Bienia, Rafael. 2025. "ANTs on the TRPG Table: Collaborating with Actor-Network Theory to Understand Role-Playing." Japanese Journal of Analog Role-Playing Game Studies, 6: 10e-19e.
引用方法:ビエニア ラファエル. 2025.「TRPG卓上のアリたち（ANTs）：アクターネットワーク理論との協働によるロールプレイ理解」『RPG学研究』6号: 10j-19j.
DOI: 10.14989/jarps_6_xx[0.1] This article introduces actor-network theory (ANT) as an innovative methodological approach for studying tabletop role-playing games (TRPGs). Moving beyond analytical frameworks that prioritize narrative and ludic elements, I examine how material actors co-shape gameplay experiences. Through multi-sited ethnographic fieldwork conducted across various gaming locations in Germany from 2010 to 2014, I developed a systematic approach for analyzing material agency in TRPGs. The research introduces the novel methodological technique of “speaking materials,” where material actors are given narrative voice to illuminate their often-overlooked contributions to the role-playing network. This approach reveals how seemingly chaotic arrangements of gaming materials actually constitute sophisticated collaborative networks that enable role-playing to function. By demonstrating how material actors mediate relationships between human participants, game mechanics, and narrative elements, this study provides researchers with transferable tools for examining the material dimensions of role-playing games, also across different cultural contexts. While this study is situated within specific German gaming communities and was conducted before the widespread adoption of digital tools in TRPGs, the methodological approach offers broader applications for understanding material-player relations in diverse contexts.
[0.2] Keywords: actor-network theory, ANT, material agency, multi-sited ethnography, TRPG
[0.3] 本稿は，卓上ロールプレイングゲーム（TRPG）研究における革新的な方法論的アプローチとしてアクターネットワーク理論（ANT）を紹介するものである．物語的要素やルーディック要素を優先する分析枠組みを超え，物質的アクターがいかにしてプレイ体験を共同形成するのかを検討する．2010年から2014年にかけてドイツ国内の複数のゲームプレイ拠点で実施したマルチサイト民族誌的フィールドワークを通じて，TRPGにおける物質的エージェンシーを分析するための体系的アプローチを構築した．本研究では，物質的アクターに語りの声を与え，しばしば見過ごされがちなロールプレイング・ネットワークへの貢献を明らかにする「語るモノ（speaking materials）」という新たな方法論的技法を提示する．このアプローチは，一見雑然としたゲーム用具の配置が，実際にはロールプレイを機能させる高度に協働的なネットワークを構成していることを明らかにするものである．さらに，物質的アクターが人間の参加者，ゲームメカニクス，物語要素の間の関係を媒介する様相を示すことにより，本研究はロールプレイングゲームの物質的次元を検討するための汎用的な分析ツールを研究者に提供し，異なる文化的文脈においても適用可能であることを示す．本研究は特定のドイツのゲーミング・コミュニティに位置づけられ，かつTRPGにおけるデジタルツールが広く普及する以前に実施されたものであるが，本方法論的アプローチは，多様な文脈における物質とプレイヤーの関係を理解する上で広範な応用可能性を有している．
[0.4] キーワード：アクターネットワーク理論，ANT，物質的エージェンシー，マルチサイト民族誌，TRPG
[1.1] The spring sun sets and casts orange light through the windows of our living room. Our friends and my wife recap the last session of ALIEN: The Roleplaying Game (Bowling et al. 2019), while I think about how I could engage our tabletop role-playing game group in a new session with a different rule system in the fantasy genre with horror elements.
[1.2] “We enjoyed the simple
rules,” I conclude, and put an empty cup in the middle of the table.
“What do you want?”
“Character play,” a friend says, and I put a bag of dice next
to the cup.
“We need to feel that we can make a difference,” says my wife,
and I add an empty snack container in the middle of the table.
“Fun! And do I get an axe?” asks a friend, I nod and she
laughs. Meanwhile I add another cup with some leftover herbal tea.
