US Freeform LARP Negotiations Basics
Introduction
Scenes involving violence, emotional intensity, or irreversible consequences are some of the most powerful moments in larp. They are also the moments most likely to break down if expectations are not shared. When negotiation is unclear or incomplete, players can walk into the same scene believing they are playing different games.
This one document exists to provide a shared baseline for how negotiation should work. It is not a set of hard rules and it is not meant to limit creativity. Its purpose is to help players align before high impact scenes so that conflict stays in character, safety tools remain trustworthy, and dramatic moments land the way they are intended to. The goal of negotiation is simple: everyone involved understands what kind of scene they are entering and how it is expected to function.
This document exists to help players avoid negotiation failures that can damage scenes, relationships, and trust. It is not about winning scenes. It is about building shared understanding so that dramatic moments land cleanly, safely, and in a way that serves everyone involved. This document is not a “one size fits all solution” nor is it intended to be an academic paper. It is intended to be used as a base framework for experience designers to work from and develop upon instead of being a “must function as written for all scenarios” text. A downloadable and printable version of this document exists here that games can use. We just ask that proper accreditation is given to Michael Pucci and Most Improbable.
What Negotiation Is
Negotiation is a brief out of character alignment process used to establish shared expectations before a scene that involves violence, emotional intensity, irreversible consequences, or complex mechanics. Its purpose is not to script a scene beat by beat, and it is not a tool to control outcomes. Negotiation exists so that everyone enters play understanding what kind of scene they are participating in, what tools will be used, and what boundaries exist. Good negotiation creates trust. Poor or incomplete negotiation creates confusion, frustration, and negative bleed.
What Negotiation Is Not
Negotiation is not rules lawyering. It is not a way to protect your character from consequences. It is not a private agreement that only some participants understand. It is not a replacement for safety tools, and it is not something that can be retroactively imposed once play has already escalated. If a negotiation results in one player holding secret expectations that others do not share, the negotiation has failed.
When Negotiation Is Required
Negotiation should occur whenever a scene includes lethal or near lethal violence, forced physical contact, intense emotional themes, irreversible character outcomes, use of meta mechanics that override normal portrayal, or when multiple groups are converging on a single conflict. Negotiation can also be used to give direction for longer narratives, provide transparency between players, and create a framework where players can build a framework of trust to dive into more in-depth or charged scenes. If you are unsure whether negotiation is needed, that uncertainty itself is a signal to negotiate.
Negotiation is not always required in the moment. In some cases, players or groups have already established clear shared expectations through prior conversations, training, mechanics, or design tools. This is sometimes called pre negotiation or a standing agreement.
When Negotiation Might Not Be Required.
A pre-negotiated agreement exists when all involved participants understand and accept a specific cause and effect relationship. “If X happens, then Y result follows.” These agreements work because they are transparent, mutual, and consistently applied. When everyone already agrees on the trigger and its consequence, there is no need to renegotiate that same exchange every time it appears in play. Examples include agreed responses well understood meta mechanics that override normal portrayal, or long standing character or faction dynamics where consequences have been clearly discussed and accepted in advance. For a pre negotiated agreement to remain valid, three conditions must be met. Everyone directly affected must be aware of it. Everyone must have consented to it. And nothing about the current context meaningfully changes the emotional, physical, or narrative impact of the exchange. If any of those conditions are not true, negotiation should occur before play escalates.
Pre negotiation is not only about mechanics or outcomes. It is also about agreeing to a style of experience. When players choose to participate in an event, faction, or narrative space, they are also agreeing to certain story logics. It is the responsibility of the experience designer/host to provide clear communication and transparency about these expectations. In these cases, specific actions are understood to carry specific consequences because that relationship has been made clear through the design, culture, and communication of the experience itself. If a trigger is legible, consistently applied, and broadly understood, it does not require a second negotiation every time it appears. That agreement exists because everyone has already said yes to that kind of play.
Who Must Be Included in Negotiation
Every primary participant must be included. If a character is central to the conflict, they must be part of the negotiation. This includes anyone expected to engage physically or emotionally. If someone is not present for the negotiation, they cannot be expected to follow it or have their own desires and safety needs met.
Core Negotiation Elements That Must Be Touched On
1. Intent. What kind of scene is this meant to be. Tragic, desperate, messy, heroic, restrained, or explosive. Tone matters more than outcome.
2. Stakes. What consequences are on the table. Injury, death, capture, exposure, humiliation, or escalation. Be clear about what is possible and what is not.
3. Structure. Is there a rough order of events. Are there expected beats. Are mechanics like coin flips, hidden weapons, or meta tools going to be used. Anything that alters normal play expectations must be named.
4. Portrayal. How will violence or impact be shown physically. If narration will be used to supplement physical action, that must be agreed upon in advance. Physical portrayal and declared outcome must match closely enough that others can respond in real time.
5. Ramifications. To the best ability of those involved, discuss what ramifications and consequences may come from the scene. Voicing these ramifications and choosing to move forward is accepting the ramifications for these actions. If two players are negotiating conflict for their character’s, they need to realize this conflict does not happen within a bubble and that they are accepting potential positive and negative ramifications for these actions. If the players involved do not feel comfortable having negative ramifications after this scene, and negative ramifications are possible, then the scene should not happen.
6. Safety and Exit Paths. What tools are available if someone needs to slow down, pause, or step out. How will those tools be respected. Agree in advance that safety calls stop escalation, not restart it.
How to Close a Negotiation
Before returning to play, confirm shared understanding. A simple summary such as, "We are doing X kind of scene, with Y stakes, using Z tools," gives everyone a chance to correct misunderstandings. Everyone involved in the scene should voice the summary back and forth to each other to ensure that there is no confusion. If that summary cannot be agreed on quickly, the scene is not ready to proceed. Once play begins, do not introduce new mechanics, stakes, or framing without pausing and renegotiating. Changing the rules mid-scene breaks trust and dismantles the effort of negotiation.
If Something Goes Wrong Anyway
If confusion arises during a scene, slow down. Pause cleanly. Do not drop character to correct or accuse. Do not invoke rules as weapons. Step back, clarify, and only then resume if everyone is aligned. The scene should be delayed and all characters involved should de-escalate and reapproach instead of trying to “make it work”. After the scene, address problems privately and calmly. Public correction, shaming, or emotional unloading spreads damage instead of containing it.
Final Principle
Negotiation exists to protect both the story and the people telling it. Its purpose is not to determine who is correct, who is stronger, or whose interpretation prevails. It exists to create shared understanding so that everyone involved is participating in the same scene, under the same assumptions, with the same tools available. When actions prioritize being right over being clear, confusion replaces collaboration. When actions prioritize winning over being understood, trust erodes and safety tools lose their meaning. In those moments, negotiation stops functioning as a foundation for play and becomes a source of conflict instead. Successful negotiation centers clarity, consent, and mutual understanding. It asks not “How do I get the outcome I want?” but “Do we all understand what we are about to do, and have we all agreed to it?” If that question cannot be answered honestly and collectively, the scene is not ready to proceed.
