Tabletop and LARP

I've done an awful lot of LARPing in a number of different formats. In broad strokes, I'd say that things don't change too much when we throw LARPing into the mix; the restrictions of the format (and the format varies very widely from group to group) are probably no stricter than many tabletop groups impose on themselves.

However, I do think there are a lot of interesting questions relating to how we analyze LARPs (and define them, of course -- we had a few "what exactly is LARP anyway" go-rounds on the Forge); there's just so much that it's hard to know where to start. Did you have a specific issue you were thinking about?

No specific issue, no. It's just that Jiituomas and other Nordic larpers periodically (and rightly) jump on me about making assumptions about RPGs based solely on tabletop issues. Most of my theoretical thinking in RPGs has happened in relation to tabletops as well, in part because the Forge is largely tabletop-oriented. So it seems to me that if RPG theory is going to rethink itself, which is sort of what I have in mind for this blog/list, we need to step well back and ask fundamental questions.

Many larps manifestly break the traditional narrative analysis of games -- mainly because there isn't a singular text. In a larp, you have a lot of simultaneous action where an individual player only sees a fraction of what's going on, and thus events occur without everyone involved having input on them.

In contrast, many Forge games (and pre-Forge games like Theatrix and others) are based on emulating static media where there is only a single line of action. A fair amount of theory is also often centered on this -- for example, the idea of a singular Shared Imaginary Space which requires everyone's consensus.

At the same time, I consider it very worthwhile to mix discussion of different gaming formats -- because the different fields often have a lot of input upon each other. If you discuss only tabletop without considering larp, I think there is a danger of becoming dominated by assumptions from linear narrative which aren't actually necessary for roleplaying.

Do you think the SIS concept (shared imaginary space) is nevertheless useful, if the singularity is discarded? I'm sort of thinking of old questions about how cultures "think", the point being that there is very often a notional "common ground" of assumption and agreement (often more contested than is obvious to the participants) that is usually perceived as singular despite the fact that it quite clearly isn't so.

Sorry. Let me try that again.

One of the old questions about cultures (and indeed, one of the founding points about the "culture" concept) is the way in which some kind of imagined agreement and common-ground is formulated and maintained. A great deal of this material gets so deeply absorbed into the fabric of thought that it becomes "naturalized": we take these things to be true because that's just obviously how nature is (but an outside observer may well see that quite a lot of this obviously is cultural and not natural).

Your remarks about larps make me wonder whether we should be thinking about SIS as in some sense analogous, though obviously everyone recognizes from the beginning that SIS is constructed. That kind of approach would obviously discard the notion of linear narrative, as well. But I wonder whether you think SIS is a conception that should be understood as a limiting or even defining quality of a type of RPG play.

Just as a side note, in LARP regular play, the singularity of SIS is somewhat lost, but more in that it becomes a fuzzy set. One interesting piece of info about LARPs is the discussion afterwords of what happened among the various groups. In more one-time LARPs, like say, a typical single-LARP con, the SIS may actually fracture into separate spaces where overlap only exists in minor ways, or in the original intent of the organizers. But in extended LARPs, or at something like Intercon, where participants will remeet in other LARPs over the weekend, the shared imaginary space goes through a process of recreating common ground, through that old saw, the No-Shit story.

Pretend for a minute that I don't know the old saw. What is the No-Shit story?

A description of in-game events, traditionally prefixed by the phrase "no shit, there I was." In the weekly or twice-monthly LARPs I've played in over the years, what happens is that, absolutely, you get fragmentation into many different mini-games, with only a few players really interacting with everybody. After the game they get together over breakfast and shoot the shit about it. And yes, it makes a lot of sense to consider this as a means of negotiating these different experiences of play into perception of "the LARP" as a single entity.

The other notable thing about LARPs, of course, is that the creaiton of the SIS is usually more or less constrained by the existence of a shared actual space. It's that "more or less" that makes LARP-to-tabletop a continuum rather than a neat divide.

No shit, there I was, and John and Bob were trying to convince me to kill the Grand Master...

Who Coined the Term Shared Imaginary Space?