[1.3] Now, a pile has formed in the center of the table. Through these provisional material tokens, I see the future network of role-playing emerging. The actors that make a difference create connections and gain agency, while the network enrolls more actors: The next available date, location, game system, preferences, expectations, characters, genre, and more.
[1.4] For researchers, the actor-network approach offers alternative perspectives on role-playing by providing not only a way to view the elements at play but also a different mode of thinking and vocabulary to address research questions. This challenges traditional views of agency in games, requiring researchers to justify and enroll their audience in accepting these non-human actors as meaningful contributors to gameplay. Therefore, in the following pages, I first present the methodology I applied in my dissertation on role-playing game networks, and then illustrate this with a case study examining actors in a tabletop role-playing game similar to the one described in the introduction.
[2.1] The principal methodological tenet of actor-network theory is to “follow the actors” to sites where “the structural effects actually [are] being produced” (Latour 2005, 175). Since I was interested in the structural effects that produce role-playing or make it work, I followed material actors to sites where they took part in tabletop role-playing games.
[2.2] Following actors to where role-playing happens required extensive ethnographic fieldwork and in-depth analysis. While this approach yielded rich and context-specific insights, it was also resource-intensive. My fieldwork was part of a dissertation project that provided extensive opportunities to study material actors in action, comprising hundreds of hours of role-playing from 2010 to 2014. I played each role-playing game form several times at different sites to compare how the role of materials differs. Due to the amount and diversity of my participation, I classify this fieldwork as multi-sited ethnography (Falzon 2012; Marcus 1995). This approach encouraged me to visit multiple sites to uncover spatiotemporal relationships and deepen the understanding of how materials make role-playing processes work. While this research is culturally situated within specific German role-playing communities, the methodological approach may be adapted to examine material practices in other cultural contexts where different gaming traditions and approaches to objects exist (Zagal and Deterding 2018).
[2.3] I followed materials before, during, and after game sessions. Some players spend hours on preparation during weekends and evenings. By following material actors to sites of discourse – such as player meetings and online platforms – I learned about material demands and the necessary negotiation work required for their inclusion. My engagement in online forums helped me to position myself “beyond mere observing or lurking” (Michielse 2015, 35) by actively discussing hands-on experiences and theoretical knowledge about role-playing games.
[2.4] Following actors necessitated visiting diverse sites where role-playing occurs – living rooms, pubs, former military areas, and youth hostels.1 As a researcher, I participated in game sessions, since role-playing games rarely accommodate non-participating audiences. To trace material actors during sessions, I drew upon the “follow the actors” approach rooted in ethnography (Latour 1988; Latour 1999).
[2.5] Having addressed my data selection methodology, the next question is how I selected and presented the results. Building upon actor-network theory is fundamentally about how to talk about data, as it serves as an infra-language that facilitates alternative approaches to discussing data.
[2.6] Although actor-network theory emphasizes an agnostic stance toward preconceived notions and a commitment to following the actors, it does employ certain concepts. I introduce these concepts to help readers from game studies who might be unfamiliar with ANT. Actor-network theory functions less as a theory and more as a methodology or language. These “concepts” – actor, network, agency, mediator, and intermediary – are not definitions but terms referring to empirical phenomena. They are empty shells that require empirical evidence gathered through fieldwork to give them meaning (Latour 2004; Sayes 2014; Venturini 2010). I place “concepts” in quotation marks because they form an infra-language for describing empirical phenomena. As Latour (2005, 174) explains, “they don’t designate what is being mapped, but how it is possible to map anything from such a territory.”
[2.7] An actor makes a difference to other elements and refers to another one in a process, such as a die rolling to determine the outcome of a jump from a bicycle according to the rules for athletics of the game played. The word actor requires empirical evidence to have analytical value, as it ties to a process observed at a specific site. A researcher can only identify an actor when there is empirical evidence of its action, observable because “anything that does modify a state of affairs by making a difference is an actor” (Latour 2005, 71). Thus, what constitutes an actor remains uncertain until action is traced.
