Advice for Gamers in Society

[NerfedWizard]

the debate continues

Um, dude, not all larp has the physical exercise. There's tons of folk who do theatre-style stuff without the swords. ... Evolution has nothing to do with progress. RPGs are different, but not objectively better. ... As if everyone in the world should somehow like what you do? How boring would that be? I think you have the wrong answer, because you clearly miss the thing that actually differentiates RPGs from the other activities, the thing that makes our hobby qualitatively different from others - the playing of a role.

1. For several months now I've been regularly playing a Vampire game which uses playing cards. But though that is a valid form of entertainment, I would have to insist that swinging a sword IS more immersive and IS a superior form of activity (albeit it has some drawbacks in terms of limiting what you can simulate and who can participate). On any fair view of the matter, swinging a sword is simply better. Sorry, Vampires of the World! I'm not saying that you suck. You're just not as cool as latex lovers. This is self-evident and does not require independent proof. In fact, it's one of the Grand Axioms of life which the poster I quote has apparently missed. ;-)

2. Biological evolution may be a bit hit-and-miss, and biologists may lack a standard other than pure Darwinianism to judge the "superiority" of one species over another, but I reserve the right to pass judgment arbitrarily on all forms of entertainment! However perhaps I will check out that book, if I ever get time.

OK, I'm being flippant. But RPGs involve EVERYONE in telling the story. They are interactive. They exercise not just passive imagination, but also active imagination (creativity), the intellect and social skills - the last of these being perhaps in many players' cases the most sorely needed! LARP additionally often involves physical exercise and is hugely immersive. So, there is an argument that RPGs have the potential to be socially more productive than literature / plays / movies etc., even if it's rare or impossible for the same level of artistry to be attained as a professional author or film/theatre team can achieve.

3. If everyone in the world had my tastes in light entertainment, the world would be FAR more interesting for me, and for them, because all our energies would be concentrated in improving the one superior area of entertainment, instead of wasted on Coronation Street or Eastenders or Poker or Horse Racing or International Cricket (are these things really supposed to be entertainment!?). But I would have to concede that if everyone were like me, probably not a lot of food would be produced, nor houses built, nor sewers operated...

4. Playing a role. Hmmm. Actually I think most people naturally tend towards "playing a role" in many forms of entertainment activity - whether it's karaoke singing (pretending to be a major entertainer, even if not a particular one), or playing soccer (and pretending to be a famous player, even if not a particular one - children often do this), or little girls playing dress-up games, or playing cowboys and indians, or cops and robbers, or nurses and doctors, or whatever. And as humans become more highly evolved (yeah, yeah, yeah I know, I know), playing a role explicitly will become a more widespread form of activity.

 

[Umbran]

I would have to insist that swinging a sword IS more immersive and IS a superior form of activity (albeit it has some drawbacks in terms of limiting what you can simulate and who can participate). On any fair view of the matter, swinging a sword is simply better.

My brother had cerebral palsy, and was confined to a wheelchair. Sharp as a tack (he held two graduate degrees) and a brilliant roleplayer, specializing in martial characters. Unfortunately, he couldn't walk, and barely had the coordination to drive a car, much less successfully swing a weapon. Requiring that he engage in live combat would have completely and utterly eliminated any immersion he might have had.

If it is better for you, but not better for my brother, then it is not flat out objectively better. And his is only one example. I can spew them out all day. Sorry, but your claim to absolute knowledge does not bear up under scrutiny.

In fact, it's one of the Grand Axioms of life which the poster I quote has apparently missed. ;-)

No. One of the Grand Axioms of life is that with 6 billion people on the planet, there are needs other than your own. When you accept that, you'll find some applicable wisdom.

3. If everyone in the world had my tastes in light entertainment, the world would be FAR more interesting for me, and for them, because all our energies would be concentrated in improving the one superior area of entertainment

No. There'd be no cross pollination, no hybrid vigor. Healthy ecologies and communities are based as much on differences as on similarities. Imagine, if you will, that every work of fiction were written by one author, in that one person's style. Boring! Diversity and variation are the spice of life, sir. Vive la difference!

4. Playing a role. Hmmm. Actually I think most people naturally tend towards "playing a role" in many forms of entertainment activity - whether it's karaoke singing (pretending to be a major entertainer, even if not a particular one), or playing soccer (and pretending to be a famous player, even if not a particular one...

I am (in fits and starts) a practitioner of the martial arts. I do not, in the middle of practice, wander off into pretending to be Chuck Norris. I am rather busy concentrating on getting the form my roundhouse kick perfect. Concerning myself with who I am at that moment is not only irrelevant, but actually a barrier to doing well. I am reasonably sure the same is true for other athletics.

...children often do this), or little girls playing dress-up games, or playing cowboys and indians, or cops and robbers, or nurses and doctors, or whatever.

And, have you failed to notice that adults and children are not the same, psychologically? Should this not suggest that maybe they have different needs?

But, really, if you are big on how the activity is part of the immersion, you should look into Scandinavian larp, where they often employ the "two week rule" - any injury to another player that heals in less than two weeks is considered fair game.

These people would scoff at your padded weapon as needlessly gamist and anti-immersionist. Beating the crap out of someone is simulated by actually beating them up. Giving you a black eye is simulated by actually bare-knuckle punching you in the face, and so forth. The actual pain and need for medical attention gives verisimilitude far beyond anything you can get with latex. By your logic, there, sir, is your real immersion. I leave you to it.

By the way, I am a regular larper - I simply recognize that different players have different wants and needs, where you do not seem to do so.

 

[Oni]

But, really, if you are big on how the activity is part of the immersion, you should look into Scandinavian larp, where they often employ the "two week rule" - any injury to another player that heals in less than two weeks is considered fair game.

That's some manly LARPing!

I'm strangely intrigued.