After only a handful of LARP experiences I drew the obvious comparison. The first thing I noticed trying to continue developing Scattershot so that it could be used for LARP as well as tabletop, was that the whole premise of narrative was almost absent. Admittedly, each players has their own narrative, but it was so internalized as to not matter for the purposes of design.

While Lumpley was originating his principle and much Forge discussion began looking at issues of credibility, I was struggling with the fact that LARPs didn't have a narrative to fight over. That's why I adopted the idea of Shared Imaginary Space. Here was something that input went into and in some cases, system designated the results, most of the time though what happened was a result of shared expectation of the source material. And you're right in a LARP, this is very like a miniature - if somewhat artificial - culture. (Is it any wonder that there was something of a one-to-one matchup with the goth-punk subculture?)

I began calling this a Genre Expectation. It was more and more specific than a 'genre,' but seemed as though it had to exist simultaneously in all participants' minds. In the work I was doing, I had to systematize Genre Expectations so they could be communicated as product. I am very interested in pursuing the idea of Genre Expectation as communication of mini-culture.

At some point, I began to think that linearity was an addition to what was fundamentally at the center of RPGing. My progress was interrupted at that point, however.

To be honest, I've hungered for a discussion about the minimum defining elements of RPGs. I even resurrected this <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/community/rpg_theory/>Over at John Kim's rpg_theory LJ</a>. And yes, I believe that SIS is one of the defining qualities of RPG play, if not the defining element. You might expect me to be the crusader of it, but I'm not that way anymore. Fang

I personally have been arguing that what sets the three main types/platforms (tabletop, including chat and pbem; larp; digital) of role-playing apart is the constructing of the play-space. It's completely imaginary (SIS) in the first, a version of Winnicott's "potential space", made by combining reversed eidetic reduction and constant semiotic re-signification in the second, and a "shared observable environment" (roughly "a representation of a shared virtual space the players interpret as representing a real space") in the third.

For a theory perspective, this is important because what follows is that the mental processes in forming each of them are quite different, leading to the question of whether the mental state of players within them remain similar or not.

Can't say much more at the moment, though. (Core Hermeneutics... will contain a much more thorough version of this, when it eventually comes out.)

Side note: Despite being critical of Chris' tabletop favoritism, I just did a highly successful liminoid-state larp using "Ritual Discourse" as one of its main design tools. So the platforms do overlap in practice, even when theories do not cover the trait differences enough to count as completely accurate beyond their native paradigm or platform.

-Jiituomas

For a theory perspective, this is important because what follows is that the mental processes in forming each of them are quite different, leading to the question of whether the mental state of players within them remain similar or not.

I pretty much agree with JiiTuomas on this one, even though I'm not completely following his examples on the types of play-spaces. In practise, I've observed that the approaches commonly used (in some circles of) Nordic LARP's has very much affected they way we think about and do tabletop roleplaying.

Some notes here:

http://merten.kapsi.fi/rpg/?p=63

Do you think the SIS concept (shared imaginary space) is nevertheless useful, if the singularity is discarded?

Well, if you discard the singularity, then that brings into doubt the "shared" part. It's certainly a useful concept. This is what the Nordics use the term "diegesis" for -- which is a term from film theory. Alternately, I think it may be helpful to think of Shared Text plus Individual Texts to form Individual Imaginary Spaces.

Another important concept is the idea of the "Shared Space of Imagining" from the Process Model of Role-playing. That acknowledges that there are many things kept in mind about the game which are not themselves part of the fictional reality (i.e. imaginary space or diegesis). The games' rules, for example.

Also, chat and e-mail play are rather different beasts as well, as different as LARP is from tabletop. And since there are very few published games designed specifically for chat or e-mail play, everybody figures out how to do it on their own, adapting from published games or just making stuff up.

And also board and journal based play, which I've never done myself so can only look in from outside. I'm currently fascinated by bad_rpers_suck with it's horror stories of bad things happening in games. It's a mix of tabletop roleplayers and highly freeform fandom-based roleplayers, all venting about Games Gone Wrong. It's interesting to observe how some of the assumptions about what is good or bad roleplay differ in entirely different traditions of roleplaying, and also, over time, to observe the commonalities. I'm half tempted to analyse the archives to look at what things all traditions regard as bad or good in a game, but I'm not sure I have the courage to read through so much scary stuff .

