"Beyond Role & Play" Book

[Eero Tuovinen]

As far as differences between the Nordic countries go, I feel that they are commonly overstated. There is more difference between the immersionist/dramatist players and entertainment hobbyists than there is between Danish and Finnish roleplayers overall. Certainly, there is differences, but compared to the differences towards f.ex. American roleplaying culture they are slight indeed.

The fact is, larpers hold an annual Nordic convention, Solmukohta. Fact is that my Swedish peers understand it when I start to talk about the relationship of immersion to social agitation. The fact is that Tomas and Risto speak essentially the same language, radically different from Forge-speak in several respects. The fact is that there is more connections between the roleplayers of Norway and Finland than there is between those of Delaware and of California.

Surely the passive hobbyist play is similar in all these countries, as it is everywhere. The differences (which Tomas summed up nicely) are largely in emphasis of application - much freeform here, dramatist methodism there, some more larping than tabletop over there. These are not differences in culture, they are differences in social dynamics. That's natural, as the common hobbyist takes his cue from his play group and American roleplaying books, so it's natural that regional differences reign. Much more important, as far as scene goes, is that the serious theorists and artistic players (which are more common among larpers in each of these countries) do care what is happening on the other side of the gulf.

This is the point - when talking about similarity of the scene in these countries, it's not play we are talking about, it's theory. After the execution of Mellan himmel och hav every Nordic theorist knows about it, takes stock and considers it for himself. That's as much of a common scene as there can be. Any stronger claim transcends the line of stereotype.

Anyway, about the book: I'd say that it's a must for a realistic picture of what is happening in the Nordic area, as far as larp theory goes. Being that larping is the only area of gaming where there is state-of-the-art innovation going on hereabouts, the book is an important period piece. It is true that the theories themselves are largely narrowminded and childish (IMO, no use to argue that), but they have despite that produced some great play - when reading these it's imporant to remember that these very same writers are really good larpsmiths. If the theories fall short of the mark as a description of the activity, they seem to work very well as prescription - read the individual texts as manifests, claims about what works, and they make much more sense.

Anyway, I hope Risto gets the review done for wednesday. I for one expect it fervently (well, me being the editor it's not so surprising ;).

[matthijs]

The fact is, larpers hold an annual Nordic convention, Solmukohta. Fact is that my Swedish peers understand it when I start to talk about the relationship of immersion to social agitation. The fact is that Tomas and Risto speak essentially the same language, radically different from Forge-speak in several respects. The fact is that there is more connections between the roleplayers of Norway and Finland than there is between those of Delaware and of California.

I'd really appreciate it if you could use consistently different terms for LARPers and tabletop gamers. From my viewpoint, it seems like the LARP scene has lots of connections between the countries, and theories are being exchanged all the time. However, the situation in tabletop gaming isn't the same. It seems to me that we play differently, and have different outlooks on why and how we play.

You'll be hard pressed to find many Danish, Swedish or Finnish or Icelandic gamers at Norway's largest (tabletop RPG and board) game festival, ARCON. Presumably the same goes for Danish, Finnish, Swedish and Icelandic cons. Knutepunkt, however, has brought together LARPers from all these countries for years now.

Certainly, a handful of individuals keep in touch with tabletop gamers not from their own country of origin. But they're way too few to be talking about a "scene". There's more Norwegians posting on the Forge than on any non-Norwegian nordic forum; haven't seen any non-Norwegians on www.rollespill.net either.

Surely the passive hobbyist play is similar in all these countries, as it is everywhere. The differences (which Tomas summed up nicely) are largely in emphasis of application - much freeform here, dramatist methodism there, some more larping than tabletop over there. These are not differences in culture, they are differences in social dynamics. That's natural, as the common hobbyist takes his cue from his play group and American roleplaying books, so it's natural that regional differences reign. Much more important, as far as scene goes, is that the serious theorists and artistic players (which are more common among larpers in each of these countries) do care what is happening on the other side of the gulf.

Not sure what you mean here. It seems like you're saying that we all play the same way, except that we play differently?

