Disability in LARP

Community Larp discussion
#1

The recent discussion about the Pink Headband rule that we are instituting for Crucible has caused a lot of discussion about the roles of people who are unable to take part in boffer combat due to physical disability. The fact that talk immediately sprang to “what if they abuse it?” concerns me, and the fact that there is any debate about fairness, or whether it is appropriate for some people to receive “special treatment” reveals, I feel, the undercurrent of non-disability-friendliness that is present within NZLARPs. A community that discriminates against people due to physical disability is hardly the kind of community that most people would want to be involved with. This is a difficult conversation to have, and a difficult one to begin.

Personally, I don’t believe that boffer combat should be the be all and end all of LARP. Anyone should be able to play in a game, even if that game involves combat, and still feel safe, feel like they are part of the game, and not feel as if they are being excluded due to their inability, or unwillingness, to take part in combat. This is obviously anecdotal, but I have heard it espoused more than once that if people don’t want to be involved in combat, they shouldn’t play in a game that involves combat. To which my response (now, at least) is “Why not?” There are people who don’t want to engage in political plot, and if they don’t build their character that way, they aren’t at any risk of losing their character over it. The same should go for combat. Speaking as an individual, and not on behalf of any other members of the GM team, I would like Crucible to be as engaging for people who don’t want to be combatants as those that do.

So. Do people agree with me? Disagree with me? This is a discussion that the community needs to have, and one that I feel strongly about. How does everybody else feel? I invite people to share their experiences with this matter. I only know what I have observed, and can’t speak for anyone else, so hearing from others will be vital for this discussion to carry any weight. We want LARPing to be an inclusive and friendly hobby, and this is an important step towards that.

#2

I wholeheartedly agree with you Dave, I think we should be the sort of community that welcomes all who wish to play.

I think specifically in games like Crucible (as with Teonn) there are going to be (I’m guessing) many different things going on at once. I don’t think boffer larp is or should be all about the combat… what always really intrigues me is the story and the rich world. I find it quite discouraging if some people have been given that vibe because there’s so much more to larp than combat.

I think the crucible team have taken a step in the right direction, and I have heard from some that they have been really encouraging to people who aren’t able to engage in live combat, which is awesome and something I hope is happening and will continue to happen with the other Larps that are happening.

#3

I reckon practically everybody should be able to play (With a few exceptions such as people who purposefully try to ruin it for other people etc. etc.). Just because they can’t join in boffer weapons, or can’t do something else in a LARP, definitely doesn’t mean they shouldn’t play, they might be really really interesting characters and they might have skills which make larping brilliant outside of that field which they don’t participate in. Just because people can’t participate in one thing, doesn’t mean they can’t participate at all in my opinion, that would just be sad, and would bite us in the arse I reckon.

#4

This is difficult, but there are very valid safety concerns.

I see what’s trying to be done. And it’s a commendable idea. To a point. The point where this is NOT a good idea, is if a stray hit could genuinely cause serious injuries. The player concerned would have to be the one to evaluate that risk.

In one game, we were told that one of the NPCs was wearing safety glasses, and could not be hit in the head, because they had had eye surgery (or something like that) and a hit to head could be very bad. And indeed that person came out as an NPC in a battle and fought people. This made me very uncomfortable. Accidents happen. Boffer LARP is a physical medium and we know accidents happen. If someone HAD hit the person in the head who knows what could have happened.

Let me just say that I have been the beneficiary of inclusiveness in Teonn, when I had my broken foot. When the game happened, I was about 5 weeks into having a cast. I had talked to the GMs, and they were OK with me coming along. Naturally, I took all responsibility if something untoward happened. But I was pretty confident that with the toe protection I added, and the sheer strength of the fibreglass cast, I would be OK.

However, I didn’t know if my being there made other people uncomfortable. I still don’t know really. It would be good to know.

