A Qualitative Exploration of the Perceived Social Benefits of Playing Table-top Role-playing Games
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the lived experiences of young adults who play tabletop role-playing games (TRPGs) to gain deeper insights into the perceived social impact of tabletop role-playing games. Six young adults (3 men, 3 women) between the ages of 19 and 24 (M = 21.2, SD = 2.6) were recruited from role-playing communities within Nova Scotia, Canada. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) was used to assess perceived social competence and semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect detailed qualitative data about lived experiences with role-playing games. Responses on the SDQ indicated that participants had typical strengths and difficulties with respect to social competence at the time of the current study. The qualitative description indicated the emergence of four main themes related to role-playing games from the interviews: Content Focus, Social Focus, Creativity Focus, and Identity Focus. The themes present in the interviews are consistent with findings from previous case study research, suggesting that role-playing games may have the potential to improve perceived social competence, and further elucidate the lived experiences of people who play role-playing games in terms of why they engage with tabletop role-playing games.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it