[2.8] This uncertainty means that actor-network theory functions not as a stable framework for answering ontological questions, but as a mode of inquiry that encourages the reconsideration of phenomena. It allows researchers to experience an epistemological uncertainty that opens up novel questions. Let me explain step by step how this uncertainty can become fruitful.
[2.9] In writing with pen and paper, is the human the sole actor responsible, or could it be otherwise? An actor is “something that acts or to which activity is granted by others. It implies no special motivation of human individual actors, nor of humans in general” (Latour 1996, 375). The pencil acts by making me write differently than a felt pen would. The paper can act too, but only when it makes a difference to the whole. Actor-network theory emphasizes that effects do not originate in the intrinsic essence of any single element, but result from the collaboration of actors (Latour 2011). The pencil, paper, and hand together change my writing compared to typing.
[2.10] An actor has a recognizable identity only through its interactions with other actors. I can speak of the pencil as an actor in relation to the hand and paper when they write together. When I remove one collaborator from the process, writing fails. The pencil doesn’t write without paper or hand; paper shows no trace of words without a pencil or a hand; and the hand doesn’t write without a writing device or paper. I cannot discuss a collaboration of actors without the identity-giving action of writing, since this collective action allows me to speak of actors – whether pencils or other materials in role-playing games.
[2.11] An actor can be any element acting in relation to others, which means that even non-human entities can be recognized as actors. Players, designers, and researchers have traditionally understood role-playing as exclusively a human endeavor. Isn’t role-playing about humans playing as-if and dreaming with open eyes? However, if non-human actors participate in action, this study must explore how they cooperate in role-playing processes – and how to discuss this without simply replacing anthropocentrism with materialism.
[2.12] Material actors include “things, objects” (Latour 1993, 13), “microbes, scallops, rocks, and ships” (Latour 2005, 11), tools, technical artifacts, material structures, transportation devices, texts, and economic goods (Sayes 2014, 136). These examples show that material actors range from everyday objects to raw materials, with “material” being a more suitable term than “object” or “toy,” which would limit our understanding to certain forms. Material actors differ from symbolic, emotional, and abstract actors not because they cannot act in those ways, but because the focus here is on their physicality. Material action refers not only to causally governed action, but also to physical action that can collaborate with mental processes. Formulating a sentence and the force of gravity might seem unconnected – until we imagine writing a sentence with a pencil that leaves graphite traces on paper. This provides an alternative understanding of writing as a process involving both material and mental action, dissolving the mind/matter dichotomy that hampers our understanding of how a graphite core cooperates with the act of sentence rephrasing.
[2.13] Let’s return to the material actor itself. Since the pencil is physical, it has a certain weight, shape, and durability because it consists of other material actors like wood, graphite, glue, and paint. If we look at a pencil as something made up of other actors, our focus changes and we start to see the pencil as a network of actors.
[2.14] A network is a gathering or assemblage of collaborating actors that gains stability when its actors repeat actions in a consistent manner. When referring to a role-playing game as a network, I am interested in the collaborative work of heterogeneous actors.
[2.15] Actor-network theory highlights material actors’ capacity to gather other actors over time and space, a phenomenon known as “acting at a distance” (Latour 1988, 222). Network stability emerges when materials repeatedly perform the action of what was originally a temporary gathering. For example, if I want to preserve the information “five damage points” for repeated reference, I can write it on paper. The paper then bears graphite marks showing “five damage points,” and I no longer need to say it because the paper repeats the action performed by the temporary gathering of myself, the pencil, and the paper.
[2.16] Thus, materials can “allow an actor that is no longer present to exert a palpable influence” (Sayes 2014, 140). This influence makes a difference, though the term “influence” can be misleading if it is not understood as emerging from inter-relational actions. Preserving relations over space and time is one function humans desire from material actors. The question I am interested in is how does role-playing change over space and time when materials become part of the process?
