April 2018

The Methods of Mechanization – The Means of Communicating Intent and Effects in LARP – Part 2

“…and now for something completely different.”


Hi all! First off, thanks for all the great comments I’ve received thus far on the first post. For the most part they’ve been in line with just the kind of conversation these posts are supposed to start. In a serendipitous turn of events, it also seems that the Facebook group, LARP Haven (they’re private), has had its share of debates and discussions on many of the things I’ve discussed in the first part of this post, as well as in the first blog I wrote for larping.org. Check them out, as it is a good group, attracting fellow larpers from all over the world. I mention the LARP Haven discussion as it really set my gears in motion on the general topic of modern LARP rules development and some of the takeaways and lessons learned from those that came before. In general, it seems like there are two camps when it comes to your archetypal fantasy / sci-fi / etc… LARP. Again, I say “in general” because the discussion has to start somewhere, and this is where I’m starting it. Distill the details how you want. Your mileage may vary.

The first camp is made up of those who believe that LARP rules should encourage a gamist methodology and mentality in interacting with the game world; that is, “winning” and character optimization is the focus, even beyond actual role-playing or understanding narrative motivations. These systems usually manifest as rulebooks containing many pages, inundated with myriad vocalized effects, laundry lists of caveats and exceptions, and player character progression based on gaining access to lots of fantastic abilities and powers, rendering some players theoretically more powerful and skillful than other players and NPCs of less experience. These systems are also characteristically complicated, often favoring, not to mention preferred by, players who are able, or like to digest and process lots of esoteric rules, over those with any actual role-playing ability. Games like this are often found to be older and are the ‘first generation’ games, like NERO (which is a by-product of Alliance), Alliance, Dystopia Rising, or their many offshoots and children here in the States. Through talking to the people that play in these games, as well as experiencing them for myself over the years, I’ve been left with the notion that this approach is tenuous at best, if not ultimately damning. One thing that is common amongst all of them is a sort of “soft” understanding; that is, to exact upon, execute, and perhaps most important, play within these systems, eventually becomes untenable and unsustainable, despite players’ motivations to continue playing within the game world. Experience says we see a stark, inverse relationship between player abilities and skills garnered, and the mutual, if not unspoken, trust of the player population insofar as it concerns another player’s ability to correctly interpret and execute said rules and mechanics.  The second camp, however, adopts a more minimalist approach to rules in favor of allowing character interactions, accompanied by a small amount of rules (notice I didn’t say no rules at all), and lots of role-play to drive the game forward. Often, these systems adopt rules that encourage immersion over competing levels of player meta-power, wherein there are streamlined combat and magic systems, with few vocalized effects and mechanics, and only where presumably and absolutely necessary. Examples include many international games, like Conquest of Mythodea and Bicolline, as well as some newer, regional, North American systems, like Lands of Exile, Arcane, and Gothic: The Lion Age. Please add your name to the comments if this pertains to your game as I would love to hear about some newer perspectives in rules development. Being that these posts are about communicating effects in LARP, however, let’s explore these two camps in within this context; that is, how are effects and intent different in a “rules-heavy” system versus a “rules-lite” system?

Picking up from the last post, I had chosen two examples of what you might expect to find scattered over the first generation, rules-heavy, rule books, referring to those systems that seek to more faithfully represent the quantity of skills and abilities one might find in table top RPGs that so heavily influenced the early LARP systems. Likewise, these types of skills and mechanics are more likely to be found in a LARP setting wherein a gamist culture prevails (or has indirectly been fostered), and where characters are made to feel that all players should possess heroic levels of prowess and ability, in addition to any natural ability they may bring to the game. What we often find in these environments, however, are a number of harmful cultural and administrative scenarios that only further degrade the quality of the game on the whole, whether players and administrators are wont to admit it or not. Let’s take a look at one of these scenarios below and then examine some alternative approaches to including a prolific amount of these types of rules in your game.


