Over the course of 75 minutes, closeup magician Derek DelGaudio used storytelling and magical performance to take us on a journey exploring the nature of identity: his as well as our own.
The show was produced by Neil Patrick Harris (yes, that one) and directed by Frank Oz (as in Yoda, Frank Oz). While it was absolutely a magic performance, In & Of Itself was about our collective attempt at building identity and finding meaning in life.
While this was largely a magic and storytelling performance where the audience sat in the seats and the performer resided on stage, every audience member made at least two decisions that affected the show. A few people played far more in-depth roles in the performance.
Derek DelGaudio’s performance was calmly magnificent.
The storytelling and idea exploration ran cohesively through the entirety of In & Of Itself.
DelGaudio used magic not for its own sake or for spectacle; he used it to make points, advance his story, and instill feelings into his audience.
A few audience volunteers play critical roles in each performance of In & Of Itself. Your mileage will vary depending upon the chance encounters of who ends up on stage. In our show, these audience participants were not particularly engaging. Under different circumstances, however, I could easily imagine these show segments being among the most moving moments of the performance.
Should I visit In & Of Itself?
I love magical performance, but I rarely enjoy it for its own sake. Magic is a powerful tool for telling stories, underscoring points, and engaging an audience in dynamic ways. Derek DelGaudio did this so beautifully. His performance was refined and executed perfectly. It moved us.
As we walked out of the theater and onto the streets of New York City, we wandered with purpose, contemplating what we had seen and seeking to satisfy a curiosity that DelGaudio had instilled in us… He didn’t let us down. We’re still reflecting on what we saw and we’re thrilled that we had the opportunity.
In & Of Itself has been extended through September 3, 2017 and you should seize the opportunity to see it before it vanishes.
Book your showing of In & Of Itself, and tell them that the Room Escape Artist sent you.
As the next of kin for a recently deceased relative that we’ve never met, we were given access to her long-lost storage unit.
Staged within a beautiful and dark storage unit, we explored the life of this stranger. We got to know her through her personal effects and her audio recordings on cassette tapes that narrated most important moments of her life.
The Nest used a variation of the escape room format to tell an intimate and moving story. There were puzzles within this experience, but it was not a puzzle game.
The puzzles were easy obstacles that served as gates between chapters of the story. The puzzles weren’t the point of The Nest.
The story was painfully moving.
The set was gorgeous and brilliantly designed.
The puzzles served as clever gates that also made sense within the narrative.
The voice acting on the cassette tapes was magnificent.
The darkness added to the atmosphere, but necessitated carrying around a handheld flashlight along with the cassette player. This was clunky and distracting.
The flashlight was in bad shape and frequently flickered out on us.
Should I visit Scout Expedition Co.’s The Nest?
Lisa and I emerged from The Nest and couldn’t bring ourselves to speak about what we heard, saw, and felt for hours. The Nest wasn’t a puzzle game and it wasn’t an adventure: it was a journey through another person’s tragedy.
It was powerful and beautiful.
If you approach The Nest as a game to win, you will completely miss the point. Don’t look for clues or meaning in the props as you would in an escape room. The puzzling simply leads you through the experience. You aren’t at risk of losing.
The Nest is incredible, but it’s not for everyone. The content is mature, not in a violent or sexual way, but because it’s emotionally heavy. It’s also an experience that requires some crawling, so if you aren’t up to that, don’t buy a ticket.
Additionally, when you buy a ticket you can choose to go alone or with another person. Both options are viable, but will profoundly change the experience. I have to imagine that a solo experience would be haunting and intense and maybe a little cumbersome when dealing with the flashlight and cassette player. I was happy to experience The Nest with Lisa, but she is the only person that I know with whom I would have wanted to feel those feels.
The Nest left me feeling exposed and I am so happy that I was there. Tickets are limited, but if you can get your hands on one, take as much out of it as you can.
The next wave of tickets go on sale on June 18th at 12pm Pacific.
Price: $65, $80, or $99 per ticket depending upon selected package
Story & setting
It had been one month since Armageddon. There weren’t many survivors and those of us who were still kicking didn’t really know what had happened. Solar flares had struck and the world as we knew it was over; beyond that, everything was shrouded in mystery. Supplies were rare, trust was thin, and there were hidden threats looming around every corner.
