Talk:Live action role-playing game/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Live action role-playing game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629193916/http://www.dagorhir.com/dagorhir/history.htm to http://www.dagorhir.com/dagorhir/history.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.larpwriting.org/essays/article_ts/ts8.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103212653/http://www.larpmag.com/Issue01_April_06/larp_magazine_newsletter_volume02.htm to http://www.larpmag.com/Issue01_April_06/larp_magazine_newsletter_volume02.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Live action role-playing game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205073521/http://www.liveforum.dk/kp07book/lifelike_web.pdf to http://www.liveforum.dk/kp07book/lifelike_web.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719064203/http://www.laivforum.dk/kp03_book/classics/three_way_model.pdf to http://www.laivforum.dk/kp03_book/classics/three_way_model.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

LARP or larp?

Currently the upper-case acronym (LARP) is being used in the article. I propose to change to the more modern lower-case noun (larp), as 'larp' has become a word in it's own right and it makes more sense when using derivative terms such as "a larper". Any views? --Elbit 10:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, but I don't think the whole article should be moved, as the acronym "LARP" is of course still used widely as well. Though a mention in the lead paragraph of this would be a good idea, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 13:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree -- I've never seen the term used as anything except an acronym. Can you provide examples of where it's been used as a lowercase standalone word instead of as an acronym? --Jyaus 21:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Examples: Beyond role and play, and larp.com seems to use both. But I agree the acronym form is more common at present. -- Elbit 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

larp.com capitalizes the word on their homepage! Unless the lowercase form becomes more common I don't think we should be changing the article to use lowercase. --Jyaus 13:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO, this is just lazy typing. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree too. I've also never seen this used in lowercase. Besides, surely uppercase is more correct. It is an acronym after all. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree as well. 71.120.201.39 (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's all a matter of where you live. In UK English, acronyms which are pronounced as a single word (like "LARP" and "NATO") can be written with lowercase, with the first letter capitalized in proper nouns (i.e. "larp" and "Nato.") Acronyms pronounced by saying the letters individually (like "TV" or "DVD") are more likely to be written in all capitals. In US English, acronyms are more often totally capitalized regardless of pronounciation, but lowercase is a valid alternative for words in very common usage (like "laser" and "scuba.") Check out the WP entry on acronyms for more info, but basically, writing it any way is correct. It's just more common to find it written one way or another depending on your dialect of English. It's probably best to keep this article where it is at "Live action role-playing game" with both LARP and Larp redirecting here. Rob T Firefly 06:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Larp is also spelt in lowercase in the nordic countries, where it is treated as a word. And that spelling is gaining favour in New Zealand. It's much like spelling RADAR as radar, it's an inevitable naturalisation process. --Ryan Paddy 19:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree agree with you - it's an acronym, & isn't sufficiently ensconced in language like the word "radar," who most people do NOT know was ever actually an acronym, first. FlaviaR (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of what's correct, it's a matter of how it's actually used. I think it could be demonstrated easily that both "LARP" and "larp" are in common usage in different parts of the world. The article largely uses LARP, and I think that's appropriate as it's still probably the most common usage. The article mentions larp in the terminology section, and I think that's a good place for it. If larp should overtake LARP in common usage, then I'd argue that the article should switch to using larp. Curiously, the odds of that happening are reduced by the Wikipedia article using LARP, because Wikipedia is influential. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only are "LARP" and "larp" in common use, but so is "LRP" (pronounced "larp" if used as a word rather than an acronym). Nzrouillard (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

LRP is also mentioned in the Terminology section. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

origin of word

Question: When was the term "LARP" invented? I have the idea that events we'd today call LARPs existed for a long time before the acronym was coined, but I don't have any actual evidence.

