| I am a gamist. I play larp as a game to 'win.' |
| 4 |
|
I am a narrativist. I play to create a good story |
| 8 |
|
I am a simulationist/immersionist. I play to get into my character's head. |
| 17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 1:28 AM
Posts: 619,
Visits: 2,458
|
|
I'd always assumed that narrativist larpers were the people you often see arguing that certain IC actions which are IC possible and technically allowed under the rules should be frowned upon OC because they're 'boring' or 'a bit shit'. The main example I can think of here is the debate over whether it's bad form to kill a PC suddenly with little or no build-up, when you could theoretically have captured them or killed them in a more drawn-out and interesting way. Stuff like NPCs killing unconscious people on the ground during fights, or PC muggers killing their victims quickly and quietly when they could theoretically have opted to play a highwayman who banters with his victims and then often lets them live. Some people seem to see that sort of quick and brutal IC death as a sign of OC problems with the game. Personally, I find it hard to understand that viewpoint. I've always explained this difference of opinion on the basis that I'm a simulationist who finds it hard to suspend disbelief when someone holds back from the action that seems to make the most IC sense, in favour of an action that seems OC better for the story. Is that not what narrativism means?
WARNING: the information above may have been subjected to dangerously high levels of ignorance.
OOC (and on Pagga): Carrie
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:56 PM
Posts: 838,
Visits: 2,307
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:02 PM
Posts: 1,981,
Visits: 8,373
|
|
It's clearly an inadequate model - it doesn't have an option for 'Girlfriend' (or is that what Social is meant to be?).
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:56 PM
Posts: 838,
Visits: 2,307
|
|
| Yes Marios, that is one of the things the suggested 'social' agenda is supposed to cover. Personally I favour a five-fold model which seperates simulationist from immersionist and adds a fifth category which is quite close in concept to 'social'
------ <insert really amusing sig here>
|
|
|
|
|
Squire
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 2:27 PM
Posts: 39,
Visits: 188
|
|
| having read that definittion.. I conclude that it dosent apply to LRP. when somone comes up with an 'NPC directed, vs Linear plotline vs PVP model' then we can debate this.. As stands this model does not apply to LRP.. simply dosent work
Its me...(incase you were wondering)
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:45 PM
Posts: 195,
Visits: 224
|
|
Is there a "tick all three" or "depends on the system" or "subject to my mood at the time" or "depends on who I'm playing with" or "subject to the size of the event" or "according to what the rules encourage" option? 
_____________________________
Maelstrom - Carl Whitesnake
Scavenger LRP - Organiser
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 10:34 AM
Posts: 1,161,
Visits: 1,009
|
|
| Ray! More useless polling. Very limited set of answers there.... none of which apply to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:02 PM
Posts: 1,981,
Visits: 8,373
|
|
I wouldn't say it was useless - it's a nice quick way of seeing what people feel the socially prestigious answer to be (naturally, the very highest prestige option is asserting that choice isn't even included alongside the Common options!).
Marios
|
|
|
|