Mad About the Boy

edited October 2012 in Actual Play
I wasn't the Last Man on Earth, so I felt like I should start a new thread to talk about this game.

It was the first Nordic larp to be held in the US. It was played by women. I have about a million things to say about how interesting this larp was. I will probably post about a million things about it this week. I'll try to organize them all on this thread, and on Gaming as Women. Because fuck. People need to know about this. It was crazy mad fun and life changing. I'm not exaggerating. I think that this will change the way I game from here on out.

If you want some basic info about the game check out the official game page, the libretto, and my posts on Gaming as Women last week.

Here's the summary of first thoughts I posted on G+

- The freezing nights in the cabin and the cold water in the shower really helped me immerse into that post-apocalyptic feel. It was awful, but perfect at the same time.

- The pre-game workshops were AMAZING. Everyone agreed this was a highlight for them. For me, the most intense things were the Guided Meditation, the Ars Amundi, and the first scenes we did in character with small groups of other characters before the game. In the Guided Meditation we were asked to lie on the floor in the dark. Then imagine a Wednesday afternoon in Real Life. Where were you? Who were you with? Then imagine all the men dying horribly around you, in the space of five minutes. What did you do? How did you feel? Now imagine one year later. Now three. Who are you, who are you with, what are you doing? Fucking insane how intense that was to imagine, how horrible, and how that put us right in our setting. The Ars Amundi was much more intimate and fun than I imagined. Ars Amundi is simulated sex and intimacy in a larp by touching only hands, arms, and the area between your shoulder blades. I thought going in that this would be silly. After doing it in with about 20 or so people, imagining how my character would do it, touching peoples finger bones, wrists, delicately pushing up sleeves... this really did feel fun, intimate, and safe. And then our first roleplaying scenes were short 5 min scenes we did in groups of about 10 to work out who our characters were. Those whose characters weren't in the scene jumped in to play NPC's, people's daughters, mothers, boyfriends, husbands, patients, colleagues, reporters. These were SO EFFECTIVE I want to use them in every game I play ever. We immediately felt connected to our characters, to who they were, to who they are, and what inner conflicts they had. Awesome awesome awesome.

- My character Linn was an ex-playboy model turned body collector. She was a bit of a leader, and a bit of a loner (she was the only character on her own, and there was also a pair of characters in the game, but everyone else had the "ideal" triad), and she had a gun. She was very human, very sociable, very fair minded and very strong. She was really complex. It was really interesting to hear after the larp what people's characters had thought of her. So many of her issues were so many of my issues. It was weird. Some of the most interesting things that came out of playing her were things that I didn't even think of before the larp. As I was playing that first day, everyone kept saying "so you're here alone, you're single, you don't have a family what are you going to do about that." After I heard it enough times it actually started to infuriate Linn/me. What's so wrong with being single? Aren't I strong enough to raise a child on my own? It made me nervous and anxious about trying to find a family to support Linn, and she became progressively vulnerable about it. It was sooooooooo much about being a single mother today, and that was intense. I also realized, even though Linn wanted to give birth, she was really career oriented, and so the more she talked to other women there the more she realized she would rather be a provider for the child after giving birth to it. This was extremely personal for me, because I've been struggling with that myself, and I learned from Linn that in real life that's something I'd be ok with doing.

- I loved the complexity of all of the characters and how everyone played them. These were difficult characters, with difficult and complex relationships, and the network that's baked in to the game I think was the strongest part mechanically of it. It worked on levels: our relationship to our character - our character's relationship with self - our character's relationship to their triad - our character's relationship to characters outside our triad - our character's relationships to other characters based on occupation, interests, demeanor, beliefs - our character's triad's relationships to other triads - our character's relationship to men - our character's relationship to the world - our character's relationship to motherhood... it just kept growing the longer you played.

- I was so impressed and interested by the people who had never larped or gamed before. The brought some really interesting mechanical issues up (I think there was a lot of confusing about how scenes worked, and the scope of the character sometimes) and also brought some hardcore intense and surprising roleplay. Very cool.

- I was also very surprised by how much the narrative was about women's relationships with men. Before the game we meditated on the loss of men, our first scene was describing the event and where we were and who was missing, men followed us in our scenes like ghosts always in the background, we were there to give birth an act one typically does with men, we had a scene where we told fond memories of the men in our lives, and finally a man returned in the last act to mess with our community. I kind of thought going in that there would be more of a focus on women, as compared to a focus on the absence of men, a small but important difference. Thinking more about this.

