We are indeed honoured to be able to read some of your personal thoughts on LARP-matters, but I am afraid we lack some of the forgoing background dissidence to fully appreciate your discussion.

Joc wrote:

>Now this weekend I attended the prelude to Europa, which
>was not a larp in a dramaturgical sense, nor in the Dogme
>sense nor Turku, but which would have been called a
>in Finland, and it was intense and revolting physically and
>psychologically.

This point confuses me somewhat. Europa, while not a traditional LARP, are indeed a live role-playing event? After all, the attendants play out their assigned roles, and they do it live. They have no lines, making it theatre, nor dices, making it RPG, so why is it not a LARP dramaturgically? What constraint on LARP in a dramaturgical sense is it that excludes Europa form falling under the LARP category?

No, just experimental. And the fact that it was great (Say my name!) just shows the experiment was succesful.

About eight months after .laitos I tried to run my first and only fateplay "Much Ado About Nothing", which was no such a success (nor did I expect it to be). But it still further illustrated the medium of LARP for me.

> (.laitos was about bullying and harassment > in a school in a totalitarian society and > hard core gaming before we had a word for > it).

Actually it was about a totalitarian society seen through a school with bullies in it. Get your facts right, woman!

> The players are necessary and integral and > the casting affects the game, and the
> casting can make a crappy game great or
> turn great art into shit, but it's the
> GM's art.

And there you go again...

As you should well know, 0 times 0 times 99 is still 0. If one aspect of the game is great, it doesn't make the game great. For a game to be truly great the game needs all the aspects to be great.

.laitos for example. The two things that were most crappy about it were the style in which it was advertised (and the rumors they created), and the characters I'd written.

And of those two, the characters weren't crappy for any individual player. They weren't exactly great literature (Hi, Eirik!) but they did the job.

The fact that those good characters were pretty much cut-and-pasted from a few real characters was what you might call "a great idea with an absolute crap execution". But it worked for the players, and it even worked in a meta-game context: That's what the society was like.

> I write extensively on this in the
> Knutepunkt book, and I don't know whether > I'm allowed to quote myself beforehand...

Perhaps just a bit to keep us interested?-)

> If this is this a popularity contest,
> cover boy, I've already lost

What did you think this was?

Actually, you should be happy. You don't know how much all those celebrity-hunters interfere with my personal life.

> My metaphor says I the GM am the hostess
> and the chef. I don't necessarily eat the
> meal or even cook it but I've invited the
> guests and provided the concept of the
> party and the ingredients for the food.

I'm sorry, I guess I just assumed this was so obvious you wouldn't go around saying it

But what's being cooked is not the beef here. It's a piece of cake to make a LARP where at some point an adversary attacks and somebody leads the people to battle the adversary. And there you have your chicken casserole.

But that's not what role-playing games are about, and you know it, miss. They're about possibilities. If you want to eat a chicken casserole, you go to a restaurant. If you want to make your own food, you buy a cook book and go to the kitchen.

And now, the point: It's easy to make a LARP setting where something is bound to happen. The story, however is not "Something happened". I don't know what the story is, and neither do you. Because it hasn't happened yet, and -- more importantly -- it hasn't been told yet.

What the story might be is something like this: "I was having trouble with the wife again, but luckily the boss had some more work for me to bury myself into. He needed to hire some extra help because _Something happened_ and most of his men had to go deal with that. Luckily, my new job payd well, and I was able to get a present to the wife. Now we're doing okay."

And that's no chicken casserole, that's the whole damn enchilada.

> The dinner party is the story.

No. I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

The dinner party itself is not a story. It's just a bunch of thing happening.

When somebody tells about the dinner party, that's a story.

> Although I hate to say so ours is quite
> probably a "postmodern" medium. That adds
> tonnage to the literature list. *sigh*

That's a word I've been using with role-playing for quite a while now. It hasn't made things any clearer, but at least now I know it's okay for them to be unclear.

> Like I was ever there... *guffaw*

Actually, I might've guessed

Mike

PS. If you haven't, you should check the hatemail Americans are writing about the Manifest at http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=5&i=56720&t=56720

You're absolutely right on both accounts.

>But in some ways it was great. And those >great things about it made me really think >about LARP as an artform.