[2.17] According to Latour, “network” has two meanings:
[2.18] You see that I take the word network not simply to designate things in the world that have the shape of a net […] but mainly to designate a mode of inquiry that learns to list, at the occasion of a trial, the unexpected beings necessary for any entity to exist. A network, in this second meaning of the word, is more like what you record through a Geiger counter that clicks every time a new element, invisible before, has been made visible to the inquirer. (Latour 2011, 799)
[2.19] The ontological meaning refers to networks as heterogeneous collaborations of actors. The epistemological meaning describes relational processes that become visible when the inquirer recognizes and documents them. In this context, the network serves as an epistemological tool that helps reveal material actors by fostering a sense of process involvement. Researchers like Annemarie Mol (2010) avoid applying actor-network theory as a conventional theory, instead treating it as a sensibility – a way of approaching phenomena that enhances understanding. This addresses both levels of this article: the ontological (what role-playing is) and the epistemological (how to know about role-playing).
[2.20] Actors “can be made to act through the agency of a magic wand, a dwarf, a thought in the fairy’s mind, or a knight killing two dozen dragons” (Latour 2005, 54). Latour points out that actors act on behalf of sometimes surprising other actors. Agency refers to heterogeneous actors acting toward the same goal, such as role-playing. The difference between actor and agency is that actors do something while agency explains “the different ways to make actors do things” (ibid., 55).
[2.21] “Making a difference” is conceptualized as agency – a contested concept in social theory. In earlier game studies research, it was defined as a human capacity (Wardrip-Fruin et al. 2009). While these definitions share an understanding of agency as an ability, they differ in explaining how this ability is activated, whether as an inward power or a relational effect. Actor-network theory diverges by viewing agency not as something to be traced, but as a term for a difference-making process that exists only when researchers observe empirical traces. Agency thus becomes a starting point for inquiry into what participates in events.
[2.22] Rather than an inward power as in game studies, in actor-network theory agency refers to a process that streamlines multiple actions into one. In the context of role-playing, this “streamlining” action emerges from the interrelations of heterogeneous actors. These actors form connections that flow together to create the role-playing game network and enable role-playing to work.
[2.23] A mediator changes what other actors do in the network during its implementation. The mediator inscribes its agency into other actors’ processes. “Mediators transform, translate, distort, and modify the meaning or the elements they are supposed to carry” (Latour 2005, 39). A clock in a chess game is a mediator, because it transforms a game of chess into “fast chess” by modifying how the chess game network works.
[2.24] An intermediary spreads agency without changing it. “An intermediary, in my vocabulary, is what transports meaning or force without transformation: defining its inputs is enough to define its outputs” (emphasis in original, Latour 2005, 39). A fast chess intermediary could be a wooden chessboard, which repeats the action of presenting 64 squares, spreading chess-playing agency without changing it.
[2.25] Researchers remain uncertain whether to classify an actor as an intermediary or a mediator, since this very uncertainty initiates actor-network studies (Latour 2005, 39). Latour suggests “asking the actor” whether it matters as a mediator. Another approach is to consider absence: imagine chess without a board, or a live-action role-playing game without costumes. This helps in identifying the actor in a study.
[2.26] From my fieldwork and the actor-network perspective, I’ve developed a specialized vocabulary bridging actor-network theory and role-playing game studies concepts that helped me to write this paper, because I used it to analyze materials and agency in role-playing networks (see Sidebar). Building on this vocabulary, I will now demonstrate how it can be applied to the analysis of tabletop role-playing games.
[3.1] In their current form, tabletop role-playing games have evolved since the 1974 commercial release of Dungeons & Dragons (Gygax and Arneson 1974). With slight differences, most systems typically involve a game master describing a fictional world, players controlling characters, and rules determining action outcomes. In a tabletop role-playing game, players describe their characters’ actions in real time, all participating simultaneously as the events unfold live. The game master decides whether actions succeed, often using rules and dice. When a player wants their character to perform a difficult action, the game master might call for a die roll modified by relevant attributes to determine success or failure. While interactions between narrative actors (story) and ludic actors (rules) are well-studied, material elements have received little attention until 2015. This article is largely based on my dissertation Role Playing Materials (2016). It examines how materials contribute to and provides a novel understanding of how tabletop role-playing games work. This article provides clues to understanding how tabletop role-playing games work. More importantly, this actor-network study explains how narrative, ludic, and material actors collaborate to make role-playing work in a tabletop role-playing game network.
