Читать книгу Role Playing Materials - Rafael Bienia - Страница 11

2.3.1 From participant observation to field notes. Originating in Malinowski’s first reflections (1922), participant observation developed to a method in ethnography. Participant observation is “a way to collect data in naturalistic settings by ethnographers who observe and/or take part in the common and uncommon activities of the people being studied” (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002, p. 2). Through the extended face-to-face encounter with the actors of interest, and participating in extraordinary and mundane actions, observations gain their empirical quality, because there “is no substitute for gaining tacit and implicit knowledge of cultural behavior than living among people and sharing their lives” (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002, p. 291). I got insights in the wider activities of role players by participating in game sessions, and in discussions before and after them. The advantage of “being native” myself in this culture was that I had already established rapport as a role player and photographer in different communities of larp and tabletop role-playing games. The disadvantage was my familiarity with these games as player and designer. I needed to alienate myself to gain the third perspective of a researcher. I achieved this by consciously changing perspectives.

The change happened sometimes automatically during a game session, when my participant perspective moved to the perspective of researcher and to the character that I played. In this regard, becoming aware of the different perspectives of participant observation was the first step in solving the epistemological problem, how to know about role playing (see Chapter 1). Moving between participating and observing roles generated a creative tension: “Participant observation is a paradox because the ethnographers seek to understand the native’s viewpoint, but NOT ‘go native’” (emphasis in original, DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002, p. 263). As I moved to the position of observing researcher, I went alien to the role of participant and character that I was familiar with before.

Steering three roles: Researcher, participant in a game, character in the game. With the three options, I could write about processes from several perspectives. The problem was how to control the three roles. The challenge of studying role-playing games is not only to reflect about the ethnographer role-playing field-work perspectives, but at the same time reflecting how a researcher is a participant in a role-playing game and a character in the story world at the same time.

Participation in role playing requires the researcher not only to play her or his role as participant, but also to some degree that of an observer, and above all the role of the character within the game. The reason why switching roles has to be taken care of is because during role playing, the challenge for the researcher is to avoid disturbance, as this breaks the players’ goal to maintain the illusion of a fictional world. Players are sensitive to elements that do not belong to the game world, which requires the researcher to take the role of the complete participant. In this case, starting from an informed position is helpful for studying role-playing games.

During my field work, participating in a role-playing game session became difficult. First, I had to role-play the character in the game. Second, I had to take different field-work perspectives. The researcher as participant role-plays the character and maintains opportunities for observation while changing field-work perspectives as necessary.

Actor-network theory integrates the researcher as an actor in a game network and encourages examining the process of changing perspectives, because it considers the third role of a participatory observant researcher. Beside changes in role-playing practices, subjectivity is one obstacle during field work which I share with other researchers on games employing participant observation (Pearce & Artemesia, 2009; Taylor, 2006). In her study of online role playing, Copier reflects upon her researcher position by drawing on actor-network theory in general and Haraway in particular. Copier (2007) reflects herself as participant and researcher to “express situatedness in writing” (p. 30). In studying role playing, however, I found traces for three roles: researcher, participant, and character. Playing a character leaves traces for a third perspective. Observations from a character’s perspective differed from those of me being a researcher and a participant. Furthermore, I distinguished the role of the participating self who was familiar with role playing from the researcher. As a researcher I had to go alien, because I needed to look at different phenomena than those I observed from the character perspective during role playing, or those that I observed from the participant or player perspective. Taking the perspective of researcher, participant in a game, and playing a role in the role-playing game, resulted in a triple role-playing practice. Changing the perspectives during a game session allowed me to select different observations.

To remain in control of three roles, I drew upon role playing as a practice itself. In ethnography, role playing does not refer to the meaning of the word as a recreational practice, but to playing with perspectives. I draw upon the reflections of role players to inform ethnographic role playing. In their text for a Nordic larp conference book, Montola, Stenros, and Saitta (2015) describe the process of changing roles with regard to situations as steering. “Steering is the process in which a player influences the behavior of her character for non-diegetic reasons” (p. 108). Non-diegetic reasons are reasons not linked to the narrative elements that construct the story world, but relate to elements that players consider not part of the game, such as physical safety. In this case, players might not run “in the pitch-black forest even when [their] pursuers do” (Montola et al., 2015, p. 110). The decision when to steer depends on context. It might be the case that players ignore physical safety to some extent and run through a dark forest, as I did in the introductory example of the fleeing wizard. As their text informs other role players, it focuses on the “dual consciousness” of players who steer their roles as participant and character. I add here the researcher as a third “consciousness” or perspective. Thus, controlling three perspectives adds to diegetic and non-diegetic reasons of a role player those reasons important for doing research. By using role playing as an ethnographic method to control field-work perspectives, my practice and understanding of role playing changed.

