Play Is Paramount: Discuss

[hawkeyefan]

There doesn't need to be a game attached to enjoy reading game books, designing rules, and writing lore. I do those things all the time without expecting a game to break out.

Yes, I get that, and it’s fine.

That doesn’t change the fact that play is the purpose of the books in the same way that cooking is the purpose of cookbooks even if there are people who just enjoy collecting or reading cookbooks but never use them to cook. There are such people around… and there’s nothing wrong with them enjoying cookbooks just to read. But that doesn’t mean that cooking is not the primary purpose of cookbooks.

I hope that makes the distinction clear.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, I get that, and it’s fine.

That doesn’t change the fact that play is the purpose of the books in the same way that cooking is the purpose of cookbooks even if there are people who just enjoy collecting or reading cookbooks but never use them to cook. There are such people around… and there’s nothing wrong with them enjoying cookbooks just to read. But that doesn’t mean that cooking is not the primary purpose of cookbooks.

I hope that makes the distinction clear.

Sure. I guess I just don't see why that matters to anyone, or why anyone would suggest that we should be focusing all our RPG engagement around play at the table.

 

[Fenris-77]

Sure. I guess I just don't see why that matters to anyone, or why anyone would suggest that we should be focusing all our RPG engagement around play at the table.

That's not what people are saying. People are saying the RPG books are indexed to (designed to be used in) play. How individuals decide to enjoy their hobby engagement is up to them. I have lots of RPG books I've read and enjoyed and have no intention of ever playing, but that doesn't change the fact that those game books were written to enhance or otherwise facilitate play at the table. No one is trying to yuck your yum, I promise.

 

[Reynard]

Sure. I guess I just don't see why that matters to anyone, or why anyone would suggest that we should be focusing all our RPG engagement around play at the table.

That is not the thesis. The thesis is that when you make stuff for an RPG, it is important to consider play first and foremost in that work. That is different than suggesting folks can't engage in the hobby in other ways, or saying the only play maters. "Paramount" means most important, not solely important.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's not what people are saying. People are saying the RPG books are indexed to (designed to be used in) play. How individuals decide to enjoy their hobby engagement is up to them. I have lots of RPG books I've read and enjoyed and have no intention of ever playing, but that doesn't change the fact that those game books were written to enhance or otherwise facilitate play at the table. No one is trying to yuck your yum, I promise.

I believe there was a claim that "play is paramount". Not exactly what you're saying here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is not the thesis. The thesis is that when you make stuff for an RPG, it is important to consider play first and foremost in that work. That is different than suggesting folks can't engage in the hobby in other ways, or saying the only play maters. "Paramount" means most important, not solely important.

So you're discussing this purely from a design point of view, not consumer (or business; I believe writing to read absolutely happens in RPG design and publishing)? I can see your point from design, but not any other metric.

 

[Reynard]

So you're discussing this purely from a design point of view, not consumer (or business; I believe writing to read absolutely happens in RPG design and publishing)? I can see your point from design, but not any other metric.

GMing is design, too, so consumer in that way too.

Like i said in the OP, this was mostly an attempt to consolidate my own thoughts on the subject through discussion. In the end, I am not really concerned with how people define or embrace "engagement". And really I don't think people are "wrong" for expending prep time and effort doing random worldbuilding or whatever. Where I think I ultimately land is more like:

"What happens at the table is the most important thing, so spend your limited time and energy on things that support what happens at the table." Something like that anyway.

 

[TwoSix]

GMing is design, too, so consumer in that way too.

Like i said in the OP, this was mostly an attempt to consolidate my own thoughts on the subject through discussion. In the end, I am not really concerned with how people define or embrace "engagement". And really I don't think people are "wrong" for expending prep time and effort doing random worldbuilding or whatever. Where I think I ultimately land is more like:

"What happens at the table is the most important thing, so spend your limited time and energy on things that support what happens at the table." Something like that anyway.

Yep.

I think the key corollary to that is "Don't assume that just because you've spent prep time on something that it will necessarily make play better." If you've got lots of free time, spend it doing whatever you want, of course. But if your time is limited, you might want to focus your prep on things that will definitely show up at the table.

 

[Fenris-77]

I believe there was a claim that "play is paramount". Not exactly what you're saying here.

Nope, I'm holding a smaller and modified version of that general idea. One that isn't saying anything about how people spend their time, just how RPG books are generally designed.

 

[Umbran]

"What happens at the table is the most important thing, so spend your limited time and energy on things that support what happens at the table." Something like that anyway.

Oh, wait, let me approach this a bit differently...

"What happens at the table is the most important thing..."

This is probably true as Reynard here intends it, but it is, as stated false. Most of the actual meat of this statement is unstated, unspecified, or implicit, and only apparent from other statements Reynard makes. But, when you try to apply this to many other people, without that context, it is incorrect.

And that's (a major reason) why there's so many pushbacks and arguments.