[3.2]When observing a tabletop
role-playing game session, the scene appears chaotic:
A soft drink bottle stands on scrap paper. A player moves a plastic bowl to the
table’s edge. Background music wraps around three talking people. One
player explains his character’s next action. Two others discuss rules
over an open book resting on papers and dice. No smartphones have been
used for hours. Miniatures group on a sketched ground plan. A player
takes a cacao box. While one player describes her character’s actions,
the game master makes notes behind a cardboard screen. Before the screen
sits a bag of chips and various dice. The game master changes voice to
role-play a non-player character. Books rest at the table’s edge with
scattered dice. The ceiling lamp remains on. Windows mirror the group. A
folder holds empty envelopes and a pencil, with more scrap paper beneath
everything.
[3.3] This apparent disorder constitutes a complex actor-network. To fit the boundaries of this paper, I reduce the material actors under consideration to five that should suffice to illustrate the agency of material actors: light, table, character sheet, pencil, and game master screen. Using an unusual approach in game studies, I present these analyses from the materials’ perspectives.
[3.4] Therefore, the following section introduces the concept of “speaking materials” – giving voice to material actors as a technique to reveal their agency within the role-playing network. This approach challenges conventional anthropocentric analyses in game studies by allowing materials to “speak” about their contributions to gameplay. Based on extensive field notes and player interviews, these first-person material narratives serve as analytical devices, making visible the often-overlooked material agencies of tabletop role-playing games. This technique, which has its predecessors in anthropology, provides game studies researchers with a distinct tool for examining material agency across different cultural contexts and game systems, while recognizing that the researcher’s positionality shapes the material voices.
[3.5] Light: Illuminating the Play Space.
[3.6] Light is crucial for gameplay, since it illuminates essential game materials like character sheets and dice. It helps players read tiny numbers and notice subtle non-verbal expressions. However, light should not be too bright; a dimmed, focused light creates a comfortable atmosphere that helps players relax and immerse themselves in the game.
[3.7] Light also changes during gameplay to support the narrative. When characters enter a dungeon or a horror scene, players might dim the lights to enhance the atmosphere. This change represents a collaborative relationship between the material actor (light) and narrative elements (the horrific setting) that helps players immerse themselves in the shared imagined world.
[3.8] Table: The Central Platform. The table provides space, segmenting different areas for each player, the game master, and a common space between them. Players distribute their materials according to the available size of their personal area, which is typically in front of them. Personal game materials (character sheets, dice, pencils) stay in this area, while shared items (food, rule books) occupy the intersection between personal areas.
[3.9] I position people in relation to each other. All sit at a more or less the same distance from each other. My height corresponds with the height of the chairs. The effect is that all players and the game master are on the same eye level. The equal eye level supports a flat hierarchy among players.
[3.10] The table and chairs position players geometrically around a common center at the same height, establishing a spatial hierarchy that influences power relations. This geometric arrangement ensures that all players can see and hear each other, which is essential for creating and maintaining the shared imagined space. If a player cannot hear what is narrated, that part of the story does not become shared.
[3.11] Stability is another crucial aspect of the table’s material agency. A table that is not stable risks disrupting the careful arrangement of game materials. For example, if players use miniatures to represent character positions on a battle map, an unstable table might shake and jumble these pieces, breaking the connection between material and narrative elements and disrupting gameplay until order is restored.
[3.12] Character Sheet: The Character’s Material Embodiment. The character sheet is a complex document divided into areas of different shapes containing information about the character’s attributes, abilities, skills, equipment, and other details. For most game systems like Dungeons & Dragons or ALIEN, a character might require at least four sheets, with additional pages for special abilities, spells, character background, and illustrations.
[3.13] I have a prominent place on the table. I lie on the table in front of my player, ready to work during play. The player glances at the numbers written on me. The pencil makes notes on my surface, and an eraser removes them again. When the character fights in the shared imagination, one area on me decides upon life and death: the box that contains the hit points; a number relating to the character’s health.
