Lates Knutepunkt book, Larp, the Universe and Everything: An anthology on the theory and practice of live role-playing (larp), is now published online. The book chapters are available at http://knutepunkt.laiv.org/2009/book/

TOC:

• Introduction (Matthijs Holter, Eirik Fatland, Even Tømte)
• A bilingual history of Latvian larp (Agnese “Axa” Dzervite)
• 33 ways to have fun at a Latvian larp (Agnese “Axa” Dzervite)
• Towards a larp-acting culture: A manifesto (Morgan Jarl)
• Elements of Harry Potter: Deconstructing an edu-larp (Malik Hyltoft & Jakob T. Holm)
• Ten comparisons between UK LRP and French GN (Tadeusz Cantwell)
• Larp in Kamensky forest (Anita Myhre Andersen & Erik Aarebrot)
• Role-playing games and education in Brazil: how we do it (Wagner Luiz Schmit, João Batista Martins & Thales Ferreira)
• Notes on designing repeatable larps (J. Tuomas Harviainen)
• Tabletop RPG meets performing arts: Bringing pen & paper role-playing to the stage (Florian Berger)
• Pix or didn’t happen (Juhana Pettersson)
• Britta Bergersen: The in-game photographer (Interviewed by Eirik Fatland)
• Creating a character: A summary of a process with exercises and advice (Morgan Jarl)
• Face and figuration in RPG play (William J. White)
• The Vademecum of the Karstic Style (Andrea Castellani)
• Philosophies and strategies of pervasive larp design (Markus Montola, Jaakko Stenros & Annika Waern)
• Excavating AmerikA (Eirik Fatland)
• Fun for everybody? (Katri Lassila)

JiiTuomas refered on argument about philosophy of science at Rule7, which started as something else. Got interested what kind of RPG forum Rule7 is and started to read. Some arguments in thread made me write this comment. Especially view expressed by ChessyPig (which few seem to agree) raises multiple problems in terms of what is science:

the English definition of science (which involves things like falsifiable hypothesis and controlled experiments [...]). (ChessyPig)

Although there are multiple ways of interpreting comment, I take that he made strong claims: science requires falsifiable hypothesis AND controlled experiments. (Just linking science alone with Popper’s philosophy by making falsifiable hypothesis a criteria of science is problematic as, e.g, Kuhn [1962] has argued in detail.)

One obvious question that relates to falsifiability and controlled test as criteria of science is: is mathematics a science? How you use controlled test with mathematics? Are mathematical theories falsifiable?

Then how about physics? Would these above-mentioned criteria lead to that physics is not a science? Physics do not use controlled experiments, I think (I take that controlled experiments means tests with control groups like in medicine). Moreover, does formulating hypothesis that are currently not testable make that part of theory formulation unscientific (and it might turn to be science when someone invent a way to tests the hypothesis)? I think not.

The question is not so straight forward as some writes at Rule7 propose. John Dewey (1929) have criticized very premises of science as seeking certainty and something unchanging (e.g., Popper’s philosophy and falsifiable hypothesis).

Dewey (1929). The quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action.
Kuhn (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press

In digra list there is discussion on serious games with claims like game is only game if it is played. This view highlights the process nature of the games. On the other hand, the claim make obvious there is confusion what term games refers (Here I do not mean that we need definition composed by nessesary and sufficient conditions): but I think that we need a language that can explicate what kind of stuff we are referring when we say “a game”. Do we mean a process of playing a certain artifact, the artifact, or something else.

Similar vague use of term of role-playing game in recent discussion at Roolipelaaja forum causes missinterpretations. Usually it is not obvious from context if writer with a term role-playing game refers to game system (rulebook), beforehand designed scenario, game event, or already played game event.

Björk & Holopainen (2005) have proposed some terminology to clarify this mess:

A game instance defines the complete collection of all components, actions, and events that take place during the playing of single game. A game session is the whole activity of one player participating in such a game. A play session is the uninterrupted stretch of time when one player is actively playing a game. (p. 9).