Yeah - but I think you didn't PLAN for it to be great. Now this weekend I attended the prelude to Europa, which was not a larp in a dramaturgical sense, nor in the Dogme sense nor Turku, but which would have been called a larp in Finland, and it was intense and revolting physically and psychologically. And bloody great.

It achieved through very tight GM control the same kinds of feelings that .laitos did through no GM control. Interestingly, at least a part of the game was an attempt at an exorcism of Atle's demons, where .laitos was in a sense an exorcism of the players' demons (.laitos was about bullying and harassment in a school in a totalitarian society and hard core gaming before we had a word for it).

>You can't say a LARP was good _only_ >because of some one aspect (characters, >world, players) was good. All those aspects >make the LARP, and are all parts of the >GM's art.

Uh... my point exactly. It IS the GMs art. The art belongs to the GM. The players are necessary and integral and the casting affects the game, and the casting can make a crappy game great or turn great art into shit, but it's the GM's art.

And his art is the telling of a story, the placing of each individual participant into the frame of that story.

I write extensively on this in the Knutepunkt book, and I don't know whether I'm allowed to quote myself beforehand...

>It was coined by Dare Talvitie. Back when >he was a "somebody", but neither you, me or >Jaakko were "anybodies" larp-wise.

If this is this a popularity contest, cover boy, I've already lost

>> The game starts, the players enter the
>> kitchen.
>Your confusing metafore seems to indicate >that the "story" of LARP is the experience >of LARP.

My metaphor says I the GM am the hostess and the chef. I don't necessarily eat the meal or even cook it but I've invited the guests and provided the concept of the party and the ingredients for the food.

>I don't, and I don't think it's a very >fruitful starting point, as then you limit >the possibility of a work of fiction not >telling a story.

The dinner party is the story. It can be "Naked Lunch", it can "Babettes Dinner", it can be rubensesque women romping and drooling in an associative Greenaway setting. It can be abstract but it's still my story.

>But yes, telling that "story" (or >organizing the LARP, as one might say) is >what's its all about. Whether we agree it's >a story or not.

QED. I don't care whether we agree either

>"Childish"? My definition of a story >contains the concept of plot. And that's >what makes it different from the word >"text".

Yeah but seriously I think the concept of plot needs to be reexamined when the amount of viewpoints multiplies. I'll try and look into it before Knute but it seems to me that the theoretical apparatus is there already, we can probably nick a lot of it from feminist film studies.

Although I hate to say so ours is quite probably a "postmodern" medium. That adds tonnage to the literature list. *sigh*

>I don't know about the way your university >likes to confuse words with each other, but

Like I was ever there... *guffaw*

>And don't worry, I wasn't offended. But >next time you have a point to make, it >might be a good idea to make it instead of >just attacking other people's points.

What me worry... I think on occasion one should be qualified to attack bad points without better ideas in store, because the solution might be a side-effect of the debate.

The thing is, though, that I do think the vow of chastity as the central point of your manifesto is a very very very very good description of an ideologically, though not numerally, dominant form of playing (in Finland). I also think the Dogme manifesto, intended as a shake-up and a wake-up call, served its purpose admirably.

In their wake we've seen games and playing highlighting other issues that have as of yet been ignored or overlooked by the entire field of theorists. And those areas are what I find exciting.

Joc

I've larped a month longer than you but your dad can beat up my dad so I'll just shut up now, huh?

Actually, I think .laitos (1997) is the only one of my games you ever attended. And you're right: It was in some ways executed in a very crappy manner.

But in some ways it was great. And those great things about it made me really think about LARP as an artform.

> your games aren't good _larps_ textually,

I'm sorry, but I think your definition of "textuality" and "LARP" seems very limited in the context of that statement.

You can't say a LARP was good _only_ because of some one aspect (characters, world, players) was good. All those aspects make the LARP, and are all parts of the GM's art.

> Yeah... I think Stenros coined it... I
> heard him use it before you were
> "anybody"...

It was coined by Dare Talvitie. Back when he was a "somebody", but neither you, me or Jaakko were "anybodies" larp-wise.

> The game starts, the players enter the
> kitchen.

Your confusing metafore seems to indicate that the "story" of LARP is the experience of LARP. If that's what you want to define "story" to mean, that's fine. I don't, and I don't think it's a very fruitful starting point, as then you limit the possibility of a work of fiction not telling a story.