[3.14] The character sheet must remain accessible throughout gameplay. Players frequently reference it to determine their character’s capabilities when attempting actions or during combat. The size of the character sheet defines the minimum personal space each player needs on the table, as other materials should not cover it.
[3.15] The sheet’s materiality is significant – players must care for it throughout a campaign, which might last years. Coffee stains, pencil notes, quotes from the game, and doodles become part of the sheet over time, creating material traces of the character’s history beyond the narrative alone. The character sheet records the role-playing, and these traces become part of the network.
[3.16] When forgotten or destroyed, the character sheet disrupts the relationship between character and player, forcing the time-consuming process of creating a new sheet and trying to recall all the details (equipment, allies, spells) that had been added to the character. This material vulnerability influences player behavior, encouraging careful handling and protection of this vital game component. Character sheets are often stored away and rediscovered decades later. These material actors thus become personal archives, preserving players’ histories, memories, and emotional connections to their characters and game experiences (Tchernavskij et al. 2022). Moreover, they have the potential to co-create cultural heritage (Rezende and Portinari 2023).
[3.17] Pencil: The Dynamic Inscriber. The pencil is preferred over pens because graphite doesn’t smudge when wet, making it a more reliable ally for the character sheet. Some consider forgetting a pencil is considered by some as to be a sign of poor preparation and lack of seriousness about the game, often more disruptive than forgetting snacks.
[3.18] I want a sharpened point and a place next to the character sheet. Then I work without delay. I act quickly when I am close at hand. I am not a laptop computer that has to be pulled out of a standby mode, or a tablet that has to be switched on. I am always on and ready when you need me, so keep me close by.
[3.19] The pencil’s design has evolved to fit comfortably in the human hand, and its hexagonal shape prevents it from rolling off the table. It facilitates quick changes to the character sheet, allowing players to easily update information, such as spells, during combat.
[3.20] The pencil constructs relationships between various actors in the game network, as it relates to material actors through its ease of use and size, to narrative actors by recording character actions and story developments, and to ludic actors by transporting the dynamics of game rules through quick notation and correction of numbers during calculation-heavy gameplay.
[3.21] Game Master Screen: The Boundary Maker.
[3.22] The game master screen separates the table into player and game master areas, creating a physical barrier that reinforces the ludic and social hierarchy between the game master and players. It serves tactical functions by allowing the game master to check notes and roll dice secretly, which creates suspense and preserves narrative surprises.
[3.23] The screen typically has two differently printed sides. The side facing the game master provides reference tables, rules summaries, and other information that helps manage gameplay without constantly consulting rulebooks. The player-facing side displays images representing the story world, which help synchronize players’ individual imaginations into a shared imagination.
[3.24] However, the screen can sometimes hinder role-playing. For instance, when the game master portrays different non-player characters using body language and facial expressions, the screen may block these visual cues, disrupting the relationship between the game master’s physical performance and the imagined character’s actions.
[3.25] With these insights from the material actors’ perspectives, game studies researchers in general – and role-playing game researchers in particular – can approach the network differently. What is gained by processing field data in this narrative way? Beyond providing a different perspective, this approach raises new questions that probe into the complex processes of role-playing, moving beyond the dichotomy of human versus material agency. Being able to ask new questions is one of the most exciting and important tasks of any researcher.
[4.1] I observed material actors during a role-playing game session, resulting in a messy list that followed no chronological, alphabetical, or other order of importance. Following different material actors made me aware of actions that helped me understand the mess, as well as actions that earlier studies had omitted by the time of my dissertation in the early 2010s. It is still possible to interpret tabletop role-playing games as, for example, collaborative storytelling games (Mackay 2001) or as structures composed of six ludic actors (Hitchens and Drachen 2009). However, a tabletop role-playing game is also a network of light, table, battle map, character sheets, pencils, game master screen, and other materials. Previous studies of the ludic actor “game system” do not explain the position of character sheets on the table. Studies of narrative actors do not explain how a pencil works, because they examine the TRPG as an “episodic and participatory story-creation system” (Mackay 2001). A study of the materials is necessary, because it can explain, for example, why most players use a pencil instead of a pen or a mobile device. Such a study acknowledges the pencil’s relationship to the character sheet and shows that there are further connections between material, narrative, and ludic actors. Insights like this one help untangle the seemingly messy actions in a tabletop role-playing game network.
