# Talk:Live action role-playing game

Have a citation? Leave a citation.  Need a citation?  Take a citation. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Olmstead-Dean, Gordon (2008-10-20). "Threads of Damocles Leadership White Paper". Gordon Olmstead-Dean. Archived from the original on 2008-11-04.
Self published, which is bad.  Written by someone widely recognized in the US east-cost theatre-style scene, which is good.  Might be hard to show that he's so noteworthy that his self-published work is a good citation, which is bad.  Also, mostly an opinion piece, which is also bad.  However, it's chock full of factual claims, which is good.  So a mixed bag, but maybe some gems can be found in there. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Interesting read. I'm not seeing anything of enough public interest to be citable for this article, it seems like rather an insider's guide. But the need to cite an article often isn't apparent until the moment it's needed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
What looked promising to me was "The Modular Structure and some Pros and Cons", in which the author makes direct claims about how LARPs were managed at different times.  "During most of the 1990s it was put forward that LARP only worked as a Dictatorship." "The real origin of the concept [modular organization] is the 1988 LARP event The Arabian Nights."  There are a few more games, years, and details mentioned.  I'm not certain it's useful, but it might be. !— Alan De Smet | Talk
The "Theatre-style/freeform" section could do with some citations. The definition given is accurate as far as I know, but WP:RS and all that. I might pull out the Book of LARP again. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Stark, Lizzie (2012). Leaving Mundania. Chicago Review Press. ISBN 978-1569766057.
Promising source added to the article in this edit, but it's not actually cited or mentioned, so I'm pulling. I am planning on acquiring eventually, and I'll see about pulling some details then. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I came to this article expecting it to be a mess, and was pleasantly surprised to see it's well resarched, written and illustrated. Nice work! J Milburn (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - suggestions for progressing the article to Featured quality would be very welcome. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done some work to restructure the article. I realised that some of the content in the Styles section was more like a description of the purpose of larp (for reasons of entertainment, artistic expression, education and activism to name a few that we have references for - therapy might be another that we're currently missing), so I split those into a new section called Purpose. I think this gives some clarity for readers who are trying to figure out what larp is being used for out there. I've also merged the old "Types of Participation/Role" section into the Play Overview section, and split "Fiction and reality" into its own section. The upshot is that there are no longer any sub-sections in the article, which I'm happy about because this is how many Featured Articles are structured and it gives the article a straight-forward flat structure that I think is easier on the reader. Any thoughts on the order of the sections as they now exist? I'm wondering whether moving Purpose before "Play overview" might flow better. I think that it should be near the top because the "why" is important, but I'm not sure whether it should proceed the "what". I do think that the text of "Play overview" would transition nicely into that of "Fiction and reality", and the "Purpose" section may currently be getting in the way between them. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It'd also be good to have images for the History, Play overview, Purpose, and Cultural significance sections. Purpose could perhaps have an image of larp being used for education (the recreational use is already illustrated by the other pics in the article) and History could have a pic from one of the early larps mentioned. Play overview and Cultural significance could have just about anything. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Car 121.7.29.153 (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This article lacks a controversy page, as many pages on specific RPGs do. By the way, I haven't found any information about the Aline Soares murder case, occurred in Ouro Preto, Brazil, in October 2001. Aldo L (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that any controversy content would go well in the "Cultural significance" section. On the scale of things larp isn't especially controversial so it wouldn't warrant more than a paragraph, which could follow the existing paragraph on how larp is perceived. We do already cover the the fear of over-identification with characters in regards to  social acceptability, but there's probably also some room for covering moral panic and religious objections, and crimes that have been perceived to be associated with live roleplay, so long as they're covered in highly reliable sources (controversial subjects require especially high quality sources, not small local newspapers or whatever). Do you have some specific reliable sources about controversies surrounding larp? Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add some conventions to the LARP Conventions list, but they are not LARP ONLY conventions. The conventions I propose to add have long-standing LARPs as part of a larger convention and/or have a LARP committee.  I'm going to go ahead and add them, but if you feel it is inappropriate please let me know. --Vampyrecat (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory, so I wouldn't expect to see every notable convention in the world that includes larp events listed here. This article used to have a list of larp groups, but that was spun out into List of live action role-playing groups which is carefully maintained so that only notable groups are retained. These new additions seem less so, but it's hard to judge as I've never heard of them. Personally, my criteria are:
The convention is mostly about larp.
