I have been reflecting on a conversation I had a couple of weeks back after a Cthulhu game about where traditional ‘table top’ RPGs end and live action roleplay (LARPs) begin. My feeling then, as it still is now, is that these two classifications are not as sharply demarcated as they seem, especially as the term semi-LARP is starting to be introduced. What defines a game as being one or the other, and who decides on the criteria?
Although I don’t LARP any more, I did back in my youth. I guess this has coloured my experience today and, as a result, I’ve always embraced a more immersive roleplaying experience when running and playing in table top games. Yes, this does often mean silly accents, action miming and actually talking ‘in character’. I have no problem with LARPers or LARPing, but I am just a little curious about the definitions.
On the surface it all seems pretty clear. A table top RPG is one where the players sit together with character sheets and play a game using dice or some other means to simulate resolution of conflict in a shared, imaginary world. A LARP is similar, but one actually dresses up as one’s character and play out the story with others to accomplish goals, with or without the use of a conflict resolution system. I am still not sure how to define a semi-LARP, but give me a good definition and I’ll give you a cookie.
I feel that in many ways these definitions are hangovers from the early years of the hobby, when table top RPGing was far less character based and more like a tactical wargaming. I guess the definitions still ring true for beardy, old school D&D players who like to say “Kronad the Barbarian will charge down the darken tunnel and skewer those orcs”.
However, if we start to test the definitions, they start to unravel. What happens if Kronad’s player brings an additional level of physicality to his description by miming the skewering motion? Does that make it more LARP-like? What if (heaven forbid) they dress up to play? What if when playing Call of Cthulhu I mime smoking a cigarette? Does that make it a LARP or semi-LARP? What if I use a funny accent? How much physicality tips a game from being a table top game to a LARP?
Is it a matter of the rule set you use? Are games LARPs or semi-LARPs because of their lighter rules? If so, some of the new indie games have very light systems indeed, so how do they fit in this scheme?
Although these questions may seem pedantic, the point is that how you label and define something matters. I know, for example, that if I advertise a game as a LARP or semi-LARP, I will get a completely different crowd than if I advertise it as a table top RPG. This is important to me as I actually really like having LARPers in my table top games, as they tend to bring a greater level of physicality and immerse themselves more in the game than other players. This is not to say, however, that other players can’t or don’t.
In my mind this issue is also important as there was some discussion of having a separate LARP or semi-LARP scheme for Kapcon in the future, given the greater interest in those style games this year. I personally think this would be a really bad idea and it would further perpetuate a fairly meaningless classification systems and establishing a con-within-a-con, like those wacky Grayhawk guys or Harncon. We should be encouraging everyone to participate in everything, as there are lessons to be share around. I mean, of course there are some people who only want to do one or the other, but I don’t think the organisation of the con needs to reinforce that.
So cast away such classifications, such divisions, such categories. It’s all roleplaying, so why not treat it at such?
As always, I am interested in your comment. Do you disagree with my definitions or characterisations? Should we encourage greater or lesser demarcation?