- I was also sad it ended early. I felt like there was a lot of interesting conflict we were about to work out. I was amongst the women who helped the last man escape, and we had literally just stopped him from trying to kill himself when the game ended. Boo. I wanted to wrap up my character arc, and allow other players to respond to the swift action we took.


  • - What mind fucked me the most was Linn had spent all weekend being worried about having a baby. If she could, if she could take care of it and provide for it, if she would be accepted into a community despite the discrimination against her occupations. She finally settled in with two women who loved each other very much who she knew would be great moms for our child. Linn could provide for them with her business, and protect them with her gun and world savvy. She was even starting to like them a lot and admire the intimacy they had with one another. And when the committee decided to give us two babies, and we gained a fourth member of our family in Lt Sharon, I was elated, actually elated in and out of character. Five minutes later the last man came in and all our worlds came crashing down. Linn was devastated by the way the women started behaving. She wanted him alive, treated as a human, protected, and getting him out of there made the most sense. They were splintering, factionalizing, making stupid decisions, catering to his every whim instead of taking control. As she was carrying him bodily out of the mess our community had fallen into, Linn had this moment where she fell into comforting him and flirting with him like she always had with men. WHAT. Why was she doing that? Did she really need men? Would she fall right back into old patterns? Did what she was doing with her new family not mean anything because a man was suddenly here? Was she being the perfectly rational humanist I had been playing her as all weekend because she wanted nothing bad to happen to this human being? Was she saving the world by getting him away from the very obviously turbulent and dangerous situation the community was spiraling toward? The crux of her conflict had been pregnancy and family, and suddenly it had become about caretaking a man which was taking her away from the family and the babymaking. It was a CRAZY overwhelming wave of very conflicting and disturbing emotions. I think that was my favorite part, that confusing mass of emotion. I was stunned for hours. It completely confused me and my feminist humanist self. Still recovering.

    - I got to use the Ars Amundi technique in game! Linn ended up being in a family triad with two best friends, Gina and Rachel. They were both co-dependant, but Rachel was the worst of the two. Rachel had completely cut Gina out of her life when Frank came into the picture, and when Frank died she came crawling back to Gina. The one time I used the Ars Amandi technique was in a scene with Gina. We were worried about the clear sexual tension Rachel had building, and Linn was trying to encourage Gina to just... love her that way too. Gina was clearly uncomfortable with it, and in conversation learned Gina was a virgin. Linn asked, well, do you want me to show you the ropes? It was the best psuedo high school sex scene ever (except usually it's two girls practicing for a guy, right?), very tender and loving and silly. And the Ars Amundi technique was easy and appropriate to use. The funniest part of the scene was when Gina's Aunt walked by and we both jumped pretending not to do anything. Awesome.

    - I loved playing an all women game! I was really hesitant going into it. It wasn't that women play differently or anything... all the politics, violence, excellent roleplay, intelligence, strength of character, ability to game, expertise, emotion, drama, manipulation, back stabbing, talking over, awkwardness, objectification, discrimination... all the stuff you see in any great game with both genders was present. I say that to point out that I really don't think women play differently from men, with or without them. The best part, though, was being in a game with incredibly talented, interesting, super smart women who were fabulous roleplayers and have really cool stories to tell. There were game designers, PHD students, social workers, medical professionals, artists, writers, researchers, very cool women doing very cool things. I felt in very good company. I just made forty friends. I think the real life community that this game fosters amongst women gamers is invaluable. It makes me want to run more large games just for women. I haven't found anything like that anywhere else.
  • John's sorta companion thread.

    This sounds so very good, so worthwhile, so exciting.
  • It was an amazing time. It seems to have made a huge impact on everyone who took part. Kira, thank you for documenting and presenting it! There is a parallel effort to compile pictures, interviews, pre- and post-accounts from organizers and participants.