Wow, that entire community is a piece of perfect ugly beauty. Thanks for sharing, Claire.

Huh. That website is really very odd. I read it, and I can sort of kind of put together what they're talking about, but it all seems deeply alien to me.

I notice a fascination with identifying bad players on the basis of their typing, in particular a constant fury about such contractions as "b4" and "4 u r gr8" and so on. Considering the ordinary level of prose on the site, as well as on the internet in general, I find this peculiar.

I also notice a lot of assumptions about IC/OOC self-presentation. on a related note, it appears that the greatest sin is "god-moding," but I find this somewhat difficult to interpret as "mod" appears to mean both "moderator" and "mode." So I don't know whether the objection is to acting like a moderator or to acting in the mode/manner of a god. But it does appear to mean something like making any kind of assertion about another player's character.

Finally, I was very struck by an angry rant -- much supported by the comments -- about someone who staged a brief combat with another PC. It wasn't exactly clear to me why this had to be staged, but apparently in order to fight someone you have to ask the player's permission first. Having done this and received permission, the PC had the fight... but then, horror of horrors, pulled a switchblade and stabbed the other PC in the leg. This was apparently the ultimate sin, but I cannot figure out why.

Some of the objectors were horrified that the player in question had not done enough anatomical research to know that a switchblade in the leg could potentially have fatal results. The original poster seemed bothered because the stabbed PC was scheduled for a pay-per-view (??) shortly thereafter. Apparently all the mods (moderators, I think?) piled in here, because obviously this was a gross violation and needed a great deal of careful handling.

Anyone able to translate? Since the player whose PC did the stabbing was apologetic, couldn't one simply announce that the stab wound was merely a graze?

Oh -- the link is right here.

Huh. Well, I can't say that I totally get it, but it could be the case (as is common in online free-form play) that only a character's player is allowed to narrate real injury and harm to their character. So Char A could whip out the knife and try to attack Char B, but Char B's player would have to narrate the knife getting plunged into the leg, if at all. Still, their concern doesn't seem to be about overstepping the boundaries of narrative power, but that Char A pulled out the knife in the first place. Or assumed it was okay to just stab another Char in a fight. I don't really get it. The complaints about arteries and looking stuff up just seem silly to me.

It's "god-moding," that is, playing in "god mode." In video games, this has a particular meaning; here, it appears to mean taking on prohibited director stance.

A quick google informs me that the game with the switchblade is a wrestling game, centered around an imaginary wrestling federation (an "e-fed"). The pay-per-view is therefore an in-game event, scheduled ahead of time, in which being stabbed would make the character unable to participate. A fight in a BtS ("Behind the Scenes") scene, and even a defeat, are both perfectly acceptable, but apparently it is a rule of the social contract that you can't use such an incident to remove a character from an already-planned future scene.

Since the point of the game is the simulation of a "sport," presumably the physical condition of a character is very important, and since (as I think) it is played by post and editing may be difficult, a high value is placed on perfect accuracy and consistency in physical descriptions.

All of which, of course, are subsumed in the attitude that that player SHOULD HAVE KNOWN and is RUINING THE GAME because OUR WAY IS THE RIGHT WAY.

And for some strange reason, my comment didn't end up as a reply to yours as planned.

I also wanted to say that there was a post a little while ago, that demonstrated the shear breadth of expectations. A guy posted a rant, complaining about women daring to play characters who are not 19 year old gorgeous girls, when they the player are not a 19 year old gorgeous girl. This guy felt that this was a major breach of social contract, and felt very upset and violated because they had made him roleplay having sex with someone who was not a 19 year old babe in reality. He didn't get any sympathy, and he may have been a troll, but there was something about his aggrieved attitude that makes me think that it had never occurred to him until the point he started getting a whole lot of 'why the hell can't someone play a character who's different from them?' responses, that some people night think it was valid to do so. The same old saw about not taking social contract for granted, but many people finding it out for the first time.

There's a whole lot of people doing what they call roleplaying and they're making up the system as they go along. In some ways, it can be an insight into what happens in other roleplaying because, while it has a whole lot of messed up assumptions, it doesn't have the assumptions that have come from the tabletop tradition. Maybe it allows us to separate those out?

