Talk:Live action role-playing game/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Durham Treasure Trap

from dur.dsu.treasure-trap:

d n mckee <q.a.zpxrr@qheunz.np.hx> wrote: > Hi guys, I searched for LARP at Wikipedia and look what came up!

> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Live-action_roleplaying_games

> Flick to the end, and it mentions (a) Treasure Trap. I'm not too hot on > the history of the society.

> Basically - this is an appeal for someone to edit Wikipedia and make > Treasure Trap look a little less dodgy...

To be fair, what it says is very possibly true. As I understand it, Durham TT was founded to take people to play at Peckforton (as was Birmingham Treasure Trap), but was never part of the same organisation. When Peckforton shut down, Durham and Birmingham TTs kept going running their own games.

History

Large sections under History sound like members of the individual groups posting subjective descriptions of their own group, listing details not relevant to an encyclopedia-style entry. Barring objections, I would like to whittle these sections down so that they are actually about the regional histories of the practice of LARPing, instead of being paragraph-by-paragraph descriptions of what each group thinks make them unique. --Jyaus 19:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree... but with the reservation that it is difficult to impartially develop such a history in the absence of anyone with a sufficiently wide experience of all these different groups, and which ones genuinely represented a notable development over previous events. TSP 12:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No objections. It's better to have a very short history section than the current mess of group promotion.
I agree also. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The history section has been greatly simplified since this comment was made. However, it could still do with well-referenced research. --Ryan Paddy 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Earlier today I added a paragraph mentioning a fictional LARP-like organization described in one of Chesterton's stories. My reason for doing so was that I posted a usenet announcement of an RPG based on Chesterton's books a couple of days ago, and was immediately asked if there would be LARP rules based on the organization described in the story. So someone out there is immediately making the connection - and I have to admit that I hadn't done so myself until I saw this comment - and it may indeed be relevant to the subsequent history of the genre. I'm not going to repost this myself, but whoever deleted it might want to reconsider. I can't myself see any harm in admitting that there might be predecessor ideas going back to 1905, but suit yourself.

See the Wikipedia Policy : No Original Research.
Yes, to include this sort of contraversial material you need a reference to another work that states the theory that Chesterton's work has a larp-like group in it. --Ryan Paddy 19:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I've added an IFGS reference that backs up the Dream Park / LARP link. It's not a great reference being an unattributed web page but it's all I can find so far. --Ryan Paddy 22:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Introducing LARP

The "LARP basics" section helps explain LARP to those familiar with RPGs. But wouldn't it be just as helpfull to explain LARP in comparison to drama/theatre. Especially since these are cultural forms that more people are likely to be familiar with?

I agree.
  • The first paragraph in this section strongly emphasizes the campaign style of larps. Prior to about 2000, about half of American larps were stand-alone games which involved no character building of the type indicated.
  • Also, in Britain, the term "live role playing game" or "larp" refers to live combat or "boffer" games; they use the term "freeform" to refer to what Americans call Theater Style games. (signed, The Bearded One)
I totally agree, in nordic, or at least Norwegian LARPs I've been on, has seldom had any character creation as an important factor. you could create your own character, but that's just opsional and not necesery for the players. there are not many campaigns of larps in norway, actually there are just a couple of them, and hundreds of stand alone LARPs
Things are only muddied by comparing LARP to Theatre instead of RPG. To make the comparison is ignoring basic differences that would help clarify things to a newcomer. Theatre requires an audience. Improv Theatre is specifically defined by interaction with the audience. LARP, by contrast, is closed interaction only within the group. Players explore issues that exist only for them. LARPing has no outside audience and is for player self-entertainment only. LARP might not be scripted and may require improvisational thinking, but roleplay does also. ...Theatre is often a catharsis for the audience. LARPing is often a catharsis for the players. In short, Theatre is a performance, LARP is not. Retro8 21:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The presence of an audience is one difference between most improvisational theatre and larp. However, there are many more similarities than differences. Larp is certainly more like drama or acting than tabletop roleplaying is. Perhaps we could describe is as as similar to "improvisational drama", as that doesn't imply an audience? Or just mention that there is no audience. --203.118.191.40 19:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Theory vs Conventions

While the Nordic larpers have certainly gone quite far in their contemplations about the theory and art of larp, they are not the only ones who discuss these topics. Americans have been meeting for larp conventions since at least 1991. At these "Intercons", we play each others' larps and have a chance to discuss the theory of larping (in a less formal format than the Nordic conventions). I'm too tired to post changes reflecting this now, but I'll write up a paragraph or two and post it here in the discussion page tomorrow for your consideration. The Bearded One 05:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Foreign language LARP portals

I'm Being Bold and removing links to non-English sites from the external links section. Out of 25 'portal' links, 17 are not in English (German x 2, Estonian, Czech x 3, French x 2, Slovak, Italian, Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish x 3, Danish x 2). These are unlikely to be of use to the majority of our users, and removing them would make more room for English-language sites with comparable content without the list becoming too bloated. For users who do speak these languages, Wikipedia already provides links to the appropriate page on the respective Wikipedias, which hopefully link to these sites. In line with Wikipedia Policy, I'd only advise re-adding them if they offer substantial information which it is impossible to gain from any English-language site. TSP 21:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This has been long due. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Role-playing games

There has just ben started a new Wikiproject regarding Role playing Games. If you would like to join, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games and add your self. Angelbo 13:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ideas for cleaning up

This article is a mess. Seems like every role-player in the world is using it as a platform to promote their pet cause/group/perspective.

Some suggestions for improvement:

  • Separate "History of LARP" into it's own article.
  • Separate "LARP theory" into it's own article (possibly one on "role-playing theory", as "LARP theory" is often seen as a sub-set of the former).
  • Remove all mention of individual groups, with the exception of historical significance (i.e. the very first groups).
  • Remove all links to external pages that are not a) cited as sources or b) large, English-language, LARP portals
  • Complete rewrite of the remaining article.
I implemented most of these suggestions, marked as "bold rewrite" in the edit history. I left the theory section alone for now - it's to short to function on it's own. The article is now much shorter and more general - less listings of group names and fewer long descriptions of particular styles. For example, the old version had a paragraph on "live steel fighting" whereas the new has a sentence. Overall, I have tried to make the article more usefull as a concise reference for non-LARPers and less of a "compendium on the preferences of different LARPers". Feel free to compare old and new, and sound off on the changes. --Elbit 11:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Combat in LARP

Re-worded and editited the small section regarding combat in LARPs to suit the overall article. -- JS

Is Assassin a larp?

It seems to me that Assassin is not a LARP because there is no roleplaying aspect to it. Like LaserTag, it is just a game. What do y'all think? Pdarley 22:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it depends on the people that play the game whether there's much roleplaying involved or not, but reading through Assassin (game), this doesn't really sound what I would define as a LARP. Technically, it could be a LARP tho, so I'm not sure what to do here. As our article states, Assassin is certainly an "unusual" LARP at least. Maybe we should remove the entry and add a link to Assassin (game) to the see also section. --Conti|✉ 00:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point. The variants I'm familiar with certainly aren't LARPs; there is no backstory, no plot, not characters, just combat. I know some groups add role-playing elements, but they're uncommon enough that it's probably worth worth giving Assassin a reference here. Alan De Smet | Talk 02:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed (I suppose)

This article doesn't cover the topic of LARPing in popular culture.. that is, mock-fodder.

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.