I think it was popularized (but probably not invented) with the publication of White Wolf's "Minds Eye Theatre" in 1994. Before that, LRP and IL were more common. LRP is still the preffered acronym in the UK. --Elbit 11:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Trout are delicious. 71.120.201.39 (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This may start sounding like an episode of Balderdash and Piffle. I'm fairly sure we we using the terms LARP and SATT (Sit at the Table) in Unversity of Nottingham RP society in 1990. Dave Barnett

Do you have a published reference for this? It would be good to find the earliest published reference to a use of the term "LARP" just so that we can mention it in passing in the article's History section. --Ryan Paddy 23:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

International focus

There is a lot of variety in LARP internationally. This article attempts to describe this international variety. Please do not remove parts of the article because they do not describe the LARPs that you have been involved in personally. Although this article is in English, it is not intended to be specific to describing LARP in the English-speaking world. --Ryan Paddy 22:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Over-specific regionality (Theatre-style)

I've removed mention of theatre-style larp having strongholds in certain parts of the USA. This information is too specific for the main larp article. I've also removed mention of specific larps or gaming conventions, this was again too specific for the main larp article. Please discuss here rather than engaging in an edit war - this has already been edited back and forth a couple of times. --Ryan Paddy 22:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

History

The history section currently jumps from some early larps to the current state of the hobby/industry. It seems like an intermediary paragraph is missing, covering the development and spread of larp. I've added a paragraph that begins to discuss the international spread, but it's light on information. Does anyone know any references for the spread of Mind's Eye Theatre larps in the 1990s? That was a major development. The start of larp-specific conventions (Intercon, Knutepunkt) might be considered another important development. Likewise the first really large larps are probably noteworthy: e.g. the multi-chapter fantasy larps in the US, the fest-sized fantasy larps in the UK with thousands of participants, and the international MET clubs (Camarilla & OWBN). --Ryan Paddy 23:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I wonder whether mentioning specific early larps is very encyclopedic in tone. --Ryan Paddy 02:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Answer: Yes, I know about the development of the Camarilla, as I'm one of the original founders. I'm a bit of a wikipedia newbie, however, so I don't know how to contact you without putting my e-mail address out there for all to see. If you look up The Camarilla (fan club)" on Wikipedia, you will find the correct history and current status there. If you want more information, I guess we'll have to find a way to get in touch with each other. -- W. Racine, 1 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.22.166 (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. We talk about it on this page, or if you prefer you can post on my talk page, here: User_talk:Ryan_Paddy What we mostly need is a reliable source (that is a newspaper, magazine, or something - we could settle for something like a White Wolf web page if nothing else is available) that describes the origins of the Camarilla, especially when they started running larps. Also info on their current spread would be great. I gather you're an expert on the subject, but the way wikipedia works is that we can't rely on the expertese of editors but need "proof" in the form of reliable publications with the information. Especially when it comes to things like dates and statistics. Unfortunately there are no specific references on the Camarilla (fan club) article to borrow, just some external links. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The "History of live action role-playing games" page starts with several paragraphs about the roots of LARP in primal play behaviour, and its manifestations in early cultures. It might be a good idea to add a sentence saying the same thing here, so it does not look like LARP had no roots before tabletop gaming. At present, the two articles contradict each other, since this one says that LARP started in the 1970s. NikolaiSmith (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I put a note in the "History of live action role-playing games" discussion page about the elaborate faux-village Marie Antoinette had built at Versailles for role-playing games with her court. I didn't edit the actual article because I lack the time to find a reliable on-line source, but I a have seen the actual buildings at Versailles and I am married to a historian, so I am quite confident that the sources are out there, if someone wants to track them down. NikolaiSmith (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that this article mentions early LARP as starting in the 1970s, but there has been evidence of LARP or its origins much earlier. See LIFE magazine, March 3, 1941 p102. http://books.google.com/books?id=IUoEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA102&ots=BUUmmym6ug&pg=PA107#v=onepage&q=&f=false 17:41, 28 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.161.188.11 (talk)