The set of RED was large and compelling. First Person Xperience made a smart decision in selecting a setting that allowed for variety without it feeling nonsensical or disjointed.
If this sounds cagey, it’s meant to; so much of RED was dependent upon discovery.
RED was NOT an escape room. It was an immersive experience that drew upon escape room elements such as searching, teamwork, and unraveling a mystery.
There were puzzles to solve, but many of them felt more practical, revolving around survival and plot progression. The more nuanced mystery was cryptically hidden.
The beating heart of RED was interpersonal interaction.
RED was actor-driven and the actors were on point. They played their parts and reacted to us. If we questioned them, they stayed in character. We were not able to throw them off their game. The actors were the engine that drove the experience.
The set created the mood. While it was not horror, the set ramped up the intensity of the game.
RED was structured as a survival game designed to build resilience and teamwork, while also being fun. It was incredible how Lisa and I both turned into the crisis-mode versions of ourselves. (We’re useful people in a crisis.) We both did this without planning.
First Person Xperience billed RED as a replayable game. I thought that this was a dubious claim, but they pulled it off. I want to go back. While the set and mystery will remain the same, the non-player characters (actors) will change, as there are 10 different actors playing 9 different characters. RED is designed so that players will return to the scenario with a deeper understanding of what’s going on and a better methodology for collaboration and survival. Learn more. Unravel the mystery.
Throughout RED, our individual and team progress was tracked. We’re told that all of that data will persist in the game database, The Chronicle. They will track any upgrades we earn and achievements we unlock. I love this concept. Although I am not 100% sure what practical effect it will have on my game, I am eager to see it play out.
The Chronicle will also carry over our gear. We purchased the top package: the Elite. It came with a series of in-game upgrades that will belong to us when we return. We will be able to play again with all of that gear at the lower ticket price.
RED was bewildering by design. That was great in this experience. However, we wished that we had purchased regular tickets going into our first game. The additional gear was utterly meaningless to us and at times we found ourselves flustered by the added complication. That said, going into our second game, I think we’re going to be happy to have the extras.
Prior to the game’s start, we met our team under a bridge near the facility. It wasn’t a particularly comfortable way to begin. If RED extends into the winter months, First Person Xperience will need a better system.
First Person Xperience’s facilities were a work in progress. The lobby, bathrooms, and everything that lead up to the start of the game felt a bit sketchy. They absolutely put their effort into the right place getting the game right, but the state of the lobby and meeting place put First Person Xperience at a trust deficit with us prior to the game beginning.
One of the late-game interactions that we encountered was a little too symbolic and left us needing to clarify what had actually happened post-game.
The day after our experience, we received an email with our game’s ending. This extra content was great, but way too lengthy… and a little too late. The rush of the game had already past and finding out the ending the next day was anticlimactic for a game that was otherwise incredibly responsive, immediate, and dire.
Should I play First Person Xperience’s RED?
RED lived up to its own hype. It was immersive and intense. We left seriously reflecting upon our individual tendencies in a crisis. Not only that, but we immediately began strategizing our approach for our next visit.
This experience is not an escape room. I repeat: RED is not an escape room. If you’re seeking a purely puzzle- and set-driven game, then RED is not for you.
If you’re averse to actors, then RED is not for you.
If you aren’t at least reasonably healthy, mobile and able to navigate stairs, then RED is not for you.
Also, players must be over 18 years of age.
RED was a psychological and physical adventure. It was bewildering and thrilling. If that sounds like something you’d enjoy, then go do it. I can’t wait to go back.
“Oh shit! We’re competing against each other… and I know how smart my friends are.”
Location: New York, NY
Date played: April 14, 2017
Team size: 4-8; we recommend 6-8
Duration: 90 minutes
Price: $38-43 per ticket
Story & setting
Refuge: Prologue was an immersive, narrative-driven, competitive puzzle game.
Set in a dystopian mirrored reality where humanity’s decisions have caused an environmental apocalypse, we were competing for coveted spots in billionaire Alex Ayers’ prosperous Refuge. Our lives depended on proving our worth.