    I was an organizer, and also played a character. I'm extremely grateful that that was how it transpired. Just quickly, the game was amazing in the space it created for us as women to create community, including transgendered women who were welcomed and thrived. And, for it as a space for us to explore myriad issues about our lives and society: gender, family, childbearing and rearing, oppression of women, ethnic and class oppression and tension, the structure of society, hierarchies, utopian visions and personal loss. It is moving that it took a thought experiment where we fictionally killed off 1/2 the human race to be able to look at all of these issues. Many of us walked away wanting to pay more attention to, and work to change things--without such a tragedy happening.
  • Can I ask for clarification on "first Nordic larp to be held in the U.S."? Several people have mentioned this, but haven't Nordic larp events been held stateside before? Or has that all been Jeepform a.k.a. something totally different (while still being larp-ish and Nordic)? It totally seems like a landmark event, either way. Just curious for intellectual history reasons.
  • Jeepform is in the Nordic countries still considered a form of tabletop. Even if it in grey area between LARP and traditional tabletop, it still considered to be on the tabletop side of things.
  • Thank you for posting this!

    As someone who had nothing whatsoever to do with this game, and didn't even know about it until after the fact, I'm amazed at how much of an impact just reading about it has had on me.
  • Yes, this was an actual, factual Nordic Larp. It was a real treat to get to see one in action. This particular one included a lot of meta-techniques, similar to those used in Jeepform. But the main action of the game was live, synchronous, immersive play.
  • Thanks Paul! These are not even like, coherent thoughts. I typed these out quickly on little sleep. As my brain is recovering, I'm having more and more things pop up that I didn't think of before. Nordic larp encourages me to record these things because they're super valuable. So I'm doing that! More to come.
  • Kira was amazing in this game. Not surprising but still!
  • Fantastic! Please do post more, as much as you're willing to share. It's fascinating stuff, even second-hand. :)
  • This really is great stuff. After I read this I found jenskot's post and followed the link there. I really am enjoying your description of bleed and how it felt to play.
  • edited October 2012
    The bleed was really cool. I don't usually get that much, personally, out of my characters. I learned a lot from this game, my fellow players, and from Linn. This was more of like, a social experiment than a larp to me.

    I've had some more musings about the themes and metaphors present in the game:

    Ok I have a lot of thoughts about the inclusion of The Last Man. My biggest thoughts are these.

    This game is a metaphor for the current state of Feminism. It’s fractured, factionalized, far more subtle a fight than it’s ever been, and of course a struggle for both men and women. So you have this space that’s exclusively for women. What happens in that space? Women become more human and less gendered, we can take on roles traditionally thought of as male, in the absence of male oppression we oppress each other, in the absence of male love we love each other. Ok, this is complex. How do women relate in the absence of men? This game is talking about that space in Act 1. Can you have a space about women without talking about men, or a space about men without talking about women? In Act 2, a man returns, disrupting our women’s space. What happens when men disrupt a safe space? It points out that the space was never in fact safe. There can be no homogenous gendered spaces, pure spaces that contain only one gender. In fact, I think that part of the game was pointing out the fallacy of these spaces, and how dangerous it can be to separate yourself too much from other genders. Women's spaces are still like, this new thing to me (I've only been in a few in my life), I've never had as many of them as I do right now. I want to talk about why they're important, what their flaws are, and what that means in feminism right now.

    This is about the current state of feminism because I can see everything that happened in our game happening in feminism (as it’s been written about in the past 10-15 years) how women are in this difficult spot between trying to define who they are in relation to women, but also needing to define who they are in relation to men, culture, and the world. Are we mothers, wives, baby makers, lovers? Are we truckers, garbage collectors, politicians, gun owners, small businesswomen, performers? Can we be all of those things and be women? Well, the answer is yes of course! But culture still isn’t there. We’re struggling still with culture to accept us in traditionally male roles. This game was very much about that struggle (and other things too, but I think this was a big thrust of the story), and so the presence of men, the ghost of these figures in our lives that mean so much to us, the reminder of what men are in relation to what we are, that was integral, because it’s integral in life. It was like the man was the outside force, coming to challenge our beliefs, but an internal force as well, because of all these conflicting and scary emotions we all had once he appeared. It was a very real look at how women relate to the men in their lives, and how it can shake our resolve, our ideals, and our visions of ourselves.
  • Wow Kira! (blown away)
  • Look what you/your character did to us/me John!

    I want to do another post on the mechanics and why I think they're so valuable. Still unpacking. I think I've mostly gone through the Big Emotional Impact stuff. I feel totally sappy talking about all the emotional effects this game had on me, and there's like, all this expectation that this style of larp will do that. But, the expectation is there because it completely delivers on this experience. I think that the immersion and the safety that the larp includes in it's rules are part of what allow this to happen, and if this framework can be duplicated, I think this opens up wild possibilities for inclusion and vulnerability in table top roleplaying.

