I remember reading about Australian New Wave freeform in the 90s. It sounded extremely psychological and very much about using the whole environment to give players a strong experience. They are taking things in very interesting directions now:
Many freeforms are "scaleable" for different sized groups, perhaps starting with a half-dozen to dozen characters with interlinked (or opposed) agendas or goals, then other characters might be added in with more related goals, or new sets of agendas that still tie in with those that have already been introduced. The idea is to create reasons for all characters to interact with each other.
That is some good structure there. Are there American or European larps that function that way?
More from the thread: In short, freeforms tend to be games with 20+ players. They typically have a ratio of 1 GM to every 5 players. Each player has a group of agendas that they are trying to achieve, these agendas link them to other player's characters (either as allies, or enemies...and often forcing them into moral dilemmas where they have to choose which agendas to pursue). In freeforms, characters typically don't have attributes or numbers on their character sheets at all, instead they have a page or two of personal background, possibly a page of factional background, and possibly a page of general background shared by all players. In freeforms, costuming tends to be common. It's all about story and style, and not about mechanics at all.
This sounds similar to the original con-oriented larps I've been involved in, though some have more mechanical elements. Their description of having agendas and goals and then being let loose on the game sounds reminiscent of the descriptions I heard about Finnish larps. But I wonder what the differences are.