But yes, telling that "story" (or organizing the LARP, as one might say) is what's its all about. Whether we agree it's a story or not.

> That's a childish definition of story,

"Childish"? My definition of a story contains the concept of plot. And that's what makes it different from the word "text".

I don't know about the way your university likes to confuse words with each other, but if that's more mature, I think I'll stay with the childish approach

And don't worry, I wasn't offended. But next time you have a point to make, it might be a good idea to make it instead of just attacking other people's points.

> It's not.

Water under the bridge

Mike Pohjola

Second: I fully support Petter Bøckman in being a bit sceptic to a manifesto as "universal truth". They are not! Never have been! And I hope as few people as possible reckon them to be. On the other hand; I hope as many as possible try to make LARP's in accordance with such manifestos. I know that limits makes your brain rage, and that is often the source of some ingenious thinking!

Both Turku and Dogme deserve a celebration on this years Knutepunkt (and maybe a funeral?)!

Lets hope someone will pick up the glove, and produce new thoughts in the form of a horrendously BIG "Manifesto for LARP beyond any limits"!

Yep!

Apart from the Manifest being somewhat over-worded and a bit on the self conscious side, I do agree in general with most of it. My preferred style of LARPing has always to try to "feel what my character feels", thus pacing me squarely in the Eläytyminen school of playing. There are other styles, though, and one should be careful when discarding these on an universal basis, which the Manifest seems to do. The main problem of the Manifest as I see it is that they, again on an universal basis, say that neither RPG nor LARP is suited for story-telling. This limits the type of game possible fore one committing himself to the Manifest.

Leaving the RPG aside, there are still valid styles of role-playing that concentrate on the story, as wholly or partly predetermined by the organisers. These fall into two categories:

1) The "fate-play" as defined by Eirik and Lars, and

2) Historical LARPs, often having an educational aspect

I believe Eirik and Lars capable of speaking for themselves, so I will concentrate on the later.

Historical LARP-games are not uncommon in Norway. Quite a few scenarios centring on the WW II period have sprung up over the last few years. The organisers, having wished to let the players experience something of the feelings of living in an occupied country, have taught the players something of our own recent history. To achieve this, the "story-line" have needed to be somewhat streamlined during play, in other words: They have wanted to tell a story.

The small LARP "Sent hjem fra krigen" (Sent home from the war) was an attempt at using the LARP medium to educate pupils on the nature of warfare from a civilian point of view. As such, it most be deemed most satisfactory. All of these LRPSs have been highly acclaimed. Judging from the amount of debate they generated, the mental exhaustion of the players afterwards and their need to tell someone of their experiences, the games most be said to have been among the best ever made in Norway.

According to the Manifest though, they are not. This invariably leads me to the conclusion that the Manifest is not at all as universal as it claims to be. Though I believe it to be a perhaps needed corrective to current Finnish (and indeed some Norwegian and Swedish) gaming, it has forgotten to take into account the vast flora of games and game-styles out there. LARP is a very versatile medium, suitable for a lot of objectives, education being but one of them. Limiting these possibilities on an theoretical basis is unfortunate. I believe the treefold model, when suitably modified to describe LARP and not RPG, will prove a better theoretical framework for bout planning, making and playing LARPs

Of course you, Mike, don't realise how wrong you are right here. But then let's face it, you've always been a great mind and body to have around on discussions on the player angle.

Your games however - and this applies especially to .laitos, which has been the most talked about - are good ideas with an absolute crap execution. They're still great games to play, but that's generally because you attract the best players.

Dilute the player mix and your game fails, and this, my friend, is a sign that your games aren't good _larps_ textually, in the broadest definition of the expression.

>I'd say more parody than irony. And parody >of manifests, not of the ideas.

Yeah, Mika Loponen burned that manifesto without reading it, which I think is very fitting.

I agree with most of the Turku ideas, btw, and firmly feel that about ten percent of Turku style chaste players are necessary for any serious game to succeed.

>Not really. Turku School was the first >mentioned role-playing school I
>know of. It was created to oppose certain

Yeah... I think Stenros coined it... I heard him use it before you were "anybody"...

> Prior to the 'kick of' of a LARP-event, the whole event is a setting for a
> story UNTOLD. During the LARP, th story

Bull. Before the larp starts is where most of the storytelling takes place - the stories are grown, original ideas slaughtered and refined, the kitchen is prepared.