The convention is significant to the larp community.
Intercon is significant because of its long history as an integral aspect of the theatre-style US larp scene, Knutepunkt is significant because it's an influential convention in Northern Europe and internationally, and whether Wyrd Con meets is significance is questionable because it's so new, but for its young age it's had a fair amount of impact. I can't see anything significant about the two new additions, especially in relation to the subject of larp. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I just stumbled over this article and suddenly something looked really familiar.
The picture in the section "Styles" is not taken in a "decorated room". I have actually been in this room before. It is taken at the museum COSI in Columbus, Ohio. The theme of the room displayed on the picture is the ocean, submarines in particular. Within the cage there is a pool of water and a little submarine, that kids can climb into.
Type in "submarine cosi columbus" on google and this is what you will find:
Picture 1
Picture 2
So you might want to change the description or use the picture in a different way.
PS: Sorry I couldn't log in. I am signed up with the German Wiki. Greetings  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.33.47 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 

Indeed it is. And if you click the image you'll see that detailed.  That the location is COSI isn't really relevant to this article.  Summarizing the situation to provide context would just be verbose and off-topic.  So, "decorated room."  It is a decorated room, it just happens to be decorated with a real mini-sub and little plaques explaining the science. :-) — Alan De Smet | Talk 20:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The last paragraph of this section says "larp is a popular activity in North America," and cites a Wizards of the Coast marketing study (14) as evidence.  This is a 14-year-old marketing study relying on what I see as questionable data collection techniques.  It's based entirely on surveys about rpgs mailed to random people.  It seems to me that someone who is interested in RPGs and the sorts of products made by companies like Wizards of the Coast would be much more interested in responding to such a survey because the company may take notice of their preferences and produce products more in line with their tastes, while someone with no interest in that sort of thing would be more likely to just ignore it.  Thus the "interest" numbers would be inflated.  The study also doesn't share any of the data its conclusions are based on (proprietary).  This description also conflicts with that below, which says (paraphrasing) that larping is a small niche activity in America, with no festivals as in other countries, that tends to be looked down on by society at large.  Saying 3 percent of the market segment has tried is equating its popularity with something like Call of Duty, and clearly it isn't that big.  Recommend rewriting or deleting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.31.201 (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC) 

It's cited and the core claim (3%) seems reasonably reliable.  However, that 3% maps to "popular" might be a judgment call.  I'm against deletion, but it might benefit from rewriting to limit itself to the citation (that Wizards of the Coast research suggests that about 3% of Americans have played a LARP). — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think "popular" belongs in the article.  Unless I'm missing it, the source given doesn't support that claim, to conclude that it's "popular" without the source saying that is WP:OR.  Alan, maybe I missed it, but the only 3% figure I saw was talking about tabletop rpgs, not LARPing.  In fact it doesn't appear to say anything about North America at all.  I'm going to remove the section per WP:BURDEN, pending some source that could support it (I'll search Google and Highbeam and elsewhere for something). - SudoGhost 11:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
North America appears to be a dubious generalization; the article talks repeatedly about it being a survey of the US.  The 3% figure is derived, and perhaps not what we should be saying.  But we can say that WotC found that 6% of people have played a tabletop role-playing game ("Size:  6% play or have played TRPGs (~ 5.5 million people)") and that 49% of those people have played a LARP. ("We asked questions of people who play TRPGs to get a better and more detailed picture of that category. ... When asked to describe a variety of past game experiences, the market provided the following data: ... Live Action: 49%")" — Alan De Smet | Talk 17:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
To say that 49% of people have done LARPing at some point makes it popular is WP:OR, and "popular" just seems too subjective and too much like puffery to be useful or informative.  More importantly, this was not a broad survey of a cross-section of the population; it was specifically WotC's "distributors, retailers and consumers".  To say that 49% of North Americans have LARPed is an extraordinary claim, and not what the source says; it says that some vague and undefined set of targeted individuals responded in a particular way; it doesn't say they enjoyed LARPing, or did it regularly. - SudoGhost 21:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