This is the point - when talking about similarity of the scene in these countries, it's not play we are talking about, it's theory.

Well - how much do you know of Norwegian tabletop gaming theory? I mean, do you know whether it exists or not, what kind of things we're focussing on, who the major participants are etc? (Again, tabletop; not LARP).

After the execution of Mellan himmel och hav every Nordic theorist knows about it, takes stock and considers it for himself. That's as much of a common scene as there can be. Any stronger claim transcends the line of stereotype.

Never heard of it - but then, I'm not very well informed about LARP; I focus mostly on tabletop RPG's. I still consider myself a "Nordic theorist".

Anyway, about the book: I'd say that it's a must for a realistic picture of what is happening in the Nordic area, as far as larp theory goes. (...) It is true that the theories themselves are largely narrowminded and childish (...) If the theories fall short of the mark as a description of the activity, they seem to work very well as prescription - read the individual texts as manifests, claims about what works, and they make much more sense.

I'm not sure whether I would call them "theories", then. Perhaps "techniques", "suggestions", "recipes" would be better? (I don't mean to be a nitpicker here; I think such prescriptions are very often much more useful than theoretical descriptions).

[Eero Tuovinen]

We'll, dissecting Nordic roleplaying community isn't exactly on-topic, but at least it might give some insight towards the context of the book...

I'd really appreciate it if you could use consistently different terms for LARPers and tabletop gamers. From my viewpoint, it seems like the LARP scene has lots of connections between the countries, and theories are being exchanged all the time. However, the situation in tabletop gaming isn't the same. It seems to me that we play differently, and have different outlooks on why and how we play.

Funny, larpers bash me all the time when I do differentiate between the forms ;)

My argument about the tabletop games rests largely on the fact that there is no tabletop culture of play per se. As I intimated, I see a nordic "scene" in the high end of things, with the theorists and activists. And how could there be a scene in anything, anywhere, by any other measure? Most hobbyists in any hobby do their own thing, and the scene is what the active ones create. You don't see me in GenCon sitting in the Forge booth, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a Forge scene all the same.

You'll be hard pressed to find many Danish, Swedish or Finnish or Icelandic gamers at Norway's largest (tabletop RPG and board) game festival, ARCON. Presumably the same goes for Danish, Finnish, Swedish and Icelandic cons. Knutepunkt, however, has brought together LARPers from all these countries for years now.

I felt in the last RopeCon that other nordic countries were relatively well established. Of course the run-of-the-mill players were few and far between, but what did you expect? It's not very sensible to journey to Helsinki for just one convention, as most see it. The theorists are the ones who are interested, as it is with Solmukohta.

Certainly, a handful of individuals keep in touch with tabletop gamers not from their own country of origin. But they're way too few to be talking about a "scene". There's more Norwegians posting on the Forge than on any non-Norwegian nordic forum; haven't seen any non-Norwegians on www.rollespill.net either.

Well, I don't post in rollespill, but that should be excusable due to my bad swedish, which becomes abysmally bad norwegian ;) A more important point is that I've never found anything too interesting on the forum - the discussions are essentially the same ones we rehash in sfnet.pelit.rooli in finnish. And again, this is the point - when the tabletop roleplaying rests on common american games, it is self-evident that we'll have exactly this situation: no need to communicate, as the forms and methods are essentially the same.

Not sure what you mean here. It seems like you're saying that we all play the same way, except that we play differently?

We play in the same way, because the tabletop games are the same as they are all over the world and because the larpers and high-end tabletoppers emulate each other. What I was talking in that paragraph was how the apparent differences in playing style are largely self-styled illusions and not really relevant. I, for one, don't believe one second that f.ex. commonly known Danish freeform tabletop is actually significantly more common than it is in Finland. It's one part urban legend and one part historical coincidence.

Well - how much do you know of Norwegian tabletop gaming theory? I mean, do you know whether it exists or not, what kind of things we're focussing on, who the major participants are etc? (Again, tabletop; not LARP).

