by Zoe
A continuation of my rambling thoughts on Lizzie Stark's new book Leaving Mundania. Go check it out! You can buy it at a bookstore, order it online, or get an online e-copy.
Chapter Two
1) The Gaming Family
This chapter covers a family of gamers: 2 sons, a father, and an adoptive son (friend of the family). All in all, it's a nice character portrait of how gaming functions in a family. (With that being said, I'm not sure how well it fits into the theme of the overall book-- it feels a little random.) With that being said, I do think this covers an aspect of LARPing that is frequently under-appreciated, and I'm glad Stark calls attention to it. This is, of course, the family dynamic of LARPing. A lot of people who started LARPing 10 or 20 years ago now have children (of a variety of ages), and, in some cases, these kids are getting involved in games. In one instance, the child of a well-respected LARPer is writing and executing plot for a game (with, I'm told, excellent results). In at least two games, I've seen seen adult players bring their mothers or fathers into a game, either as PCs or NPCs. I LARP with my husband, and I know a lot of people LARP with their partners-- for Chris and I, it's an important part of our relationship. There are also well-known LARPer families where siblings, parents, and aunts or uncles all LARP together. I think the family aspect of gaming is an important one, and also something that bears more consideration. For many of us, our LARPing groups are our chosen familes; for some of us, LARPs are extensions of our biological families. Both instances attest to the community component of LARPing.
2) Defining "LARP"
One of the strengths and weaknesses of Stark's book is her wide definition of LARPing: as I alluded to in an earlier post, she includes many, many, many things that she includes under the category "LARP." Here's my problem with this: even for someone "indoctrinated," it gets confusing. By nature, I'm a categorizing individual, it's true; that admitted, it would have been much more useful to me, as a reader, if she had chosen to organize different live-action experiences into smaller subcategories. She does, in fairness, explain the mechanics of different LARPs as she introduces them: however, it is often a little haphazard, and lacks any straightforward organization. As I read, I was often trying to figure out, "Ok, is this a boffer larp? A theater larp? What does the "XYZ" system mean?" LARPing is complicated pursuit, and I would have preferred some clarification. If you're talking about theater, for instance, it's useful to group it into distinct categories. An example: if I say, "I went to a play this weekend, and I really hated that style of theater," it's beneficial for me to talk about what type of theater I specifically hated (e.g., absurdist or musical). While Stark does report the different mechanics of LARPing, including the use of puzzles, dice, stat cards, and boffers, I don't feel she really does justice to how differently these games actually work. Accordingly, in the text, I get confused about the context in which she's writing. A theater LARP and a boffer LARP are two entirely different beasts, with markedly different communities and gameplay elements: it's useful to provide operative definitions of each one.
Chapter 3
1) The Historical Approach
I think this chapter, which covers historical developments in LARPing, is one of Stark's best. Looking at the trajectory and prevalence of roleplaying, historically, is a really fascinating way to approach the activity. I would really like to examine the history of roleplaying more broadly, and look at non-European activities as well. Stark looks, particularly, at 16th century Europe, and her argument is quite strong. I also like the separation Stark implies between "fancy dress" or costuming and actual roleplaying (32). I think it's an important differentiation, especially when you start looking at people's emotional investment in a LARP. I also now have a nifty summer research topic.
2) Myth in LARP
One of the interesting things that Stark narrates is the use of myth in LARP encounters. Stark talks about Queen Elizabeth the First's larp exploits, many of which involve interactions with mythic figures. I think this is an interesting parallel between modern and historical larping: the use of myth is powerful and pervasive.