It all went fine, nothing bad happened. At one point I made my way into the middle of a pitched battle, to buff one of my companions. I moved in, and out without being taken down. I’m curious though, was that because I had a cast on, and people didn’t want to wail on me? Or was it just good timing on my part. Thinking back, I would hate to think that my physical disadvantage meant that I could pop into a battle and be ignored.

I fully expect that anyone requiring this kind of welfare consideration would not use it unfairly. So long as there are ways to affect them at some point then OK. We can see how it goes. Fairness goes both ways. The rules around pink headbands (as it were) have to be fair to the other players too. I see there was QUITE a long thread on Facebook about this subject. I expect the GMs will take that discussion and concerns on board.

#5

[quote=“Dragnew”]The recent discussion about the Pink Headband rule that we are instituting for Crucible has caused a lot of discussion about the roles of people who are unable to take part in boffer combat due to physical disability. The fact that talk immediately sprang to “what if they abuse it?” concerns me, and the fact that there is any debate about fairness, or whether it is appropriate for some people to receive “special treatment” reveals, I feel, the undercurrent of non-disability-friendliness that is present within NZLARPs. A community that discriminates against people due to physical disability is hardly the kind of community that most people would want to be involved with. This is a difficult conversation to have, and a difficult one to begin.

Personally, I don’t believe that boffer combat should be the be all and end all of LARP. Anyone should be able to play in a game, even if that game involves combat, and still feel safe, feel like they are part of the game, and not feel as if they are being excluded due to their inability, or unwillingness, to take part in combat. This is obviously anecdotal, but I have heard it espoused more than once that if people don’t want to be involved in combat, they shouldn’t play in a game that involves combat. To which my response (now, at least) is “Why not?” There are people who don’t want to engage in political plot, and if they don’t build their character that way, they aren’t at any risk of losing their character over it. The same should go for combat. Speaking as an individual, and not on behalf of any other members of the GM team, I would like Crucible to be as engaging for people who don’t want to be combatants as those that do.

So. Do people agree with me? Disagree with me? This is a discussion that the community needs to have, and one that I feel strongly about. How does everybody else feel? I invite people to share their experiences with this matter. I only know what I have observed, and can’t speak for anyone else, so hearing from others will be vital for this discussion to carry any weight. We want LARPing to be an inclusive and friendly hobby, and this is an important step towards that.[/quote]

I strongly support this initiative, not least because it increases the inclusiveness of our games. This is not special treatment as from what has been stated anyone could choose to wear the pink headband.

As far as non-disability friendliness goes I agree that there’s a bit of a culture of insensitivity towards disabilities, both physical and mental. What people often forget is that those with disabilities want to be able to participate fully in the game including combat, they just can’t. Boffer combat is idolised by a number of those who happen to be relatively capable at it and those incapable of it are often marginalised in games.

My take on whether this should be taken into consideration depends on the type of game the GM’s choose to run and its level of inclusivity. For example, in Derek’s 1001 nights he is quite clear that his game isn’t for everyone due to the level of physical challenge involved. In dreams in the witch-house the level of psychological threat is also clearly outlined. These are both games that are specifically designed to not include the entire community and from the accounts I have heard both excellent games.

If one is designing an all-inclusive game (or as near to it as it is possible to get) the game must cater for those with disabilities and allow them to fully participate in the plot without being disadvantaged. In this, I think the GM’s of Crucible have got this one right.

#6

I agree that people unable to take part in combat should be still able to participate in a larp, especially the large campaigns like Crucible. There are many other fun parts of a campaign to be involved in. BUT I think that they should NOT PARTICIPATE in the combat. Not in any fashion. No wandering onto the field to heal people, or buff people. No suddenly NPCing a combat mook. That’s not fair on anyone. It’s incredibly easy to swing and then look when you’re under fire, especially in the dark! Stay to the side, back off. If the combat comes to you, move away. Point out your headband if necessary, but NO INVOLVEMENT. If you’re wearing a pink headband for medical reasons, it’s plain foolish.

If you’re wearing a pink headband and think that makes you safe to mosey on into a large melee to help your teammates… No. Just no.

