Community Based LARP

From ThreadsWiki

Contents 1 Community Based LARP Introduction 1.1 Basic Explanation 1.2 Participants Rights and Obligations 1.3 Leaders Rights and Obligations 2 Expanded Explanation of Community Based LARP 2.1 Organizational Models 2.1.1 The Business Model 2.1.2 The Group of Friends 2.1.3 Personal Autocracy 2.1.4 Oligarchy 2.2 Outline of the Community Based Model 2.2.1 What responsibilities do organizers have? - Detailed View 2.2.2 What rights do participants have? 2.2.3 What responsibilities do participants have? 3 Operation of the Community Based Model 3.1 What is the Community? 3.2 Why do people participate? 3.3 Non-Profit Entities in Group Recreation 3.4 The Business Model 3.5 The “Group of Friends” Model 4 Who is in Charge?

Community Based LARP Introduction

Unlike some games you may have played, Threads of Damocles is a Community Based game. That means that it is run as a co-op. The Campaign GMs run the game, in return for receiving support from the community and being responsive to the needs of the players.

As a participant, you are not a customer receiving a service. You are a partner, working with other volunteers, to create the Campaign together. That means that you will be asked to do some work, and to "pull your weight" in some way or another. The volunteer staff puts in many hours without any compensation other than trying to give you a good time. In return, they'll ask you to do some work to help give the other players around you a good time. You have a responsibility, as a member of the community, to do this to the best of your ability.

Because the Campaign is a Game, not a political event, we don't hold elections, etc. However, the Campaign GMs recognize that they need to be responsive to complaints and needs for a change in direction - however they always have to weigh the needs of the many against the needs of the few.

Because most issues can be resolved informally, or are obviously one person's issue, there isn't a formal governmental mechanism. However, in matters where many participants have questions, the Campaign GMs are obligated to seek majority opinion through discussion or polling.

The Threads of Damocles Campaign isn't a club, or an organization, or a business. It's more like a farmer's market or co-op. It's a group of people coming together to do something cool for themselves. An atmosphere of friendly cooperation is assumed, with the campaign coordinators balancing all player interests. Like any cooperative effort, the people who put the most into it have the most influence, but the theory of Community Based Gaming suggests that all participants have a right to a basic level of democratic influence.

The writing used in the Campaign is owned by the authors, however they explicitly grant perpetual use to the Campaign. i.e. - Gordon cannot "pull his material and go home" if he does not like the way the campaign is being run. However, rights for uses other than the campaign remain with the authors, and this includes individual stories, as well as the overall campaign arc.

Likewise the individual characters belong to the players. The writers do not have implicit permission to use them in other settings than the game, without asking.

Basic Explanation

Some basic principles (these are not the only principles of a Community Based system, but are the most obvious or important - see below for a more detailed discussion)

Participants Rights and Obligations

• Pay for games played at a fair rate
• Work with the producers/GMs as partners, never against them
• Work with the other players to build a universe and adventure
• Pitch in with tasks, even when not serving as Cast, if the request is not too odious or unreasonable and is within physical capabilities
• Ask for explanation of policies in and out of game at appropriate times and at a not unreasonable frequency
• Expect reasonable accomodation for special needs of health, religion, and employment, but recognize that it is not always possible to accomodate every exception without detriment to the welfare of the group
• Help other players
• Respond to requests to volunteer props if they are reasonable - meaning they don't entail unreasonable time loss, work, or financial risk.
• Either vote in group polls, or abide quietly by the outcome without complaint
• Abide by the rules of the group, including fulfilling service requirements.
• Lobby to change the rules of the group, and expect a democratic vote if they can show reasonable support
• Accept the will of the group when it is expressed through a vote
• Become involved in the authorship and leadership of the group subject to the agreement of the current volunteers on their basic competence, and reasonable need. The basic volunteer pool should be open to members of the community, though individual positions may require some experience as decided by a basic committee of the volunteers.