Refuge: Prologue took place in The Mist, an immersive entertainment space in Chinatown. The various rooms were staged for different challenges, each stylized, some more intriguing and involved than others.
At any given point, our group was divided up, competing against each other in different challenges. As Alex’s recorded voice narrated the instructions for various activities, we also learned the extent of the plight of Earth and human society, a narrative that unfolded over the duration of the experience.
Refuge: Prologue pitted us against each other as we each vied for a future in Alex’s Refuge.
The puzzles took different forms: understanding the objective and context of any given contest, puzzling our way through, and strategizing against each other.
During the various puzzle challenges, we used logic, riddles, math, intuition, deductive reasoning, reaction time, agility, luck, strategic thinking… and more.
Refuge: Prologue painted a compelling dystopian parallel reality. Its message provoked thought about our world.
Refuge: Prologue meticulously designed printed materials and set dressing. It was deliberately crafted and looked polished.
The puzzles and games were challenging. For most interactions, each individual had to rely on their own understanding, make quick decisions, and continually strategize.
My favorite challenge was physically involved and lots of fun. The story unfolded through the escalating complexity of the puzzle. It was clever.
Without spoilers, the website for Refuge: Prologue was as clear as possible about what this experience entailed.
The tech in Refuge: Prologue was repeatedly buggy. Even before we accidentally knocked something a little too forcefully, it was finicky. The set was delicate, and the tech even more so. Much of the set and technology needs modification in order to stand up to repeated use.
It wasn’t entirely clear how points were calculated, and therefore which actions and decisions mattered most. It also seemed like luck played a substantial role in some of the games.
The challenges varied in quality. One slow-paced game seemed to drag on. In another puzzle, the order of activities seemed to create a markedly unfair situation for the players.
Throughout the experience, there was a lot of information to take in in short amounts of time. Sometimes it was reading on top of audio instruction. Other times it was comprehensive reading while searching for other information. While this was part of the challenge, it was also more frustrating than it needed to be.
Should I attend Refuge: Prologue?
Refuge: Prologue was not a room escape, but it was an immersive, narrative-driven puzzle adventure. It was challenging and interesting.
In Refuge: Prologue, you will be competing against the others in your booking. You will be alone, vying for your own spot in a better future. If you usually count on others to pull some of the weight, you’re in for a rough ride.
Your adversaries are the others who’ve booked into your session. We recommend that you bring a group of people you know are equally competitive, skilled, and engaged. All the better to strategize against them… Also, leave the sore winners and losers at home.
While the technology implementation and set design had flaws, the folks behind Refuge: Prologue were attentive to detail.
Note that the website gives the following warnings, all of which matter: Don’t be late. Wear comfortable shoes. Also, one puzzle uses the full spectrum of color; colorblindness will be problematic.
If you like quick-paced puzzle competitions where you work on your own against opponents, and you don’t mind that the game, the rules, and the points will be a bit opaque, then we recommend visiting Refuge: Prologue.
If you’d rather work as a team or you don’t want to compete without a clear picture of what’s going on, you might want to sit this one out.
Win or lose Refuge: Prologue offers a new form of immersive puzzle adventuring. We’ve seen a lot collaborative gaming, and a little head-to-head team-based gaming, but Refuge is its own beast. Battling your friends by yourself offers a new style of interactive intrigue.
Book your spot in Refuge: Prologue, and tell them that the Room Escape Artist sent you.
We embarked on an interactive dinner theater and puzzle adventure though Greenwich Village. We’d been invited by Mysterio to become members of the Secret Dining Society. If we could solve our way through dinner, we would be initiated in the presence of the Society’s precious Golden Spork.
The humorous pretext for the excursion set the tone that lasted throughout the show.
At each location, we enjoyed one course of the meal. Before leaving, we puzzled out our next destination. We’d occasionally run into actors who interacted with us in both alarmingly natural and ridiculously strange ways.
Against the background of a secret society initiation, Accomplice could put more emphasis on the puzzling than in some of their other productions. We spent more time puzzling as a group and less time bantering with actors.
The puzzles were mostly challenging enough for us to mull over through a course, but not so challenging as to keep that treasured Golden Spork out of our grasp.