    I feel like I'm the last one on the Nordic larp train. I like it here!
  • edited October 2012
    I fluctuate between feeling guilty and amazed by my small contributions (out of 3 days, I got to play less than 2 hours).

    I think a lot of what we are seeing was emergent properties that really surprised the organizers. The end of the game seemed to floor most of them.

    I think a lot of that had to do with the incredibly strong players. Like many of you (especially including Kira) are some of the best players period in the world (from what I've seen and by no means have I played with the world but I've played with 1,000s of people). Strong is an understatement.

    But I also think some of this happened because of US vs. Nordic culture clash. Especially around guns, distrust of government, and anti-religion sentiment.

    I also wonder how much I derailed everything. Did I push too hard. I really pushed for the inclusion of a hurricane of conflicting raw emotions that felt really real to me to really destabilize the status quo to see what new status quo people would then choose to create.

    Rahr! I'm still unpacking this all.

    I'm glad I've had Kira and Terry to share thoughts with since I wasn't given a debriefing team.
  • Kira: I have a theory (as in, "a hypothesis to be tested" and/or "a way to view the world to see what emerges") that certain roles are emergent. For example, if you remove the noisiest brat from a classroom of teens, someone else will take that place after a while, because somehow a classroom of teens creates/needs that role.

    Maybe "masculinity" is a set of such emergent roles, and if there are no males present (who traditionally are expected to play out these roles), someone else will end up playing subsets of masculinity roles, as these roles are created/needed by many human groups.

    (And it might be possible to redistribute these roles, and redefine them, much as the role/functions of a game master in a game).

  • There's no "like" or "+1" function on Story Games, but these last few posts from Kira, John, and Matthijs have been incredibly insightful, and I want you to know I really enjoyed reading them. It's really cool to see how people's experience of this LARP takes on slightly different shades as time passes.
  • My reaction is similar to Paul's. I wish I had something brilliant to comment, but instead I just have a lot to think about. Thank you so much for sharing. Keep it coming if you've got more.
  • I think that the immersion and the safety that the larp includes in it's rules are part of what allow this to happen, and if this framework can be duplicated, I think this opens up wild possibilities for inclusion and vulnerability in table top roleplaying.
    A) Kagematsu.

    B) Vulnerability is an active CHOICE. It's a choice that's often de-emphasized in tabletops for the sake of compelling (read: powerful) protagonists... which is the dumbest thing ever, because it's weaknesses that make a protagonist human and therefore compelling. Batman v. Superman. All that's needed in tabletop is a focus on the human and the real chance of meaningful loss.

    C) Larp is its own baby in part due to its physicality. Tabletop can play out as an intellectual exercise because so much of it happens on an 8.5x11, in a chair, with a Coke by your side. Larp forces you to physically embody the character, and the mind/body connection... say what you will, but it exists because of the number of inputs triggered when you're up and about. Unpacking this experience into a tabletop game might be as simple as... not sitting.
  • Larp is different from tabletop, yes. But I don't know that that makes it considerably better at vulnerability and approaching challenging topics.

    A big part of what happened was based on the level of preparation. They had multiple workshop sessions before game to help them get into the right mindset and make sure everyone knew how things were going to work ahead of time.

    Part of it was the investment. They spent a weekend in game.

    Part of it was the emotional buy-in. They came in to it expecting to play an emotionally challenging game. They knew it was going to be about serious subject matter.

    Some of these things can happen in tabletop as well. In fact, I would argue that emotional vulnerability is easier to achieve in what is usually a smaller group - there are fewer people present that you need to develop the level of trust with.

    The most emotionally intense game I ever played was a session of Sorcerer run by Christopher Kubasik. It wasn't even in ideal circumstances - we were playing in the open gaming room at a convention. But I chose to play risky and raw and close to the bone and the rest of the players supported that. I was wrung out after that game, and the bleed was intense.

    I think there are tabletop games that support raw, vulnerable play. If the participants get on board, you can make that happen. And I'd argue it's easier to get 5-7 people on board than 16+. However, if you do get a big group of people emotionally engaged in a scene, it can be wonderfully self-reinforcing to have a bunch of people around you feeling the same way.

    Overall, it's more about the choice of the participants to play close to the bone.