That LIFE magazine is a cool source, and the game they're playing does seem to have larp aspects, mingled with miniature wargaming. But it's a WP:PRIMARY source. We need a secondary source saying "this is one of the origins of larp" or "this was an early larp" to say as much in the article. The article does currently say "In addition to tabletop role-playing, LARP was preceded and possibly influenced by the Society for Creative Anachronism, childhood games of pretend, play fighting, costume parties, roleplay simulations, Commedia dell’arte, improvisational theatre, psychodrama, military simulations, and historical reenactment groups.", and we have a source for that, so it's not really true that there is no mention of roots before tabletop gaming. The history article is quite loosely written and the same standards of sourcing haven't been applied to it, so it's not surprising if it's a bit more adventurous in how it uses its sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would count as a primary source. It appears to have been written by an uncredited Life staff writer who presumably isn't a participant, so it's a secondary source. That said, claiming that this is a LARP or that it is part of the development of LARPs borders on original research. It is a fascinating story and it does appear to have some LARP-like aspects, but I'm not sure specifically mentioning it is any more enlightening than the existing Wikipedia article text Ryan points out. Absent someone doing that original research and publishing their conclusions, I don't think we should be including it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, using this Life article against a statement regarding the origins of larp would raise an issue of original research, more so than an issue with it being a primary source as it's technically a secondary source. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Avant-garde

I wonder if a better term for the Arthaus form would be avant-garde. Arthaus has no entry in English wikipedia, and Arthouse is specific to film. Avante-garde on the other hand is a generic term for artistic experimentalism in all media, and has an appropriate English wikipedia entry. The term Arthaus appears to have been was invented by Eirik Fatland in the article Knutepunkt and Nordic Live Role-Playing, A crash course in reference to a tradition of experimental larps in the Nordic countries. Googling uncovers a number of uses of the phrase "avant-garde larp" often in reference to the same larps that are sometimes described as arthaus, and I think this is a more appropriate term for use in the English wikipedia. --Ryan Paddy 21:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No touch rule

There's mention of "no touch" rules in the article. I understand such a non-contact rule is used in all MET games. Could someone with access to a MET rulebook look this up and post a quote and citation here? --Ryan Paddy 03:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

From a section titled "The Basic Rules" which "are the most important rules of MET, the only ones that absolutely must be obeyed." It carries on this this is basically a legal defence from crazy and clueless people, although it doesn't use those words. Subsection header: "#1 - No Touching." The first sentence in the section is "This means none whatsoever, even with consent." It goes on to warn people to be cautious and forvids various dangerous things like running and jumping. I can pull additional information if it's helpful. Dansky, Richard E. (1996), "Appendix", Laws of the Night, White Wolf, Inc., p. 136, ISBN 1-5604-506-8 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) (Dansky is the first credit and is credited for "Development." The Authors credit is "All new material by Richard E. Dansky. Reprinted material from Antagonists by Jennifer Albright with Nicky Rea and Phil Brucato. Reprinted material from The Apocalypse by Geoffrey Fortier, William Spencer-Hale, Sam Chupp, Ian Lemke and Mike Tinney. Reprinted material from The Masquerade Players' Kit by Iam Lemke and Mike Tinney. Reprinted material from The Masquerade 2nd Edition by Geoffrey Fortier, Frank Branham, Mark Rein•Hagen, Iam Lemke and Mike Tinney. Reprinted material from Vampire: The Masquerade 2nd Edition by Mark Rein•Hagen, Graeme Davis, Tom Dowd, Lisa Stevens and Stewart Wieck.") — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a stab at integrating it into the article proper. Again, I can pull more details if necessary. Sadly, the 1996 rules are the last ones I have. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The other Basic Rules are: "No weapons as props" (including realistic fake ones), "No drugs or drinking", "ignore or adjust any of the rules", "It's only a game", and "Have fun". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan De Smet (talk • contribs) 05:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alan, great citations. --Ryan Paddy 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any other examples of no-touch rules in LARPS? Does Rules to Live By have a rule like that? Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Journal of Interactive Drama

