This is fascinating because I think it accurately and concisely deconstructs what I do as a player and GM pretty much all the time without even realising it or thinking about it. I think I’d probably have to hold up my hands to the charge that an unexamined habit is a sloppy way of thinking and I’d certainly cough to the fact that it took me a long time to form those habits, which is vastly less efficient than thinking about them practically and systematically in the way you’ve done here. Nice work.
And, I left this out: I totally agree. One thing that's helpful here is that like, I actually have a long-term training in dramatic thinking (I attended a theater conservatory at a young age, I have directed plays, I have read screenwriting books) and so I kind of just GET a lot of this stuff? But my OWN thinking is not systematic or clear even to myself, it's just a jumble of habits and thoughts, and the problem with this is that the cognitive load is huge. Part of this is cleaning up my OWN workflow!
Heheheheheheh. My experience was perhaps kind of the reverse. As a teenager I stumbled on a group of AD&D players in the late 1980s who played very improvisationally without quite realising what we were doing and, as their usual GM, I had to figure out ad hoc tools and techniques before we had a grammar for what we were doing. Many of that old group went on to work as instructors at commedia dell’arte school, teaching theatre games, improvisational theatre and things like that (though I went down a more strictly ‘academic’ route that only featured some acting and directing as a hobby).
Thanks!! Look, the more I think about it, the more I'm like "The goal here is to make training wheels." After doing the entire process only twice, you'd probably have certain chunks of it memorized. That entire flowchart chunk I put in there can be summarized with the sentence "Ok, I need to set the scene, so I gotta pick a quest-related action relevant to my character, and then think of an environment and describe what it's like here."
My DREAM use of this is is that a play group goes "We want more drama in the game. Let's use this flowchart..." and then "Wow, that was fun! Let's break that out next time..." and then "Wow, this thing is flexible, I'm starting to see how it can result in all sorts of evocative outcomes. This is really good for our games!" and then finally "Let's do a scene! No, we don't need the kit anymore, we pretty much get how to do this now."
I think this is great. I'm saving these articles and ideas because I plan to use them in some future games. I like what was said in another comment - this is deconstructing something that I do with some players instinctively and after practice, but I think I can do better at it, too. And I liked the way you talked about training wheels that aren't needed forever, but provide a great way to get started.
I'm reminded of MCDM's upcoming TTRPG Draw Steel, where they want to make a tactical, cinematic, heroic fantasy game. This scene advice really fits into the 'cinematic' part. It makes me hope they have advice like this in the book!
"Cinematic" is so important here as a word, because like... I basically think that many incoming gamers really really WANT this, and they watch actual plays that are like this, but there is often... I'm beating a dead horse here... NO GUIDANCE for really how to do this other than offering lists of connected tips. And so we've all kinda just... learned? Watched videos, watched GMs we like, tried to imagine "Ok, how can we make this like a movie scene" and just improvised?
I think the next step in this process is where you'll really see this come to life, which is the introduction of the Sccene Partner, whose first job is to choose one of the following motives:
to ASSIST in the task
to ADVOCATE your cause
to CONFRONT for change
to offer COMFORT
to PROVE your value
to LEARN something vital
And then we turn back to the FOCUS and use some prompts to be like "Great, now let's make their motive not-very-easy-to-just-get..." Coming soon!
To the extent that I care (I’ve watched perhaps 45 minutes of it) I do think some critics have a point when they say that ‘Critical Role’ (other over-produced and quasi-rehearsed ‘actual plays’ (sic) are available) misleads people new to the hobby or, at least, gives a wildly skewed sense of what an RPG session is like if one assumes one can recreate that feel by ‘just making stuff up’. Is it any wonder that the churn in the hobby is so high - average campaign length is, what? six sessions? - when people are oppressed by such unrealistic expectations? In my more cynical mood I’m tempted to say ‘So what? I’ve found my little tribe and I can get a great game together most days of the week if I chose to.’ But, in my more considered moments, I hope I care enough about the hobby not to let it atrophy, and that needs people who can teach what they have learned. That’s probably not me. I’m too curmudgeonly and impatient and - if I’m brutally honest - have a lot invested in what may well be the sunk cost fallacy that only time and experience can teach these things.
