Every larp design, and the activity of designing larps itself, can be divided into two inseperable halves: (1) the system or procedure, which I’ll call “frame”, and (2) the components or unique elements inside the system, which I’ll call “canvas”.
The frame is general to all participants. It includes the game rules, the procedures for signing up and co-creating or interpreting the content, the spatial design of the larp, the format – duration and it’s segmentation or lack of segmentation into distinct units such as acts, chapters. It includes the manner of beginning and ending the larp. And it includes the world their characters inhabit – the fiction, or diegesis – with all its hidden suggestions (Interaction Codes – see article in Role, Play, Art ) about play style and possible stories and appropriate things to do and experience.
The canvas contains the individually specific aspects of the larp design. Character texts or personal costume, the conflicts or relationships or goals and motivations of individuals and groups.
The canvas is never fully painted. It’s larp – improvised, co-created. Players take the starting points provided by the larpwright and continue painting. Only in retrospect, as players talk and recall and describe and compare notes, does the metaphor of a larp as a painting begin to make sense.
Some larp traditions design larps mostly inside very similar, or identical frames. Quite a lot of fantasy boffer traditions work this way: three randomly selected larps will have the same game rules, the same general playing field, the same duration and segmentation of time, the same way of beginning, and of ending, and of creating characters. They vary mostly in the spread of characters and the activities they engage in.
Som larp designs, especially in the small format ( < 15 players), are primarily concerned with the canvas : relying on carefully crafted characters and conflicts. The Norwegian fantasy larp tradition I was raised in readily furnished a hundred players with inidivudally written 1-3 page characters containing goals and personalities and relations and conflicts. Taken together, these highly variable canvases made each larp unique - with different genres, intensities, stories, activities and people - even if the framework of scout cabins, medievalish costume, 5-days duration, genericish fantasy worlds, and light mechanics remained largely unchanged from summer to summer. Some larp designs, the ones I've sometimes called "systemic", use the frame to paint the canvas. The larpwrights say almost nothing about individual characters, relationships, or plot drivers and instead instruct players on how to create characters, form relationships, and drive plot. Often indirectly, through describing the fiction, or through nonverbal workshops, or through a process for players to create their own characters. PanoptiCorp and Totem are examples of this approach, and I’d recommend the Totem design manual if you want a look at how this kind of design actually works. Tabeltop RPGs, both old-school and indie (but not, usually, freeform), as well as derivative larps such as Vampire : the Masquerade, are generally systemic in their design. So we find systemic, or frame-only, designs on both ends of the traditionalist <-> avantgardist spectrum.
As a larpwright, you face the choice of whether to design the frame, or the canvas, or both. I don’t think there is any “right choice”. Systemic design allows for scalability and rerunnability. But there are certain design spaces that become unavailable, especially the spaces of individual psychology, morals and perceptions that are often explored by theatre and literature. Systemic design excels on exploring the actions of groups – the mechanics of societies, or conflicts.
Canvas-dominant designs (should we call them “tailored”?), on the other hand, are less suitable for exploring group action but open up a design space of strong and distinct individuals, private interactions. They scale poorly, but can re-run easily.
My goal in proposing this (unpolished, unfinished) model is not to be prescriptive, but descriptive. At the very least, I find it helps me understand differences in larp and roleplaying traditions.
And I find it a useful question to ponder at the early stages of a design process: do we want to achieve this by working with the frame, the canvas, or both?