A user has deleted the Journal of Interactive Drama mention, claiming that the journal is "bogus", "a front", and "a put on". Is there any evidence for this allegation? The editor of the journal has been an advocate of LARP for many years, publishing LARP scenarios (including one that I contributed to and emailed to him) online. I know some of the contributors to the journal, they are real LARP researchers. This is a serious allegation and would probably amount to a controversy that needs to be covered by the article, if there is any reference for it. If there is no reliable source then the allegation is original research and should not affect the Wikipedia article. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I may have been too hasty, here. All I know is I checked the archive of past issues @ the website (web archive version[both oldest / newest @ [webarchive.com.]])and @ each when I checked the archive, and it said there were no archives available @ that time. I hadn't thought of the possibility that the web-page author might not yet have gotten around to archiving past issues, by the current issue (or rather the current issue as of 6 months ago, as webarchive.com has nothing more recent) (hopefully you are following that I am using the word archive in reference to two different things in this response). Anyway, here are the links to support my argument (before I do, however: to make my position @ the time I deleted the section, I thought I was reading a supposedly acedemic journal that had no content after 2 years, which would be bogus. Fallacies occur on the www.):

• http://web.archive.org/web/20050205145303/http://www.rpg.net/larp/journal/index.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20070810060412/http://www.rpg.net/larp/journal/index.html Thaddeus Slamp (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why look at www.archive.org instead of the actual website? The website is at http://www.rpg.net/larp/journal/index.html - go there and click "Issues Archive" and you'll see previous issues. There are only 4 issues, dating back to July 2006, because it's a relatively new journal. But it's a real journal. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Real journal, and a pretty good one, too. The scandanavians have a fairly academic outlook in their Knutepunkt convention. JID doesn't match that yet, but it hopefully will soon. The Bearded One (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• As I have stated on my user page the station I use for wikipedia usually is only able to access the majority of the web in its archived form. Appearantly 6months ago there were no archived issues of that journal. Even if that's changed, a journal existed on the web for about a year or so w/no archived issues. I will check as soon as I can. Thaddeus Slamp (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

I believe that this article is now ready for nomination as a Good Article. The writing is of high quality, the topic is covered in appropriate bredth and depth with appropriate citations, it's wikified well, neutral, has appropriate images, and has been stable for some time. Any thoughts before I nominate? --Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have looked over the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and I think that Live action role-playing games can pass such a review. I am too involved in the topic to be objective, of course. By all means, nominate away. The Bearded One (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, nominated. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

This article needs significant work before it can be considered a good article. Much of the article completely lacks references. Some of the references are used in an unacceptable fashion. For example, the no-weapons and no-touching rules suggested by the Laws of the Night are extrapolated to imply broader trends. There is a citation needed tag that is in the article since last month. Please review the good article standards. Vassyana (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the review. It sounds like all the issues you have relate to references, is that right? If you have further suggestions, could you please list them so we can make changes?

• I agree that more references would be good. However, a lot of the material is uncontraversial - for example, do you think that the play overview needs references?
• The Laws of the Night rules are the most popular single set of LARP rules published (this assertion is referenced in History section of the article), and they really have had an extreme influence. A great many larps in the "theatre style" tradition do have no-touch and no-weapon rules inspired by Vampire (Laws of the Night). Perhaps this needs to be explained more clearly?
• The uncited statement has been removed. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It needs referencing. I do not consider it obvious. After all, the 'fact' that the Earth was flat was considered 'obvious' for a time as well. 71.120.201.39 (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe obvious and noncontroversial material requires referencing. Though it would be preferable if it could be referenced, it is not necessary. You can cite that LotN is the most popular LARP ruleset. You can cite that LotN has no-touch and no-weapon rules. However, it is not appropriate to state that most LARPs follow those rules. LotN says itself that storytellers should ignore rules if they desire and house rules are exceedingly common. You should only report what the sources state. Extrapolating claims from the sources is explicitly forbidden. If you're looking for a detailed review of the article, I would suggest filing a request for peer review and/or posting a notice at the appropriate WikiProject(s). Vassyana (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey all - any help in adding and improving references in the article would be appreciated, so that it can be re-nominated. If you spot unreferenced statements that you know of a reference for, please add them. If there are any contraversial statements that references cannot be found for then those statements should be removed. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Society for Interactive Literature

I've removed the following from the History section because it has been unsourced for a long time. I have tried to find a source for this but failed. If we can find a source then it would be good to to re-add it, as it's the only piece of theatre-style history mentioned.

