Howdy! Came across this article today at work. The author has some interesting insights into why people are drawn to roleplaying games based on qualitative analysis (so interviews). Good stuff…and it can help you to be a better GM! http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol22/iss11/1/
Howdy!
Howdy!
Interesting!
Interesting!
Did I miss something or could I have replaced RPGs with quilting, the SCA, home brewing, etc. [Basically any activity with a creative and social element.]
Did I miss something or could I have replaced RPGs with quilting, the SCA, home brewing, etc. [Basically any activity with a creative and social element.]
Thanks for sharing this!
Thanks for sharing this!
That’s a good point Todd. Because of one of my jobs I look at a lot of research on the beneficial elements of various hobbies (archaeology, SCUBA, running, camping, kayaking, etc.). There are certainly similarities, most noticeably the increased socialisation and distraction from daily tasks. However there are a lot of differences…I kinda wish the author would have done a compare/contrast but I think this is just a pilot study. From my own research and work, I would say that while a lot of activities promote bonding through shared experience/objectives they don’t necessarily contain the same dynamic ability to explore issues that roleplaying games do. You might develop a relationship with someone you run with, for example, but you won’t necessarily see how they think a half-elf of a different gender would act in a given situation. A lot of this ‘bonding’ interaction is fairly superficial stuff. The learning rewards are also totally different as most hobbies have external rewards (ie. better basket, better beer, progression through certification…even peer respect) whereas the research focused on internal improvements like problem-solving ability and enhanced perspective. The subjects weren’t playing in order to become better players, they seem to be playing in order to portray different people.
tl;dr – From my read-through the major take-away is that Coe didn’t see as much focus on immersive play as he expected; it seemed the participants were more interested in developing characters and exploring different perspectives than in pretending to be in another world (see pages 2857-2859).
That’s a good point Todd. Because of one of my jobs I look at a lot of research on the beneficial elements of various hobbies (archaeology, SCUBA, running, camping, kayaking, etc.). There are certainly similarities, most noticeably the increased socialisation and distraction from daily tasks. However there are a lot of differences…I kinda wish the author would have done a compare/contrast but I think this is just a pilot study. From my own research and work, I would say that while a lot of activities promote bonding through shared experience/objectives they don’t necessarily contain the same dynamic ability to explore issues that roleplaying games do. You might develop a relationship with someone you run with, for example, but you won’t necessarily see how they think a half-elf of a different gender would act in a given situation. A lot of this ‘bonding’ interaction is fairly superficial stuff. The learning rewards are also totally different as most hobbies have external rewards (ie. better basket, better beer, progression through certification…even peer respect) whereas the research focused on internal improvements like problem-solving ability and enhanced perspective. The subjects weren’t playing in order to become better players, they seem to be playing in order to portray different people.
tl;dr – From my read-through the major take-away is that Coe didn’t see as much focus on immersive play as he expected; it seemed the participants were more interested in developing characters and exploring different perspectives than in pretending to be in another world (see pages 2857-2859).
Thank you for sharing.
Thank you for sharing.