Leaders Rights and Obligations

• The leaders must remember that even if they were not picked by a formal ballot, they serve the Community. This is an honor and a trust they should uphold.
• It is expected that leaders will be involved in the work of the community and set an example to others for involved participation to the best of their ability.
• The leaders generally in practice excercise the prerogatives of individual GMs, or proprietors, including the right to refuse service, though their decisions and leadership are ultimately subject to the expression of the will of the group through a balloting proceedure.
• Leaders are obligated to try to meet the needs of the individual, but must always remember they are serving the group. The attempt to deal with the problems, questions, or issues of an individual must never be allowed to consume a disproportionate amount of time from the other members of the group unless there is some clear and present benefit other than the welfare of the individual.
• Leaders should not profit unduly in a financial or material manner from their leadership as they would in a for-profit business. Conversely, it is expected that Leaders may enjoy some mild benefits in terms of attendance at events, use of properties, and residual goods, which are more than offset by substantial unpaid volunteer labor. The essence of the Community Based system is not to maintain a rigorous and miliant quid pro quo - Leaders should not abuse their position, however waste is never desirable.
• When leaders hold property in custody for the group, as opposed to owning it and loaning it to the group, they have a duty to make that property reasonably available to the community, and community spiritedness dictates that they will generally try and make personal assets available within the Community of the game, and to some extent the broader Community, under reasonable circumstances.

"Reasonable" - as this is not a legal document, but a set of guidelines, there is no strict definition of "reasonable." Generally it means "reasonable to you, unless many other people disagree, in which case it means reasonable to the majority." It is obviously impossible to apply a strict litmus test, and since all the above relies on good faith, there is no reason to.

Expanded Explanation of Community Based LARP

Typically in LARP we claim everything as our own idea and pretend that it came without antecedents. In breaking that poor tradition, I’d like to acknowledge outright that many of my ideas along these lines were influenced by two campaigns/organizations which were ongoing concerns when I began to formulate these ideas – ALARPA and The Realms, and I'd like to thank the various people from those organizations who discussed them with me.

Community Based LARP is not the only, best, or perfect model for running LARP. I’d like to clarify that I see absolutely nothing wrong with LARP run as a business concern, and if anyone is able to make money out of the hobby/artform of LARP, then I think that's a wonderful and splendid thing, and hope they'll share the wealth and their success. Community Based LARP is a solid, practical, alternative for most groups because they are not successful as business concerns and aren’t likely to become successful.

Organizational Models

Very few groups really think about how they are going to organize for a LARP, but practically, there are three models. The fact that groups don’t think about which they fit into often adds to their management woes.

The Business Model

The Administrators "sell" the LARP to "customers." The problem with this model is that unless the business is genuinely profitable, it is often shooting itself in the foot. By telling the participants they are "customers" the group dedicates itself to serving with a staff it cannot pay, demands that are made as if it were a profitable concern. We put up with shit on our day jobs because we get a paycheck. With no paycheck, there is little motivation to endure shit, and that makes serving demanding individuals who have been told they are "customers" difficult.

The Group of Friends

There is no organization and the game is produced by "a group of friends." This tends to be a poor model, because some individuals become more major stakeholders, and the other members often are unable or unwilling to acknowledge this. Even if they do there is no formal system to compensate for it.

Personal Autocracy

The LARP is considered to be the "property" of the Administrator/Organizer, and participants are “allowed” to play. On a small scale this is a very successful model. The problem with Autocracy is that it depends on the wisdom, adaptability, and beneficence of the autocrat.

Oligarchy

An Autocracy with more members. Prone to all the troubles of the Group of Friends if one stakeholder contributes more than others, and there is no model for explaining this.

Outline of the Community Based Model

LARP is an activity in which there is no "audience" - everyone is a participant. Participants work with each other and the Administrators, Authors and Producers to create an interactive drama - Community based LARP extends the concept of group participation outside the event to the management of the group.

• The LARP is the joint property of all the stakeholders, but not all stakeholders are equal.

• Participants gain a stake in the LARP by donating Time, Expertise, Resources or Money TERM, or some of each.

• The largest stakeholders have most authority but they also have the most responsibility.

• Authority to make decisions and take actions must always be equaled by responsibility to the group for those decisions and actions.

• While not all stakeholders are equal, there is a basic minimum - everyone who meets the minimum contribution to be a participant (which must be made clear to everyone) must have a basic right to speak and influence the direction of the group. Depending on the needs of the group this might be any of the basic needs - Expertise, Time, Resources, Money, but it is most often Money and less frequently Time. It is seldom practical to have a mandatory donation of Expertise or Resources, because not everyone possesses those things to begin with.

• The Administrators must ensure that individuals with a major stake do not trample the rights of those with less stake, and allow them the basic minimum right to participate.