Along the way, we unlocked information from various tangible objects, the majority of which were set out as centerpieces, or delivered through an interaction. We didn’t need to investigate every oddity in Greenwich Village.
The Golden Spork was an engaging and humorous production. We enjoyed the light-hearted mission, complete with its jokes and puns.
This show balanced theater with escape room-style puzzling and time with friends. While we were sometimes interacting with an actor, more often we were interacting among ourselves. We puzzled intensively and collaboratively, but without a strong sense of time pressure. We were relaxed and enjoyed a meal as a group of friends.
The actors were skilled at blending seamlessly into their environments. In that way, the restaurant setting too became part of the show.
The food and wine were delicious.
We’re dessert people and the dessert course left us wanting more. While tasty, it didn’t live up to the rest of the meal in terms of experience.
Two of our guests do not consume alcohol. They missed the final toast with the cast while someone looked for an alternative beverage. This made the end fizzle for them as they felt left out.
The show was marketed for 7-30 people, but the puzzling wasn’t optimized to engage such a large audience. The puzzling couldn’t even stretch enough for our group of 10. Whereas a skilled actor can command an entire theater’s attention, it’s a different challenge to design puzzles that do the same, even more so to make puzzles that rely upon numbers. With small changes, Accomplice could iterate on the puzzles such that they engage more of the audience.
Should I play Accomplice The Show’s The Golden Spork?
The Golden Spork is a hybrid puzzle / immersive theater / dinner theater / walking tour. It’s a lot of experiences rolled up into one and it works. It does this by rotating through phases of puzzling, theater, dining, and walking. It’s also an excuse to enjoy dinner in the company of friends.
If you expect the show to entertain you with puzzles and actors the entire time, you’ll be disappointed. If you understand those elements are a revolving door of entertainment through your dinner, you’ll be quite pleased.
While $185 per ticket felt high, upon reflection, The Golden Spork was almost a deal. Manhattan ain’t cheap. Here, three courses with a fair amount of wine could easily cost over $100 per person. Given the few hours worth of actors, puzzles, and entertainment, that price felt fair to our group.
We truly enjoyed our quest to behold the revered Golden Spork. It was an honor to bask in its untarnished radiance.
Contact Accomplice at email@example.com for a private booking of The Golden Spork, and tell them that the Room Escape Artist sent you.
Full disclosure: Accomplice the Show provided media discounted tickets for this experience.
We had received an amusing email informing us of… a situation, so we swooped in to save the day.
Accomplice The Village walked us through the streets of Greenwich Village, introducing us to entertaining characters and interesting places along the way.
As we followed the bread crumbs to right the aforementioned situation, we became part of a theater piece, searched for clues, solved puzzles, and had many good laughs.
This was an interactive show. There were specific tasks to accomplish and a fair amount of walking involved. We engaged with conversationally energetic characters.
Accomplice The Village was not a passive experience.
The actors brought Accomplice The Village to life. With few exceptions, they were engaging, humorous, and witty. They expertly balanced a scripted narrative with improv. Their characters may have been ridiculous, but they managed to be believably ridiculous.
The show kicked off with an email that set the tone for the entire experience. It never deviated from this. Each character we met fit right into the world.
As the show progressed we started to notice subtle references on a theme. These ultimately escalated into the finale. It was beautifully orchestrated.
There were some hilariously serendipitous moments, my favorite being when a couple of passersby joined our little group out of curiosity. We were pretty confused when they approached, but nowhere near as confused as they were.
Accomplice the Village introduced us to some incredible neighborhood gems. In addition to the actors, these places helped create just enough spectacle to make Accomplice The Village something out of the ordinary.
Because the actors truly brought this show to life, when we encountered a dud, the entire scene fell flat. That section was disappointing.
On any given day, multiple teams of 10 play the game, starting in the same location an hour apart. Our group was moving particularly swiftly and caught up with the group in front of us just before the finale. While the show did have a stalling tactic in place, it was poorly executed, and by someone not at all in character. This broke our rhythm and took us out of the experience.
Two consecutive scenes took place entirely outside. Weather could certainly put a damper on the experience.