3) Emotion in LARP
One of the quotes that caught my attention was the following:
"The yearning to experience personal emotion is one of the hallmarks of life today. Many larpers want to experience emotions-- the lost of a friend, the thrill of battle, the pain of betrayal-- that they would never have occasion to feel in every day life." (38)
I don't disagree with this statement, but I think it's a superficial understanding of LARPs. Firstly, yes, I do agree that some LARPers play because they want to experience emotions that they wouldn't otherwise encounter (as Stark describes). However, I think just as many, if not more, LARPers play to interact with emotions they have most certainly experienced multiple times. LARP is, if nothing else, an arena in which one can safely work through intense emotions. These emotions can include love, hatred, disdain, respect, fear, rage and loss. LARP provides us with a closed space that is an experimental tank for fundamental human emotions. I'm going to give a couple examples, as I think this an important aspect of LARPing:
a) I just got back from NPCing an Endgame event; as always, I was really impressed by the emotional investment of all players in the game. Endgame is an Accelerant post-apocalyptic LARP, and, of all the games I've played, I find it to be one of the most emotionally taxing events for PCs and NPCs alike. I'm not going to go into detail, to preserve player anonymity, but players broadcast a wide range of intense emotions that flair up throughout the game. (Endgame has a "Shaken" trait mechanic that can bring out people's inner messes. In other words, the PCs are "triggered.") I think Endgame offers, to players, a stage on which they can enact real life emotions: fear, sadness, love, loss, confusion, obsession, pride etc. I'm pretty sure most players, on some level, have experienced these feelings. However, Endgame provides everyone with the stimulus to explore them more fully.
b) My longest-running PC, of only about 3 years, is Esme of Madrigal. Esme is a bleeding-heart who really wants to help as many people (well, non-humans) as possible. However, she puts herself in dangerous and stigmatizing situations to do so-- talking at length with vampires, joining the Maladicted Web, and questioning "species-cleansing" options of combat. This was an exploration of my own personal inclinations in real life. To wax obnoxiously self-reflective for a minute, I'm an animal studies scholar interested in pursuing the relations of humans and non-humans. On multiple occasions, I've presented my work to an audiences of peers who laughed away the sentience and capabilities of non-humans. It's been an uphill struggle to legitimate the importance of multispecies approaches in academia. Esme has been, accordingly, an opportunity to explore my real-life interests-- the social agency of non-humans-- in a fantasy setting. When considering ethics, in real life, I often ask myself, "What would happen if non-humans, including plants and animals, could talk, and, more troublingly, fight back?" Well, in a fantasy setting, the non-humans can talk and fight back. This dynamic, however fantastical, allows me to explore things that emotionally important to me, in the real world, on a larger and experimental scale.
I really encourage everyone to pick up this book. In many ways, I disagree with much of Stark's research. However, I think it is really pushing me to consider how I think about LARP. This intellectual stimulus is, I think, one of the benefits of having an outside person write seriously on LARPing.
A continuation of my rambling thoughts on Lizzie Stark's new book Leaving Mundania. Go check it out! You can buy it at a bookstore, order it online, or get an online e-copy.
Chapter Two
1) The Gaming Family
This chapter covers a family of gamers: 2 sons, a father, and an adoptive son (friend of the family). All in all, it's a nice character portrait of how gaming functions in a family. (With that being said, I'm not sure how well it fits into the theme of the overall book-- it feels a little random.) With that being said, I do think this covers an aspect of LARPing that is frequently under-appreciated, and I'm glad Stark calls attention to it. This is, of course, the family dynamic of LARPing. A lot of people who started LARPing 10 or 20 years ago now have children (of a variety of ages), and, in some cases, these kids are getting involved in games. In one instance, the child of a well-respected LARPer is writing and executing plot for a game (with, I'm told, excellent results). In at least two games, I've seen seen adult players bring their mothers or fathers into a game, either as PCs or NPCs. I LARP with my husband, and I know a lot of people LARP with their partners-- for Chris and I, it's an important part of our relationship. There are also well-known LARPer families where siblings, parents, and aunts or uncles all LARP together. I think the family aspect of gaming is an important one, and also something that bears more consideration. For many of us, our LARPing groups are our chosen familes; for some of us, LARPs are extensions of our biological families. Both instances attest to the community component of LARPing.
2) Defining "LARP"
One of the strengths and weaknesses of Stark's book is her wide definition of LARPing: as I alluded to in an earlier post, she includes many, many, many things that she includes under the category "LARP." Here's my problem with this: even for someone "indoctrinated," it gets confusing. By nature, I'm a categorizing individual, it's true; that admitted, it would have been much more useful to me, as a reader, if she had chosen to organize different live-action experiences into smaller subcategories. She does, in fairness, explain the mechanics of different LARPs as she introduces them: however, it is often a little haphazard, and lacks any straightforward organization. As I read, I was often trying to figure out, "Ok, is this a boffer larp? A theater larp? What does the "XYZ" system mean?" LARPing is complicated pursuit, and I would have preferred some clarification. If you're talking about theater, for instance, it's useful to group it into distinct categories. An example: if I say, "I went to a play this weekend, and I really hated that style of theater," it's beneficial for me to talk about what type of theater I specifically hated (e.g., absurdist or musical). While Stark does report the different mechanics of LARPing, including the use of puzzles, dice, stat cards, and boffers, I don't feel she really does justice to how differently these games actually work. Accordingly, in the text, I get confused about the context in which she's writing. A theater LARP and a boffer LARP are two entirely different beasts, with markedly different communities and gameplay elements: it's useful to provide operative definitions of each one.