• In general, the basic right is to a certain level of time and attention on the part of the Administrators, and an attempt to meet the individual needs of the stakeholder to the extent that they are not incompatible with the needs of the group.

• Basic questions about the group - Rules and Policies - typically its out-of-game rules and policies - are seen as affecting all the stakeholders, and when there are conflicts or dissent, these matters should be resolved democratically, with less reference to the amount of stake someone holds. Likewise there is generally a feeling that outside of stated exceptions, "game rules" should be applied equally to all stakeholders. Administrators are responsible for making even a very major stakeholder obey the rules, and protecting even a very small stakeholder from abuse. Stakeholders are responsible for not putting the Administrators in a bad position by trying to interpret their stake as giving them unfair rights.

• More advanced questions – Direction and Drama, such as the direction of dramatic action, rules within the game, etc., should be resolved with stake in mind. This usually means a decision by the Administrators after consultation with the most pro-active and responsible participants.

• Talk alone does not earn a stake. While opinion and advice is a valuable contribution, that alone does not earn stake in the group. Expertise, Time, Resources, and Money are ways to secure stake in the group for those who wish to expand their stake and be more pro-active.

• The Administrators must be sensitive to who actually holds stake by contributing Expertise, Time, Resources and Money, and be careful not to allow noisy participants with only basic stake to dominate decision making, because they are very outspoken. Community Based LARP should never by an excuse for "rule of the most noisy participants." Methods of formalizing and recording participation aid in determining objectively who the greatest stakeholders really are.

• Autocracy by consensus is usually the most desirable and efficient method of accomplishing things in a small group. The concept of the group is essentially democratic (or republican), but while formal mechanisms can exist, they do not need to exist. Committees and votes are time consuming and divisive, and should address only the most important questions where consensus is not possible, or where the organizers want a particularly broad sampling of information. One of the principal exercises in judgment required by Administrators is determining when to put something to a vote. The criteria should be that there is a disputed issue which multiple stakeholders have differing opinions on, and which is significant enough to warrant time and attention. Voting should only occur when consensus cannot be built.

• Within a given campaign, special recognition is give to the stake held by the organizers, who by undertaking the greatest responsibility, also have the greatest authority.

• It is recognized that in a campaign, the unique background (the scenario, writing, etc.) is a powerful resource which the organizers bring to the common table. Nevertheless, the organizers do not own the event. The question of copyright should be discussed at the beginning of a campaign, and it is vital, even if the copyrights remain the property of the artist, that the group as a whole have the right to use them in perpetuity. For an organizer to use the special resource of authorship to threaten to "take my marbles and go home," is unethical. However, the community based organization does not imply the right of others to violate the copyrights of any artist.

• In practical day to day fact, the organizers will, for pragmatic purposes, generally act autocratically - it is the recognition of where their authority derives, and their willingness to acknowledge others who seek to become major stakeholders through extraordinary efforts, and share their authority and counsel, that distinguishes the Community Based Model.

• The Community Based Model is a theory for participation and involvement, not a method for organization. It does not dictate anything about the structure or organization of the group producing the LARP other than that it have opportunities for meaningful participation with real authority and responsibility.

What responsibilities do organizers have? - Detailed View

• The fundamental element of the Community Based Model is a recognition on the part of the organizers that the stakeholders have a right to participation in the direction of the group.

• The fundamental responsibility of the Administrators is to produce events that meet the needs and expectations of the stakeholders

• To give opportunities to gain stake in the group, and experience in LARP organization by opening participating in organizational tasks, including the creative element of the event.

• Administrators must insure that there are methods for even the basic stakeholders, who make only the minimum commitment to the group to have meaningful input and influence. Individuals with greater stake may be allowed more influence in direction of the group, but should never be allowed to trample on those with a minimum commitment.

• Authors must cede practical rights to use the material of the campaign ad infinitum to the group, though not to give up copyrights, or the right to sell or reuse the material elsewhere. For an author to force acceptance of his or her leadership on the community by virtue of "owning the background" is blackmail and is not acceptable in a community based setting, because it fundamentally renders all other stakeholding unimportant.

• When an author founds a campaign, and invites others into it, they should be reasonably willing to turn over or copy their materials if they choose to leave a campaign, but are not obligated to maintain archives specifically for this purpose - it is understood that the ouster of a principal author is a major decision, and the assumption that some of the content may be lost with that author is a reasonable check against doing this in poor judgment. It is unfair to require extra work of someone who is running a campaign in good faith because “we may fire you someday.”