[4.2] This article has by necessity focused on established gaming communities familiar with conventional role-playing materials and practices. Future research might explore how material actors function in introductory games with newcomers where materials play crucial roles in teaching and learning game concepts. Additionally, examining how socioeconomic factors influence access to certain materials – high-quality miniatures, specialized tables, extensive rulebook collections – would illuminate how economic disparities shape material networks and potentially reinforce or challenge barriers to participation for those with cognitive and physical needs (Belogur 2024).
[4.3] The key to understanding the disorder is to acknowledge that materials in tabletop role-playing games do not act in isolation. Light, table, battle map, character sheet, pencil, game master screen, and other materials act in social relation with each other. Thus, they influence how relations are formed between themselves and other actors. Moreover, they exert influence at a distance on how relations between other actors are made. For example, when the game master screen is moved on the table, it restructures the area between the game master and the players. This repositioning changes how other materials are arranged, affecting their relationships beyond just their relation to the screen. If the character sheet has to move because the game master screen takes up more space, then the pencil, eraser, coffee cup, and other material actors also have to move. This example explains the geometric order of the messy network, because moving the game master screen creates more (or less) space on the table for the other materials. Dice are moved away from the game master’s area, rule books are placed at the edge of the table, and a bowl of food is moved in front of the screen.
[4.4] I have chosen six material actors for this article, but there are many more to study. One category I excluded is digital tools, which became widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic after this research was conducted (Belogur 2024). I also excluded digital tools because in my dissertation I spent a chapter addressing the digital/non-digital dichotomy (Bienia 2016). The character sheet, the game master screen, and the battle map are obvious choices when studying the genre of tabletop role-playing games. I selected the table and the pencil because most players are aware of their importance, but little is known about the active roles they play. Some designers suggest using additional materials for a game session, but rule books typically describe these materials as props with an inert atmospheric quality (Oracz 2010; Rein·Hagen 1991). In such cases, even exceptional props serve merely as sources of atmosphere and do not act beyond that. Groups can choose to include these atmospheric props or leave them out entirely. I did not examine atmospheric props because they were not consistently present during my fieldwork. When choosing the six material actors that were usually present at all tabletop role-playing game sessions, I wanted to make the point that any material contributes to a game session. Thus, by choosing mundane actors such as a table, I showed that any material that makes a difference can become a vital part of the role-playing game network.
[4.5] Finally, the most important point is that it is not enough to consider materials on their own or to look for their essential qualities; we must trace how materials collaborate. Tracing inter-relational processes expands our understanding of the complexity of a tabletop role-playing game network. Understanding how a tabletop role-playing game works helps explain the messy network and how this seeming disorder actually keeps role-playing going. If a narrative approach helps the researcher, then let the materials speak. After all, despite being conceptually demanding or even controversial, actor-network theory helps to keep the search for answers productive.
[4.6] Five weeks after the game master reused an empty snack container, a cup of herbal tea and a bag of dice following a session of the ALIEN The Roleplaying Game, the table sees a new network adding actors to form a tabletop role-playing game session: searchable PDFs on a tablet, carefully prewritten texts to introduce each character and the main locations of the shared story world, Bluetooth speakers with an old smartphone that serves as a jukebox, downloaded MP3 files from Tabletop Audio by Wil Wheaton, and so on. The game master and his wife welcome their fellow players and sit down around the table. The actors looked from material to human, and from human to material, and from material to human again; but already it was impossible to say which had agency.
Disclaimer: This research was conducted before the rise of Let’s play videos and live sessions on social media.↩︎