My apologies if I lead you to the conclusion I was defending "popular", or if I was claiming the 49% of the population had LARPed.  That was not my intention, I may have been unclear.  I was explaining where 3% appears to have come from: 6% of the US popular has played a tabletop game, of that subset 49% had done "Live Action"; 49% x 6% = about 3%.  (I can't be sure about this, as I don't think I authored the sentence in question (It'll be embarrassing if I did!))  I'd actually be more comfortable spelling those individual claims out and not jumping to the 3% conclusion.  As for the it being "distributors, retailers, and consumers," that section of the source is a bit confusing, but I believe "Section 1: The Segmentation Study" clarifies. The initial survey screen was intended to "accurately represents the US population as a whole" and that the final data "...is a fair and accurate representation of the hobby game consumer profile and that it does statistically correlate with the population as a whole in the US for the target age bracket."  As you note, this doesn't say that enjoyed LARPing, LARPed more than once, or anything, just that they tried it.  But it appears to be serious research and does tell us something about LARP penetration in the United States.   — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for that confusion. I don't object to supported data in the article, whatever its actually saying, I just don't like the idea of using that source to support a claim that its popular, because I don't see that in the source. - SudoGhost 03:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree the first part of the paragraph could do with improvement in terms of how closely it reflects the citations, it would benefit from some newer sources if they're available, we should avoid peacock language, and it's reasonable to have a discussion about the reliability of the WotC source. I don't agree it should be deleted, the article should discuss the degree of popularity and spread of the activity discussed as much as sources and common sense allow.
Is there a reason the last sentence of the paragraph was removed as well, which said "Large games with thousands of participants are run by for-profit companies, various LARP books are published and an increasingly professional industry sells costume, armour, and foam weapons intended primarily for LARP"? That was separately sourced from Tychsen 2006, an academic journal article that says "Today, LARPing is a widespread hobby, especially within the United States and Europe, and caters to at least 100,000 players worldwide ... Professional, full-time LARP sites also exist ... a small industry has grown-up supplying latex weapons, costumes, theater props, and special effects, and numerous special effects and make-up artists work in the LARP environment for training purposes." The text was very similar to the source, and source is reliable.
Whether or not to describe larp as "popular" in a given region is an interesting question. How popular is popular? For example, this site lists outdoor soccer as the fourth-most popular team sport in the US, in terms of participation in 2007, with about 14 million people having ever participated. By comparison, around 3 million people who have larped isn't exactly tiny. Obviously that's not a comparison we can make unless we have an RS making it, but my point is that it's reasonable to call larp popular in the US, as compared to other group activities like team sports. The Tychsen 2006 source also supports this, saying "Today, LARPing is a widespread hobby, especially within the United States and Europe..." So it's not necessary to search far for a source supporting larp as a popular activity in US, it's covered in the other source that was deleted. Nowhere in this article does it say larp is not popular in the US, it just says that certain kinds of large event aren't in evidence in the US, and that fantasy larp gets some ridicule. Those points aren't about popularity (i.e. participation) they are about game culture and public image.
Do we have a source saying that in addition to the US and Europe larp is popular in Russia, Canada and Australasia? No. I know it's true, but I don't have a source for it at this time. On the other hand, larp is not popular in Asia, South America, Africa (except South Africa) or the Middle East (except Israel). Again, my understanding of this comes from observation, not individual reliable sources, but I don't consider it to be controversial. This is one of those frustrating moments where Wikipedia is in danger of becoming less informative because certain fields of knowledge are less systematically documented than others, and information about larp is one of them. Perhaps, like Tychsen, we might be better to describe larp as "widespread" in the parts of the world where it is. However, that's what "popular" usually means anyway in relation to a participatory group activity like larp. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
To draw another comparison, ice hockey is described as "very popular" in the US. According to the US Census Bureau, about 3 million people participated in ice hockey in the US in 2009. So the participation numbers of larp according to the WotC source and ice hockey are very similar. Is ice hockey popular in the US, perhaps even VERY popular as its article states? If so then we can say the same about larp without it being peacock language. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Although I may be comparing "played larp ever" to "played ice hockey this year" which isn't the best comparison Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The quoted source by Myriel Balzer is wrong in dating the first german events in 1994. Draccon 1 was in August 1992. Unfortunately I don't have a published source at hand. There are however some Internet sources to back up the date. 