    But it can be draining to do that. A lot of people, myself included, aren't up to playing emotionally intense, vulnerable games on a regular basis. Most of the time, I just want to have a good time and chill with some friends and play a game.
  • As something that resonates with Rob's points, I offer this: Game Design and Ritual
  • To answer Matthijs, lengthily:

    I totally agree with your analysis of masculinity being a set of emergent roles (I am an artist, not a sociologist, for reference. So this is based on things I've read). I think that "masculine" is the word our culture uses to define a certain combination of traits. Violent, rugged, competitive. A woman can also possess those traits, but the key words there are "can also". They are traditionally thought of as masculine.

    Some will argue that these are essentialisms, that they belong to men. I disagree, and think that all genders can be all things, regardless of anatomy or chemistry.

    Another thing with this is what essentially is masculine. There is definitely an undeniable difference between masculine and feminine. I would argue that the difference is far more steeped in tradition, nuance, and culture than any biological difference. But acknowledging some difference there is important and essential too.

    So feminine. I think that feminine is also emergent. Sexual, submissive, caretaking. I think the same rules apply to feminine as to masculine, though, that men can also be those things, but our culture sees that as the oddity, not the norm.

    So, then. Apply this to the game. When women take on those emergent masculine roles, and it's seen as normal, this is pushing through those culturally set boundaries and expanding the definition of both feminine and masculine. AWESOME.

    Some thoughts on Patriarchy in the game as stimulated by Graham: Ooof, that's a difficult one. Have men and women ever been without the patriarchy? I think it's less "what would women do without the patriarchy" and more "what would humanity do without the patriarchy". Men are caught up in the set of responsibilities, rules, and laws of the patriarchy as well. I think this ties in with those roles I was talking about above. If we think that masculine can only be these things, we limit ourselves to certain roles, both men and women. I think it'd be great to see less emphasis on patriarchal ways of doing things, and more emphasis on a more equal system, whatever that is.

    Patriarchy isn't really tied to men being around, it's just the way we do things. What defines patriarchy? I mean, typically it's men deciding things, right? Men ruling instead of women. But there's also this hint of, well, masculine things ruling instead of feminine things ruling. So go back to the definition of masculine and feminine. Why do we define those things that way?

    I think the game poses the question "what if traditionally masculine roles still needed to be filled, but they were filled by women? would that still mean that the masculine roles were in control, ruling through a patriarchal masculine system? or would more balanced and feminine traits emerge as the more dominant?"

    I think the answer the game gave us was that power, regardless of gender, will always rule. Whoever had the guns, whoever was the loudest or most aggressive or who was given a role of leadership, those people tended to control the crowd. So that's interesting. If women are given power, masculine and feminine is no longer a question. Resources, guns, and titles hold sway. I think this gets away from the question of patriarchy.

  • A) Kagematsu.

    B) Vulnerability is an active CHOICE. It's a choice that's often de-emphasized in tabletops for the sake of compelling (read: powerful) protagonists... which is the dumbest thing ever, because it's weaknesses that make a protagonist human and therefore compelling. Batman v. Superman. All that's needed in tabletop is a focus on the human and the real chance of meaningful loss.

    C) Larp is its own baby in part due to its physicality. Tabletop can play out as an intellectual exercise because so much of it happens on an 8.5x11, in a chair, with a Coke by your side. Larp forces you to physically embody the character, and the mind/body connection... say what you will, but it exists because of the number of inputs triggered when you're up and about. Unpacking this experience into a tabletop game might be as simple as... not sitting.
    Paul, you make some excellent points about vulnerability and the larp medium. I think that part of the reason this larp was so intense is because it encouraged 24/7 immersion. Yea, that's a bit more indepth than tabletop for sure. I usually play tabletop anymore too, so the juxtaposition for me was great and sudden to jump back into larping.

    I'm going to argue with your Kagematsu point though. I haven't found Kagematsu as an effective tool in teaching or exploring gender roles. I find it to be a fun flirtation/etiquette system turned into a short form one shot game. I think that you could easily reverse the gender roles in Kagematsu and have it be just as impactful and fun. It's about love, honor, and shame, topics broadly applicable to men and women. In fact, I find some of the implications that I've heard others say about the game (that it's meant to be played at a convention with a group of men to put them surprisingly in women's shoes) kind of demeaning and uncomfortable. I'm sure that wasn't the original intent of the game, but rather an innocent exploration of playing different genders, crossdressing in game in a way. I think that performing a different gender is different than performing your gender with a different gender's traditional roles.
  • I reference Kagematsu only as an example of how to bake the immersive experience into game mechanics: two stats relating to the only things that matter at that time, incentives and consequences for pushing your luck, and so on.

