The beginning of this year saw the publication of the first academic style journal covering role-playing titled the International Journal of Role-Playing.
Until now the world of RPG Theory has been of, by, and for the hobbyist (except for that one WotC Study). This now offers the chance for a more formal approach. And yet the Journal is open not just to academia, but to industry and the arts (that means us).
The first issue was the laying of ground work for the most part. A definition of what a RPG is, how they can be examined, and of course some computer rpg related material. Yes, the journal takes a very open view of what an rpg is and that includes computer based ones.
Where this will go is completely up in the air. We'll have to see how it plays out.
IMO I expect the computer and LARP side of things to be dominate. The first due to the money involved and the fact that computer systems can be more readily analyzed than table-top. The latter because many of the people involve are from nations where LARP makes up the body of RPG Theory already.
There is a great chance that the whole thing will remain academic (as in- useless) in the view of the hobby as a whole. There are those who will reject serious study as counter to the hobby itself, and RPG Theory has already been devalued in the opinion of many.
Even so, I'm hopeful that something useful will come of this. In that line I'll be keeping on eye on the journal, perhaps even 'reviewing' some of the papers published.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
I was wondering if you had any thoughts about Push: New Thinking about Roleplaying, Volume 1 or any of the Knutepunkt/Solmukohta (which are primarily LARP focused) books? A reader posted a list in the comments of one of my posts if you're interested.
This is the first I've heard of Push, and the quick glance I took indicates that it's an outgrowth of the Forge (which makes up a huge amount of its references, as does the related blog). That impression could be wrong. I'll look at it in more depth at another time.
I considered covering Knutepunkt/Solmukohta, but as they're LARP focused I decided to leave them out. I don't feel they relate well to table-top games, likely being even further removed than computer gaming. And while I could speak to computer rpgs having significant experience there, I have none in LARP except a single Killer Game that taught me I wanted nothign to do with it in the future.
Yeah, I had the same misgivings about Push, though I did read it through it and didn't feel the same aversion I do when treading through the old Forge stuff.
I do think that some of the LARP stuff has value, and I would say that CRPGs are even further removed from the realm of RP than a LARP is when considering non-networked computer games; more of a virtual LARP when considering networked game like World of Warcraft.
We're going to have to disagree on the LARP vs. CRPGs, as I for once think that they are correctly named. Notice which has 'game' and which doesn't.
IMO, LARP are effectly role-playing effects with very little to no (for boffer events say) game mechanics. Meanwhile CRPGs use mechanical engines under the programing hood very similar to table-top rpgs.
Now I feel that both are likely too far away from table-top to be directly useful. I just think that LARP is so far away as to be pointless while CRPG is close enough that comparsion can be interesting.
Sorry, but I think both LARP and CRPG theory is hard to apply to the tabletop. This isn't to disparage either.
As I understand it, LARP has been a subject that some pretty sharp people in especially Scandanavia have put a lot of thought into how it works, and wrote some very good material about it, but its lack of a real game element does make it too different.
CRPGs are the most popular medium for fantasy gaming today, and I'd be lying to say I wasn't a big fan of it. OTOH these games swing too far in the other direction, they're all rules and very little about letting the player own a piece of the character beyond what the mechanics can cover.
Table top gaming is distinct in how role and rules manage to strike a balance through the players.
IMO, LARP are effectly role-playing effects with very little to no (for boffer events say) game mechanics. Meanwhile CRPGs use mechanical engines under the programing hood very similar to table-top rpgs.
You need to listen to a couple of NERO Grognards sometime.
LARPS' "Game" aspect is highly variable between the different system. NERO uses a system that is more complex than several table-top rule sets including the original D&D rules. Many players come up with methods to "game" the system.
The primary difference between most LARP ruleset and table-top is that the LARP rules governing action will be biased toward keeping things moving. Outside of the action
LARPS can be often more complex than the equivalent Table-tops particularly in areas like crafting.
For boffer LARPS you have the consider that it is a sport as well. Physical talent only gets you so far. It pays to practice the physical skills needed for the game.
MMORPG, LARP, and Table-top are all RPGs but they don't occupy the same space. Consider them as three overlapping circle with areas in common and other that are not.
The areas of LARPS that is most applicable to table-top are:
1) Acting skills for Roleplaying
2) Running fun plots with limited real-world resources.
3) Seeing Physical limitations in play. (Sleeping in Armor, taking a tower shield through a cave, etc)
4) How a mass of people respond to typical fantasy scenarios.
I'm sorry Rob, but I have looked at the NERO and calling these more complex than D&D (even the orignal set which was much simpler than the current version and was in any event rapidly upgraded) is disingenuous.
Any set of rules, even those created with safety as the prime concern can be 'gamed', so it is with the shooting sports likes SASS or IPSC neither which could be called a rpg. This by itself has little relationship to tabletop rpgs and I reject the attempt to link the two.
I do think there is some overlap, but I reject even the list you generated finding fault with every item.