http://www.feuersturm.net/larp/drakon_1.htm
http://www.larpwiki.de/Geschichte%20Des%20Larp (personal account by Draccon 1 organizer Fred Schwohl)
http://midnightentertainment.blog.com/2011/06/08/draccon-1-erste-liverollenspiel-convention-in-deutschland/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Draccon-1-Das-Remake/159711294043124 (plan for a 20 year anniversary in 2012)
--RalfHuels (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.larpwiki.de/FredSchwohl even claims 1991 --RalfHuels (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted this entry because it doesn't belong in the see also section of the article. Just as Majora's Mask isn't in the see also section of Moon just because it plays a part in the game, this game doesn't mean to be linked here just because there's a minor part of this game that involves LARPing. A See Also section is not an all inclusive trivia list, especially when the target article does nothing to explain how it would be in any way related to this article's subject. That's why it's being removed, because while LARPing may play some part in the game and may be marginally relevant to it, that doesn't make the reverse true. - Aoidh (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, dude. This isn't a See Also section, it's a fiction list. As the name suggests, it lists the appearance of LARP in works of fiction. And guess what, Majora's Mask is on the Moon's fiction page: Moon in fiction#Computer and video games. And you using the excuse that "it's not in the article" is extremely weak since all that means is that the article is incomplete, which is why I completed it: Sunset Overdrive. Do you have any actual arguments here? 96.235.147.209 (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Entries in a list need a source showing that it's relevant. Lists on Wikipedia are not all-inclusive lists of every possible relevant thing, that is not the purpose of such a list and just because LARPing may be relevant to the game, that doesn't make the game relevant to LARPing. If the inclusion is significant in some way, that needs to be shown in some way, and this entry fails to do so. This is especially true because this is a Good Article, it needs to maintain a certain standard, and slapping random articles into a list just because they marginally involve this article's subject isn't the right way of going about doing that, especially without a consensus to do so.  - Aoidh (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
You realize that by that logic Mazes and Monsters, Days of Darkness, Little Brother, The Wild Hunt, Supernatural, Lloyd the Conqueror, and Knights of Badassdom must also be removed from the list as the are not "shown in some way, and this entry fails to do so"? Shall I proceed to erase 78% of the list since there's no "consensus"? 96.235.147.209 (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Well I took a look at the articles you listed. The article Knights of Badassdom, for example, very clearly shows how it belongs in such a list. However, not all of the articles show that they belong, so I agree with you and have removed ones that don't show they belong. If you see others that don't belong, please feel free to address them as well. - Aoidh (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations, you sir, are a royal idiot. 96.235.147.209 (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Are any live action role-playing games of a sexual nature? 213.205.251.155 (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello friends! I very recently added a combat section to the page to offer more detailed information in the world of larping. People who attend a LARP or know what it is generally don't feel the need to research, so being that most viewers lack experience it is important to give a general idea of what type of physical interaction they may see when they decide to attend. Being that there isn't really any universal rule book, I did my best to stay consistent with terms used on this page as well as other information hubs for LARP. I will be adding a Weapons section as well soon, but being that larping is rather unregulated, I first wanted to see how the Combat section is responded to. This lack of universal regulations makes it difficult to offer more specifics to the readers since there is no core rule-book to reference. Is it acceptable to teeter this line of specifics and ambiguity? Thanks!