• When a campaign already exists, and sets requirements for documentation, or guidelines for writing for new authors, or existing authors agree to them, then it is their responsibility to live up to them. However, it is advisable to set reasonable standards, since frustration results when unreasonable standards are set, then ignored.

• Administrators address and respond to questions and criticisms, but must be firm and not allow individual critics to exercise authority beyond that which is appropriate to the stake they hold by demanding undue time and attention from the Administrators.

• Administrators must recognize the difference between isolated complaints and serious questions or dissent (generally meaning a minority of a third or more) which require resolution by mediation or by democratic process.

• Administrators must be able to determine when questions must be resolved by democratic process and when they may be resolved by "stake" that is by consulting the most involved and pro-active participants.

• Administrators must be genuinely willing to make changes in directions indicated by a strong majority of the stake in the campaign, or if they find this impossible, to excuse themselves with maximum grace and courtesy.

• Administrators have a responsibility to keep the commitments of a campaign to a level that is acceptable to the strong majority of the participants. This means commitments of Expertise, Time, Resources, and Money.

• Administrators have a responsibility to make a maximal and efficient use of all of the Expertise, Time, Resources, and Money at their disposal. Offers of Time and Resources should not be turned down in lieu of charging more Money, for example. Administrators should not squander Expertise, Time, Resources, or Money, and should work constantly and steadily to produce the best work from the lightest utilization of all of these.

• On the other hand, Administrators do not exist to provide "busy work" for participants in need of validation Administrators must be free to reject offers of Expertise, Time Resources, and Money that will entail more of their time than it will save. Administrators are already making the largest Time commitment to the campaign, and asking them to infinitely enlarge that is not reasonable.

• The efficiency of the campaign cannot be expected to dominate the lives of its Administrators, and they are entitled to either use money when reasonable, or be held to a lower standard of expectation if money is not available.

• All participants must have a relatively clear and obvious path to gaining greater stake in the group. This includes new participants. Out of game there must be ways for them to discover what their rights and responsibilities are and there must be an agreed on and evenhanded way for them to become fully franchised members of the community in fact as well as theory. Within the game, they must be given clear guidance - whether everyone is started as an equal or there is a rank or experience system, new participants must know what is expected of them, and what and how they may expect to proceed in comparison to the other participants.

• Tolerate and move on. Participants will fail. They may periodically fail to meet basic requirements. In the event that a participant's failure to meet responsibilities becomes a recurring issue, then it may be necessary and only fair to ask them to change their behavior, or leave. However, in general to err is human. The Administrators must tolerate lapses among the Participants, and must understand that those who are basic stakeholders cannot spend the time, thought, energy and effort on the group that they can.

What rights do participants have?

• To be heard and to ask for and receive reasonable attention so that their needs are met within the event if that is possible.

• To be consulted, and have a significant input, on major matters of dissent which concern the "out of game" aspects of the group - its rules and so forth.

• To have basic input into "in game" matters that exceeds the personal - to be able to, and have avenues open to, contribute their opinion on directions of the game itself.

• To be able to gain greater stake in the group by investing in it by contributing Expertise, Time, Resources, or Money. This does not mean that each of these avenues must be open at all times, or that every request must be accepted - the Administrators must balance opportunities for input with existing needs. But at any time, clear paths should be open which provide opportunities for greater involvement.

• To be given opportunities for authority and responsibility, up to and including participation in the creative process (though some groups may limit participation on persons involved in the creative process to "cast, npc, monster, horde" type roles for purposes of integrity).

• To be fairly treated within the context of the game - that is to be treated in a manner comparable to every other participant of the same qualifications and background - this does not preclude any within game system for progress, levels, rank, experience or so forth, but establishes that opportunity should be equal.

• To be recognized for contributions above and beyond the norm, both because this is good and appropriate, and because absent a formal tracking system (which some groups might maintain), this is the only way for peers to be aware which individuals are maintaining a strong stake in the group.

• You have the right to an experience that is commensurate with the level of Expertise, Time, Resources, and Money which the Administrators have asked for and the group has agreed to provide. If the group determines a very low level of input, you must of course expect a decrease in output - Administrators working with reduced resources or money may not be able to live up to expectations set by higher levels of resources or money.

What responsibilities do participants have?