Too Many Skills and Abilities

Many popular and long running LARPs still adhere to this rules methodology in order to do a couple of things. First, they seek to more closely resemble many MMORPG’s and table top RPGs in order to presumably, attract more would-be players to LARPing and perhaps make players more apt to try the hobby in the first place. Second, this design method seeks to use large quantities of skills and abilities in order to provide balance among player characters, often in settings where games have defined classes or some semblance of class segmentation based on abilities. Lastly, it provides for a means by which players are made to feel as though they’re progressing through the purchase of more, or different skills and abilities, as we’ve been engendered with the idea that more stuff means we’re doing better, and that we’re special compared to the next person. While this way of doing things has sufficed for decades, it can no longer be argued that this system is not ridden with flaws, and is not, in fact, inherently bad for a number of reasons, which we’ll examine below.


The Table Top Experience

As discussed in the first part of this blog, the first American iterations of LARP rules were derived largely from the arcane tomes of unnameable rules that were early role-playing games. And this really isn’t all that surprising, right? While it’s hard to say whether or not LARPing would exist without them, we can safely say we’ve moved past having to build rules systems based on them. Table top systems, by necessity, have to develop rules sets and execution mechanics that account for any possible action a player might want to perform for the most part, from the heroic, to the mundane.  This doesn’t have to be the case for LARP, and In fact, it probably shouldn’t be. By its nature, LARP is an immersive and physical hobby, one where players perform as many of their character’s actions as possible, and to that end, don’t require near as many rules as that of any given table top system. In fact, one could make the assertion that, beyond setting and some thematic elements, LARPs and table top systems should not have all that much in common; that is, wherein table top games have to account for any potential action a player may wish to take to maintain persistent immersion, LARPs must assume that a player can perform the action independent of a rule, that would, in fact, only serve to break the persistent immersion of the game world. It would seem that LARPs’ progenitors are now the very thing that are doing it harm; that what first brought players into the hobby is the source for much consternation, or at the very least, making it difficult for new and existing players to enjoy the game within these complicated constraints.

Role playing books

Skills as an Equalizer

As direct descendants of table top rules sets, it’s no wonder that popular, long-standing LARP rules books contain myriad heroic skills and abilities, intended to elevate the office drone to epic levels of Conan-like prowess and strength, or imbue the fry cook with the mysterious and arcane abilities of a Red Wizard. After all, this is what drew a lot of us LARPers to the hobby in the first place, right? What happens though, after you’ve been at it for a long time, is that you begin to realize that being able to pick and build a character from a laundry list of abilities, and in turn, having to learn all of the often complicated mechanics that accompany them, eventually detracts from the overall experience. Ask yourself whether or not it’s the fact that you get to swing this fake sword at people, perform an engrossing magical ritual, or discover a devious plot to assassinate a noble, that gets you immersed in the game, or is it in fact, all the rules you get to yell at people and process during a LARP event. Are you playing the game or are you playing the rules? Some would refer to this line of thinking as simply anti-gamist, however I can elaborate.