The game starts, the players enter the kitchen. If the only food in the kitchen is the ingredients for chicken casserole, they will cook chicken casserole or something very much like it. I can leave a recipe or not. But I don't have to, because I've filled the kitchen radio with subliminal messages of voices whicpering "chicken casserole is good."

> TELL the STORY. But; A LARP should never be used by players, organizers or
> GMs to tell a story - for instance setting very strict lines for the action

I think this is ridiculous. Why do you have to be so cathegorical? Sometimes storytelling is good. Sometimes not.

> unfolding, or utilizing the 'destiny'-system to make things happen as
> 'planned in the story'.

now THIS I agree on. If you can't conduct the orchestra, get a synthesizer. There are countless ways of conducting a larp that all happen before the game starts. Not using them is laziness.

Mike again:
>only one of those possibilities remains. >And then some player may, if they
>want, tell the story of what happened to >his character.

That's a childish definition of story, pumpkin. You have to graduate to a grown-up use of words like "text" and "story". When you do, you get to use new ones like "intertextuality". Fun, eh?

>But LARP in itself
>is not a story. It has no story-teller and >no audience.

As above, so below.

>That all those experiences
>form the plot, and that every player is >both the story-teller and the
>audience.

You can say that but I wouldn't. However I'm saving bullets for the next round.

>This would mean that life itself is a >story, that everything,
>really, is a story. If that's the way you >want to define "story", then
>that's your choice, and you're free to make >it.

It's not.

BUT: As Eirik has made pretty clear through his last posting, D99 is NOT dead, it's changing. I'm not surprised. The defenders of the manifesto has so far been the authors themselves (mostly), and they've even stated that the current manifest is wrong (or at least misquoted or misinterpreted). The signatories has been relatively quiet.

Having said this, I will rush to with this: If D99 is changing to reflect new views BECAUSE of the debate, this is a good thing! It is to the credit of the D99-supporters that they have this ability!

quote:

---

It seems now that my effort was not wasted - or that it was quite unneccesary (pick your choice ), ref. Eiriks comment about Dogma 99 in the thread about verbal roleplaying and LARP.)

---

I'm sorry to spoil your victory dance , but I still think the text in the manifesto is both clear and valid on the point : not an atack of tabletop RPGs, but of the many uncritical adaptations of elements from tabletop RPGs into LARP. Readers can judge that by themselves, BTW, so I won't pursue it further.

The discussions that have followed, however, have had less and less to do with Dogma 99. That, and the fact that vow #7 is often read in the context of previous debates and prejudice, are the major reasons I would have wanted to re-write the vow - though I'm not sure what the rephrasing would have been.

As for a FAQ; here's a general one:

Q: (anything)
A: Please read the entire manifesto, not just the vow of chastity.

p & a,
.eirik.

[This message has been edited by Eirik Fatland (edited 12 February 2001).]

My chief point of attack in the debate was a - at times passionate - defense of verbal roleplaying (also called "table top roleplaying"), which I felt was unfairly maligned in Dogma 99. Eirik and Lars replied: "That's not what we meant," while I maintained: "It looks like that from the text, anyway!" Repeat until fed up
(It seems now that my effort was not wasted - or that it was quite unneccesary (pick your choice ), ref. Eiriks comment about Dogma 99 in the thread about verbal roleplaying and LARP.)

There was also quite a lot of discussion about the form/way of expression of Dogma 99, along the lines of "is provocation a good way to start a fruitful debate, or is it more suited to generate a lot of noise".

Oh, yeah, and I believe that somewhere along there I admitted that it might be possible that I sometimes expressed myself in ways which perhaps could be described as "arrogant" (I also mentioned that I am a brilliant genius, but that is - of course - already widely known...)

Hilde
----
Hexcon - Norways oldest game convention
http://www.hexcon.no/

Dogma 99 was written in the context of its time, adressing problems and developments that could be observed then and there. While most of it is still valid, IMNSHO, and some of it will allways be - times change - and a Dogma 2001, even written by the same authors, would be a slightly different text.

As an experimental programme, Dogma 99 was never intended to express any "eternal truth" about LARP. It was written then and there, as a kick-off for the Dogma LARP programme, to stirr some discussion in the LARP scene, and to send a message that - unlike messages at "Teori" or email lists - would be read.