Chapter 3
1) The Historical Approach
I think this chapter, which covers historical developments in LARPing, is one of Stark's best. Looking at the trajectory and prevalence of roleplaying, historically, is a really fascinating way to approach the activity. I would really like to examine the history of roleplaying more broadly, and look at non-European activities as well. Stark looks, particularly, at 16th century Europe, and her argument is quite strong. I also like the separation Stark implies between "fancy dress" or costuming and actual roleplaying (32). I think it's an important differentiation, especially when you start looking at people's emotional investment in a LARP. I also now have a nifty summer research topic.
2) Myth in LARP
One of the interesting things that Stark narrates is the use of myth in LARP encounters. Stark talks about Queen Elizabeth the First's larp exploits, many of which involve interactions with mythic figures. I think this is an interesting parallel between modern and historical larping: the use of myth is powerful and pervasive.
3) Emotion in LARP
One of the quotes that caught my attention was the following:
"The yearning to experience personal emotion is one of the hallmarks of life today. Many larpers want to experience emotions-- the lost of a friend, the thrill of battle, the pain of betrayal-- that they would never have occasion to feel in every day life." (38)
I don't disagree with this statement, but I think it's a superficial understanding of LARPs. Firstly, yes, I do agree that some LARPers play because they want to experience emotions that they wouldn't otherwise encounter (as Stark describes). However, I think just as many, if not more, LARPers play to interact with emotions they have most certainly experienced multiple times. LARP is, if nothing else, an arena in which one can safely work through intense emotions. These emotions can include love, hatred, disdain, respect, fear, rage and loss. LARP provides us with a closed space that is an experimental tank for fundamental human emotions. I'm going to give a couple examples, as I think this an important aspect of LARPing:
a) I just got back from NPCing an Endgame event; as always, I was really impressed by the emotional investment of all players in the game. Endgame is an Accelerant post-apocalyptic LARP, and, of all the games I've played, I find it to be one of the most emotionally taxing events for PCs and NPCs alike. I'm not going to go into detail, to preserve player anonymity, but players broadcast a wide range of intense emotions that flair up throughout the game. (Endgame has a "Shaken" trait mechanic that can bring out people's inner messes. In other words, the PCs are "triggered.") I think Endgame offers, to players, a stage on which they can enact real life emotions: fear, sadness, love, loss, confusion, obsession, pride etc. I'm pretty sure most players, on some level, have experienced these feelings. However, Endgame provides everyone with the stimulus to explore them more fully.
b) My longest-running PC, of only about 3 years, is Esme of Madrigal. Esme is a bleeding-heart who really wants to help as many people (well, non-humans) as possible. However, she puts herself in dangerous and stigmatizing situations to do so-- talking at length with vampires, joining the Maladicted Web, and questioning "species-cleansing" options of combat. This was an exploration of my own personal inclinations in real life. To wax obnoxiously self-reflective for a minute, I'm an animal studies scholar interested in pursuing the relations of humans and non-humans. On multiple occasions, I've presented my work to an audiences of peers who laughed away the sentience and capabilities of non-humans. It's been an uphill struggle to legitimate the importance of multispecies approaches in academia. Esme has been, accordingly, an opportunity to explore my real-life interests-- the social agency of non-humans-- in a fantasy setting. When considering ethics, in real life, I often ask myself, "What would happen if non-humans, including plants and animals, could talk, and, more troublingly, fight back?" Well, in a fantasy setting, the non-humans can talk and fight back. This dynamic, however fantastical, allows me to explore things that emotionally important to me, in the real world, on a larger and experimental scale.
I really encourage everyone to pick up this book. In many ways, I disagree with much of Stark's research. However, I think it is really pushing me to consider how I think about LARP. This intellectual stimulus is, I think, one of the benefits of having an outside person write seriously on LARPing.
No comments:
Post a Comment