Jeg har fundet en omtale af et de deltagende scenarier på Fastaval, nemlig Raven: Claw and Beak, eller Det store bamsedræber-scenarie.
På bloggen One Thousand One er ejeren i gang med at gennemgå de mange bidrag til Ravne-konkurrencen (omtalte jeg her). Et af bidragene er fra Thomas HV Mørkrid, som siden har tilbudt sit bidrag til Fastaval. Her er omtalen af scenariet. Bidraget vakte en del røre i sin på Story Games for Everybody, hvor konklusionen blev at forfatter plus kritikere nok burde spilteste scenariet inden de fortsatte diskussionen. Hvorvidt det siden er blevet spillet, ved jeg ikke.
Jeg citerer in extenso
——————————————————————
12. Tomas HV Mørkrid – Raven: Claw and Beak
Premise: Players take turns describing problems that they have faced in the past while the other players play family, friends, antagonists and the like who are trying to influence the players’ actions. Players are encouraged to resolve the problems in ways that are much more destructive and violent than what they would actually do in real life and, if a player chooses violence, they stab their teddybear in one of the limbs or (eventually) torso. The narrative portion ends when all bears have been destroyed, though there is some space for closing rituals that offer some closure for the bears.
Thoughts: In my mind, this combines three different design concepts. First is an orientation towards intense emotional experiences (with or without catharsis) as a primary motivator for play, common in the Nordic larp and jeep traditions but prevalent elsewhere as well. The second is a tendency I’ve often seen in Ben Lehman’s recent design work (Bliss Stage, Land of 1000 Kings), which is to incorporate elements of players real lives into play as a way of creating instant emotional engagement. I imagine this happens in other play traditions as well. Finally, like Mist-Robed Gate, it ups the social tension (in the form of fear and anxiety) between the players by introducing a dangerous object (a knife) into the play environment. Honestly, none of these are concepts that speak to my personal play priorities, which makes it difficult for me to judge the success of the design. When I play Mist-Robed Gate, for example, I intentionally choose to use a symbolic knife rather than something that is actually dangerous. Additionally, I feel like I don’t have a lot of pent-up violent rage to direct at those who have held my life back, so the cathartic effect of destroying one of my teddybears would not be worth the loss of the sentimental object or the regret I would feel for having willingly participated in its destruction. In general, I find this game somewhat interesting as a piece of cognitive art or a Fluxus-style event score, but I can’t imagine myself actually playing / performing it. However, I don’t view it as some kind of alien artifact or “not roleplaying.” I honestly find the directness and clichéd symbology (i.e. knifing teddybears) to be a rather brutal and somewhat crude attempt at addressing issues that may be much more complicated. If there were people who wanted to deal with their pent-up rage through roleplaying, I don’t think this would be a very helpful or safe (both physically and emotionally) way to handle it. So, all in all, a worthwhile topic to explore, but there are probably much better ways to structure an experience that explores this territory, ones that focus more on creating a worthwhile experience for their participants, rather than appearing more focused on defying social norms about cherished childhood objects.
Conclusion: Warm.
——————————————————————
Jeg kan kun konstatere, at det rollespil ikke er min stil. Gad vide om Fastaval leverer de nødvendige bamser, eller om folk skal medbringe hjemmefra – det sidste vil jo være den korrekte måde at spille på.
Stemmen fra ådalen 
Skriv, skriv, skriv