There is no norwegian tabletop theory, as far as I know (talking about published, acknowledged work here). As far as I've familiarized myself with the norwegian situation, it seems exactly like the finnish one. Tabletop theory, where it exists, is a direct offshoot of either international contacts or larp theory. Actual play ranges from the fantasy (Ars Magica, D&D) mainstream to isolated examples of everything else you'd think of - the mainstream hobbyists play as they play anywhere, and active people find their preference either in the innovative larp scene or international options, like Forge.

After the execution of Mellan himmel och hav every Nordic theorist knows about it, takes stock and considers it for himself. That's as much of a common scene as there can be. Any stronger claim transcends the line of stereotype.

Never heard of it - but then, I'm not very well informed about LARP; I focus mostly on tabletop RPG's. I still consider myself a "Nordic theorist".

Then the question becomes, why you haven't heard of it? Go read about the game, it's chock full of nice ideas. Might be we have the point here - you clearly aren't orientated towards the other Nordic countries, but towards the larger American community?

Anyway, about the book: I'd say that it's a must for a realistic picture of what is happening in the Nordic area, as far as larp theory goes. (...) It is true that the theories themselves are largely narrowminded and childish (...) If the theories fall short of the mark as a description of the activity, they seem to work very well as prescription - read the individual texts as manifests, claims about what works, and they make much more sense.

I'm not sure whether I would call them "theories", then. Perhaps "techniques", "suggestions", "recipes" would be better? (I don't mean to be a nitpicker here; I think such prescriptions are very often much more useful than theoretical descriptions).

There is precedent for using "theory" for a prescriptive work, if that's what you're talking about. However, the book is in theory differentiated in two halves, one of which is "theory" and one "application". The writers think that their theories are objective to the degree that they deserve the name, and what are we to say nay?

[matthijs]

Funny, larpers bash me all the time when I do differentiate between the forms ;)

Can't please everyone, I guess ;) Well, as you've gathered by now, I think there's a huge difference between the LARP and tabletop "scenes".

Most hobbyists in any hobby do their own thing, and the scene is what the active ones create.

So "scene" is, by your definition, created by those who 1) want to theorize, and 2) are vocal about it...? To me, the term "scene" is broader - when I talk of the Norwegian tabletop "scene", I think of all Norwegian tabletop gamers, not just the very small percentage of us who insist on shouting our opinions from the rooftops while the rest just play on, wondering what the fuss is all about.

What I was talking in that paragraph was how the apparent differences in playing style are largely self-styled illusions and not really relevant. I, for one, don't believe one second that f.ex. commonly known Danish freeform tabletop is actually significantly more common than it is in Finland. It's one part urban legend and one part historical coincidence.

At this point, I strongly wish that we had some facts to base an opinion on. This is, as I see it, a major problem with this whole discussion: We're talking about our views of the activities of tens of thousands of people, of several nationalities, based only on our own experiences. And our experiences clearly differ.

There is no norwegian tabletop theory, as far as I know (talking about published, acknowledged work here). As far as I've familiarized myself with the norwegian situation, it seems exactly like the finnish one. Tabletop theory, where it exists, is a direct offshoot of either international contacts or larp theory. Actual play ranges from the fantasy (Ars Magica, D&D) mainstream to isolated examples of everything else you'd think of - the mainstream hobbyists play as they play anywhere, and active people find their preference either in the innovative larp scene or international options, like Forge.

Not too far off. However, there are some attempts at theory. "Publication" is mostly in Imagonem (the Norwegian gaming fanzine), on usenet, or on discussion groups... acknowledged, I guess, by those few who care.

LARP/international options: I've never been a LARPer, and I'm kind of avoiding the theory-heavy discussions on The Forge because I find that if I want to participate, it means adapting a gigantic load of theory and concepts that I don't wholeheartedly agree with.

Then the question becomes, why you haven't heard of it? Go read about the game, it's chock full of nice ideas. Might be we have the point here - you clearly aren't orientated towards the other Nordic countries, but towards the larger American community?