Should I play Accomplice The Village?
Accomplice The Village should be approached as interactive theater with some light puzzling. It was, first and foremost, a theatrical excursion through an iconic Manhattan neighborhood.
If you like comedy, improv, and a bit of scavenger hunt, this will be a blast.
If you’ve already played Accomplice New York, this will be a new experience. The mission was different and so was our place in it. While we were still exploring Manhattan, the show was less about its setting. Instead, these characters turned up the dial on absurd and hilarious, but still managed to fit everything into their ludicrous scenario.
For tourists, we recommend Accomplice New York. New York itself was a character in that show; in Accomplice The Village it was simply the setting.
For those new to Accomplice, we recommend Accomplice The Village. This was an approachable show. We walked outside, but not nearly as much as in Accomplice New York. It was also shorter and less expensive.
We enjoyed this experience immensely, even on a brutally cold day. That’s saying a lot.
We attended night one of Club Drosselmeyer, Boston’s two-night World War II-themed mass-puzzling, swing-dancing, and immersive performance event, and had a swell time.
The event was so massive, detailed, and incredible that we asked its creator, Kellian Adams, to talk about the intricacies of show.
We were most surprised to learn about how the show changed on night two.
How did you develop the concept for Club Drosselmeyer?
I had always wanted to build an interactive game-based theater piece. I was at a ballet showcase when it occurred to me that The Nutcracker might be the perfect piece to experiment with because
Interesting characters move around.
The basic storyline connects but isn’t too tight.
It’s a well-known story.
It lends itself to some great music and visuals.
It would have to be performed around the holidays.
The holiday connection was key for an experimental piece because people have more tolerance for playing along with magic and the unexpected during the holidays (as well as spending money on tickets and getting dressed up!).
What were your inspirations?
When I decided that The Nutcracker would be the base for the show, I pulled from a lot of my favorite movies. Casablanca was the main one: I had always wondered what it would be like to be a patron of Rick’s Cafe Americain, where there are all sorts of intrigues happening around you, but you might not be aware of any of them. I designed my main character, Drosselmeyer, as the club owner, which tied directly to Rick, especially where he had his perch up above everyone.
Each character has a fairly involved backstory. For example, mother Ginger – aka Ginger Lamarr – was Hedy Lamarr. Phylo Farnesworth is the inventor of the television and I took his dance team from the movie College Swing. Fritz was modeled after this fabulously devious playboy named Washington Porter Jr. Rhett the Rat was modeled after “King” Solomon, a Boston mob boss in the 30’s. You can see all of our character inspirations on Pinterest.
How much autonomy did each of the performers have?
The performers had a lot of autonomy in developing their characters and the storyline. I built out the structure of the story and they filled in the blanks.
Alice, Clara, and Phylo, for example, delved into radar and so that became a major part of the storyline, which hadn’t been part of my original vision. Also, many of the performers wanted to address the ethical question of whether we should use artificial intelligence, so we did.
The hat idea was from the actor who played the character Beta. One of my favorite parts of the whole show was him wearing a lampshade. He came up with the idea of handing out “research notes” folded into hats. They were detailed enough that many players tried to crack the codes and solve the notes, except there was nothing there!
What were your other favorite moments?
I loved seeing the looks on people’s faces when they came in on Sunday night. I don’t think they had any idea what they had signed up for, but then they walked in and the space looked beautiful: the band was playing, everybody was dressed up, and it was magical. It was so wonderful to watch everyone transition into “Dross mode!”
My other favorite moment happened during a dress rehearsal. A few people came up to me (as the character Kit) and said “WE KNOW WHO THE NUTCRACKER IS!!” Then they pointed at Beta, who at that moment was wearing a lampshade on his head and jumping up and down on the dance floor. In character I asked “that guy?” They looked at me, kind of dumbstruck and followed up with a defensive “well—he’s just a prototype…” and it was this amazing, hilarious moment where they were explaining to me the story that I wrote, and making excuses for it.
I also LOVED the waltz scene. It was a wonderful, magical moment to see everyone spinning in the snow!
Which aspects of the piece were most successful?
I was really proud that the whole “different levels of engagement” thing worked. I genuinely felt like there was something for everybody to do.
