Just Baphomet with wigs?

Next week, me and Atropos (more specifically, Simon and Carl) are doing two more runs of the larp Libertines. The first two runs were well received, but people who didn't attend were curious as to what kind of game it was - wasn't it pretty much just Baphomet with wigs? Therefore, I decided to write the following to explain the differences and explore what makes Libertines an appealing game. I'd forgotten all about the text, but recently found it, and thought I'd share, for those of you who are interested:

We sometimes get the question what differentiates Libertines from Baphomet and Inside Hamlet, since all three are larps focusing on a descent into decadence, violence and cruelty (and the connection between Baphomet and Libertines is probably made stronger by the fact that they are played at the same location). Apart from the different era and fashion, what exactly is the unique selling point of Libertines?

I will attempt to illustrate the differences, and am doing so both as one of the organizers responsible for character- and game design, and as a participant who has played the game with no run-time organizing responsibilities during the first run. I have played Baphomet in 2019, and Inside Hamlet in 2015. They were both wonderful games that I enjoyed immensely - but there are some important differences compared to Libertines.

First off, there is an important difference in distribution of agency - who oppresses, and who is oppressed. Furthermore, there are difference that can be boiled down to three key words: future, facade and alibi.

Distribution of oppression

In Baphomet, the oppression technique in which necklaces are passed around to signify who is currently possessed by the gods, creates great opportunity for each and every character to oppress others. Even the characters who are very timid and controlled, can lash out during the influence of possessions and oppress others. While some characters can be oppressive even without the influence of possession, this technique gives equal opportunities for most players to be both the oppressors and the oppressed in different scenes. 

In Inside Hamlet, there is no clear distribution of who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed. Some are characters are written with clear indication that they are more of an oppressor or a victim, and some are written into abusive relationships, but overall it is up to the players and their choices during the game that decides the distribution of oppressive agency during the game.

In Libertines, the distribution of oppressive agency is very clear by the very design of the game - the gentry characters hold great power over the the guests and servants, and they have a conscious intention to play cruel games with the guests. This means that most of the oppression originates from the gentry players. As the game progresses, however, many of the guests and servants become oppressive themselves - either because they are forced to by the gentry, or because the unsound atmosphere at the manor has brought out their own dark desires and hidden vices. 

There are of course both upsides and downsides of this. The downside is that it puts a lot of responsibility on the gentry players, to provide oppression for the other players - that is why we cast gentry players. One of the upsides is the expectation management and the security in knowing what you are expected to do, if you have responsibility for providing oppression or not. Another difference compared to the oppression technique of Baphomet, is that the oppression has greater potential to become firmly rooted in the narrative arch of the characters - especially for the victim - rather than just being a series of scenes that are not interconnected. 

Future

In both Baphomet and Inside Hamlet, the game ends with the characters dying. The players know this from the beginning, and that knowledge echoes throughout the game, so that many of the characters are partially aware of it as well. In Baphomet, the call from the beyond, and from the gods Pan and Baphomet, becomes ever stronger, making the real world and the mundane reality seem distant and irrelevant. In Inside Hamlet, the physical threat of the revolution, as well as the insanity within the castle, make many lose hope of ever facing tomorrow outside the walls of Elsinore. 

Libertines, however, does not end with the characters dying. After the days spent at the manor of Lord and Lady Mander, they are allowed to go home, to continue with their lives. This fact is a double-edged blade of sorts: on the one hand, the promise of tomorrow gives the characters a reason to keep on hoping, to struggle for survival, for a better future, instead of giving up completely; on the other hand, the future looms threatening over them, because they know that they will have to live with what has been done to them, and what they may have done to others. Some will have to face their friend, betrothed or spouse, and ask themselves if they can forgive the things they have witnessed. 

Facade

Acting properly and modestly is far more important in Libertines than in Baphomet and Inside Hamlet, and many characters continue to cling desperately to what little dignity they have left. 

Both Baphomet and Inside Hamlet are set in different alternative versions of the 1930s, often referred to as the “vintage era”. While the morality around sexuality, decadence and same-sex relationships in the outside world may be similar to what they were in the real 1930s, within the Court of Elsinore and the Order of Ardor respectively, few moralize over such things. In Libertines’ British society of 1795 however, the norms around sexuality and acceptable behavior in polite society are much more strict. Furthermore, the guests at the manor do not know each other - many meet for the first time, or are distant acquaintances, meaning that the need to keep up appearances is quite strong. 

Most of the decadent actions undertaken by the gentry in the first acts are kept behind closed doors, or late in the night when wine has been flowing freely. This means that it is still possible for the guests to look the other way, to deny what they’re suspecting, and to keep on pretending that everything is quite normal, even as they slowly come to realize that it truly isn’t. It is not until the very last act that the decadence and cruelty of the hosts is completely brought into the open, which makes the downfall of the guests all the greater. 

Alibi

The presence of alibi for the characters is quite strong in Baphomet, because of the possessions that are one of the main features of the game. The characters are regularly possessed by the gods Pan and Baphomet, and the gods influence the character to act in ways that they never would if they were in complete control of themselves. After the possession ends, the character only has vague, dream-like memories of what they have done, memories that can be disregarded as something they must’ve dreamt or imagined. This is part of the brilliance and charm of Baphomet - the slow, creeping realisation that these memories might not be dreams, that the characters might actually have done all those horrible things, and gradually losing touch with reality and their true self. The possessions, and the fact that everyone present are all doing crazy things, gives quite a strong alibi to the characters, being able to do very outrageous things without being completely destroyed by guilt - because they were under the influence of possession, and not in control of their own actions. 

In Libertines, there is the alibi of being forced into many of the situations that the guests find themselves in. However, there is no influence - no gods, no drugs, no madness - to hide behind. The guests are very aware of their actions, and many feel intense shame for them.

In conclusion, despite having many themes in common, the larps have some important differences - and playing each one allows you to explore these themes from different perspectives, and in different ways. I can strongly recommend it!