    And I agree on many of your points, especially the idea that it's not supposed to be a "hey! gotcha!" game... but to me, Kagematsu is more about power imbalance than gender exploration. (It just happens to be the case that the power imbalance is in large part due to gender roles of the time.) The experience is about wanting control where you only have influence, and that desire transcends gender. Kagematsu might have its roots as a flirtation system, but it wasn't my experience with the game at all.
  • Awesome, Paul. Actually, I really like your description of Kagematsu as about power imbalance. Maybe even power exchange? In my experience I'd have to agree with you. I found it more competitive, though. In my experience the players get more and more amped up the further along the game goes and the harder the challenges become, and the more that's at stake. It's this pacing of the game that I enjoy the most, actually, I think it's really smart and effective. The characters have less power but the players have a lot of narrative control, and Kagematsu has more power but the GM very clearly needs to aggressively frame scenes for her interaction with the players.

    Neat thoughts. I think yea, Kagematsu a bit more system heavy than Nordic larp, right? Nordic larp doesn't have stats or numbers at all, it has a character description, goals, relationship definitions, and a meta definition of what your character's role is in the framework of the larp. There isn't anything to define pacing except for the scenario and the players. At the same time, this framework is all that's needed to get things going. Really interesting how less seems to be more with the immersive Nordic larp style.
  • Loving the discussion that's unfurling here. Wanted to add that I wrote a bit about my experience as an organizer and player here:

    Also wanted to chime in that I think the physical roleplay part of larp is part of what makes it intense. Larp is embodied experience. The act of smiling can elevate your mood, even if you're not happy -- the external state influences the internal.

    And as Jason M. and I were chatting about recently -- in tabletop games, often people cut through scenes that might be emotionally intense; in larp there's not the same opportunity for that. Part of the reason larp seems intense is that characters play through those moments of emotional intensity.

    Finally, the mechanics in Nordic larp seem mostly designed to provide emotional context to players. Give them lockpick skills and they'll pick locks. Give them a black box and they'll play out intense moments from the past.
  • Can I ask for clarification on "first Nordic larp to be held in the U.S."? Several people have mentioned this, but haven't Nordic larp events been held stateside before? Or has that all been Jeepform a.k.a. something totally different (while still being larp-ish and Nordic)? It totally seems like a landmark event, either way. Just curious for intellectual history reasons.
    Great discussion, great work by LIzzie and everyone else for making this happen!

    Just to be a fly in the drink, I don't agree with the "first Nordic larp run in the US!" designation. It's probably the biggest one in terms of PC count and awareness, and rightfully deserves credit for popularizing Nordic larp in the U.S., but just because this hurricane hit doesn't mean it wasn't storming (or raining) in other places, i.e., others have run Nordic larps designed by Nords*, and if you consider (as I do and most should) Nordic larp to be a style of larping divorced from geography, then Nordic STYLE larps have been run in the States for a long time.

    But oh well. First Nordic larp in the U.S. it is.

    * I ran "The Tribunal" by DR. J. Tuomas Harviainen (with his new larp Ph.D) at a con in May, and I know there are many others; jeepforms being run by Alleged Entertainment at Intercon and Brody Condon's "Level Five" just being three off the top of my head.
  • Good to be accurate about all of this. I think one of the reasons MAB has been picked out as a first, is that it was a full-blown, weekend long larp, rather than a shorter freeform style game. It was an actual, factual larp, so to speak. But Level Five was as well, correct?
  • I wrote a blog post debrief on Gaming as Women.
  • Thanks for writing about this, Kira.
  • Sure Nathan! Thanks for reading! I'm always curious how many people are interested in this type of thing. You can never tell who's listening on the internet.

    It's also weird because I basically just have a deluge of Actual Play thoughts. It's not as interactive as I usually like to be on the interwebs. But I feel like my experiences are what makes this particular game valuable, and communicating those at large is a cool thing to do. It's just kind of new to me to spew out experiences and be like "hey guys, read this stuff! It's cool!"
  • I thought your debrief was really insightful, too. Thanks!
Sign In or Register to comment.