I’m so glad to hear this. I appreciate what the big Actual Plays have done with the hobby, but when I was 5e-only, I dealt with a lot of people being like “Oh man…. I…. thought this would be like what I saw but… it’s kinda not.” I bring a lot of new people in with that dramatic and cinematic promise, but yes, people without certain “2nd order skills” often feel left behind, and there’s gotta be a better way!!
This series of posts is interesting and well-written. The proposed procedure is really clever, and I’m sure it would be useful as the core of a very specific game or as a tool for a very specific set of games.
In fact! I think it could totally save many sessions of Fiasco, Pasion de las Pasiones, or Cartel.
However, one sentence I unfortunately strongly disagree with at this moment is: "process for adding great scenes of ANY KIND to ANY TABLETOP ROLEPLAYING GAMES.” I think the presented procedure has too many strong assumptions to be considered a universal tool.
My first counterexample was light scenes in the style of slice of life, where we explore experiences of sadness, a moment of awe at the beauty of nature, or a warm scene about nurturing close relationships.
I understand, however, that such scenes are to be addressed by an additional procedure “Minor Scene”?
(By the way, I don’t know if that was the intention, but for me, “Minor Scene” sounds evaluative, as if slice of life moments were somehow worse or less significant than dramatic scenes. I really really recommend Ursula K. Le Guin’s essay “Carrying Bag Theory of Fiction” and the jeepform game “Lady & Otto” <3).
Above all, however, the proposed procedure may strongly deviate from and conflict with the explicitly written rules of many games concerning a) specific techniques for setting scenes for a given game, b) clearly defined division of narrative control, c) rules for generating information in a given game.
For example:
1. Asking about RICH / HOSTILE may be felt as TOO MUCH if you are previously doing PAINT THE SCENE while running The Between.
3. Some games describe very specifically what each person at the table brings to the scene and on what terms; often the entire design of the game is based on this (if I remember correctly, it might be difficult to apply your procedure in Imp of the Perverse for example - but also, I read that a long time ago!).
4. If you play according to the assumptions of BLORB for yet another example, you can't really set the scene in a yeti lair like that, because the yeti lair is preestablished by the canonical prep, and that’s that.
What do you think? Did I miss something, and is this just meant to be an additional procedure for empty spots in a given game, where we could set a scene but don’t know how?
If so, then most of my arguments would not hold because we would be talking about scenes occurring in space outside the tight design of a given game?
I’m really curious about your response!
What might I have overlooked? Is it possible that this is simply intended to be an additional procedure for empty spots in various games, places where we would like to introduce cool dramatic scenes but don’t know how? And then this procedure doesn’t conflict with the techniques, narrative control, and procedures of the given game because it modularly complements unoccupied space, something like Mosaic STRICT?
Ah, this is an excellent comment, I really feel like you fully understand what I am aiming to accomplish!! First off, thanks for the Le Guin essay, I'll read it today! I'm actually reading 'The Word for World is Forest' right now! And Lady & Otto is on my iPad to review later!
>>>> My first counterexample was light scenes in the style of slice of life, where we explore experiences of sadness, a moment of awe at the beauty of nature, or a warm scene about nurturing close relationships.
You are correct! I think it's important to recognize that these scenes are really vital and beautiful and essential to good storytelling and roleplaying. You're also absolutely correct that calling them "minor" scenes is trivializing, and I intend to use language more like "Vignettes" or something. Another thing I'm trying to do is, as I've alluded briefly, is think of little procedures for scenes that don't quite fit the Dramatic Scenes model (like a classic Attempt to Reject the Quest scene).
But two points of pushback, very LIGHT pushback, would be
1) I do believe that using this scene process, you could have a "nurturing" scene using the COMFORT motivation I've provided. You end up not with a scene with a lot of "conflict" but still with expression, discourse and, eventually, reconcilitation.
2) Ultimately, the scenes you're talking about fall outside the scope of "Dramatic" scenes, which I've defined a little narrowly. They're ultimately scenes of a different kind. I don't consider them less important, but I wonder if they require entirely different processes, incentives, or provocations to produce within a broader TTRPG setting (like the Cozy Move from Brindlewood Bay).
>>>> Above all, however, the proposed procedure may strongly deviate from and conflict with the explicitly written rules of many games concerning a) specific techniques for setting scenes for a given game, b) clearly defined division of narrative control, c) rules for generating information in a given game.