I have observed that the difficulty of steering three different roles resulted in a change of my personal role-playing style. I would not have observed this change if I had not been familiar with role playing before. My personal style changed because I had to distribute play time between participating, playing a character, and doing research. When I observed this change, I alienated my style further. For example, when I began this study in 2011, I stopped making costumes for larp and relied more and more on less time-consuming practices, such as recycling previous costumes, or borrowing costumes from friends, or buying costume parts instead of making them myself. In 2012 and 2014, I ran tabletop role-playing games with less effort than I used to invest. I intensified my participation in several role-playing games and groups in the beginning of my field work in 2011 and 2012, and withdrew from 2013 until 2015 almost completely—returning only when in need of further clarification and verification of conclusions.⁵ Moving outside my comfort zone became a point of self-reflection. This alienation caused a tension with my personal style that was about doing costumes myself. The inner reluctance to alienate my play style invigorated my reflections on the inter-relational demands, the seduction, and coercion of materials I had not been aware of before.

At the beginning of my study for each empirical chapter, I took an informed position to alienate what I took for granted about role playing. Taking different perspectives, oscillating between participating and observing, I produced different types of written field notes. Everything that seemed familiar or unproblematic became the source of inquiry. The question was how I came to know about an aspect and what material traces were there. Steering helped to control different roles, reflect upon changes in observation and participation, and develop sensibility for the actor that I followed for every chapter.

Participation per chapter. For Chapter 3, I followed the material actor costume to larps that took place at a former military area in Bexbach, Germany from 2010 until 2012. The former military area has been turned into a larp area and renamed Utopion. At Utopion, I focused on two larp campaigns and a fest larp that took place there. A larp campaign is a series of usually annual larp events that continue a longer narrative. The two larp campaigns were Alcyon (Fantasiewelten e.V.) and Dunkle Pfade (Nachtfalken Orga). Both larps involved around 150 participants. Fest larps are larger in scale, ranging from 1,300 participants at Epic Empires to 8,500 participants at Conquest of Mythodea. I chose Epic Empires (Epic Empires Event UG), because it took place at Utopion and involved organizers and participants of the two larp campaigns. Beside these larps, I took part in other larps. Some differed from my selection, as they drew upon a different genre than fantasy, took less time, or were played in other parts of Germany and Europe. Field notes included data samples differing in size and medium: hand-written narratives of what happened during the day, quick notes written during gameplay in a small notebook that I carried with me, and photographs of costumes, props, and locations. From the perspective of observer as participant, I wrote these notes in the evening in my tent and when the larp was over on Sunday. After the larp, I used the photographs to distance myself and describe scenes from a complete observer perspective. The photographs and the quickly written notes were from the perspective of complete participant, sometimes using the voice of my characters.

For Chapter 4, I followed two material actors, a smartphone and a virtual reality headset. With the smartphone, I explored the larp Obscurus 2 in Spaarnwoude, the Netherlands, which took place in a contemporary world (2012) ruled by criminals. The mixed reality technology involved was a banking software that players could access with their smartphones. It served as an example for augmented reality technology, because it added a digital layer of information to the location of the larp. With the virtual reality headset Oculus Rift DK2, I explored role playing in computer role-playing games in 2014. The virtual reality headset replaces the monitor with a 360° display. Additionally, I interviewed a designer of the augmented reality role-playing game DSA Hexenwald (sprylab, 2013) and Dutch larp organizers who have used mixed reality technology before. Similar to the methods in the larp chapter, I wrote field notes during Obscurus 2 and while playing with the virtual reality headset. I participated as a player and followed how both material actors co-operate with the heterogeneous sites. Additionally, I took videos of myself role-playing with the headset. Here too, the perspectives changed, from complete participant to complete observer.

For Chapter 5, I examined six materials that produce role playing in tabletop role-playing games taking place at different locations in Germany and at my home in Maastricht, the Netherlands from 2010 through 2014. The game system that I focused on was Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 (Cook et al., 2003), but I also participated in sessions of Vampire: The Requiem (Marmell et al., 2004), Call of Cthulhu (Petersen & Willis, 2004), and Das Schwarze Auge (Herz et al., 2005). In this chapter, I relied less on field notes than on interviews with other players. The reason was that I changed my perspective one step further for this chapter, to that of role-playing materials. Letting materials speak allowed me to take ethnographic role playing further by role-playing non-human elements. I explain this experiment in more detail in Chapter 5.

As all of the chapters draw upon interviews, I will explain my use of interviews in more detail before I discuss the ethical questions involved in this study.

2.3.2 From semi-structured interviews to transcripts. I reflected on my observations by interviewing participants and designers after each of the game sessions. Semi-structured interviews helped me to reflect by mirroring my understanding with what players and producers said. Producers include people who produce these games for others, such as organizers in larp, designers in computer role-playing games, and game masters in tabletop role-playing games.