From the authors' point of view - it has allready succeeded in all three respects. The manifesto has allready become more widespread, more commented upon, more influential and resulted in more LARPs than we dared imagine.

Dogma 95 lasted four years until it was declared dead. That will eventually happen to Dogma 99 as well - though I won't make any guesses as to when this will be. As long as it's being discussed, and as long as organisers find it worthwhile to make Dogma LARPs - it's alive and kicking.

The use of the word "Dogma" (unquestionable truth) is pure irony. D99 is anti-dogmatic. If the statements in it ever become the conventional wisdom of a LARP scene; I'll be the first to oppose it. The ideal revolution is the one that is allways followed by a new revolution.

p & a,
.eirik.

e|rik {mailto:agitator@fatland.net}

Eirik wrote;
"As one of the people who was the most active, I'll now need to look through those same archives myself -"

Is it possible that some of you perhaps could write a summary of the previous discussions, since you're reading through them anyway? Please..... I'm unluckilly too swamped in work to have time to dig in too many archives, and Im shure many others would apprecialte it too...

regards
Hutchy

quote:

---

Originally posted by bjornhk:
Kan forresten ikke du gi blaffen, Arman, om du vil?

---

quote:

---

In order not to force others into endless repetitions I'll refrain from saying anything else on this subject untill I've crammed my brain with all I can (if there is room...).

---

That is a commendable attitude!

As one of the people who was the most active, I'll now need to look through those same archives myself - to see what I actually wrote back then .. and if I still have the same opinions.

Jeg har flere ganger opplevd at disse teoriene har blitt oppfattet som noe som man på en eller annen måte må forholde seg til. Når Dogme kom, hørtes det ut på flere som om en laiv ville være mye "riktigere" hvis det var en Dogme-laiv - ikke fordi vedkommende syntes at punktene i Dogme var gode idéer som måtte følges, men fordi man liksom skulle lage Dogme-laiv.

Så jeg ville lage en motvekt som skulle forhindre effekten som beskrevet over.

Nå var ikke det myntet på de som diskuterer her - langt i fra. Det er bra at dette diskuteres. Jeg ville gi et signal til de som bare var innom om at dette ikke er noe som enhver laiv-arrangør er nødt til å ta på alvor.

Det er den lille ulempen med laiv.org forum: Det finnes ikke noe motvekt eller alternativt forum, så det er veldig lett å se det som blir skrevet her som Sannheten ("Det er det Man disktuterer")

Kan forresten ikke du gi blaffen, Arman, om du vil?

Bjørn

quote:

---

Originally posted by bjornhk:
Haha! Jeg er så glad for at jeg kan gi fullstendig blaffen i både Dogme og Turku!

Bjørn

---

I have done something scary just now; I've gone digging in laiv.org-archives, the Dogme99-files to be specific. What was scary?
1) The amount of time and energy spent by so many people debating this.
2) The many repetitions of statments that people made.
3) How little I know of what people hav already said on this subject.

But I did not fret! I copied most of it, including other stuff I found (Turku, Dogme, various stuff from Amor Fati) and so on. My plan: Reading through all or at least most of it by this weekend.

This is something Pohjola wrote as a reply to a mail I sent him. In my mail i translated some of the points Der Alte Böck made, these are noted as 'Petter Böckmann' and denoted with a >. Later on, it says' Håkon:, and what follows and is denoted with > are MY statements. Everything else is Mike's words. If you object to my translations Petter, please correct them to your liking. The most noteworthy points can be found in the last to passages.

Quotes:
Petter Bøckman:
> It's interesting to note that the Turku-manifest looks upon telling
> a story as something gundamentally wrong, both for players and for
> organizers, and even for traditional RPG (Chapter III, 1. and second
> paragraph). According to the manifest, LARP as a medium is not fit for
> story-telling. This point of view contradicts, as far as I can tell, basic
> notions amongst a number of LARP-organizers...

Petter has it right: Telling stories is not something LARPs are suited
for. And yes, most people don't realize this.

Håkon:
> 1. EXTREMELY high irony-factor, directed more towards dramatists and
> gamists than any other.

I'd say more parody than irony. And parody of manifests, not of the ideas.
I mean what I've said, though not necessarily literally.

The main point of the Manifest, though, is to create a common
understanding of the basic questions of role-playing, and set up some
common ground for terminology and discussion.

