The Food Analogy

[Deset Gled]

I had one player who told me my description the previous session of (TW: bugs) a cavern absolutely creeping with roach-like bugs swarming over everything ended up giving him nightmares.

I'd argue that's at least in the realm of my lactose intolerance where if I eat something like mashed potatoes made with butter and milk I'll be bloated and gassy for hours.

But it's just an analogy, it's not expected to be perfect.

That's a fair point. I don't think it's the best analogy, but it makes a bit more sense.

@Reynard has been making a series of threads recently about game design, so I was thinking more about those type of preferences rather than content. I still don't believe anybody has had an allergic-equivalent reaction to Play To Find Out, a railroad plot, or rolling under instead of over.

 

[Reynard]

That's a fair point. I don't think it's the best analogy, but it makes a bit more sense.

@Reynard has been making a series of threads recently about game design, so I was thinking more about those type of preferences rather than content. I still don't believe anybody has had an allergic-equivalent reaction to Play To Find Out, or rolling under instead of over.

I don't know. I have see some apparent seizures here with regard to that last thing...

 

[DrunkonDuty]

If you want to see people having paroxysms about roll over or under - go to the HERO forums and suggest rolling over...

 

[MGibster]

RPGs are like onions. They have layers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

GM prep is more like shopping for ingredients and meal planning. It's getting everything you need for that, but it is not that.

I’ll disagree a bit, here. If I invite people over for dinner and all I did was buy ingredients and plan a meal- without actually cooking it- the meal would go poorly. After cooking, how my guests choose to interact with what I serve is up to them. That includes not eating it and possibly even leaving early.

At the very least, then, GM prep must include providing some kind of coherent campaign setting with structure and rules. It can be store bought or made from scratch. It can be slapdash or planned with meticulous detail. And if the players don’t like the flavor, that’s their choice.

 

[Blue]

This is where our personal definitions are not going to align.

Let's try this. A chef can make a meal, and the meal exists, even if there is no one there to eat it.

A GM can prepare for a game, but without players (even if it's just the GM also wearing a player hat), can not have a game. So there's no way the players are just consumers, they must be part of the creators. There's no valid definition of an RPG where the players aren't part of the making of the session.

That's why the GM prep is like putting together shopping lists, buying food, making sure the pans are ready, that they have the spices they need.

You say our personal definitions are not going to align. Does your personal definition of an RPG session require passive players who just consume?

 

[Blue]

I’ll disagree a bit, here. If I invite people over for dinner and all I did was buy ingredients and plan a meal- without actually cooking it- the meal would go poorly. After cooking, how my guests choose to interact with what I serve is up to them. That includes not eating it and possibly even leaving early.

Point of order: This assumes the analogy is correct in order to prove that the analogy is correct.

 

[MGibster]

A lot of threads go for several pages before they turn into discussions about analogies. I respect the OP for making an entire thread about an analogy.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Point of order: This assumes the analogy is correct in order to prove that the analogy is correct.

As noted multiple times by others, no analogy is perfect, and will break down at some point. So debating it’s “correctness” is a poor thing to debate.

“Accuracy” would be better, IMHO. Or “appropriateness”. Or “usefulness”.

A chef can make a meal, and the meal exists, even if there is no one there to eat it.

There’s always the chef.

That's why the GM prep is like putting together shopping lists, buying food, making sure the pans are ready, that they have the spices they need.

And again, if all the chef does is show you his kitchen full of ingredients and cold pots, and tell you, “I am Ozymandias, Chef of Chefs! Look upon my kitchen, ye hungry, and despair!”, he has failed at the last necessary step of being the chef: actually preparing a meal for people to eat.

Likewise, most GMs showing up on game night without an actual adventure ready to go are going to face blowback from their players. Some among us may be able to improvise an entire campaign, but the bulk of us will struggle beyond winging an encounter or combat.

 

[Reynard]

Let's try this. A chef can make a meal, and the meal exists, even if there is no one there to eat it.

A GM can prepare for a game, but without players (even if it's just the GM also wearing a player hat), can not have a game. So there's no way the players are just consumers, they must be part of the creators. There's no valid definition of an RPG where the players aren't part of the making of the session.

That's why the GM prep is like putting together shopping lists, buying food, making sure the pans are ready, that they have the spices they need.

You say our personal definitions are not going to align. Does your personal definition of an RPG session require passive players who just consume?

The chef can make food no one eats. The GM can design an adventure no one plays. It becomes a meal or a game once everyone sits down at the table.