Ah, yes! So this is something I'm working into the "final text" -- the ways in which this process can interact with the rules of your given game. You're absolutely right, the RICH/HOSTILE thing is actually meant to emulate those Paint the Scene mechanics -- direct inspiration there. And I'd simply say: Where the two processes overlap, use game's mechanics! Another example of this might be that if your game doesn't have combat, you can use a Minor Scene or Vignette in order to decide how it resolves. But if your game DOES have combat... resolve that scene using your game's combat mechanics!
My thinking is still advancing while I develop a final product version of these blog posts. Maybe it would clarify if I gave you a preview of the current draft of the introduction. Here it is....
-------------------------
How can we be great role-players? Making voices? Reading deeply on lore and backstory? Staying “in character?”
No. Great role playing is about starting with a sketch of a character, and then making interesting choices that reveal to you who that character is, like coloring in an outline. Great role playing is about drama.
Your favorite role-playing game is already good at developing plots, layout out challenges, building some characters, throwing them into trouble, and giving you ways to resolve successes and failures. But what most games don’t offer is a guided procedure for Dramatic Scenes, scenes where characters have big emotional moments, struggle with one another, make bold choices, and reveal new aspects of their personality or ambitions.
Many folks will tell you that this kind of roleplaying is a mysterious skill you must develop through time, instinct, and maybe some research into screenwriting books. Nonsense. A good scene is a collage of elements, images, and choices. Anyone can make a collage with the right tools and ingredients.
This kit is designed to be totally agnostic to any type of roleplaying game, whether it’s Dungeons & Dragons, a collaborative storytelling game, Old School adventure games, free-form roleplay, or in any setting where you could use more cinematic drama. You can always pick it up, say “I’d like to have a scene,” and then run through the process.
Over time, you’ll internalize its structure and, like training wheels, the kit itself will fall away, and you’ll be a stronger role-player.
Thanks for the quick, kind, and detailed response!
It's super synchro that you're reading Ursula's book right now! :) The essay is very short; you can easily read it in one sitting. Lady & Otto is also a very short jeep, although here the real revelation comes from actually playing through a cycle of scenes without conflict.
Hmm, if you're thinking about procedures for different types of scenes, it could potentially be a toolbox that the community can keep adding new archetypes of scenes to?
Regarding the pushback:
1. I admit I thought about that too - that questions about elements of COMFORT could potentially be asked for “nurturing” scenes. But it could also be a scene of resignation or quiet sadness, and then neither COMFORT nor CHALLENGE fits quite right... Again, maybe a toolbox approach would be appropriate? That there are a ton of categories like COMFORT or CHALLENGE, and you use them to paint the scene depending on the type of scene?
2. Interesting perspective! The question is whether they need a completely different process, or if you could have a more universal but modular process where in the first step you establish “choose an opener for a dramatic/intimate/slice of life scene,” then “choose paint the scene for X/Y/Z,” and you assemble it based on the type of scene. But that's a significant additional cognitive load during play...
Okay, now I understand. If this is generally meant to be a modular tool that fills the gaps of a given game, helping the group create good scenes in places where the game doesn’t provide them with the tools, then that 100% makes sense.
The intro is great! I think it could be incredibly helpful in PbtA games, which are totally based on scenes but don’t provide much support in that regard: Pasión de las Pasiones, Cartel, Hearts of Wulin, Urban Shadows - lots of cuts, lots of jumps between characters.
By the way, I have a draft of a freeform larp in mind, focused on dramatic, human scenes between treasure hunters, played between dungeon exploration scenes - the dungeon exploration is abstracted, and we focus on the thief's accusations of incompetence, the fact that someone has fallen in love with the healer again after a healing spell, etc. A solid procedure for good scene - setting would totally work in freeform larps.
On another note, when you say “freeform roleplaying,” do you mean a) playing without resolution mechanics, b) more flexible dramatic play in the style of improv, or c) embodied roleplaying, like Jeepform, American Freeform, Nordic Freeform, freeform larp? So a format on the border between improv, tabletop, and larp?
I'm asking out of curiosity because it's a super confusing term, and I myself use it in all three meanings depending on the context... I'm wondering how to sensibly differentiate it without artificially generating new terms... Embodied freeform is not technically a larp, but I think calling it a freeform larp is the easiest way out... (Funny how a lot of people say that "freeform is technically a tabletop, but for clarity let's call it a larp"). SORRY FOR THE OFFTOP :)
This is fascinating because I think it accurately and concisely deconstructs what I do as a player and GM pretty much all the time without even realising it or thinking about it. I think I’d probably have to hold up my hands to the charge that an unexamined habit is a sloppy way of thinking and I’d certainly cough to the fact that it took me a long time to form those habits, which is vastly less efficient than thinking about them practically and systematically in the way you’ve done here. Nice work.