The first Theatre Style LARP group was the Society for Interactive Literature (SIL), founded in 1981 at Harvard University.

--Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Give me a couple of days (weeks?) and I'll find a source for that quote. I have back issues of Metagame Magazine which was the official publication of the SIL prior to and at the time of its split into SIL and ILF (around 1990-1991). The Bearded One (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference just added by Costik in this edit seems like a good one for placing the formation of SIL in 1982: http://www.larpwriting.org/essays/article_ts/ts8.shtml. I think the formation of the society is more relevant than the first known "freeform" event though, seeing the society preceeds the game and SIL was presumably at least experimenting with live play before that event. I'd be inclined to change it from mentioning the first known event to mentioning SIL's formation in 1982, and put it at the end of the previous paragraph so that it hangs with the US stuff rather than sitting amongst the "international spread" paragraph. I'd use "theatre-style" rather than "freeform" too, as that seems to have been the US term used. Fire away with any objections to those proposed changes. Off the topic... Greg, Paranoia was one of the highlights of my teenage years. Respect! Ryan Paddy (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Have done what I said above, let me know any issues. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Position of LARP in a wider context

I think there needs to be a top-level section that describes how larp as an activity fits in among the other activities it includes or resembles: strategic and tactical games, storytelling, performing arts, craft, sports, etc. Given that it's a young activity, readers may benefit from hearing it described in context and in comparison to more familiar activities. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Terminology section

Would someone please change that section to make sence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.41.188 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the vandalism from that section. I assume that's what you meant. Note that anyone can fix vandalism when they see it, just click the Edit link and fix the text or go to the History list and click Undo on the vandalism item and then Save. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What if your mouse and keyboard are broken? What if you do not have an internet connection? What if your mother has blocked Wikipedia due to the large amount of pornography available on it? Not just anyone can fix vandalism on Wikipedia. :P 71.120.201.39 (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you won't be reading this. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Live-action role-playing game

User:GreetingsEarthling thinks we should add a hyphen between live and action. User:Daedalus969 appears to agree. (That message is in reply to this message, which makes it clear.) I think we should consider what LARPers themselves use. On the "live action" sides is Alliance, NERO, NEIL, and LIONE. The venerable Shade's LARP List does as well, although it looks like he reposts announcements unedited, so both styles appear in announcements. On the "live-action" side is SOLAR. This is just a random sampling of groups I happened to think of off the top of my head, but it seems to support "live action" over "live-action." As such, I have a slight preference for the hyphenless version. — Alan De Smet | Talk 14:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

GreetingsEarthling did successfully rename List of live-action role-playing groups. So whatever decision we come to should probably apply there as well. — Alan De Smet | Talk 14:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I rarely see it used with a hyphen in "live-action". Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much my observation. Oddly, live-action is probably more clear. But if one usage dominates, the article should reflect that spelling. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for starting this discussion, which I should have done in the first place. I probably approached this the wrong way the first time around, but allow me to correct course.

I'm glad we agree, Alan De Smet, that "live-action" is clearer, and I see your point about going with what is typically used. But doesn't it matter that the term has a much broader usage? It is primarily associated with film (that's how I stumbled into this, while doing a copy-edit on Kiki's Delivery Service), and so the discussion is necessarily affected by that broader context.

Take the following search: Google Books: "live-action" The citations are almost perfectly split between "live-action" and "live action", sometimes differing even within the same work!! (Michael Barrier, in The Animated Man, uses "live action" when it does not modify a term [e.g. "In the postwar years, live action — with its real scripts — was an increasingly large part of Disney's plans."] but uses "live-action" for cases where it is followed by a noun [e.g. "Disney called art directors — who design the physical settings of live-action films — "brick and mortar men."], which is a third option from what I advocated when I made my rash of changes.) The same goes for Wikipedia at large: Wikipedia Search: "live-action" (Unfortunately, as far as I'm aware there isn't any way to get an exact number of uses of one form vs. the other -- instead, you have to scan the results to get an idea of the number of times each is used.)