James V- I tend to agree of course. CRPGs aren't table-top games and there are serious differences. I do consider them closer than LARPs, as does WotC given their attempt with 4th edition to pull some of the CRPGs feel into the game.
IMO WotC went too far. But that's a different subject.
In any, one must take care. The primary drivers between these are very different.
The rule book you can look at is the equivalent of the Player's Handbook it does not have everything you need to run events in there.
There is a monster guide, the ritual system, and a half dozen other guides that chapter owners get when they register. Combined they form a game more complex than original D&D and other table-top RPGs.
LARPS that use detailed rules don't hand out the complete rulebook to all players. The prime reason for this is not preserve secrecy but force new players to go to older players to find out the unknown dangers of the game.
Rob- I'm not concerned with page count here. I'm concerned with kind and usage. And they are just not the same.
I can understand your point of view, but LARPs (going beyond the Scandinavian stuff) can have fairly complex game mechanics, but lean towards simplicity, especially with resolutions. White Wolf's Mind's Eye Theatre comes to mind.
MET practically mirrors its table top brethren as far as game mechanics (player attributes, abilities, advantages) but switches dice rolling to card pulling.
CRPGs are tough to pin down. You have on one hand the old Black Isle/Bioware games like Baldur's Gate (and to some extent Neverwinter Nights). They do not have allowance for roleplaying beyond that which is already programmed into the game. There are also limitations with how much you can interact with the environment (no, you can't fill your waterskin from the river).While it definitely makes use of apply popular mechanics and settings to a video game, how much is lost by being constrained within the program. I am more of a mind to call these Adventure Computer Games, because I can't find the Role Playing aspect.
On the other hand, MUDs and their successors, the MMORPGs (though both terms are just symantics), have the potential for true roleplaying (the dynamic, non-constrained RP). But it is not because of the game portion of their programming. It is because of the chat program that allows them to freely interact with other players.
I've found MMORPGs to be highly constrained with respect to role-playing or even at times character identification.
The lack of persistent changes and the construction of a world that is very much a game world all have a significant impact for me.
For example, I play Lord of The Rings Online. And can run from the coast to the Misty Mountains in a few minutes. It should take months. Along the way I find cities. Very small cities. No children. In all the game I know of one child NPC and she's always lost in the Barrow Downs.
And that secret mission of the Fellowship? Hard on their heels are thousands of people killing everything that moves.
I can't role-play in that world. It's all game to me.
But for all that, LARPs are even more alien to me.
I think what Mad and Rob are saying in defence of LARP theory as useful are interesting, but I still have to disagree, though I fault my own perceptions as the reason. I assume that LARP works best when there aren't a lot of mechanics or rules to break the continuity of the activity.
Then again I did improv for a few years and it does color how I feel about people deciding to actively pretend they're someone else. Improv is an activity that can be incredibly lacking in hard rules.
As for MMORPGs, the lack of persistence breaks any pretense of RP for me, just like it does for Gleichman. For MUDs though, I have to plead ignorance. I guess that a persistent world can be possible though, as I think of them as smaller operations independently run, that may be able to respond to player activities on that level.
@James V: It's these very perceptions that we need to be aware of when discussing theory, and if we hope any such discussion to be of value.
We shouldn't begin with any preconceived misconceptions and we should try to clear our bias when looking at these things. Instead it should be approached by looking at a framework asking "how far can it be taken?"
Then once we have pushed the envelope we can reign it back in and begin placing limitations on it. Such as "however, in most instances, this becomes ..."
I freakin' hate LARPs because of my experience with them, but I don't deny that they could be awesome, given the right variables. Nor do I think that some of its theory can apply to other genres, just because I don't like it.
If we allow our own misgivings to color our studies, then we haven't come that far from the Swine Wars.
Edit the second to last setence to read:
Nor do I think that somem of its theory cannot apply to other genres...
Mad Brew- There is a blindness that comes from assuming that theories from other fields work as well as assuming they don't.
The Forge made this mistake before it made the other mistakes you reference.
I've larped twice, plus a lot of boffer fighting with few rp elements when I was younger. (Boffering is a borderline case of roleplaying, similar to tabletop play with only slim pretext to get from combat to combat and very mechanical combats.)
Based on that experience, I'd say that the greatest differences between tabletop play and larping are that (1) in larp, not all participants are in the same palce at the same time, hence creating limited information and often there being several game masters, (2) larps being generally larger and (3) larps usually being more focused around socialisation, with (1) and (2) making political play with several different parties more meaningful. (Special effects are fairly scarce larpside, but then there are exceptions like Dragonbane.)
The lack or lightness of rules I don't see as a major difference, as plenty of tabletop play is freeform or close to it. Many players hereabouts use rules mostly for benchmarking and comparing characters, rarely rolling dice and otherwise engaging in formal resolution.
It is also true that in Finland most larpers also participate in pen and paper play (the contrary is not as true) and the two scenes are heavily intertwined.
Personally I see little connection between computer games and roleplaying, aside from some similarities in mechanical rules.
Post a Comment