And, I left this out: I totally agree. One thing that's helpful here is that like, I actually have a long-term training in dramatic thinking (I attended a theater conservatory at a young age, I have directed plays, I have read screenwriting books) and so I kind of just GET a lot of this stuff? But my OWN thinking is not systematic or clear even to myself, it's just a jumble of habits and thoughts, and the problem with this is that the cognitive load is huge. Part of this is cleaning up my OWN workflow!
Heheheheheheh. My experience was perhaps kind of the reverse. As a teenager I stumbled on a group of AD&D players in the late 1980s who played very improvisationally without quite realising what we were doing and, as their usual GM, I had to figure out ad hoc tools and techniques before we had a grammar for what we were doing. Many of that old group went on to work as instructors at commedia dell’arte school, teaching theatre games, improvisational theatre and things like that (though I went down a more strictly ‘academic’ route that only featured some acting and directing as a hobby).
Thanks!! Look, the more I think about it, the more I'm like "The goal here is to make training wheels." After doing the entire process only twice, you'd probably have certain chunks of it memorized. That entire flowchart chunk I put in there can be summarized with the sentence "Ok, I need to set the scene, so I gotta pick a quest-related action relevant to my character, and then think of an environment and describe what it's like here."
My DREAM use of this is is that a play group goes "We want more drama in the game. Let's use this flowchart..." and then "Wow, that was fun! Let's break that out next time..." and then "Wow, this thing is flexible, I'm starting to see how it can result in all sorts of evocative outcomes. This is really good for our games!" and then finally "Let's do a scene! No, we don't need the kit anymore, we pretty much get how to do this now."
Very cool diagram and thoughts!
I think this is great. I'm saving these articles and ideas because I plan to use them in some future games. I like what was said in another comment - this is deconstructing something that I do with some players instinctively and after practice, but I think I can do better at it, too. And I liked the way you talked about training wheels that aren't needed forever, but provide a great way to get started.
I'm reminded of MCDM's upcoming TTRPG Draw Steel, where they want to make a tactical, cinematic, heroic fantasy game. This scene advice really fits into the 'cinematic' part. It makes me hope they have advice like this in the book!
"Cinematic" is so important here as a word, because like... I basically think that many incoming gamers really really WANT this, and they watch actual plays that are like this, but there is often... I'm beating a dead horse here... NO GUIDANCE for really how to do this other than offering lists of connected tips. And so we've all kinda just... learned? Watched videos, watched GMs we like, tried to imagine "Ok, how can we make this like a movie scene" and just improvised?
I think the next step in this process is where you'll really see this come to life, which is the introduction of the Sccene Partner, whose first job is to choose one of the following motives:
to ASSIST in the task
to ADVOCATE your cause
to CONFRONT for change
to offer COMFORT
to PROVE your value
to LEARN something vital
And then we turn back to the FOCUS and use some prompts to be like "Great, now let's make their motive not-very-easy-to-just-get..." Coming soon!
To the extent that I care (I’ve watched perhaps 45 minutes of it) I do think some critics have a point when they say that ‘Critical Role’ (other over-produced and quasi-rehearsed ‘actual plays’ (sic) are available) misleads people new to the hobby or, at least, gives a wildly skewed sense of what an RPG session is like if one assumes one can recreate that feel by ‘just making stuff up’. Is it any wonder that the churn in the hobby is so high - average campaign length is, what? six sessions? - when people are oppressed by such unrealistic expectations? In my more cynical mood I’m tempted to say ‘So what? I’ve found my little tribe and I can get a great game together most days of the week if I chose to.’ But, in my more considered moments, I hope I care enough about the hobby not to let it atrophy, and that needs people who can teach what they have learned. That’s probably not me. I’m too curmudgeonly and impatient and - if I’m brutally honest - have a lot invested in what may well be the sunk cost fallacy that only time and experience can teach these things.