You're talking to the wrong person, Eero ;) As I've made clear before, I'm not a LARPer, and don't read much LARP theory. I am, however, oriented towards the other Nordic countries - I know more about the history of Danish RPGs than most Danish gamers do (having played obscurities like Skæbner & Skatte, owning weird old VP), am following the progress of Finnish Myrskyn Aika, and have a collection of obscure Swedish RPG's (as in "stuff not related to Mutant Chronicles, the "new" Drakar & Demoner etc"), including the Christian educational "Vägen". I'm in touch with the people behind the Danish "efterskolen for rolleforløb", in relation with a project I'm involved with, trying to get tabletop RPGs into Norwegian schools. Etc.

So, well, I could go read about "Mellan himmel och hav", but right now - tabletop, and getting RPGs accepted by Norwegian schools & media.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Most hobbyists in any hobby do their own thing, and the scene is what the active ones create.

So "scene" is, by your definition, created by those who 1) want to theorize, and 2) are vocal about it...? To me, the term "scene" is broader - when I talk of the Norwegian tabletop "scene", I think of all Norwegian tabletop gamers, not just the very small percentage of us who insist on shouting our opinions from the rooftops while the rest just play on, wondering what the fuss is all about.

We'll, by that definition your scene is very disjointed. Remember that most roleplayers almost never look outside their own play group, some can play five or ten years with the same people, or even the same game. We'd have to talk about my scene, consisting roughly of the people I actually play with, the net forums I frequent, and other sources, largely larp theorists here in Finland. I have many friends for whom the "scene" would be me, three other roleplayers and my homebrew d20 version. You could interpret scene like this, but it's more sensible to me to group the solitary hobbyists who don't communicate with the activist base outside the scene. Of course this is largely a terminology issue, and if we go by your terminology, it's selfevident that the roleplaying scenes are very small indeed. In that case I agree with your statements.

At this point, I strongly wish that we had some facts to base an opinion on. This is, as I see it, a major problem with this whole discussion: We're talking about our views of the activities of tens of thousands of people, of several nationalities, based only on our own experiences. And our experiences clearly differ.

Yes, that's true. However, what kind of hard data would resolve the issue? Being the continental philosopher I am, I'm inclined to claim that analysis of terminology will reveal that our individual experiences are actually relatively similar.

Not too far off. However, there are some attempts at theory. "Publication" is mostly in Imagonem (the Norwegian gaming fanzine), on usenet, or on discussion groups... acknowledged, I guess, by those few who care.

Ah, we should probably get a handle on that, too. Would you mind writing a little essay to Forge about Norwegian roleplaying theory? Other people would probably be interested too, and there might be some new insights.

So, well, I could go read about "Mellan himmel och hav", but right now - tabletop, and getting RPGs accepted by Norwegian schools & media.

There's something wrong with the world when I have to tell people to consider larping ;) The forms are in many things quite near each other, so it's only sensible to keep more or less current about that scene (if there is a scene there, that is). I myself don't larp at all, but find the achievements (not in theory, but in practice) interesting indeed.

[matthijs]

Would you mind writing a little essay to Forge about Norwegian roleplaying theory? Other people would probably be interested too, and there might be some new insights.

Well, as I said, there are "some attempts", not many. However, it'd be fun to write a little essay on it. (Of course, that would instantly get me into hot debate with whoever I'm paraphrasing or referring to :))

There's something wrong with the world when I have to tell people to consider larping ;) The forms are in many things quite near each other, so it's only sensible to keep more or less current about that scene (if there is a scene there, that is). I myself don't larp at all, but find the achievements (not in theory, but in practice) interesting indeed.

Well, I agree that it'd be good to keep up to date on LARP theory & practice - but mostly because the forms are dissimilar, and I/we might learn something applicable to tabletop. However, I'd like to get into a LARP or two just for the sheer fun of it. (I'm strongly immersionist, and would probably enjoy a good LARP very much.)

Anyway, signing off for tonight...

[Tomas HVM]

Eero writes on differences in the Nordic RPG-culture, and claim they are differences in social dynamics. Yes, they are, and under these "social dynamics" you will find more fundamental differences.

