Play Is Paramount: Discuss

[hawkeyefan]

Even that's more risky than low-prep or (my general preference) prep-as-you-go.

It is. But at this point, this was largely how I’d always run a campaign. And I’d never really had any issues. By this point, we were all adults and so leisure time wasn’t as abundant as when we were kids.

The problem I've always found with that is if someone sits out one game, there's a pretty good chance they'll never come back because they've hooked up with a game with another group, and they don't tidily end at the same time. I'd rather just run another campaign than start sloughing off players.

I get that. It’s not really a concern for my longstanding play group because we’re all friends going back to when we were kids. Most of us don’t have any other gaming groups.

But I get that’s a unique situation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It is. But at this point, this was largely how I’d always run a campaign. And I’d never really had any issues. By this point, we were all adults and so leisure time wasn’t as abundant as when we were kids.

Yeah, different rest states produce different results.

I get that. It’s not really a concern for my longstanding play group because we’re all friends going back to when we were kids. Most of us don’t have any other gaming groups.

But I get that’s a unique situation.

Whereas while I've been friends with most of the people I play with for a long time--some as long at this point as a half-century--we're only friends because of gaming; outside my wife I didn't know any of them before i started gaming with them, and the period when we'd occasionally get together for other things (going to a movie, say) is long past. We've had multiple intersecting groups for a long time (well, they mostly do--I sawed off my second group about a year ago at this point because I concluded we'd reached the point we just weren't compatible any more, and I lack the energy to find one that would work for me these days).

 

[Retros_x]

A TTRPG without own worldbuilding can exist, some DM just take printed campaigns and run them by the book. But a TTRPG without the actual play - is not the real thing. Its like when you plan to always go on a hike, but you never do, you are not a hiker.

I think this is true for every activity, not just TTRPG, its a very general statement. The actual experience is the thing, thats what makes it real, thats how you learn to do it, thats how you gain experience, by experiencing (duh), the rest is just in your mind.

There is not much to discuss IMO, but its good to bring it back in focus from time to time. I myself land sometimes in planning new games for months and planning them through and through, without actually starting them. I have to kick myself, stop planning, stop worldbuilding, do the actual thing, invite the players, lets get the ball rolling.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Cooking involves getting out the ingredients(game prep) and chopping/mincing/dicing/etc. the ingredients(more game prep) and then tossing all of those ingredients(game prep of individual monsters, traps etc. into a dungeon) in with the final ingredient(PCs) and then heating, cooling, etc.(group play).

Cooking is the perfect example of how D&D play works. Prep is play, too.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Cooking involves getting out the ingredients(game prep) and chopping/mincing/dicing/etc. the ingredients(more game prep) and then tossing all of those ingredients(game prep of individual monsters, traps etc. into a dungeon) in with the final ingredient(PCs) and then heating, cooling, etc.(group play).

Cooking is the perfect example of how D&D play works. Prep is play, too.

Nah.

 

[prabe]

Cooking involves getting out the ingredients(game prep) and chopping/mincing/dicing/etc. the ingredients(more game prep) and then tossing all of those ingredients(game prep of individual monsters, traps etc. into a dungeon) in with the final ingredient(PCs) and then heating, cooling, etc.(group play).

Cooking is the perfect example of how D&D play works. Prep is play, too.

I'm not sure locating the ingredients is part of cooking, that seems to get perilously close to saying shopping is part of cooking, and--though getting the ingredients right is important, and prepping the ingredients (in the sense of, say, fabricating vegetables) is absolutely a part of cooking--it's not. In the metaphor you seem to be using, group play is more like the meal being consumed at the table. I think there are real comparisons between cooking and GMing, especially as cooking relates to hosting, but I think it's important to keep the metaphor/s straight. The point of cooking food is (the vast majority of the time) to eat the food; the point of GM-side prepping is play at the table.

 

[Maxperson]

Nah.

Great counter argument!

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure locating the ingredients is part of cooking, that seems to get perilously close to saying shopping is part of cooking, and--though getting the ingredients right is important, and prepping the ingredients (in the sense of, say, fabricating vegetables) is absolutely a part of cooking--it's not. In the metaphor you seem to be using, group play is more like the meal being consumed at the table. I think there are real comparisons between cooking and GMing, especially as cooking relates to hosting, but I think it's important to keep the metaphor/s straight. The point of cooking food is (the vast majority of the time) to eat the food; the point of GM-side prepping is play at the table.

You're right. fabricating is akin to rule design. Putting the ingredients together is like taking salt(some monsters from a D&D book), some garlic(drawing the dungeon map), some onion(traps), etc. and mixing them together and letting them simmer a bit(finishing the final dungeon), and then finally adding the last ingredient(PCs) to get the final product(group play).

 

[prabe]

You're right. fabricating is akin to rule design. Putting the ingredients together is like taking salt(some monsters from a D&D book), some garlic(drawing the dungeon map), some onion(traps), etc. and mixing them together and letting them simmer a bit(finishing the final dungeon), and then finally adding the last ingredient(PCs) to get the final product(group play).

You seem determined to miss the point. I'm not making any direct comparisons between any part of cooking to any part of GM prep; I don't think the metaphor survives that kinda of granular attention. Where I think the metaphor works most strongly is that the point of cooking is for the food you've prepared to land on the table, so people can engage with it; similarly, the point of GM prep is for the TRPG material/s you've prepped to land on the table, so people can engage with it.

Of course, as I see TRPG play, there's a lot more in the sense of creativity happening at the table, plausibly some sort of table-cooking (a la Korean BBQ or hot pot, or maybe something more like a buffet) but no metaphor is perfect.

 

[Breaking Star Games]

This seems prescriptive, rather than empirical.

Play, broadly, is an activity done for enjoyment. Sitting down at the table with the dice and sheets is, of course, play. But so is noodling over character builds you may never use. So is painting minis for use in game. So is discussing game while away from the table. We can probably include designing adventures (the GM is playing too, after all).

If the person would not be engaging in those activities without the game, then that play is engaging with the game, just in alternate ways.

I actually quite like the distinguishment - I tend to avoid definition arguments, but this one is quite fun for me. I think the better way to define OP's Play is that it's the play/experience that occurs at the table with all players present as (at least in part) intended by the game.

Although my goal is mostly to keep Play as an expansive word (I think we agree on that) that includes even things like horror RPGs where you're not really having a lighthearted experience that many associate with "fun." But it is enjoyable/pleasurable.

I quite like the addition that fun is not just pleasure, but comes with surprises. In The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Jesse Schell define play as: "manipulation that satisfies curiosity." So, a game is " a problem-solving activity, approached with a playful attitude."

These hardly hold up to scrutinizing, nor is it trying to be perfect. But I tried to think of things I do for fun that I should know just about everything - rewatching my favorite TV show for the umpteenth time, yet I can't say nothing surprised me as my mind made new connections or remember something I had forgotten. Maybe it's pedantic, but as a designer, I definitely treasure The Lens of Surprise - what will surprise my players (including the GM). Do my rules make it so they surprise each other and themselves?