> 2. The excistance of the Turku School seems based on the fact that there are
> other manifests floating about in the LARP-communities. The entire project
> (Turku-school) seems to have been made as a retort to (particularly) Dogme.

Not really. Turku School was the first mentioned role-playing school I
know of. It was created to oppose certain anti-Turkuist ideas often
presented in LARP discussion.

The writing of the Manifest had long been planned, and when Dogme 99 was
published, it became inevitable to counter it with The Truth.

> IF the Turku point of view is as Petterböck has described it I too
> beleive they will encounter resistance,

We have, and we will. You can't make an revolution without breaking some
eggs.

> - I doubt their fluency in english. I MAY have misinterpreted their message
> because of misuse of the english language.

I agree that the paper version was rather clumsy at times, but the WWW
publication should have most of that fixed. Or don't you agree?

> - I don't like registring as 'member of a party' such as the
> Turku-school. I prefer the liberty (and risk) involved in standing on
> my own two feet. An added bonus is tha I will not have to defend
> elements of the Turku-school I disagree with.

This is fine. But in a discussion about LARP tehory rises, it's easier to
say "in this aspect I'm a Turkuist" than explain your views in lenght.

> Prior to the 'kick of' of a LARP-event, the whole event is a setting for a
> story UNTOLD. During the LARP, the story unfolds, so that one can afterwards
> TELL the STORY. But; A LARP should never be used by players, organizers or
> GMs to tell a story - for instance setting very strict lines for the action
> unfolding, or utilizing the 'destiny'-system to make things happen as
> 'planned in the story'.

I partly agree. Before the game, the potential of LARP contains countless
of possibilities for what's going to happen. Then the game is played, and
only one of those possibilities remains. And then some player may, if they
want, tell the story of what happened to his character. But LARP in itself
is not a story. It has no story-teller and no audience.

You could argue that LARP is, in fact, a story. That all those experiences
form the plot, and that every player is both the story-teller and the
audience. This would mean that life itself is a story, that everything,
really, is a story. If that's the way you want to define "story", then
that's your choice, and you're free to make it. It's just not very
fruitful.

End quotes.

I will post my own replies and opinions in a later, separate posting to this forum, this will also include opinions relating to Erik Fatlands last posting.

quote:

---

1. VELDIG høy ironi-faktor, som retter seg mer mot det de kaller 'dramatister' og 'spillister' (drmatists og gamists). Jeg antar den første er Dogme-lignende liver/arrangører med Dogme-sympatier mens den andre gruppen er brett- og rulle-spillere som er glade i ulike systemer og regler for spillet.

---

Jeg deler Petter Bøckmanns forståelse av Turku-manifestet, og ikke Håkon Mossebys antagelser (over). Med litt kontekst kommer man et godt stykke på vei i lesningen av Turku-manifestet. Fordi den har en del verdi som generell laiv-teori er denne konteksten også verdig litt spalteplass.

Innlevelse kontra opplevelse
I den finske laivdebatten har motpolen særlig stått mellom eläytyjistene og dramatisene. Eläytyminen ("å plassere seg i sin rolles sko") kan oversettes med rollebesettelse, innlevelse etc. Jeg foretrekker begrepet "innadvendt spill" på norsk. Dramatistene står for en spillstil hvor spilleren er bevisst de andre spillerene, bevisst på å skape scener som en del av spillet - "utadvendt spill".

Motsetningen ligner på motsetning mellom Stanislavskis teater ("method acting") og Brechts teater ("Det brutale teater"). Hos stanislavski går skuespilleren gjennom øvelser for å sette seg selv emosjonellt og intelektuelt i rollens sted. Hos Brecht sees kroppen som et verktøy, bevisst manipulert av skuespilleren for å kommunisere det ønskede budskap til publikum.

Turku-skolen v/Mike Pohjola og Dare Talvitie har i en årrekke agitert mot utadvendt spill, og for innadvendt spill. Ved siden av elitismedebatten har dette vært et av de store temaene i finsk laiv.

The Threefold Model
Et par uker før publikasjon ble Turku-skolen kjent med "the threefold model", som deler rollespill inn i tre stilarter : simulationist, dramatist og gamist. Den "ofisielle" versjonen av modellen kan man lese : her. Modellen er egentlig ment for å beskrive verbalrollespill, men er ekstremt enkel å overføre til andre rollespillformer, som laiv.