To convince you, loyal reader, that this way of doing things is actually pretty bad, let me break it down for you into what LARP rules designers think this methodology does, versus what it actually does. Again, we’re talking about the conventional, fantasy/sci-fi/insert -your-geeky-genre-here, LARP systems wherein they are structured similarly to your archetypal table top or online RPG. Pick a class. Pick some skills. Choose a background. Tally ho!   These systems often attempt to level the playing field via a system of skills and/or abilities that a player can buy with intangible points earned event to event, or are purchased, etc…. Ideally, this portfolio of skills and abilities, while allowing for character uniqueness, should also set every player on a more or less equal footing when it comes to interacting with, and functioning within the game setting. My 10th level Fighter should balance out pretty evenly with your 10th level Wizard, in terms of usefulness, power, etc… Of course, there will always be the min-maxers who just want to watch your system burn, but we’ll save them for another post. I digress. So what is this proliferation of skills and abilities actually doing to your game? Well, it’s doing a couple of things. First, it’s enabling the gamist-minded players out there to poke holes enough to make Swiss cheese out of your carefully crafted, if not abundant, rules set, on their way to total domination, often at the expense of having to create more rules or constant errata just to deal with them (this is NOT to say rules systems are perfect from the outset and SHOULDN’T have errata for all you trolls out there). As the saying goes, there is usually a name tag attached to every new rule. A mechanics/effects heavy game often encourages those who extract enjoyment from turning a LARP into a contest of intimate rules knowledge to do just that, and often at the cost of alienating new players who don’t have the tribal knowledge experienced players do. Second, these systems are directly contributing to the total deterioration of any game quality, scalability, and sustainability; that is, it becomes essentially and eventually impossible for your player base to digest and process the many mechanics that accompany these skills and abilities. That is, as characters in these types of systems progress, this progression often correlates with an increase in the number of things they can do, or likewise, an increase in frequency in how many times they can do these things. What is meant, initially, as a way for players to feel as though they’re more powerful and “winning” at the game eventually results in a diminishing rate of return. As the number of skills and things my character can do goes up, the likelihood that I or other players can process all of this goes down. Or, at the very least, the opportunity for this type of abuse increases. If someone says they can process loads of mental math along with lots of other vocalized effects calls, all in a time window of mere seconds, they’re full of it. Beyond being nigh impossible based on scientific fact, it really just makes for a pretty dull fight, too. Any semblance of actual danger or immersion is lost to the fact that you’ve got to worry about what’s going to come out of your opponent’s mouth, in addition to where they’re going to be swinging. Perhaps the worst part of skill and/or ability over-saturation is its penchant to, whether purposefully or not, encourage cheating. As it becomes nigh impossible to process all of one’s abilities, not to mention the abilities of an opponent, the odds that someone will not play exactly to the rules, whether or not they are aware of it (see cheating), greatly increases. And sadly, all this really does is just make players pissed off and frustrated, greatly diminishing trust and any perceived value in a game on the whole. Third, this method can in some cases, marginalize a player’s natural abilities. Instead of adopting rules and mechanics as needed, these systems seem to favor implementing a rule or mechanic for everything, greatly increasing overall complexity and increasing the barrier to entry for would-be and new players. For example, in many current systems it is quite popular to group abilities by different, archetypal, fantasy based classes, be they the thief or rogue, fighter, mage, etc…At this point, we’ve totally pigeonholed a player into pursuing their character in one direction and stripped away any mystery about how they might be playing said character. That is, instead of playing a character who chooses to be interested in the arcane arts and their martial use, a player now need only say, “…oh, I’m a Mage.” Pretty uninteresting versus actually having a conversation about how/why you came across your abilities or what actually motivates your character. Lastly, this method discourages players from having to use any real world RP ability in favor of simply relying on their laundry list of a character sheet in order to navigate plot and solve problems. Maybe you were young and hungry once. You didn’t have lots of neat things you could do, having to survive on skill, grit, and intuition, but then you did. You got complacent, letting all those spells and crits define you. You don’t need to seek out the treasure. The treasure comes to you, now. Sound familiar? Maybe someone you know? This sort of LARP retirement happens once characters sort of level their way to obsolescence via systems that allow for the proliferation of loads of skills and abilities.


Alternatives to the Norm

        So it would seem that the simple answer is to just not have so many effects and/or, right? Well, sort of. Let’s start by defining a few key terms that get tossed around a lot, but are in fact different animals. Note that these terms are within the context of LARP and not necessarily as they’re perceived and/or defined in general.

Rule – these are policies that define how a game is played and the game itself. A rule is an umbrella term that can cover everything from safety measures, to how long a specific effect lasts, to how to use an ability. A rule defines and dictates any action within the context of a game and helps the player to interact with and within the game. Examples include striking angle of a weapon or how long a count lasts before a player is considered dead.