I took a lot of different activities that I love, but that can be really intimidating for other people, and arranged them in a way that I think was less intimidating than they expected. I’ve heard the usual comments to these activities SO MANY times…
Puzzles… “I’m not smart enough.”
Talking to characters… “I’m shy, that’s so awkward.”
Getting dressed vintage… “I don’t have anything fancy.”
Swing music… “I can’t dance.”
I think when they all appeared together there was at least one aspect of the show that almost everyone could engage with at some level. If none of them were even mildly appealing, you could still just sit in a beautiful time-travel club, watch the floor shows, listen to the incredible, original music of a really good swing band, drink martinis, and hang out with your friends.
What were the biggest challenges to bringing this piece to the stage?
The uncertainty of it was really hard for the cast members.
I deliberately chose my dancer friends rather than auditioning actors because I knew I didn’t want Club Drosselmeyer to be a traditional theater piece, and I didn’t want lots of professional theater people on board telling me I was doing everything wrong (because I was absolutely doing everything wrong). Also with friends, I was hoping they’d be better with the uncertainty of building something nobody had ever seen before when there wasn’t any proof that this method would work. (Nobody I knew of had done it, so I didn’t have much to point to.)
I also didn’t start with a written script, since there were a lot of moving parts. I sort of twisted myself (and my story) in knots trying to incorporate everyone’s ideas and keep them feeling good about their characters. We ended up with some serious story holes as a result. Next time I would write the whole thing out and hand it to them as a finished “script” and go from there. I would also hold auditions for some of the roles.
Were there any notable differences in player behavior between night one and night two?
There was a MASSIVE difference in the players between night one and night two.
Night one was a Sunday. At 7:00 everyone was at the door, dressed to impress and ready to play. I met people at the door in character as Kit Hollingsworth so I felt the definite buzz of electricity as everybody came in.
Night two was a Friday. At 7:00 I was at the door and … crickets. People arrived slowly, harried and distracted, and a lot of them weren’t dressed as nicely as they had been on Sunday. Many had been stuck in traffic and were grabbing really quick dinners. In general, they had a harder time transitioning into the right mood.
People also drank a lot more on Friday than they had on Sunday, probably because they didn’t have to go to work the next day.
How did you change the event from night one to night two?
First, we added line management. We added an extra person to “interview” people in the Drosselmeyer line and make sure they wanted to actually be there.
Second, we asked the performers to soften their characters and be more forthcoming with information, even if their character would “never” do that. There was this line between pretending, where you try to get as close to your character’s authentic response as possible, and performing, where you acknowledge there’s more to it. We had to remind ourselves that it was theater and our goals were for people to learn the story and have fun.
And finally, we didn’t change the ending, but the audience did.
We experienced the cheery ending on night one (because we chose it). Can you talk about the ending on night two and the reaction to it?
The teams were looking for blueprints, in order to bring these to one of the characters and trigger the ending of the show. On night two, the winning team decided to hand the blueprints over to the bad guy.
We actually had two groups get to the blueprints at the same time, but the group that wanted to give the blueprints to Drosselmeyer (the good guy) had one number in their combination wrong, so the other team got them instead and gave them to Rhett (the bad guy).
When other teams realized what was happening, a lot of them tried really hard to keep the bad ending from occurring. They tried to negotiate with the winning team. Then another team tried to negotiate directly with Rhett to get the papers back. Afterward, the actor who played Rhett told me after that he was really concerned they were going to physically restrain him and take the papers back.
The bad ending was really dark. When Rhett walked out, we pulled up the house lights and played Springtime For Hitler over the loudspeaker. No curtain call. Just awkward house lights and silence.
I wanted to create something where people felt that they had agency. I also didn’t want to theater-coat any of it and make the bad ending fun or cheerful or pithy. Choosing to give technology to Nazis is bad and I think we should let it be bad. I got many emails and asides from people telling me they thought it was an unkind ending, but it was 2016 and I didn’t really feel like giving people a happy ending if they didn’t choose it. Some people were upset and said that because they hadn’t chosen the ending – it had been chosen for them – they shouldn’t have had to suffer through it, but things don’t really work that way. Others said that they weren’t even part of the puzzling – they were just drinking and hanging out and then this terrible thing happened, to which I was thinking: EXACTLY. I wrote a lot about this in a blog post.