sbumb1
04/29/2017  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbumb1 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 

Hi there. I appreciate the effort that's gone into the new Combat section and your good intent. However, the degree of emphasis that this lengthy new section gives to combat mechanics appears to be undue relative to the other aspects of larp described in the article. It also suffers from a lack of suitable reliable sources, contains some inaccuracies and irrelevant information about related activities such as the SCA, has problems with external linking which is best avoided, and the style of the section doesn't match the rest of the article. I don't believe the larp article would have gained good article status if it had contained this section as currently written. I'm going to remove it now, but please feel free to discuss here whether some of the information can be added back to the article, with appropriate sourcing, in a more concise form. As I gather you may be new to Wikipedia, please note that the content of the section will remain available in the article's edit history. Note also that there is already an article on foam weapons (which suffers from its own quality problems), so we don't need to duplicate that content here in a new "Weapons" section. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

the first sentence detailing what a LARP is is the furthest from the truth it could be. "where the participants physically act out their characters' actions" is not what a LARP is. that would mean you have people hitting each other with swords and stuff to RP some medieval fight. this is not a LARP. this is a re-enactment more akin to Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA). LARP is more to the point simply you arent sitting around at a table in 3rd person. Just because you are walking around other people, often dressed as their character (aka cosplay) doesnt mean you physically do anything to other players. You can socially, and varbally act out, but NEVER physically. This needs to be looked into and corrected with a cite-able source. shadzar-talk 12:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Shadzar: There are many styles of LARP; I'm not sure which games you have experienced.  There are styles of LARP ('theatre-style') which don't involve physical contact, but most LARP that I'm aware of does indeed involve people hitting each other with (safe foam) swords if they need to roleplay a fight.  See, for example, this promotional video from Empire LRP.  TSP (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
While MANY may allow this, @TSP:, the defining of the whole by a niche within it is problematic. is Wrestling a LARP? By the definition it is. Mick Foley was LARPing as Cactus Jack, Dude Love, etc in WWE/WCW/WWF/etc which was not the case. Those like the SCA are trained performers performing a script, they physically act out with weapons what they are doing, but the concept that all LARPs do this is a bit problematic. Would a game of Vampire: the Masquerade havepeople actually punching other people to resolve combat? No, it uses rock paper scissors for conflict resolution on all levels, physical, mental, diplomatic, etc; wherein normal discourse of "playing" as the character cannot come to a resolution. That is my problem with the statement as it is being the definitive, the VERY first definition of a LARP, which is not true for ALL LARP games or activities. The first definition should be the most factual to all forms of the thing, and currently this one is not correct. Probably just poorly worded, but that is why i bring it up so someone can look into wording it better. for example: "where the participants play out their character in the real world as opposed to sitting at a table or in front of a video screen. Some types of LARP like SCA involve physical contact to resolve things, while others can stil use dice like a tabletop RPG, or other forms of RNG to determine the outcome fairly." <--- something like that would be less objectionable as it doesn't presume all LARPing is people going out and hitting each other physically. The current wording of the very first sentence that is defining the whole of LARPs is not universal truth to them all. shadzar-talk 12:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
LARP games vary on the extent to which actions are acted out, but the fact that actions are acted out is, as far as I can see, definitional to what LARP is; which is what the opening sentence says.
That doesn't mean *all* actions have to be acted out; I know that in some games like Vampire: The Masquerade LARP, combat for example is decided by other means; but all LARP is defined by having player actions acted out, and in very many of them that includes combat. The opening paragraph at present says nothing specific about combat at all.
I don't think anything you've said is contrary to what is in the current lead; I think "in the real world as opposed to sitting at a table or in front of a video screen" is less clear than what we have at the moment (I frequently sit at tables and indeed in front of video screens at LARPs; and it would be easy for people to think "in the real world" means "in ordinary society", which is not the case for most LARPs).  It would be possible to add an extra sentence about different styles of LARP, including theatre-style and live-combat, which might address your concerns?
To come to individual comparisons you raised:
SCA isn't very relevant, as it isn't generally considered a LARP; but it also isn't "trained performers performing a script".
I don't really see how it's relevant to your overall argument, but professional wrestling isn't a LARP for the same reason a play or film isn't a LARP: it is a performance, not a roleplaying game, so is not covered by the description "A live action role-playing game (LARP) is a form of role-playing game...".  That's nothing to do with the extent to which combat is acted out or not.  TSP (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Most game studies sources emphasise physical embodiment of characters as a key differentiator between larp and other forms of RPG. I've updated the first sentence to reflect this, with a suitable WP:RS rather than the one we had which was poor. I used the term "portray" rather than "embody" as I think the latter is too technical to use in the lead. Note however that physical action is also part of the usual definition of larp in most reliable sources, including the one I've used. Even in Mind's Eye Theatre you perform physical actions as your character, even if those actions are just walking around. Physical action is part of what distinguishes larp from tabletop, and is an aspect of what "embodiment" of a character means. So the previous text was not incorrect, but I think the new emphasis is better and avoids misunderstandings of this kind. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