As for what  is, and what is not a "scene"; I consider the term "the Nordic RPG-scene" to be a term coined to include the whole of RPG-culture in this region. In my view this region is, like any other region, a mishmash of RPG-creators, theorists, subcultures and players of different persuasions. So a scene in general is not appliable.

As stated; a scene in respect to larp-theory may be postulated, but I think you should confine it to that, Eero.

Being that larping is the only area of gaming where there is state-of-the-art innovation going on hereabouts,

I like to describe the larp-community in Norway as full of innovation and interesting gameplay. On the other hand; my observations on their narrowmindedness and arrogance is as valid, when it comes to their understanding of RPGs in general as an artform. They tend to ignore the potential of tabletop RPGs, and treat it as some sort of primitive ancestor. And most of them are quite unable to discuss computer-RPGs in any meaningful way.

The narrow arrogance of a larp-theorist certainly applies to messages like the one quoted above. It is an arrogant assumption, nothing more.

Tabletop RPGs is in development, also in Scandinavia. It happens in both Norway and Sweden; experiments, theories, debates, and innovation that breaks the juvenile ramifications of a traditional roleplaying game. For my part this has been going on since the late eighties, before larp existed in Norway. My colleagues in discussions then, were as sharp in thoughts and arguments as anyone I debate with today. When I joined in on the theoretical debates on www.laiv.org (central forum for debate in Norwegain larp) in the late nineties, I had a decade of discussions and practical theory in my rugsack.

I am skeptical to the use of this Knutepunkt-book for tabletop people, not only because it is focussed on larping, but also because the arrogance of the Nordic larp-theorists need to be curbed a bit, before they may communicate anything really useful. As it is now; they are bathing in their own excellence, and producing this book partly as a manifestation of cultural supremacy.

However; I must maintain that many of the larps that have been, and are, created in Norway; is of exceptional quality. I have great respect for many of the larp-creators here. They are impressing in their work. This is also true for many tabletop RPGs, created for conventions throughout the Nordic countries. Some of these are really outstanding!

But I do not see it all as one scene. The book is, for one, a manifest of only one part of a Nordic RPG-culture with a multitude of changing faces.

[Itse]

Tomas HVM wrote:

I am skeptical to the use of this Knutepunkt-book for tabletop people, not only because it is focussed on larping, but also because the arrogance of the Nordic larp-theorists need to be curbed a bit, before they may communicate anything really useful. As it is now; they are bathing in their own excellence, and producing this book partly as a manifestation of cultural supremacy.

Well, I'd say they are culturally supreme. Really. I'm in the "table-top camp" myself, and I'll admit readily that the larp-theorists are at the moment much more active, innovative, communicative and generally just more interesting (as a whole). This book is a good example of the fact that they do more than just "bathe in their own excellence"; they at least communicate with the outside world, even those who are not larpers. The more table-top oriented developers seem to have a hard time talking to anyone except their gamegroup.

As for the usefulness of this book for a non-larper, I'd say it's useful in expanding and clarifying the way one looks at things, which is not bad.

[MikesLeftHand]

Well.

As a contributor to the book, I feel qualified to speak. The book is, despite what it says on the cover, related to LARP and LARP only. The theories applies to LARPing, the rewievs are from LARPs etc. Im not saying that roleplayers cant use it, but a basic understanding of LARP might be required.

BTW; this could change. Im sorta on the comittee for next years "Knutepunkt" in Olso, and we would love to see both americans and texts by americans.

Aksel

ps: sorry for the lack of certain sign. My girlfriends computer is evil.

[Tomas HVM]

Well, I'd say they are culturally supreme. Really. I'm in the "table-top camp" myself, and I'll admit readily that the larp-theorists are at the moment much more active, innovative, communicative and generally just more interesting (as a whole). This book is a good example of the fact that they do more than just "bathe in their own excellence"; they at least communicate with the outside world, even those who are not larpers. The more table-top oriented developers seem to have a hard time talking to anyone except their gamegroup.