#7

I wholeheartedly agree that this is a discussion that needs to happen.

It’s anecdotal, and also really difficult to try to outline issues that are often to do with interpersonal snarking without identifying those involved, but I also feel that there is sometimes an unfriendly attitude towards disability in the Larp community. I think it is really telling when an idea like the pink headbands is brought up, and rather than support that there is now an easy way for less-able larpers to participate, discussion immediately just turns into cynical worries about the measure being used to cheat. It makes me really sad that friends of mine feel like they have to justify their level of disability and push that they will not be using said disability to get an advantage (seriously, this is not a context where someone should have to justify their level of disability. Ever.). Even when this thread is started about inclusiveness in general, out comes the same cynicism.

Maybe people need to take a step back and remember that larpers with disabilities are not the bad guys. They’re awesome people who want to larp, adults for the most part, and maybe we could just do something crazy and assume that they’re not cheaters? If the measure ends up being abused then the GMs will have to deal with it, but until then, how about we just try and make what seems to be the reasonably fair assumption that most people want to enjoy the game and not cheat, and act accordingly with the way we discuss issues and treat those involved?

Look at it as well from the context of a new larper coming in and reading all the stuff posted on pink headbands and other disability-related issues. If these discussions would not give potential larpers the idea that the New Zealand larping community is one that is open and inclusive (and personally, I really don’t think they do) then something is wrong with that.

Yes, practical issues have to be considered and clear guidelines created so that everyone is on the same page - but can’t we try and do it from an attitude that starts with “hooray, this is a way more people can enjoy this hobby I really like” rather than “boo, I bet they’re just going to use it to their advantage”?

#8

I fear I’ll only be echoing what several others have already expressed, but I definitely agree that this is a conversation that needs to happen.

In order to be as inclusive as we possibly can, we have to take into consideration so many factors. And that may be a drag, but it’s what has to be done. We have to try and create an enjoyable experience for everybody, not just the majority. It’s easy to forget minor factors when they simply don’t apply to us. Take the Korashur and Valeria Day Games last weekend for example - as beautiful as the beach looked, I know of at least one person who had a lot of difficulty just walking to where the game began. On the way back several hours later, it was the same again.

Minor things.

Those jumping to question methods used to failitate those that do not/cannot participate in boffer combat being used to cheat? Another minor thing. I have no doubt that those people thought they were making a perfectly valid point, and the discussion was for the most part civil and points were well-made, but it is hardly the image we wish to project as a society.

I’ve never been the best at putting my thoughts into words, but I hope I’ve made a valid point here. At the very least, I fully support the initiatives the Crucible team is making to make their game more inclusive, and I certainly support this conversation continuing.

#9

It seems that quite a lot of the critiques of the idea of having non-combatants simply fall under the usually unstated rule of ‘don’t take the piss’. Assuming no-one is taking the piss, there will not be a problem with having non-combatants. If someone is taking the piss, that’s the problem, not the rule.

#10

This post has been moved to the other thread.

#11

Mike, the thread for discussing the Pink Headbands is over here http://diatribe.co.nz/t/pink-headband/8416/1
I believe you started that one yourself. Please keep this discussion on topic.

#12

I think it is a good idea to have this conversation and a good idea to look at ways we can be as inclusive as possible to all. I think that having rules like the new Pink Headbands are a good idea. I think we should be as inclusive as we can.

But I also agree with what Norm/Joker has said. A pink headband is not a simple solution, it is by no means a guaranty that a person will be immune to harm. People have to take personal responsibility for their own health and safety and if they are risking permanent injury then they will have to be aware that it may happen. A Pink Headband will cut down on the possibility, but the possibility of being stuck is a real danger. People may not see the headband in the heat of battle, or they may strike accidentally while aiming for other targets.
Just as everyone has the potential to be injured by a head strike, or a too hard blow, even when there are rules to minimise the dangers, accidents can still happen. I have been struck a number of time in larp combats by my ally standing next to me, when they were aiming at the enemy in front of them - they accidentally struck an unintended target outside of their field of vision while swinging at the target in front of them. I have also been hit in the head a number of time, and have suffered injury from it, having had my glasses knocked off and bleeding from where they gouged my nose from an over enthusiastic overhead shot. This is in combat where there are rules against head shots. If doesn’t mean that they never happen, just that there is a reduced chance of it happening.