I don’t think I would do it like that again, but I’m glad that we did it once. That’s where theater and games diverge, right? I never could have done that with a show.
What surprised you most about how the event played out?
We were surprised how crowded the space was and how long people had to wait in line to speak with key characters. We expected some amount of waiting but not to the extent that it happened, so we got that under control the second night.
We were also surprised that people found it hard to engage with the story. They were confused and didn’t quite know what to do. We had three characters whose job it was to pull people in and we had a full “instructions” sheet, but it wasn’t enough. Next time I want to have a “briefing room” where – out of character – we help the audience figure out how to engage.
I was also surprised that people were so upset about the “bad ending” the second night. I did build a ton of story and nuance in there; it was a pretty dark commentary on 1939 and 2016. On the night of, people just looked confused, like it was a mistake. The people who chose the bad ending literally said “wheee! We’re glad he’s dead! Being bad is fun!” Everyone else was just like “oh well.” Later on they expressed that they were upset and even outraged. I wasn’t expecting the “slow burn” on that ending.
How did you manage to put on so much spectacle with tickets as affordable as they were?
It’s hard to overstate how helpful it was working with Oberon and the American Repertory Theater. The pricing for the space was really reasonable and they helped with EVERYTHING from staging to lights to sound. This was a risk for them because they didn’t entirely understand what we were doing. I got this wonderful email from them afterwards where they said “we took a crazy risk and it paid out in spades!!” I’m saving that email forever! A bunch of people in the Oberon staff said it was one of the coolest, most unique, and beautiful shows they’d seen in that space.
Also, I design everything based on my resources. We had a lot of dancers and musicians and friends to abuse. Just about everybody worked for us under cost. Hooray for friends!!
Do you have any advice for creating this type of piece that you’d like to share with our readers?
Stay infinitely flexible. Give good people what they need to build good things and just keep your eye on the ball. I’m just so proud of how my team made this crazy idea into something special.
Use your resources. Club Drosselmeyer worked because I had a swing band, singers, dancers, and people who knew how to dress like it was 1939. If I’d had to find these people or have other people create this environment, it would have been much more difficult.
What was it like seeing the entire piece come together?
AMAZING!!!! Day of, I looked at the set and the band and the dancers working on things and I was like “this is exactly what was in my head… and now it exists.” It was a surreal experience. It was both totally natural because it had been hanging out in my head for such a long time and totally unnatural because I’m aware that imaginary things don’t usually exist in real life.
Should we expect a sequel?
ABSOLUTELY!! The story will have to be completely different. I think there will be some new acts and new characters. I think it will have to be 1940… and that brings a whole new set of challenges. Germany just marched into France so we’ve got the French Underground and there are spies everywhere!
What’s next for the team behind Club Drosselmeyer?
We’re buzzing along with our Edventure Builder games and we just released updates to a game we built with the Boston Children’s Museum at lxbgame.com.
I’m most excited about a modular escape room for middle schoolers that I’m brainstorming with the Teacher’s Education Resource Center… I don’t want to say too much about it other than that I really really hope it happens.
We’re also building something for this summer likely called the “society for historical inaccuracies.” It will be an interactive mystery tour around Boston, helping people stay abreast of all the things that never happened in Boston fictional history. I’d like to say we’re making history. Up.
Bring a group of characters to play with their characters.
Location: New York City, New York
Date played: May 21, 2016
Team size: 10; we recommend 10
Duration: ~3 hours
Price: $80 per ticket
Story & setting
A day before our game, Lisa received a phone call from a man in character giving very specific instructions for our team.
While I can’t give away the details of where exactly we went, or precisely what we did, I’ll say this: they call it “Accomplice” for a reason.
The setting of Accomplice New York was truly Downtown Manhattan.
The game was something in a nether-realm spanning a live action roleplay, scavenger hunt, and escape room. There were compelling characters, interesting locations, and easy puzzles.
This was an interactive show. There were specific tasks to accomplish and a fair amount of walking involved. We engaged with conversationally energetic characters.