The first lesson here, as far as I'm concerned, is that either usage can be correct, and that it's not a settled question. The decider, again from where I'm sitting, is that one usage is pretty obviously clearer and free from ambiguity (e.g. "live action role-playing" could be an action role or a live action, while "live-action role-playing" resolves the question).

Does this help? GreetingsEarthling (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That in different contexts "live-action" is more common isn't relevant. Some superficial research suggests that "live action role-play" is significantly more common. We're here to reflect what is actually being done, not to tell people how they should do it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia policy that says we should mirror "what is actually being done" in cases such as this. Which policy states that? GreetingsEarthling (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:NAME. It specifies that article titles should be based on the "common name" given to the subject, which has the greatest recognisability and can be determined by "what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." The common name of larp is "live action role-playing", it's usually termed that way in the available verifiable reliable sources, and that's what people will attempt to link to the article as (assuming they don't just link to larp) because that's the generally accepted usage. Grammatically it may be unusual (usually multi-word adjectival phrases are hypenated, e.g. "red-coloured dog"), but in this instance "live action role-playing" is the common name and policy is to use it because it's the most recognisable to readers. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. You're right, obviously, that policy is pretty clear. I'm just displaying my inexperience. My only question now is, should all remaining references to LARP be in the same form as the title? Common sense is strongly for "yes", I suppose... GreetingsEarthling (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

For consistency yes, all references to live action role-playing should use the same punctuation. But first, you might want to double-check our assumption about the common usage by checking some reliable sources. I've no doubt you'll find some uses of "live-action", but if you find it predominates then let us know because that would change the situation. Larp rulebooks and books about larp would be a good place to start. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Humans vs. Zombies

Should we bother listing Humans vs. Zombies as a particularly representative LARP? The article about HvZ doesn't seem to emphasize the LARP aspect, so emphasizing it may be overkill. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it could be removed, it resembles an Assassin game more than a larp and we should probably only mention particularly notable larps in this article, or everyone will want to be listed (again). Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The Live Ring Game

In the history we say that Dagohir is the first recorded larp, but that seems to be believably contradicted by this. It seems that the Live Ring Game, published in 1973, pre-dated both Dagohir and in fact the first publication of Dungeons and Dragons. And it looks as much like a larp as Dagohir. Can anyone find a reliable source documenting the original Live Ring Game? Gordon Olmstead-Dean mentions it here as originating a few years before 1978, but doesn't give a year or any other specifics. I'm considering adding the Ring Game as the first recorded larp, using both Olmstead-Dean and the rules document itself as sources, but I'd prefer a secondary source stating the date outright if one exists. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth listing both as candidates for first LARP, depending on the exact definition. Dagohir (according to its article) encourages staying in character. The Live Ring Game seems more like Olmstead-Dean describes: tag with a Tolkien theme. Based on playing the Wisconsin Ring Game, there is no in-character play; it's pure competitive gameplay. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I think it's worth a mention too, just wondering if there are any more sources. Even if there wasn't much characterisation I think it fits the broad definition of larp we're using here, or at least qualifies as a precursor. It sounds like the Wisconson game was more "inspired by" it, so it'd be interesting to find a source describing actual play of the original. It's interesting that, like Dagohir, it doesn't seem inspired by tabletop roleplay but by fiction). Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As seen in the movie "Role Models"?

Why did they feel the need to rename it to LAIR?

Tim Chuma (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This article used to mention Role Models in the See Also. It was trimmed out during the Good Article review, and I think that was appropriate. Dunno about the "LAIR" thing, perhaps you could ask at Role Models. Haven't seen it, but it might be used as the name of the specific group, not the hobby. Ryan Paddy (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Far as I'm aware, Role Models is the biggest mainstream attention LARPs got and that film made almost $100 million- certainly it deserves a mention in the article? --208.38.59.163 (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's only worth mentioning if reliable secondary sources have made note of the film's importance to larp. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of secondary sources:

• Here's an interview with the director of Role Models where he explains that he tried some LARP as research for the movie and enjoyed it, and that they "made up" the name LAIRE.
• Here's a review of Role Models which states that "It’s to the film’s credit that LARPing comes across as both completely ridiculous and as a valid, constructive social outlet".

Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've worked a mention of Role Models into a new section on the cultural significance of larp. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

News imitating wikipedia?

I was looking for references, and found this article. Is it my imagination, or is that a repackaged version of keys points from the Wikipedia larp article (exact wording in some cases), interspliced with interviews with local larpers? "Games can be played in public or private. They can last for hours or days." I'm not criticising, I think the Wikipedia article is probably one of the best sources existing for general information about larp as whole. But it's curious... we could now cite that news article, which appears to be using us as an unreferenced source... which would be circular and wrong. I'd heard that some journalists are doing this with Wikipedia, but it's interesting to find an example. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that WP:RS cautions against this problem: Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as the sole source for their work.[2] To avoid this indirect self-referencing, editors should ensure that material from news organizations is not the only existing source outside of Wikipedia. Generally, sources that predate the material's inclusion in Wikipedia are preferable. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Found another possible example of this, in a psychiatry paper of all places. Ballon, Silver & Fidler (2007) in the Journal of Academic Psychiatry write:

The original role-playing games were often with dice, figures, or a board, with players sitting around a table. Another mode of play is live action role-playing, in which the players physically act out their characters’ actions. This type of game play is usually more focused on characterization and improvisational theatrics and less focused on combat and the fantastic, if only because of the physical limitations of the players themselves (20).

Some live action role-playing games avoid combat whenever possible, leaving only minimal or nonexistent combat systems. Many murder-mystery live action role-playing games lack any combat system, the focus being entirely on social interaction and investigation. Some games that discourage and penalize combat might use very simple rules, for instance, pointing a toy gun at someone and shouting, "Bang!" means that the target character is dead. In Headspace Theater, the scenarios are designed so that there is no physical "combat" or interaction, as this might result in a student feeling distraught. Again, in building and running any scenario, every player is asked about his or her personal comfort before assuming a role and is aware anyone can stop the play at any time if there are any concerns.

Emphasis mine. Might just be an obvious phrase to use, but it looks identical to the opening sentence of the Wikipedia article. The source might be useful to reference though, as the rest of the quote above doesn't seem to be cribbed from Wikipedia. The article says they consulted larp experts when designing a roleplay called "Headspace Theater" in which psychiatric symptoms are simulated, so it could be used as a primary source for that too. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty cool. I'm glad someone is keeping up to date on academic references to LARP.The Bearded One (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Cultural significance: good stuff

Ryan Paddy, you are a researching machine! The new cultural significance section is looking good! — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers mate. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a mention of the use of LARPS as research tools. Ryan Paddy queried whether a masters thesis constituted a reliable source. In the interest of full disclosure, I will begin by admitting that the author of the thesis in question is a professional colleague and personal friend. But masters theses are routinely cited in peer-reviewed journals in both the humanities and the sciences. In Canada, at least, a Master's thesis is published by the university under its official imprimatur, and is subject to the same rigorous peer-review process as any journal article. On the other hand, I admit that the version of the thesis available on-line is on it's author's personal website, not the McMaster University site. NikolaiSmith (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a major issue with it. The reliable source policy says that a PhD thesis is considered a reliable source, but doesn't mention whether a masters thesis is. I'm guessing it's on a case-by-case basis. I don't suppose the research has also been published in a journal? Then it would clearly be a reliable source. Also, it would be preferable to find an article that states that larp is used in social sciences, rather than an an example of larp being used in social sciences. The latter is somewhat original research, because we as editors are making the generalisation, rather than quoting the generalisation being made in a reliable source. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring "Play overview" section

I think the structure of the "Play overview" section isn't as coherent as it could be, but I'm not sure how to improve it. I really like how Rules, Genres etc. now have a main section each, it's very clear to follow and makes it easier to compose text for each section. I think the whole article would work well as a series of main sections without subsections - many featured articles take that approach. However, I'm not sure yet how the "Play overview" introduction, the "Fiction and reality" and the "Types of participation" could best be refactored to be just main sections. Thoughts? "Types of participation" is probably a solid main section on its own, but I dunno about the rest... some of the content may work better if split into various other sections. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)