Semi-structured interviews engage the interviewer and interviewee in a formal interview situation. Each of the interviews took 60 minutes via online voice communication. This type of qualitative interview connects a list of open questions prepared before the interview with the opportunity to explore further certain themes that emerge during the interview (Kruse, 2011; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009; Silverman, 1985). As interviewer, I had prepared six questions and let the conversation follow the interviewee’s answers. Thus, I could follow the topic of “role playing and materials” and let the interviewee lead. Beside technical difficulties that might occur when establishing an online voice communication, I had positive experiences regarding online interviews. Similarly to Michielse (2015), my interviewees preferred this form of communication, because it was natural to them, and because they could share visual information. Some send me pictures of their living room where they play tabletop role-playing games, while one interview partner showed me his game master screen while using the camera of his laptop. This procedure resulted in reliable and comparable qualitative data. After transcription, I translated the interviews from German into English. The final number of interviews was 10 for larp, three for mixed reality role-playing games, and 14 for tabletop role-playing games. In addition to formal interviews, I talked informally with role players on various occasions. In this regard, I balanced the small number of interviewees for Chapter 4. I have added the most relevant correspondence to the list of interviews. See Appendix B for the list of interviewees and correspondence.

2.3.3 Ethical considerations. Regarding research ethics, I followed the considerations laid out by the Chicago School of Writing (Booth et al., 2003; Williams & Colomb, 2007). I share with them the “belief that [research] is a profoundly social activity that connects you both to those who will use your research and to those who might benefit—or suffer—from that use” (Booth et al., 2003, p. 273). My field work brought me to different sites of play and discussion. In regard of time, the principle “follow the actors” connects my book with those to whom I talked during my field work in the past, with readers who hold this book in their hands now, and with colleagues who might use it in the future.

The Chicago School ties two conceptions to ethics, “the forging of bonds that create a community” and “moral choices we face when we act in that community” (Booth et al., 2003, p. 273). I forged bonds with players, designers, and scholars over the past five years as I participated in games and discussions about games at conventions and at online sites. Aside from playing, I read and wrote blog posts, forum threads, and discussions on social media sites. At these online sites, I found additional volunteers for interviews, who are included in the number of interviewees above. When working with online sites as part of the field work, it is probable that the amount of data is overwhelming. Michielse (2015) suggests to focus on “a specific part of the community” website, such as the frontpage (p. 35). In my case, I focused on discussions and online texts about crafting role-playing materials, but since there were few, I needed a further step. Throughout the time, I made my research project on materials public on my private blog (bienia.wordpress.com), on my profiles at social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, reddit), and on my profiles in specific online communities (inlarp.de, larperning.com, forums.oculus.com). In this way, I have stimulated the necessary amount of response, either directly via text messages or by generating discussion on the sites. Some responses were online while some happened in person during conventions and conferences. While maintaining contact with the communities, I kept my research work transparent. I agree with Michielse (2015) about transparency as an important moral choice, and would like to add that it is also a practical choice, because it generates opportunities to attract correspondence and interview partners.

I informed my interviewees about my intention to summarize the results and make them visible within an academic study. Interviewees provided consent in advance to be recorded and quoted. Some interviewees offered their real name for use (i.e., Walter) while others chose nicknames (i.e., Section31). When the chapters were finished I sent them to all the interviewees whom I quoted, for a final check. I treated most correspondence at online forums, social media sites, and via chat anonymously. In referring to such correspondence I do not usually cite names, but the game and form of communication, for example: SVA larp, E-mail, 2011. All in all, the study followed Maastricht University’s “Code of Conduct, Scientific Research” (2012).

Being in touch with the community discourse, I learned more about the three role-playing game forms, the (in)visibility of materials, and the latest developments, such as crowdfunding and crowdsourcing, for example for Dungeons & Dragons 5 (in 2012), Oculus Rift (in 2012), and College of Wizardry (in 2014). More importantly, with the help of online communication and online sites, I stayed in touch with fellow players and interview partners.

Staying in touch with the community made it possible to inform the community about the progress of my research and disseminate preliminary results. I wrote about preliminary results on my blog, in magazines (inlarp.de and LARPzeit), as well as in book publications of larp conventions (MittelPunkt 2011-2015, WyrdCon 2012), and presented my findings at conventions (see list in Appendix A). I also contributed as a reviewer during the set-up of the first international larp census (Vanek, 2015). Another reason was to connect national communities, and also to disseminate information beyond this study, such as the news of Disney’s idea-scouting at Nordic larp communities that influenced the construction of Disney’s Star Wars Land. Staying in almost daily contact with the communities helped me to examine and revise my understanding of role-playing games from different perspectives.