Effect – refers to the abstraction of an action, or the execution of an action as a consequence of a rule, and is sometimes referred to as a mechanic. Effects usually are put in place to replicate real actions that might be harmful or otherwise impossible. Examples include standing still when under a “Paralyze” effect or falling down, “dead,” when being targeted with the “Death” effect. An effect is a rule whose specific intent is to replicate an action or a state of being. These are usually vocalized or communicated via some other means so as to indicate the action being performed, in addition to the resulting effect.

Ability – represents an action or meta-skill that a player is allowed to perform within the game. This can be as simple as swinging a weapon, throwing a magic spell, or getting the upper hand in a trade between powerful merchants. Abilities are usually accompanied or defined by, an effect, by which a player can manipulate, interact with, and influence the game world and other players

Now that that’s out of the way, let’s talk about them as they seem to be the main culprit in this whole mess. Objectively, these little guys are what inject a lot of the fantasy into a fantasy LARP or other. No one can really put you to sleep with magic or hit you with a flaming sword (without it hurting a lot), so how do we replicate this cool, mystical stuff? Why, effects silly! Ok, then how do let someone know we’re doing this cool, mystical stuff to them? Why, we shout it at them of course! Ok, how do I know if your spell works on me? Wait…what? So therein lies the issue. It’s easy to understand why this train of thought makes sense and how it initially followed that this was a sensible approach to putting this stuff into your game. But bad stuff happens when too many of these are being thrown around in a combat or other sort of player interaction. Besides it sounding absolutely ridiculous and totally non-immersive, they can do a lot of harm to your game, especially in abundance. As we’ve covered this already, let’s go over some alternatives to this approach so we can keep the fantasy as seamless as possible, and not let that reality leak in. We’ll start with the assumption that we’re going to work on a rules set that will facilitate a fantasy world wherein our players can make and play characters who can do stuff you simply can’t or shouldn’t do in your day to day life, i.e. magic, murder, mayhem, etc… We then want to provide our players with all kinds of neat options and variations on how to harm other characters, steal from them, set traps, hurl magic at them, influence them to do things they’d not do otherwise, etc…Variety is the spice of life! Well this is where things get sticky. This is the point at which system efficiency breaks down and we get lots of redundancies, overlap, and complications that really muck up the works and cause confusion. With this in mind, let’s continue with our previous assumptions and goals. What do we do then, to ensure that we’re providing for sufficient fantasy elements in our game while maintaining immersion and the understanding that each abstraction placed between a player and their respective character renders them that much less engaged with the game their supposed to be experiencing? We can use the following graphics to better demonstrate this concept. This, “immersion sandwich”, while seemingly really delicious and tempting, simply becomes harder to swallow as it is continually stuffed with more and more rules and/or effects.


Trim down your rules set by employing some of the ideas below:
1. Assume It Can Already Be Done – start by assuming a player can perform any action their character can perform. This can help to inform rules development as we will continually ask ourselves if including another layer of abstraction between player and character is absolutely necessary. Lots of rulebooks like to over regulate combat; that is, in order to make players feel like fighters with greater levels of ability, they’ll include skills to subsidize and fill in any potential gaps in real skill, or as an attempt to heighten up the fantastic, thematic elements of the setting. Assume immersion first and consider an ability a last resort. Its always feels cooler and more satisfying to do something on your own as opposed to having to rely on some character sheet entry to the same ends.

2. Avoid Redundancies – many times rule books will include multiple iterations of the same effect, yet only call it something different. We see this most notably where immobilizing and / or status effects are concerned; where players are unable to move limbs, their entire body, are sickened, or some variation thereof. Since the goal here is to streamline things, only include those effects that truly differentiate themselves. Remember that more isn’t necessarily better, and that we don’t need to have minor variations on similar effects. It can be much more immersive to simply put different “skins” on the same effect, given the context and themes of the game world. As an example and typical scenario, perhaps we have multiple “schools” or “domains” of magic. We don’t have to come up with unique effects for every single one. We can, in fact, simply include the same effects in each domain, only re-skinned, making it so that the player population, on the whole, only has to learn a small amount of calls.