I’m so glad to hear this. I appreciate what the big Actual Plays have done with the hobby, but when I was 5e-only, I dealt with a lot of people being like “Oh man…. I…. thought this would be like what I saw but… it’s kinda not.” I bring a lot of new people in with that dramatic and cinematic promise, but yes, people without certain “2nd order skills” often feel left behind, and there’s gotta be a better way!!
This series of posts is interesting and well-written. The proposed procedure is really clever, and I’m sure it would be useful as the core of a very specific game or as a tool for a very specific set of games.
In fact! I think it could totally save many sessions of Fiasco, Pasion de las Pasiones, or Cartel.
However, one sentence I unfortunately strongly disagree with at this moment is: "process for adding great scenes of ANY KIND to ANY TABLETOP ROLEPLAYING GAMES.” I think the presented procedure has too many strong assumptions to be considered a universal tool.
My first counterexample was light scenes in the style of slice of life, where we explore experiences of sadness, a moment of awe at the beauty of nature, or a warm scene about nurturing close relationships.
I understand, however, that such scenes are to be addressed by an additional procedure “Minor Scene”?
(By the way, I don’t know if that was the intention, but for me, “Minor Scene” sounds evaluative, as if slice of life moments were somehow worse or less significant than dramatic scenes. I really really recommend Ursula K. Le Guin’s essay “Carrying Bag Theory of Fiction” and the jeepform game “Lady & Otto” <3).
Above all, however, the proposed procedure may strongly deviate from and conflict with the explicitly written rules of many games concerning a) specific techniques for setting scenes for a given game, b) clearly defined division of narrative control, c) rules for generating information in a given game.
For example:
1. Asking about RICH / HOSTILE may be felt as TOO MUCH if you are previously doing PAINT THE SCENE while running The Between.
3. Some games describe very specifically what each person at the table brings to the scene and on what terms; often the entire design of the game is based on this (if I remember correctly, it might be difficult to apply your procedure in Imp of the Perverse for example - but also, I read that a long time ago!).
4. If you play according to the assumptions of BLORB for yet another example, you can't really set the scene in a yeti lair like that, because the yeti lair is preestablished by the canonical prep, and that’s that.
What do you think? Did I miss something, and is this just meant to be an additional procedure for empty spots in a given game, where we could set a scene but don’t know how?
If so, then most of my arguments would not hold because we would be talking about scenes occurring in space outside the tight design of a given game?
I’m really curious about your response!
What might I have overlooked? Is it possible that this is simply intended to be an additional procedure for empty spots in various games, places where we would like to introduce cool dramatic scenes but don’t know how? And then this procedure doesn’t conflict with the techniques, narrative control, and procedures of the given game because it modularly complements unoccupied space, something like Mosaic STRICT?
What do you think?
Ah, this is an excellent comment, I really feel like you fully understand what I am aiming to accomplish!! First off, thanks for the Le Guin essay, I'll read it today! I'm actually reading 'The Word for World is Forest' right now! And Lady & Otto is on my iPad to review later!
>>>> My first counterexample was light scenes in the style of slice of life, where we explore experiences of sadness, a moment of awe at the beauty of nature, or a warm scene about nurturing close relationships.
You are correct! I think it's important to recognize that these scenes are really vital and beautiful and essential to good storytelling and roleplaying. You're also absolutely correct that calling them "minor" scenes is trivializing, and I intend to use language more like "Vignettes" or something. Another thing I'm trying to do is, as I've alluded briefly, is think of little procedures for scenes that don't quite fit the Dramatic Scenes model (like a classic Attempt to Reject the Quest scene).
But two points of pushback, very LIGHT pushback, would be
1) I do believe that using this scene process, you could have a "nurturing" scene using the COMFORT motivation I've provided. You end up not with a scene with a lot of "conflict" but still with expression, discourse and, eventually, reconcilitation.
2) Ultimately, the scenes you're talking about fall outside the scope of "Dramatic" scenes, which I've defined a little narrowly. They're ultimately scenes of a different kind. I don't consider them less important, but I wonder if they require entirely different processes, incentives, or provocations to produce within a broader TTRPG setting (like the Cozy Move from Brindlewood Bay).
>>>> Above all, however, the proposed procedure may strongly deviate from and conflict with the explicitly written rules of many games concerning a) specific techniques for setting scenes for a given game, b) clearly defined division of narrative control, c) rules for generating information in a given game.