I think it is the same with a rule like the Pink Headbands. If can’t be seen as a rule that eliminates the possibility of being struck, it is a rule that will reduce the likelihood of it happening. People may not see it in an adrenaline fuel combat (adrenaline can cause tunnel vision), or someone may hit a unintended target while swinging for an intended target. Arrows that miss don’t just stop, they continue until they hit something, which could be the ground or it could be someone else. These are all real dangers of being at a boffer weapon larp.

I am not trying to be mean or exclude people. Ideally everyone that wants to should be able to attend and participate in the types of activities that they enjoy doing at larps and avoid the types of activities that they do want to be a part of. Ideally no-one that wears a Pink Headband would be stuck with a weapon. But the reality is that there is the potential to be struck accidentally no matter what rules are in place.

So those that are in real danger of being permanently injured by a foam weapon attack need to make their own decision on how best to protect themselves. Maybe that is wearing protective wear; goggles or a helmet or protective padding. Or maybe, it does involve not attending. It really depends of the individuals situation. Everyone has to assess the danger for themselves and decide the best cause of action for themselves. Having rules to reduce injury are a very good idea, and will hopefully make the larping experience safe enough for more people to participate. But there is no guaranty of eliminating the dangers.

#13

[quote=“Cinead”]Mike, the thread for discussing the Pink Headbands is over here http://diatribe.co.nz/t/pink-headband/8416/1
I believe you started that one yourself. Please keep this discussion on topic.[/quote]
Fair enough, although that other thread seemed to have morphed into an elongated discussion about PHWs gaming the system or something.

Anyway, my point would be that if you are disabled and wish to fully participate in a larp then perhaps consideration could be given towards games that have abstract resolution mechanisms. This would include the Rock/Paper/Scissors combat system.

The thing about larp in Aotearoa is that it is typified by a heavy investment in Live Action, and this is characterised by a favouring towards WYSIWYG. It’s hard to play a diminutive faerie if you are 6’6", likewise it’s hard to play Goliath if you are only 5"1. Not so if you are playing a paper&dice game, and less so if you are playing a game where much of the mechanics are abstract.

That’s the nice thing about our larp community - there seems to be something for everyone. Recently, Derek ran a game that involved a trek down to Mercer Bay. That’s ~280m vertical drop from the carpark to sea level - and certainly required a physical commitment.

Other games, such as the White Wolf games, have more abstract mechanisms, so allow for less reliance on personal physical capability and rely more on the character sheet.

I run Skirmish. While you do not have to be a fighter (mages are extremely powerful), you do have to be in combat to succeed. It’s all about figuring out what you would like to do.

It seems to me that we have a variety of games on offer. Do we have enough variety ? I would like to hear from people who feel that they are excluded from some game styles by their personal situations. Are we doing enough to ensure that larp in Aotearoa is sufficiently accessible ?

#14

I agree and disagree with points. I currently have a relevant disability, though it’s not fair to claim I understand what others go through because I have made the decision knowing the risks and consequences.

My thoughts on this is that the opinion of “they should not be involved in combat” is being misconstrued as “we only care about boffer larp” or “we do not want them larping with us” and this is simply not the case.

A lot of people enjoy boffer combat a lot, and it is a huge drawing factor for them. To say “LARP isn’t only about boffer combat” is fine, just so long as it is only an opinion - not a forced one. Because to some people, boffer combat is everything and they should be included in the ideal of “everybody should be able to participate”. So the problem here is what trumps what?

At the end of the day it is a personal safety issue. We are all responsible for our own safety, and this being taken into consideration you can’t hate on people who want to boff.

