Let me say right away: I've never been deeply immersed in the roleplaying in Second Life, and I never will be. This is primarily because the core problem with SWRP's player-versus-player (PvP)-focused roleplaying is the fundamental conflict between narrative (roleplaying) and competitive mechanics, which leads to a lack of atmosphere and toxicity. While classic RPGs are built on cooperation and character development, SWRP's PvP forces players to act selfishly, turning the plot into a never-ending struggle for survival or dominance. Characters who are supposed to be allies in the story begin to hate or kill each other, making their coexistence in a group or faction illogical. PvP often encourages "unfair" play: attacking the weak, waiting for an opponent to spend health on other opponents, or using cheats, purchased ranks, or bugs. Players focused solely on PvP quickly outperform those playing for the story, creating a huge power gap. In open PvP games, the lack of access to a good computer and slow internet speeds leads to player frustration and churn. Frustration is compounded by system lag due to Second Life's high hardware requirements, the lack of equipment bonuses, and the game's diverse combat systems, which make most players prefer to engage in more productive activities rather than learn new mechanics in a system that will become obsolete in a short time because its creator simply decided to pause updates or leave Second Life for personal reasons. As a result, the game often devolves into a "complaint room," where players complain about unfair balance and toxic enemy behavior.
The reasons I personally don't play this nonsense called "role-playing":
Role-playing in adults is often viewed through the lens of psychology as a way to compensate for emotional immaturity or cope with stress, where infantilism may indeed be the root of the problem. This behavior indicates a delay in the development of the emotional-volitional sphere and a refusal to accept the responsibilities inherent in adulthood.
Here are the main aspects of this relationship:
The essence of infantilism: An infantile person seeks pleasure without effort, depends on their partner, and avoids responsibility for their decisions.
Role-playing as a defense: Infantilism breeds egocentrism, in which a partner is perceived merely as a means to satisfy needs. Role-playing allows an adult to briefly return to the state of a "little child" to relieve stress or feel cared for without committing.
Psycho-emotional immaturity: This is a condition in which an adult has difficulty regulating their emotions and often uses "childish" behavior patterns in relationships.
Social aspect: Modern society is prone to infantilism (the phenomenon of "adulting"—an attempt to lead an adult life), which is manifested in the popularity of adult toys, "summer camps for adults," and relationship games that help escape the pressures of reality.
I don't suffer from childishness and don't consider myself a follower of American mythology, which favors belief in an unknown force and chasing each other with glowsticks. However, brainwashers (psychologists) note that using such games in therapy can be a way to safely process childhood trauma and complex emotions.
In my own work—or game practice—I personally adhere to the concept of self-determination, or "positioning," within the framework of the Organizational-Activity Game (ODG).
Diagram of the Stages of an Organizational-Activity Game:
Positioning constitutes one of the key organizational "lines"—or stages—that carve out a space for Thinking within the practice of the ODG. The ODG model distinguishes the following stages:
The Stage of Problematization (i.e., clearing the field);
Schematization of the Situation;
The Stage of Self-Determination (or Positioning);
The Stage of Objectification.
"The realization of collective thought-activity requires self-determination—specifically, establishing one's position within the situation and within the system of activity; absent this, mutual understanding among game participants—as well as interaction and joint action—becomes impossible." "…Self-determination must be *enacted*, not merely named… <…> From the player's perspective, this implies that they must 'enter'—must 'take up a stance'—at a specific point within the schematic structure, and, guided by that structure's organizational logic, begin to execute exploratory moves and situational actions."
It is not enough merely to occupy a position; one must also sustain it and render it meaningful to the other participants in the process. In the absence of results, the work—or game—ceases, here and now. And onward, toward new horizons!