• A responsibility to contribute the basic amounts of Time, Resources, and Money set for the campaign, and accepted by the group. Since expertise is by definition something not everyone has, no basic requirement for it can be set.

• If a participant cannot meet a responsibility, they must inform the Administrators of this, and suggest what they might be able to do as an alternative.

• Participants must accept that you are fundamentally equal with all the other participants holding roughly the same stake, and must not make demands of them which tend to place one participant “above” another.

• Participants must accept that their influence equals their stake. Making suggestions, and giving opinions is never wrong or unethical. However, when it comes to insisting on or demanding change, or criticizing in such a way as to attempt to drive a demand for change, a participant must realistically evaluate their stake. A greater interest in the group in terms of demands must be met by a greater input in terms of Expertise, Time, Resources, or Money.

• Basic requirements for resources are generally understood to be providing resources if requested and practicable. This does not mean that a participant is obligated to loan priceless heirlooms to the Administrators if they ask.

It does mean that if you have a resource that is requested, and a participant fails to offer it without some solid reason, they are fundamentally cheating the group. "It is too difficult to transport, I believe it would be damaged, It is too personal to me, I cannot ethically use it in that way" and a thousand other things are all valid reasons for failing to offer a resource.

However, simply not caring and assuming someone else will do it is not. Because this can never be policed it must be a basic responsibility which each member of the group enforces among themselves.

• Each exercise of the right to be heard, and to request specific attention and action demands the assignment of time and resources - either from the Administrators or those of another volunteer. It is your responsibility to use your rights reasonably.

• A participant has a responsibility to use their right to be heard, or to request specific attention, however, and a responsibility not to breed quiet discontent. If a participant is unhappy or finds the group unsatisfying, they must make their best effort to articulate their feelings to the Administrators, expecting toleration, and an attempt to honestly address the problem, though realizing that complaints are seldom causes for joy. If a participant chooses not to share discontent with the Administrators, then they act unethically in sharing it with other participants - poisoning their feelings for the group, while giving no opportunity to remedy the problems. Obviously it is fine for a participant to share a problem by asking another player to approach the Administrators on their behalf.

• Ultimately if a problem cannot be remedied, and a participant cannot continue to participate without a remedy, they must make a choice. They may, if they feel strongly enough, challenge the Administrators on it, and call for a public discussion, or even a democratic vote. Or they may choose to exit the group. While this is a last step, which should not be taken without making every attempt to get some other remedy out of the Administrators, a participant who expresses irremediable discontent must be willing to take, and then abide by this step so that, one way or the other, the group can continue to move forward.

Operation of the Community Based Model

What is the Community?

When we talk about "Community" in this sense, we assume that in a given geographic region (or theoretically online), there are a group of people known to each other who are more or less interested in participating in some sort of LARP. Often they already have some social organization, maybe brought about by a previous game, or the effect of participation in an organization like LARPA, or an event like Intercon. The basic concept is that of an unorganized body of potential LARPers, who do not have any structure, social event, organization, or specific "group affliation" in common, though any subset of them may have one or all of those things in common.

Why do people participate?

LARPA defines "Live Roleplay" as "the participants acting together to create a story." At a basic level this defines participation in a LARP. People want to have a structure in which they can come together and share in creating a story.

There is something interesting about this that makes someone who is looking for a LARP very different from someone who is looking for a good movie. Someone who is looking for a good movie is seeking to "be entertained." While someone who is looking for a LARP may also be seeking entertainment, there is the basic underlying concept that they will achieve this entertainment by fulfilling two criteria

• they will be entertained by doing something - "interacting"
• as a necessity they will be doing it with other people

This may seem trivial, but it's really rather odd. At first glance we almost always tend to put LARP into the same category of entertainment as the things that LARP tends to be about - theatres, movies, reading. But of course that isn't at all the case. None of those things requires any real participation. Immediately we tend to think of gaming or crafts, which require pro-active participation. But crafts don't tend to be multi-participant. So that leaves us with gaming - and that's where LARP diverges most strongly from theatrical arts - LARP is more like football in it's most basic aspect - it requires interaction, and it requires interaction with other people. LARP (and obviously RPG) is more analogous to chess or soccer or basketball in it's fundamental dynamic than it is to most anything else.

And to a certain extent, amateur sports is pretty much the standard model for LARP organization. With the possible exception of Vampire LARP, the most popular and widespread form of LARP is Live Combat, and to a very large extent the fundamental underlying dynamics of a Live Combat LARP group aren't a lot different from the underlying dynamics of a Softball League.