It makes more sense when you see it from the perspective of hazing. I've got a certain amount of familiarity with online freeform as both participant and observer, although it's not recent. (Mine was on FidoNet). As near as I can interpret this community, it seems to be primarily concerned with fairly serious "virtual fiction". Communities self-segregate fairly aggressively, and brutal hazing of those who aren't up to standards can be pretty common - it's rationalized (and maybe validly) as a sort of "tough love" that will prevent sloppy, casual play.

Combine that with a culture that attracts drama queens and prima donnas with delusions of literary grandeur and awards social cred based on the ability to argue obscure trivia.

What you're seeing is status maintenance behavior. I prove how serious I am about my art by judging others publicly and aggressively.

The spelling thing? Fills the same function as the common tabletopper references to "Kewl Powerz" or MMO players sarcastic use of "leet speak". It's a commonly understood shorthand for Those People who Talk Like This.

I regard it as my occasional visit to an alien planet.

The typing thing is interesting. I think it has a number of elements. Those who view roleplaying as having links to literary endeavour and pride themselves on their writing technique in online roleplaying probably don't like it because it's both below the standard they hold themselves to, and drags down the quality of the shared literary endeavour. For those playing games in non-modern settings, they may object to it because it breaks suspension of disbelief, in the same way that tabletop players will object to in character use of ghetto slang if they're supposed to be plying japanese nobles in the 12th century.

After reading for a few weeks, I think I've got a handle on the god-mode thing. There was actually a big discussion on the term a few weeks ago. It's believed to come from god-mode in video games, and the unforgivable part of it seems to be using director stance against another player in a disenfranchising way. For an over-the-top example which hopefully makes the key point clear, in the middle of an argument between Tom and Bob, Tom's player writes (with context added by me):

Tom says, "You are obviously wrong and foolish, and not man enough to know it." Tom slaps Bob, a deadly insult that cannot go unanswered if Bob is to retain any honour.

Tom then leaves before Bob can respond and goes to see Peter.

"Peter, that Bob is a no good villain, did you know he just took a blow without answer? Nobody can trust him!"

All in one post, without any opportunity for Bob's player to engage in the conflict or have a say in the outcome. Tom's player argues if Bob's player wants to wind things back and have Bob respond to the insult. Basically Tom's player has claimed the right to decide how Bob response, and has done so in a way that advantages Tom and Tom's player. This is regarded as a great sin. I tend to think of it as basically about deprotagonisation. One player is trying to take away another's ability to say what happens in the game. God-modding when it's not done to gain advantage is regarded as undesirable but not unforgivable. It's often put down to inexperience or laziness, but there's a definite feeling that the god-modding player should learn to shape up quickly if they want people to play with them.

It gets interesting, because I gather than in many of these games, it's ok to write in actions for another person's character when they're not online but their character is necessary for the current plot. However, there seems to be huge variation in what is acceptable, even within games. With some people labeling the characters as ok to be moved by other people, others within limits or inline with agreed plots, or not at all. It all seems highly fluid and a great source of conflict and misunderstanding.

As for the switchblade thing, my impression was pretty much that same as jholloway. The switchblade was bad because it went beyond the agreed stakes of the fight. A fight, with each minor injuries, with the outcome already determined in terms of winner and loser. I think the issue was that the guy with the switchblade thought that stabbing someone fell within the agreed stakes of minor injuries, the other people in the game felt that stabbing had consequences greater than minor injuries and that he should have known this in a game about fighting. However, the difference between minor injuries and more serious stuff seems to be defined by reference to nebulous 'real world fact' rather than any system. And players are obliged to know that definition without any further help. So as far as I can see, he's mostly guilty of cluelessness. But that also seems to be a pretty bad sin. Many of these players are in early teens, and cluelessness is pretty close to the ultimate sin for that age group even outside roleplaying games.

I don't quite understand the desire to avoid rolling back, or changing events after they've been initially described. Maybe because it's text-based, it's easy to feel that the written record is more sacrocant than spoken description of events? Maybe the alternating narration rights make people feel that changing those events is a negative comment about the person who narrated them?