As to the true topic, treatment of disability in LARP, then people definitely need to respect the fact that there is a contributing factor to why people don’t want to be involved in combat and not try and involve them in RP that has combat. This doesn’t mean discluding them entirely from games like Teonn and Crucible, it means in very specific circumstances you shouldn’t involve them in certain plot arcs and stories which could turn to combat.

This is where the respect for disability in LARP comes in, avoiding rubbing in the fact that you can and someone can’t. Because if someone rubbed in that I couldn’t do something because of my back, I would feel like shit. If I had a back I couldn’t move, I would stay well away from all combat, and spec/roleplay a character who has nothing to do with combat. Like make my character have a medical tent, or a social gathering tent for drinking and merriment.

It comes down to both parties taking personal responsibility for both actions, and if they can do that - it should be fine. Games need to be fair for every single player.

#15

I also think it’s safe to say, that if you’re someone who gets hurt easily, and you suddenly find yourself in the middle of a physical combat situation (Because of an ambush or something), don’t be afraid to yell time out, and allow yourself to walk out of the danger. Everybody coming out Okay is more important than the brief pause that will take.
To all other people, if you notice someone with a “Pink Headband” in the middle of combat (Not participating, but just trapped in there), it might be an idea to yell time out for said person, as not everyone is brave enough to stop an entire battle for their own well being.
Don’t you agree?

#16

What I would personally like to see implemented is a list of people with injuries and their respective limitations for gms, and disclosure from gms about any difficulties the game has i.e. 1001 nights declaring it has difficult terrain and is physically taxing.

Each of us has different injuries or disabilities and we all have limits, having an easy reference (maybe a tickbox on the signup forms which gives a secondary welfare menu?) of the injuries and full disclosure from those of us who are needing extra consideration about exactly what we can and cant do, to make life easier for gms. This could also help ensure that if a specific person is needed for a plot point, there is an easy way to check if they will be able to participate.

#17

Information from GMs is a good thing, and something I’d expect them to be doing already, simply on the basis of gaining informed consent for the game.

Information on players OTOH should come from players. That puts the responsibility squarely where it belongs. NZLARPS has a strong interest in safety, but it is not your babysitter.

#18

Precisely, hence the second paragraph where there is a place in the sign up form where we can fully declare our injuries or disabilities, and our limits. :slight_smile:

#19

I’m going to be devil’s advocate here, it seems.

Being “inclusive” surely means that everyone has options to be involved in the hobby they love. There are many different styles of larp. From combatless theatreforms like many Con games to abstract resolution campaigns like the WoD, to boffer campaigns like Crucible, to full contact, physically and mentally challenging larps like Witch House and 1001 Nights. Why must everybody be able to play every game? That’s like saying every sportsperson should be able to play every sport.

I don’t see how this new drive to include people for whom the physical risks and demands of a boffer combat game ARE GOING TO AFFECT THEIR REAL LIFE HEALTH isn’t a detriment to the people with the disabilities, the rest of the players and the game itself. Surprise ambushes and massive pitched battles in the dark are an advertised part of boffer campaigns and mistakes happen continually. In all seriousness, surely your health is more important to you than a game? Play a different style of larp.

Continuing the sports analogy, that’s like rocking up to a rugby club and saying “Hey there, I LOVE rugby, I love the social club, I love catching balls, I love scoring points, but I have this disability, so I can’t be tackled. So I’ll have this special uniform and I’ll just hang around waiting to catch the ball and … you know, if you get close enough to tackle me, we can just STOP THE GAME and we’ll talk about it”

Really? Really!?!

If there is ever a paintball/larp combo campaign, and I’m sure it could happen, I won’t be playing. Because I don’t think I could deal with the pain of being hit with paintballs a lot. I won’t go and sign up for the game and then say “oh hey, but you can’t fire at me, it will hurt too much” because I know that it will …
a. be a right pain for everyone else at the game and
b. be likely i’m going to get hit anyway!

#20

Thanks Kara.

You managed to largely put into words a chunk of my concerns.