I am not sure if these terms solves the problem in general, but their proposal demosntrates some distinctions that might be useful when discussing on games or role-playing games.

Björk & Holopainen (2005). Patterns in Game Design. Hingham: Charles River Media.

There has been discussion on whether table-top RPGs are stories or drama and does they have plot in Roolipelaaja forum. That discussion made me think about some basic concept and views on RPGs.

Johannes Kellomäki argued that from narratologist point of view games are stories; RPGs represents human actions. I took that he meant that acted out events in a game forms a story. Which is perfectly valid view. However, it tells very little about the structures of the game before players have fixed their path with descisions.

Read the rest of this entry »

There is new (peer review) journal out there, which publish articles on live-action role-playing: Journal of Interactive Drama. First two issues are out. Curiously journal contains also larp scenarios.

D.B. El’konin (1971),Toward The Problem of Stages
in the Mental Development of Children at
http://www.marxists.org/archive/elkonin/works/1971/stages.htm (from Voprosy psikhologii).

• the role or (role-)play in children’s development
• transferring meaning to an object to another (props)
• social meaning of play

I noticed some new papers on role-playing games:

On the Role of the Die: A brief ludologic study of pen-and-paper roleplaying games and their rules. Game Studies 6(1).

by Joris Dormans

Pen-and-paper roleplaying games, like computer games, are in their essence rule-based simulation “engines” that facilitate playful interaction. These similarities make it possible to take some theoretical concepts and notions developed for computer games and use them to study roleplaying games.

Communication in Multi-Player Role Playing Games – The Effect of Medium in Technologies for Interactive Digital Storytelling and Entertainment

(version available: http://jonassmith.dk/weblog/wp-content/effectofmedium.pdf)

by Tychsen, Anders & Smith, Jonas Heide & Hitchens, Michael & Tosca, Susana

The Pen-and-Paper role-playing game is a successful example of collaborative interactive narrative. Meanwhile, computer-based role-playing games, while structurally similar, offer quite different narrative experiences. Here results are presented of an experimental study of role-playing gamers in Pen-and-Paper and computer-supported settings. Communication patterns are shown to vary significantly on measures such as the share of in-character statements and the share of dramatically motivated statements. These results are discussed in the light of differences between the two gaming forms and finally some design implications are discussed.

Brian Morton (Assistant Professor in Philosophy at Indiana State University) have quite interesting site on (critical) role-playing game theory.

Merten writes, in his blog:

Lately, I’ve been trying to put my confusing notes in character immersive playing (aka. eläytyjivism) into single, easy introduction to the mentioned play style. I’ve ended up with a beginning of a long essay which is, essentially, loads of confusing notes lumped into one. The fact I’m trying to write in English does not help things a bit. I’m getting less and less suprised by the fact that there’s lack of basic introductory material of immersion available – it’s a bitch to write.

I am not surprised about this: immersion is a buzzword that is used in various ways–often without a definition or thought out meaning.

I think that the concepts of engrossment and framing could introduce more stable ground for discussion and descriptions of role-playing experiences than immersion.

The fictional world of a game and real world are contexts, frames of meaning, that are both present in the game. The awareness of each frame, the awareness of a player changing the frame, and ambiguities of the frame of reference are all important in constituting the playing experience. In a game players must choose whether playing their own selves disguised as character or play the the character in simulation mode (trying to reason what the character would do in the given situation). (see, Fine 1983, p. 4).

The character immersive playing could then be described as a kind of playing that focus on the game frame, tries to minimize changes between game frame and primary frame, and where a player tries to act and make judgments as as if she is the character.

Fine, G. A. (1983). Shared fantasy: Role-playing games as social worlds. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (paperback ed.).

• Esityksen diat
• Tracon I workshopin oheismateriaali

(Added Nov 22. 2006.) The presentation was based on my chapter Character design fundamentals for role-playing games in Montola & Stenros (eds.) Beyond Role and Play.