Non-Profit Entities in Group Recreation

And here we hit our first real paydirt in organizational models, because when we look around we see that by a huge margin, institutions in which people come together to interact recreationally are non-profit entities.

Let's take a moment and make sure we understand what the term "non-profit" means, or more importantly what it doesn't mean. "Non-profit" means that an institution doesn't exist for the purposes of making money for investors (stockholders). It doesn't mean that the organization can't "make money." It can and should, but it spends that money to improve itself, or to save for a rainy day, it doesn't pay it out to investors. It doesn't mean that an organization can't hire help and pay salaries. Big non-profits often have a large permanent office staff, and highly paid executives. Finally, it isn't synonymous with being a Charity - many non-profit social organizations such as softball leagues are excused from paying taxes under provisions of the IRS Code. Charities have the special quality that, under article 501 (c) (3) of the IRS Code, contributions to them are tax deductable. All charities are non-profit, but not all non-profits are charities. LARP groups might be a 501 (c) (7) Social organization, or an Unincorporated Association.

So, with that understood - most groups in which adults meet to entertain themselves by interacting are non-profit. That makes basic sense. If you're meeting with your peers to entertain each other, it doesn't make much sense to be paying out of your pocket to enrich shareholders.

So our model is non-profit. We'll pick up a few other basics from the larger world of "entertainment by interaction," among which is a fairly characteristic division in groups between highly active Administrators, and fairly laissez-faire participants. The typical illustration of this in the softball league would be a noticeable division between participants who coach, organize and referee, and the folks who show up merely to "play ball."

However in LARP, particularly in LARP that is less combat-focused, especially theatre-style, we have other organizational needs that aren't met by the world of game clubs. To some folks it is very important that LARP not be an "art," but for practical purposes, it happens to walk and quack very much like a duck in that regard. Theatre-style LARP is so closely analogous to impromptu theatre as to have, in many cases, only the thinnest of distinctions.

LARP, first of all, has to be written. Whether this involves rough "plotlines," and character sketches of a few sentences, LARP is fundamentally a story. On the construction end, LARP is not a game. In field sports you can draw all the equipment for the day out of a bag, but there isn't a magic bag from with to draw plotline, story, characterization. It has to come out of someone's head, and that someone is the writer.

Fundamentally the other functions of running a LARP divide up very much along theatre lines. The basic responsibilities are securing space and advance payment for that space if necessary, writing the story, securing the properties necessary, then acting out the story. There are a lot of other elements that can be involved - special effects, continuity (between events), catering, insurance. But fundamentally all but the last of these elements has to be done ahead of time, and tends to be done by a much smaller circle of participants than actually show up at the event.

This is probably where most first edition LARP groups get confused and decide on a business model. A small group of individuals spends a lot of time and energy putting together a production which is then experienced by a lot of people. That sounds like maybe a Broadway show, and aren't those businesses?

The answer is "maybe," but except in a few special circumstances, the model is flawed and bound to result in failure. Remember that for every moneymaking theatre in the U.S. there are probably ten Non-Profit Community Players groups. Just like baseball/softball, where 98% of people who play are recreationists who will never be paid to bat a ball, most people who walk the planks are amateurs.

The Business Model

In the twenty years I've been active in organizing LARP, it has become clear to me that the "business model" of running a LARP was not a good one for many groups - in fact, that it tended to be destructive and cause problems, and not always for the obvious reasons. While a "business model" works fine in the short run (and works fine for some larger outfits in the long run - if they are sustainable as real profit-making businesses), the Community Based Model is concerned with the long run - groups that run either a chain of single events, or a campaign. It is not clear to me that more than a handful of groups in the United States have ever been profit making entities - the UK may have a slightly larger share.

The problem was that organization along business lines was often simply the only model known to event Administrators. Probably as many Administrators rejected the concept of business organization as embraced it, but what then? There was no good model for a "non business" organization. The default was to declare loudly for either democratic anarchy, or monarchy - either that "everything is just a bunch of friends doing stuff together," or "the game belongs to John because he organized it." While both of those are viable approaches in the short term, and work well for single events, they leave a lot of questions unaddressed - big questions that in the end tend to break and strain friendships and leave people wandering away unappreciated.