3. Consider the Method of Intent – as stated above, popular practice is to vocalize the explicit effect being used. Consider other options when coming up with ways to communicate intent and action abstractions. If it’s a defense ability, perhaps it doesn’t even need to be called? I mean, we are on the honor system after all? Perhaps it could be role played as a grunt and a stagger. While there are indeed, lots of ways to produce un-vocalized environmental effects, i.e. via lights, sounds, touch elements, etc… this list will primarily pertain to the meta-interactions between players. Including lots of special offensive abilities, however, offers its own set of challenges. How do we navigate including and communicating myriad, specific offensive abilities when the intent is to include as few “calls” as possible? Let’s look at a few, typical, weapon-delivered offensive skill examples and come up with some different ways we could execute them without the use of these calls.

Piercing or Body Damage – this type of effect typically refers to a strike, magical or otherwise, that bypasses any armor worn. This type of attack can be better allocated to a weapon type. For example, consider allowing this type of damage to be delivered only by piercing weapons, such as arrows, bolts, daggers, rapiers, etc… Does this mean that everyone will now be running around with a crossbow and a few daggers? Maybe, but so what? If they want to look like Rambo running around the battlefield, let them. In this way, we can also leave calls where they belong, in the magic system. If you were to hear someone shouting, “Body,” or some such variation, you’d now know it was magically rendered.

Disarming Strike – refers to a blow that disarms an opponent of anything they might be carrying in their hands. This one is a bit more complicated, although I would simply say leave it to rule number one above. Assume this and any non-harmful, non-impossible ability/skill can be achieved through actual skill, rather than via a forced, in-game effect.

Powerful Blow – this skill essentially represents a strike that deals an amount of damage well beyond what is normal. Like example A, we can allocate this ability to certain weapon types, however in this case, they’ll be of the larger variety. Let the player who wants to schlep around a spear, halberd, or large sword all weekend get some benefit! Give their weapon extra damage. For example, if all small/medium weapons do 1 point of damage, these big guys can do 2. In this way, there’d still be no need for extemporaneous calls, as all players have to do is remember which weapons do 1 point and which do 2.

Deflect or Parry (Defensive Abilities) – this refers to the purely abstracted version of a physical maneuver meant to block or deflect, as the name entails, an oncoming blow. As this mechanic is often purely an abstraction, it’s often meant as an added layer of protection when a weapon blow or other, in fact does make contact, and the target does not want to have to let the effect of the blow resolve upon them. Whereas offensive abilities require some method to communicate their delivery, we have the small luxury, in the case of defensive abilities, to let the honor system do the work for us. Should you wish to include these abilities in your rules set, a player need simply mentally account for the used ability when used and move on. While it might seem frustrating to an opponent that none of their blows seem to be having an effect, at least there would be a common understanding that their opponent might be mentally using their defensive abilities against the successful offensive blows. Again, honor system. What’s also nice about this approach, too, is that eliminates a whole host of calls that would have otherwise detracted from the immersion of the combat, and likewise, keeps a player from having to process loads of mental math. If you’re following along, we’re only up to tracking weapon types and a defensive skill or two (we’ll discuss magic systems a bit later). Leaving these out altogether isn’t a bad idea as well, as it’ll have the effect of making your players better at either blocking the blow, or simply getting out of the way.


In Conclusion


In putting these series of posts together, I find myself noting lots of parallels between those concepts I’ve been taught in the tech world and those struggles within LARP development, most notably the concept of scaling out. In essence, it simply refers to how an existing hardware/software solution is going to manage extra workloads over time. Whether it’s simply adding more resources or writing adaptability into the software, something needs to happen in order to support this change and increase in demand. The system cannot stay stagnant. What works great now will sooner or later have to undergo some change, hopefully for the better. And I guess that’s what I’m getting at here. In my time doing this stuff, I’ve seen great games ruined by poor rules systems, inundated with obsolete and tired mechanics and unimaginative effects delivery systems. I’ve seen once enthusiastic players become disheartened and frustrated over years of dealing with this kind of stuff.  It seems that there is some great unspoken reluctance to buck the status quo. I’ve also found that the simplest systems are often those that are the easiest to scale out, and are often the most successful at doing so. We all want our hobby, and likewise our games, to grow, right? Then keep the rules barrier to entry as low as possible for those that want to give it a shot. Let players turn their attention to their kit, to reading about the world you’ve spent so much time creating, to putting the finishing touches on their character or to telling their friends all about the hobby. If I haven’t convinced you that this is the way to go, hopefully I’ve at least given you something to consider.