Her kommer en kort forklaring sammen med Lars Wingårds utmerkede norske oversettelser av begrepene:
fortellingsorientert ("dramatist"): Stilen som verdsetter hvor godt rollespillet skaper en tilfredsstillende fortelling.

konkurranseorientert ("gamist"): Stilen som verdsetter å sette opp en rettferdig utfordring for *spillerene* (i motsetning til rollene).

simuleringsorientert ("simulationist"): stilen som verdsetter å avgjøre in-game hendelser utelukkende på grunnlag av spillverdenens virkelighet, uten å la meta-hensyn (som til fortellingen eller rettferdig konkurranse).

Ta situasjonen : du spiller en rolle, og rollens bror er nettopp drept. Den fortellingsorienterte vil stoppe opp og spørre seg selv hvorvidt hevn, sorg eller tilgivelse vil skape en interessant situasjon. Den konkurranseorienterte vil straks begynne å lete etter spor etter brorens morder, i det minste hvis han oppfatter dette som et "plått". Den simuleringsorienterte vil spørre seg hva som er det normale for sin rolle, utifra hans karakter, stand i samfunnet osv. å gjøre i en slik situasjon, og gjøre det.

Det Turku-skolen har gjort er altså å slå sammen denne modellen med den gamle dualiteten i finsk laiv-debatt. En burde dermed få fem stiler - men utadvendt spill of fortellingsorientert spill antas å være det samme - "dramatism". Sant nok, det er en viss sammenheng, men det finnes også en del situasjoner hvor det er nyttig å skille. Jeg antar også at årsaken til at Turku-manifestet ikke tar seg bryet verdt med å definere disse stilene, er at begrepene er relativt godt kjente fra før.

kritikken av konkurranseorientert spill
I likhet med Dogme 99 rakker Turku-skolen ned på gamism; Turku-anklagen hviler på at konkurranseorientert spill er uforenlig med å spille et levende, ekte menneske. Dogme-anklagen hviler på at det konkurranseorienterte aspektet i konvensjonell laiv forhindrer godt spill etter de andre stilene uten å være tilstrekkelig rettferdig til å bli en god konkurranse. Begge kyskhetsløftene inneholder punkter med hensikten å fjerne konkurranseorienteringen fra rollespillet. I dogme 99 er dette strukturellt - å fjerne konkurransefremmende strukturer fra laiven. I Turku-skolen, spillerbetont - at spilleren avstår fra å konkurrere.

kritikken av fortellingsorientert spill
Turku-skolen angriper både fortellingsorientert spill og utadvendt spill under sekkebetegnelsen "dramatism". Det utadvendte siles bort i en del fraser av kyskhetsløftet, det fortellingsorienterte angripes i kapittel 2. Hovedanklagen handler om at fortellingsorientert spill tvinger fram en struktur hvor man har handlende (skuespillere) og tilskuere. Spilleren kan ikke være både tilskuer og skaper samtidig, mener Turku-skolen, og derfor kan man ikke fortelle en historie gjennom rollespill. Det blir teater.

Selv ser jeg ikke det store problemet i å veksle mellom rollene som hovedrolle, tilskuer, birolle og statist slik man f.eks. gjør i Moirais-Vev aktig skjebnespill eller en godt planlagt fortellingsorientert laiv med løsere plottstrukturer fordelt likt på spillerene.

For eksempel vil Arcadias laiver stå som den rake motsetning til Turku-manifestet : ikke bare ser arrangørene det som viktig å styre spillet for å få til en handlingskurve (fortellingsorientert) - i tillegg benytter man seg helt bevisst av gåter/plått som spillerene kan løse og av balanserte diplomatiske intriger (konkurranseorientert). Dette er egentlig ganske utbredt i norsk laiv; Arcadia har ganske enkelt vært flinkere enn de fleste til å definere sin arrangørstil skriftlig.

forskjellen mellom Turku-skolen og Dogme 99
Turku-skolens motsetning til Dogme 99 hviler på tre punkter:
1. Laivdefinisjonen. D99 definerer laiv som møtet mellom spillere. Turku definerer rollespill som innlevelse i en "outside consciousness (the character). I henhold til D99 kan man ikke laive alene. I henhold til Turku-skolen er det nettopp det man kan; hvis du sitter innelåst i et skap i 24 timer og innbiller deg at du er en rolle, så er det en vellykket laiv.