The special circumstance is where there is enough money to be made in presenting a LARP experience that it reasonably covers the time, frustration, and money put forward by the Administrators. Now we all know this does not tend to happen. In a few happy cases it does. Some of the bigger Live Combat groups manage along these lines and more power to them! Sometimes the amount of work isn't so considerable that it matters - for example, I've often put on small LARP events as fundraisers for LARPA. In doing this, I'm working somewhat in the same fashion as the Church Theatre Group I used to work with. I enjoy the work, and the money goes to a cause I respect.

But for recurring events - long running "campaigns" of the type that have become ubiquitous in virtually every form of LARP - this sort of setup can be disastrous.

The pressures show after just a few events. The Administrator finds that a substantial amount of time is taken up by the event, and that this is not going to change in the forseeable future. A fun project becomes an albatross around the neck. In an organized business group this can lead to a "burnout cycle" where one leader after another accepts a position, only to resign a short time later. Help may be requested, but the business finds itself in a difficult situation - why is a business which charges its customers asking for free help? An exchange is expected - a reduction in registration fees, usually, but with LARP groups usually perilously close to margin this can be unworkable. So the business is put in the situation of saying "well this isn't really a business - it isn't like Fred and I ever made any money at it, in fact we've lost a lot and if you want it to continue, we need you to help out." And so, the first step is taken into the community model, but in desparation, frequently with rancor and hostility, and often too late! How much better to have thought the equation through from the beginning.

Nor should the strident demands of our consumer culture be underrated. The average Westerner is by nature a consumer, and the average LARPer is no different. The "customer mentality" is pervasive. Faced with a situation in which someone is apparently presenting an entertainment "to" them, the customer-LARPer is at once critical and expectant of accomodation. The number of requests that a single organizing group might get for accomodation, change, or for the address of general but undirected malcontent are enormous.

And what is the result of these? Few but worthy of our respect the Administrators who bite the bullet and say "we've said these people are our customers. Since they are, we have to address their complaints and make them right, because the customer is always right." Alas, fewer still the Administrators who have been able, for all of their best intents to set everything right in all cases. The common path is an initial zealous dedication to customer service followed by a pained neglect, followed by hostility and finger pointing. Followed by progression to the standard "if you're in our group you do things our way" mentality that emanates from Saturday night D&D at Joe's house.

Moreover, the pretense of formal customer service - which usually consists of elaborate responses to a segment of specific individuals who originate most of the complaints in a give group, frequently stands in the way of actual customer service, which involves aggressively improving the event for people who like it, and trying to detect problems that players are having whether they are vocal about them or not. One group I was involved with prided itself on customer service. On numerous occasions I made private and discreet comments about certain things, which were never addressed. Not wanting to make an issue out of things, I did not become a "customer service" problem, though I had in fact complained on any number of occasions. Another group had an excellent customer service arm which responded with elaborate politeness on the rare occasion someone raised a complaint formally. However, most of the group's senior leadership made it their business to see that "complaints" were discouraged.

Meeting customer service concerns requires patience, time, attention, and usually dedicated people whose primary role is customer service. This is true even of volunteer events such as conventions. Mantaining this sort of thing is not something that can realistically be expected of a handful of LARP Administrators. They don't do it at all or don't do it well.

The bottom line - in most cases the "customer" relationship that characterizes business interactions ceases fairly quickly. But it is never acknowledged, so constructive change must come through painful negotiations of the compromised "customer service" structure.

So the question becomes - if the "customer" relationship doesn't really exist in most LARP groups, what's wrong with the only obvious response. The basic premise that "we're all just friends and it's Joe's game, so we just do what Joe says."

The “Group of Friends” Model

Again, like the business model, this has it's place, but it tends to become flawed and frayed in events that either charge a high admission, or are long-running. In either case, participants feel that a comparatively high level of recurring participation or monetary investment has enfranchised them into some level of involvement.

Manifestly this is so. LARP is participatory. However much I may want to make it so, a LARP that is running is not *my* property. Here we again see that deviation from theatre. My role as an Administrator is very much like that of a director - in fact some Theatre Style Administrators actually use the term "Director," in leiu of "GM," "Storyteller," etc. However, I cannot walk up to a player and tell them "Sorry you're not playing the part correctly, change it," or to the extent that I can it is only to the extent that a truly outstanding misinterpretation is endangering everyone else's enjoyment. I am an author, but I am also merely one participant in an art where everyone is at once an actor and director. Really, "producer" is probably a better analogy for an event Administrator, since the producer organizes, oversees the writing, and influences the direction of the piece. But the final call is made by the director and in LARP every player is his own Director.