Accomplice was not a passive experience.
Accomplice was a tour of Lower Manhattan. We traversed a number of significant neighborhoods and met realistic yet humorous characters that were, shall we say, unique to New York.
The team at Accomplice had their coordination and stage management down to a science. They had impressive mechanisms to keep teams moving through the game on the right pace, especially considering the physical size of their stage.
The actors were wonderful. Not only did they portray great characters, but they didn’t stick to a script. We messed with them a bit and they never broke character. We shared a short meal with a particular character and he ended up engaging Lisa in an incredibly detailed discussion about her career in onomastics and what she could tell about him (his character) based on his name.
Most impressively, the Accomplice actors read our team of individuals so well and worked that into their performance. When they made fun of us, they were painfully accurate in their assessments of each of us. It was hilarious.
We didn’t race through the game; we tried to milk each interaction for all that it was worth. There were points in the game where we received food or drink and we could not tell how much time we had with our nibbles and libations. Sometimes it was longer than we expected; sometimes we were chased out before we were through.
One character was so realistic that it was uncomfortable. We had to break our character during our initial interactions with this person because we were worried we were weirding out a stranger.
Speaking strictly as a puzzler, the puzzles were not Accomplice’s strong suit. However, I don’t think that they were supposed to be – nor should they have been – difficult.
Should I play Accomplice New York?
There was a lot of love about Accomplice New York. Through its decade-long run, the producers have developed a deep understanding of their craft.
Speaking as a guy who has lived most of my life within arm’s reach of Manhattan, it was hilarious to interact with all of these NYC stereotype characters. There are some people who only exist in the in this part of the world.
Accomplice was also an excellent walking tour of Lower Manhattan, taking us through a number of neighborhoods that a tourist should see while visiting The City.
If you’re only looking for puzzles, you should do something else with your time. However, if you’re looking to experience New York and an interactive show in tandem, I cannot think of a better way to spend 3 hours and $80.
Book your session with Accomplice New York, and tell them that the Room Escape Artist sent you.
With interactive theater, also known as immersive theater, audience members help create their theater experience.
In a traditional theater experience, through sight and sound, audience members passively experience a performance in front of them, out of reach. They do not create.
Interactive theater encompasses a variety of different theatrical productions. The genre exists in between traditional theater and experiential games, designed and orchestrated by the participants.
Escape games exist on this continuum of interactive theater. They take place on a set that is designed and staged before they arrive. However, the players determine how their game unfolds. The best room escapes turn the players into the actors of their own adventures.
In escape rooms, as in all types of theater, the experience is a work of art.
Interactive theater experiences vary widely based on:
size of the audience
size of the cast
size of the set
rules of the set
adherence to a plot
The genre is still developing; there isn’t a right or wrong way to design these experiences.
Four tips to make the most of your interactive theater experience
1. Review the story ahead of time
The show usually tells a story. It can be an interpretation of a known work or an original creation. Because you are not in a seat experiencing the story linearly, or even experiencing every part of the story, refresh yourself on the story before you arrive at the theater.
That said, you can usually enjoy your experience even if you have no understanding that there even is a story unfolding around you.
Your experience depends on you. Accept every interaction you are offered. Explore every option available to you. Manipulate the set. Do things. Seek out interactions with the cast and the other audience members. Play your role in crafting your positive experience.
Smiling and making eye contact with cast members will encourage them to interact with you.
3. Get Lucky
There is a lot of luck involved in having a good time, especially in shows with larger audiences. Sometimes you need to be the one selected to participate and the selection is out of your control. Realize that luck will play a huge role in your experience and cross your fingers.
4. Bring a friend, but go at it alone
Attend the show with others. A couple or a small group works best.
Then leave your companions and find your own experiences. Don’t feel responsible for anyone else’s fun.
Discuss the show with your companions after it ends. In all likelihood, each member of your party will tell a different story, some more positive than others (based on their participation and their luck). Synthesize the show together.
Room Escapes Interacting with Interactive Theater
Yes, it’s happening. This genre combines escape-room style puzzles with intensified character development as well as actor interaction. This collaboration will help both industries grow.