i was involved in a group doing LARP in berkeley, in tilden park and on the UC berkeley campus, while in high school. we called it Lortenfut. crude costumes, foam weapons and magic fireballs made with tissue and flour. i cant find any references for this. why did we come up with this name? was anyone else using it? no internet refs, maybe a fanzine mentions it.50.193.19.66 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

This new section seems to rely overly on a single secondary source, and devotes a disproportionate amount of time to the concept of bleed. Could it be shortened and incorporated into a section with a more general name, like "Impact on Participants" that includes other citations and more concepts relating to that subject? It would also fit better later in the article, perhaps before the Cultural Significance section, and could do with some rewording to have a more encyclopedic and less academic tone. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah one editor basically wrote all of this. The section is really confusing. How do I bump this talk to the top, or maybe archive a few sections? I don't know how to use talk pages. 2st (talk) 08:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I read through it and I agree, it relies way too much on a single source and the amount of prominence it gives the resulting text is WP:UNDUE, It should, at most, be a single sentence in another section, not an entire vaguely worded section of its own. - Aoidh (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I came here after I read Leaving the Magic Circle: Larp and Aftercare and wondered where in the article to discuss aftercare. It’s not limited to Nordic. I tried searching on wikipedia but the closest related use was under BDSM which is a much narrower discussion than might be needed in this LARP article. I also thought about linking Disinhibition but that's a relatively medical article at present. I like the "Impact on Participants" idea above. Sorry, I'm rambling, but it would be good to include something about this in the article. I just don't know where. Personal experience isn't allowed much in wikipedia articles. I can see why, but it's actual people who might do things (or, in several senses of the word, reveal things) they wouldn't in real life, but then have to somehow get back into the dayjob, so it's worth discussing somewhere I hope. SueTwoReloaded (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Thinking a bit more about this, I was wondering which other articles could be linked. Aftercare is the BDSM one, so may be limited use. Post-traumatic stress disorder is probably a bit too strong. Therapeutic community could be useful. Transgressive fiction? - that's not about recovery but could be a good link in any case. SueTwoReloaded (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The article is not a guide. If there are sources showing that this is a significant aspect of the article's subject it might warrant being mentioned in the article, but not for the purpose of acting as a guide or instruction for people who might participate in the activity that the article's subject describes. - Aoidh (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense thanks. An article about fire wouldn't have to include advice on putting it out! SueTwoReloaded (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
If you want draft an article on bleed and/or rpg safety tools, Role-playing game terms might be a good place to start from as both are sourced entries there. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The new sub-section on Chinese script murder (jubesha) looks well sourced and the subject is of high interest to people interested in larp. However, the length of it seems undue relative its importance to larp as an activity internationally and it's not clear that "Cultural Significance" is the right section for it. For consistency with the rest of the article, I think this content needs to be compressed a lot and moved to a single paragraph in the Styles section. That's where the other content about regional variation in styles is stored. Given how very widespread jubensha is in China, how distinctive it is and how many reliable sources discuss it, it may also be worth considering creating a Jubesha article where the details of the form can be discussed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sariel Xilo what do you think? Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ryan Paddy: Sorry for the delay! I don't think that it needs to be greatly reduced; the "cultural significance" section is 5 paragraphs of a mostly US/Nordic perspective (most of the article assumes that Western perspective on the topic). The Chinese script murder subsection is 2 paragraphs so I don't think this is undue weight; the second paragraph is fairly short as it is just 2 direct quotes from news outlets but those could be paraphrased. I added it to the "cultural significance" section because the sources are discussing societal impact & potential governmental regulations in reaction to that impact. If someone wants to WP:SPINOUT this section into a larger article on the topic, they could probably do it easily but this isn't a project I have time for. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
@Sariel Xilo those are both good points about the relevance to culture impact, and the article's western leaning. Until a few years ago larp was much more widespread in western countries (with minimal presence in Japan, China, SE Asia, the middle east outside of Israel, Africa outside of South Africa, etc.) so the leaning of the article was not so far off reflecting reality, but jubensha has put an end to that. If we classify jubensha as larp, there may now be more larp activity in China than the rest of the world combined. How about we move the content about the style of larp that jubensha is to the "Styles" section, and leave the content about the social impact of jubesha in the "cultural significance" section? So then like Nordic larp, it would be discussed in both places. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. I took an initial stab at separating the two but please feel free to adjust! The "Styles" section needs to be updated with sources so if you have time for that, that would be great. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

There are uncited passages throughout the article, including entire paragraphs.
The lead does not summarise all the major points in the article.
There are some sections and paragraphs that are quite long; these should be split up or reduced.
Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)


### Live action role-playing game