goal with the game. I’m not sure how to include the workshops in a three hour session though. Potentially the characters could be more thoroughly fleshed out and the safety mechanics workshop reduced to 30 minutes by including more relationship detail on the sheets and being more prescriptive about how each freehold will conduct its rites. Game time would then be condensed to 2 and a half hours, which would be short and sharp but possible. Alternatively, we could ask for two back to back sessions and include more structured workshops in the first session to build character depth as well as relationships. I’d love to hear some player thoughts about these options. (Note that I’m not committing to anything just yet.)