Ah, yes! So this is something I'm working into the "final text" -- the ways in which this process can interact with the rules of your given game. You're absolutely right, the RICH/HOSTILE thing is actually meant to emulate those Paint the Scene mechanics -- direct inspiration there. And I'd simply say: Where the two processes overlap, use game's mechanics! Another example of this might be that if your game doesn't have combat, you can use a Minor Scene or Vignette in order to decide how it resolves. But if your game DOES have combat... resolve that scene using your game's combat mechanics!
My thinking is still advancing while I develop a final product version of these blog posts. Maybe it would clarify if I gave you a preview of the current draft of the introduction. Here it is....
-------------------------
How can we be great role-players? Making voices? Reading deeply on lore and backstory? Staying “in character?”
No. Great role playing is about starting with a sketch of a character, and then making interesting choices that reveal to you who that character is, like coloring in an outline. Great role playing is about drama.
Your favorite role-playing game is already good at developing plots, layout out challenges, building some characters, throwing them into trouble, and giving you ways to resolve successes and failures. But what most games don’t offer is a guided procedure for Dramatic Scenes, scenes where characters have big emotional moments, struggle with one another, make bold choices, and reveal new aspects of their personality or ambitions.
Many folks will tell you that this kind of roleplaying is a mysterious skill you must develop through time, instinct, and maybe some research into screenwriting books. Nonsense. A good scene is a collage of elements, images, and choices. Anyone can make a collage with the right tools and ingredients.
This kit is designed to be totally agnostic to any type of roleplaying game, whether it’s Dungeons & Dragons, a collaborative storytelling game, Old School adventure games, free-form roleplay, or in any setting where you could use more cinematic drama. You can always pick it up, say “I’d like to have a scene,” and then run through the process.
Over time, you’ll internalize its structure and, like training wheels, the kit itself will fall away, and you’ll be a stronger role-player.
Thanks for the quick, kind, and detailed response!
It's super synchro that you're reading Ursula's book right now! :) The essay is very short; you can easily read it in one sitting. Lady & Otto is also a very short jeep, although here the real revelation comes from actually playing through a cycle of scenes without conflict.
Hmm, if you're thinking about procedures for different types of scenes, it could potentially be a toolbox that the community can keep adding new archetypes of scenes to?
Regarding the pushback:
1. I admit I thought about that too - that questions about elements of COMFORT could potentially be asked for “nurturing” scenes. But it could also be a scene of resignation or quiet sadness, and then neither COMFORT nor CHALLENGE fits quite right... Again, maybe a toolbox approach would be appropriate? That there are a ton of categories like COMFORT or CHALLENGE, and you use them to paint the scene depending on the type of scene?
2. Interesting perspective! The question is whether they need a completely different process, or if you could have a more universal but modular process where in the first step you establish “choose an opener for a dramatic/intimate/slice of life scene,” then “choose paint the scene for X/Y/Z,” and you assemble it based on the type of scene. But that's a significant additional cognitive load during play...
Okay, now I understand. If this is generally meant to be a modular tool that fills the gaps of a given game, helping the group create good scenes in places where the game doesn’t provide them with the tools, then that 100% makes sense.
The intro is great! I think it could be incredibly helpful in PbtA games, which are totally based on scenes but don’t provide much support in that regard: Pasión de las Pasiones, Cartel, Hearts of Wulin, Urban Shadows - lots of cuts, lots of jumps between characters.
By the way, I have a draft of a freeform larp in mind, focused on dramatic, human scenes between treasure hunters, played between dungeon exploration scenes - the dungeon exploration is abstracted, and we focus on the thief's accusations of incompetence, the fact that someone has fallen in love with the healer again after a healing spell, etc. A solid procedure for good scene - setting would totally work in freeform larps.
On another note, when you say “freeform roleplaying,” do you mean a) playing without resolution mechanics, b) more flexible dramatic play in the style of improv, or c) embodied roleplaying, like Jeepform, American Freeform, Nordic Freeform, freeform larp? So a format on the border between improv, tabletop, and larp?
I'm asking out of curiosity because it's a super confusing term, and I myself use it in all three meanings depending on the context... I'm wondering how to sensibly differentiate it without artificially generating new terms... Embodied freeform is not technically a larp, but I think calling it a freeform larp is the easiest way out... (Funny how a lot of people say that "freeform is technically a tabletop, but for clarity let's call it a larp"). SORRY FOR THE OFFTOP :)