No Such Thing as a Hero

Which means there are no villains either.

It’s become fashionable to talk about how to play a larp villain — that there’s special things that a larper needs to do to play the bad guy. Invariably, I think it’s bad advice, because it almost always focuses on things other than role-play. I’ve heard advice that ranges from how to act out-of-role to pseudo-facilitating for the “good guys” to self-care for the in difficulties assumed to come with it.  And with all due consideration, I’m going to call “bullshit.”

There’s no such thing as a “villain” in larp.  Or a “hero.”  I personally think the concept is dangerous and we need to change the paradigm. We don’t play “heroes” or “villains” but rather we play characters — we’re collaborating to tell a story with protagonists and antagonists.

100 Words On “Heroes”

“Hero” is a fraught concept: it assumes a perspective where a group of individuals has a moral monopoly over right and wrong. You see this in superhero stories: the superheroes are “good” because they defend the status quo, and the villains have to commit some extraordinarily evil act to undermine their motivations (see also: Killmonger). Most heroes are best described as “culture heroes” — exemplars of a particular culture who defend it from a dangerous “other.” While the implications of this are worthy of their own article, just consider it may be problematic to view one’s character as the “good guy.” 

The Problem With Heroes (& Villains)

You might disagree with my characterization of “good guys” in larp, but the design problem is more apparent: if you have a “hero” and a “villain,” there’s an inherent asymmetry in participation. One group has to play for the other group, as the villain has some sort of responsibility to the narrative to… well, it’s not entirely clear, but it typically involves doing “bad” things. At best, we get complex and interesting villains who have justifiable motives, and at worst we descend into caricature. Further, this asymmetry causes out-of-role problems of all sorts. I can link to a variety of articles from larpers I respect quite a bit, addressing these problems with decent solutions. But I’d argue that these address symptoms, not the root problem. It’s not that there has to be an asymmetry as some larpers play villains and some play heroes, it’s that the narrative structure that assumes such is unnecessary.

The advantage of having heroes and villains is that there is clear conflict, with a clearly preferable end-state, in-role: the heroes defeat the villains. The structure doesn’t dictate the heroes have to win, but that would be the “good” option, in-role (I call this the “downhill ending” - the ending that’s narratively easiest). However, this model doesn’t do much more than that, and comes with a slew of problems.  Having a conflict with a downhill ending doesn’t require the hero-villain paradigm, and we have a very good example of an alternative paradigm that looks very similar: faces and heels.

A Brief Pro Wrestling Primer

“Face” and “heel” are professional wrestling terms that resemble the hero and villain paradigm. Broadly speaking, a face is a wrestler the crowd roots for to win (the fan favorite) and the heel is their antagonist. Traditionally, these terms meant “good guy” (face) and “bad guy” (heel) but I’d argue that hasn’t been accurate in over 25 years. Hulk Hogan was certainly traditional superhero, but Stone Cold Steve Austin (and most faces since) have been anti-heroes to a degree, often anti-establishment rule-breakers united only by the fact that fans root for them.  This is an important distinction: the downhill of a wrestling plotline eventually has the fan favorite face defeat the heel… eventually.

Before that happens, though, the conflict has to be interesting. And that’s what the heel does: they oppose, antagonize and victimize the face. This process builds what’s called “heat” - an emotional reaction to what’s happening in the ring. The audience responds to the heels’ tormenting the face, to the face rallying against the heel, and the heel crushing the face again. The process continues until the face triumphs… which, while emotionally satisfying, is the end of the action.

The reason I like this for larp is two-fold. First, it's based on improv: professional wrestling is an improv art form, and we can learn a lot from it.  While there’s no external audience in most larps, larpers can experience a prolonged emotional reaction from building heat, if they understand how to do it. Second, the process is far more collaborative than a hero-villain paradigm.  In a face-heel paradigm, it’s not the villain facilitating for the hero, but two participants trying to build each other up. 

So what does that look like?

Three Tools for Bringing the Heat

Bringing the heat in larp is just the process where the heel builds the conflict against the face, until the conflict is resolved. So how does that differ from how we traditionally play a hero-villain relationship? Remember these three tools.

The Face Sells the Heel First

Eventually, in the downhill part of the story, where the face triumphs, the heel will be defeated in a satisfying manner (or not, if it’s not that kind of larp). But first, the face has to sell the heel’s antagonism. “Selling” means that the person receiving the violence or antagonism purposely role-plays the effectiveness of it. The heel probably isn’t injuring or oppressing the face for real, so the face has to play it up. In doing so, the participant playing the face increases the intensity of the story and the emotional reaction to it.

This is diametrically opposed to most discussions on a hero-villain dynamic! Much of the discourse on villainy in larp has to do with the difficulties of playing a villain. But in this paradigm, the onus is actually on the face to make the heel look good (well, bad, but in a good way). Shifting the responsibility from one participant to all participants involved makes for an easier and often more interesting experience for all involved.

The Face and the Heel Always Find Each Other

Sometimes, if you’re playing an effective villain in larp, you find other participants either avoiding you or refusing to play with you. This is a natural reaction: people tend to avoid their bullies and abusers, and it makes sense as motivation for the characters of the “heroes.” It’s actually a major problem of the hero-villain paradigm. However, in the face-heel dynamic, the opponent becomes the most important person in the character’s lives, and they find each other again and again.

To do this in-role without significant metagaming, remember that the face-heel conflict should be designed so that they have to engage each other to accomplish their goals. The relationship doesn’t need to be cooperative in-character; the classic set-up is that one of them has to defeat the other to accomplish their goals. The “only way around is through” mentality will drive the conflict between the face and heel, and allow plenty of opportunities to bring the heat. Just remember that while your characters are trying to win… that can’t happen for a while.

Once the Face Wins, It’s Over… So Be Patient.

Conversely, the heel never wins completely, so they can’t completely overpower the face. The general dynamic of the relationship goes like this:

1. The heel attacks the face.

2. The face rallies and might look like they’re winning for a little bit, but…

3. The heel cheats or tricks or overpowers the face, but can’t quite achieve complete victory. 

Then they repeat the process as long as it’s interesting. 

It’s not hard to do, either because remember, the face is selling the heel’s actions. They control how bad the “bad guy” is. They can decide when they rally, when they lose, and how they get away.  It’s a larp, and ultimately, they should have autonomy over their characters.  The heel has to remember that the face is essentially “putting them over” (making them look great) and let them dictate pacing, but with a little cooperation, the back and forth can go on for quite some time.

The thing to remember is that nothing the heel does in this process will change the course of history. They don’t kill the face or make permanent changes. Eventually, the face will do just that when they defeat the heel.  But that’s the end of the story, and shouldn’t happen until it’s interesting and the heat has been built up. I once played a “villain” in a larp where the people I had to victimize decided they were ready to kill me a day before the end of the larp, but had to wait. Eventually, I had to talk to them out-of-role, because there wasn’t a plausible way for me to play. Be patient if you’re playing a face.

Big picture: lots of people will disagree with my superlative claim that heroes and villains in larp are unnecessary and even unwanted. Others might not prefer the professional wrestling approach. But there is a problem — you can find plenty of material on playing a villain in larp, but basically nothing on playing a hero. If you take away nothing else, think about why one participant should have responsibility for the play of another. Maybe, instead of asking how a villain should be played, we should think about how we support the villainous play of others.