There are two problems with personal despotism in productions. The first is the quality of the despot, and that tends to be self-correcting. Nobody feels an obligation to stay the course with a poor tyrant. On the other hand, when a junior LARP-producing Napoleon or Julius is in the picture, there may still be problems. Fundamentally there is a conflict of interest. A sole proprietor (or proprietary group) feels that the event is "theirs" and that they "allow" people to participate. Over time, the participants come to feel that they have more stake than that. Even if the producers agree, there is no roadmap to recognizing the relative stake, and making everyone feel correctly treated, not the least the despot, who must feel unappreciated for what he has done and abused for what he has not.

The "just friends" system errs in the opposite direction. Lacking a Napoleon or Julius, argument shall begin early. A move to appoint a chief to preside over the inaction usually results in the system by which the Polish Monarchy elected kings in the late middle ages - the strongest personalities saddle the most even tempered and ineffectual member of the group with the title of leader, and then are "shocked, shocked!" to find that this magical endowment does not suddenly enable this individual to break the inertia. The only thing that can keep a group of this sort together is a strict agreement to abide by the lowest common denominator of effort. I am acquainted with one group of this type and they sadly come off as, generally, a group of people that no one else would want to game with. Effectively, they tabletop while standing up, and while there is absolutely nothing wrong with their diversion, they are not likely to be anybody's poster childern for LARP in the near future.

Who is in Charge?

Okay. So how does the Community Based Model address the issue of who is in charge? Fundamentally, it recognizes reality, and adds to that some measured thought on responsibility.

Event Administrators are, on the bottom line, in charge of their events. Community Based Modeling differs from the above despotism however in much the same way the British Commonwealth differs from absolute monarchy. The appearances are the same, but the realities of authority have been explored, recognized, and are much different.

An event Administrator "offers" an event to the public, and does a great deal of work on it. To this extent the Administrator (or group) is recognized as the primary stakeholder. This is no more than realism. You can see however that it would be easy to progress from this point to an idyllic rationalization for "producer despotism" and "community service" and that isn't the intent here.

First of all, the Administrator has a set of responsibilities to the Community at large. The first is not to cause rancor or hostility or upset the efforts of others. The primary element here is fairly obvious - the Administrator is obligated to avoid conflict, or minimize conflict with other events within the community. To start a competing event in a community with the intent of dividing it is a service to nobody.

There is no hard and fast rule here. Somewhere between "Your dates are the same as the other major campaign in this region" and "you can't run on my birthday weekend" lies a median which the wise man must hew. A patient explanation that with 40 players and 52 weeks in the year the odds of any given game being somebody's birthday weekend is better than 80% may be in order. But so may some courtesy and forethought, and attempts to contact the leaders of other groups or campaigns, and get scheduling information. This is always a difficult game to play, but it's an important one. Of course the cardinal rule is not to oppose or challenge a property being run by other obvious members of the same community.

There are other responsibilities. Within reason, allowance must be made to let anyone who wants to get involved do so. If the ship is to be a community ship, her crew should be recruited in the community. Again, this is a matter for cooperation, diplomacy and tact, not absolutes. A two or three person writing partnership is not obligated to take on someone who declares that they want to join it. There are any number of good reasons not to write with someone (time, organizational issues, convenience) that fall miles short of "I hate you." On the other hand, it behooves the community group to open writing opportunities in the form of bidding individual games, or structuring "sub plot" or "module" writing. It is easy for the Administrators to open every other area to volunteer participation, but close the door on creative participation - about that we writers tend to be somewhat jealous. But creative participation is an element too.

Every group has to set its own standards about how much creative participation they'll allow while still allowing players to be involved in ongoing campaign play. My suggestion is to set the barrier no higher than necessary. In comparing groups with draconian policies (in which to write plot one must effectively agree not to be a player, but rather to play the scripted roles often referred to as "cast, npc, monster, horde, etc.) to those that allow a fairly easy transition (in which you might have to disqualify yourself or "play dumb" occasionally) I haven't seen a major difference in quality of production.

The basis for the Community Based group is the concept that everyone who is involved in the production is a participant, and that while not everyone is an equal participant, every party works to equalize the rights and responsibilities of participation as much as possible.