2. At Dogme 99 er fortellingsorientert. Dette står ikke rett ut i Dogme, manifestets kyskhetsløfte åpner for både fortellingsorientert og simuleringsorientert spill. Men en del formuleringer som

quote:

---

"The story of the event must be made for each players character, not the whole".

---

3. At Dogme 99 vil begrense arrangørens makt, mens Turku-skolen vil gi arrangøren absolutt, totalitær makt. Turku-skolen hviler imidlertid på antagelsen at arrangøren er en kunstner som ikke begår feil. Det er sånn sett ikke noe i veien for en laiv arrangert etter Dogme 99 med spillere som følger Turku-skolen.

Utover det ser jeg de to manifestene som lite overlappende; Dogme 99 er et konkret, tidsavhengig, program for å motarbeide konkrete, strukturelle problemer og framtvinge nyskapning hos laivarrangører. Turku-skolen er et forsøk på å mynte "evige sannheter" om laiv og påvirke spillere til å forholde seg til disse. Jeg har derfor ikke hatt noe problem med å debattere både mot og for Turku-skolen. Hvis man er på jakt på antitetesen til Dogme 99 - syns jeg Egil Moes "Brosme 9,9kg" er en langt mer direkte motsetning enn Turku-skolens manifest.

I Turku-manifestet er jeg også nevnt både som en norsk venn av Turku-skolen (forord 2001) og kreditert "for being so delightfully wrong, and failing to admit it in sometimes heated conversations." (forord 2000). Slik er Turku-skolen - polemisk, alltid på jakt etter å provosere, sterkt selvironisk og svært alvorlig samtidig, og fullstendig uredd for selvmotsigelser...

Som analytisk verktøy finner jeg Turku-skolens manifest nyttig, spesielt kyskhetsløftet - den mest gjennomarbeidede del av manifestet. Men jeg syns også det er gøy å spille utadvendt og fortellingsorientert en gang i blant, like mye som jeg trives med å spille innadvendt og simuleringsorientert. Dessuten hender det faktisk at spillerne har rett, mens arrangøren tar feil.

quote:

---

Originally posted by der Alte Böck:
Det er interssant å se at Turku-manifestet ser på det å ville fortelle en historie som et grunnleggende galt utgangspunkt, både som spiller og som arrangør, og til og med som rullespill-GM (Manifest III, 1. og 2. avsnitt). I følge manifestet er ikke laiv som medium egnet til historiefortelling. Dette synet strider etter det jeg kan forstå mot grunntanken til en hel del laivarrangører...

---

1. VELDIG høy ironi-faktor, som retter seg mer mot det de kaller 'dramatister' og 'spillister' (drmatists og gamists). Jeg antar den første er Dogme-lignende liver/arrangører med Dogme-sympatier mens den andre gruppen er brett- og rulle-spillere som er glade i ulike systemer og regler for spillet.
Ironi og motstand mot begge de to retningene er noe JEG støtter, og i forhold til hva Petterböck har sagt tidligere under ulike fora på laiv.org så antok jeg at også han gjorde det.

2. Eksistensen til Turku-skolen synes basert på at det finnes andre manifester i live-miljøet. De later til å ha laget hele prosjektet som et motsvar til (spesielt) Dogme. Det er etter min mening greit nok at de gjør dét, men i og for seg syns jeg det er unødvendig å skulle på en måte 'svare med samme mynt'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by der Alte Böck:
Jeg tror manifestskriverene vil møte ganske sterk motbør mot dette synet her til lands. Kommer han til Knutepunkt?

---

Det er interssant å se at Turku-manifestet ser på det å ville fortelle en historie som et grunnleggende galt utgangspunkt, både som spiller og som arrangør, og til og med som rullespill-GM (Manifest III, 1. og 2. avsnitt). I følge manifestet er ikke laiv som medium egnet til historiefortelling. Dette synet strider etter det jeg kan forstå mot grunntanken til en hel del laivarrangører, herunder de kritikerroste Amaranthlaivene, sjebnespillkonseptet og de mer "utdannelsesrettede" spillene med historisk bakgrunn, som 1942 og 1944.

Jeg tror manifestskriverene vil møte ganske sterk motbør mot dette synet her til lands. Kommer han til Knutepunkt?