You are right, and then; you are wrong. Your statement of "cultural supremacy" is bull. It is very easy to describe the larp-culture as more active, more innovative and more communicative, but mostly this is a cultural feature, shaped by the premises presented by the form itself. It makes the picture a bit skewed when comparing the forms, in relation to theoretical advances.

Larp is much more of an joint effort in making, while a verbal rpg more often is made by one man. In this aspect these forms relates like a movie relates to a novel. From this it follows that larp-smiths are more vocal, and more socially focussed, as they are more dependant on the help of others to make their larps come through. It makes for a culture that is "more active, innovative, communicative and generally just more interesting" (your phrase).

I have played both larps and RPGs for years, and have had discussions on both forms for as long, and I have come to another conclusion.

LARP
However dear my experiences in larps are to me; and however ingenious the many larp-theorists of Norway are; I have also seen social mechanisms in this culture that I do not like, and experienced an arrogant attitude towards the broad spectre of roleplaying-forms, exactly like the one I described in my last post. I know it is a harsh description, but seriously; this culture is permeated by attitudes of supremacy (larp being supreme to other roleplaying-forms), and those attitudes are not sound. They do not further roleplaying as a whole.

I am not blind though, for the fact that larp-theorists need to distance themselves from tabletop RPGs, in order to focus exclusively on their own form. As such their "cultural arrogance" (not all of them are arrogant, of course) will bring larp forward in all it's glory. I think this is what's happening, so I can live with the arrogance, and expect larp to develop much in the years to come.

Verbal RPGs
The introvert nature of creating verbal RPGs, sitting in our separate chambers and playing the keyboard, is a process which makes for another culture, or at least other cultural expressions. The making of verbal RPGs is slower, and tend to create a more loyal following, so the developments are slower.

It is easy to misinterpret this "slowness" as a lack of innovation, but this is not true. If you look at the Forge, and the manyfaceted qualities of the discussions here, that is evident. And the Forge is but one of many great forums for discussions on verbal RPGs. The members of these forums are energetic, innovative, focused and broadminded.

This is true for the gamesmiths of Norway too, both in respct to their participation in international forums, their local discussions, and their work within the form. This is a description that fits well with Swedish gamesmiths too. I do not know about this specific culture in Finland, but however vocal and dominating the Finnish larpsmiths may be, there is almost certainly unique qualities within the culture of other Finnish gamesmiths too, due to the qualities inherent in their chosen form.

So; I hold up a red flag; arrogance! Mostly this has to do with the tendency to gape in wonder over the achievements of larp-theorists. They love this tendency, and it is strong in Scandinavia (and I've been partly instrumental in building it). Still; their insights are mostly limited to their own special form of roleplaying, mostly ignorant on the relationship between larp and other forms, and is of very limited use for gamesmiths in other forms of roleplaying.

I must correct myself though; on being skeptical to the use of reading this book for verbal gamesmiths. It is indeed useful to read literature on related forms. I do wish for gamesmiths of all persuasions to familiarize themselves with all kinds of roleplaying, to better understand the special possibilities and limitations within their own chosen form.

[Jonathan Walton]

So here's the info I just got, now that they've set up a PayPal account:

8 books = 96 Euros
Estimated (economy) postage for 4 kg = 27,2 Euros
Extra costs for Paypal = 1 Euro

Total: 124,2 Euros = $150

$150 divided 8 ways gets us to $18.75 + US Shipping (to get the books to you, individually).  If I ship things standard book rate (which means they should get there in less than a week), that's probably $2-3 a piece.

So... how does $22 sound?  Does that work for people?

If so, you can go ahead and PayPal the money to <Jonathan.Walton@oberlin.edu>.  If I don't hear anything in the next few days, I'll try to PM people who said they were interested.  If people decide to back out and that ups the total cost (because the shipping won't change much), I'll try to float that cost as much as I can, since the US Shipping might be cheaper than I'm anticipating.

[Jonathan Walton]

As a second option, I suppose you could mail me a check or money order, if you like.  PM or email me for my mailing address.