Spencer works in technology, and has been a LARPer in every aspect of the term since 1998. He likes the community most of all, but also really enjoys designing encounters and discussing LARP theory and mechanics. It is his goal to see the hobby grow and get better with every passing year. He lives in Marietta, GA.

Related Articles


  1. Aaron May 3, 2016 8:03 PM

    This text is more robust than Deeping Wall in Helm’s Deep. The lack of paragraph breaks and white space would stop many orc arrows.
    Larp is not viewed as a hobby to everyone.
    Larp did not start with tabletop RPGs like Dungeons & Dragons–it was popularized and quickened because of them, but the history of larp goes back before D&D, and I have proof.

    • spencer May 4, 2016 9:35 AM

      1. Thanks for the formatting critique…changes noted.
      2. I agree, LARP is more than a hobby to some, less than a pastime to others. Choose your level of involvement.
      3. I’ll agree that Europe had something that could be viewed as LARP, perhaps earlier than even the first iteration of D&D, but I’m referring to the early American systems as devised in the early 80’s. And that, for certain, is well after the advent of table top gaming in general. I’d like to see what you have for proof. Perhaps you’d even like to do a long form piece on the origins of LARP for us. I’d love to see it. Thanks for your feedback.

      • Aaron May 4, 2016 1:13 PM

        Pre-D&D larp history:

        No, not just Europe, I mean larp has been around the world, including America, before D&D–unless your definition of larp means fantasy games based on D&D, in which case, we have a different definition of live action role playing. I regard it as a medium of expression, an art form, that existed before literature. It now has the label “larp”, which, I agree, was applied post-D&D. But the “thing” that larp is, the action of role-playing without a passive audience, has existed long before tabletop RPGs.

        I’d love to write a long form piece on it; what is your rate?

  2. Austin May 4, 2016 8:51 AM

    More rules-light biased garbage.

  3. Joshua June 10, 2016 6:21 PM

    Hi. I have a friend who is into serious larp ing and asked me if is like to join. I had to think about it and decided “Why not. It should be fun”. I’ve seen it on YouTube an on TV and thought it would be great to join. So I would like to know how it works, what I have to do to get involved, and any additional information. I would also like to know if there are any LARP sessions clos to where I live and what time they start.

    Thank you!!
    , Lyze of Kiel (made up name)

  4. Baz August 11, 2016 8:11 PM

    This is wonderfully written. I’m running into problems with a rules-heavy larp that I’ve been trying to learn for about a year now, and this article has perfectly captured my concerns with the game it’s creators have had a great deal of pride creating.

  5. Em February 10, 2018 1:18 PM


    Generally, I like the perspective here. But I think it misses an additional use for rules and effects: namely, they can increase accessibility. To use Disarm as an example, not everyone CAN disarm an opponent – and not for reasons of skill but for reasons of disability or health. When we consider rules design in LARP we need to keep in mind that not everyone who wants to play can perform geroic physical feats of daring do, let alone average physical feats of everyday do.

    Generally, my reason for wanting reduced shouts and rules in LARP is to reduce difficulties for players with mental disabilities which reduce their ability to quickly recall information from a character sheet while coordinating that recall with their own physical actions and the actions of those around them. I think we should be taking physical disabilities – and more general health issues – into account as well. Lighter systems may be better for so-called ‘immersion’ but they also favor the most athletic, healthiest, and most physically able players. Which is unhealthy for all LARPs in the long run.


Leave a Reply to spencer Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  • Join the Larp Community

    larp rss larp tumblr
  • April 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « Mar    

Your Cart