Play Is Paramount: Discuss

Gorgon Zee · 2026-04-15T22:35:07+0100

Reynard said:
I would say that you are making a distinction without a difference with regards to your use of "aimed" or not here. if You watched vampire and Bourne movies to "make the game better" you were in fact "aiming" that prep at the experience at the table. What else could "make the game better" mean in that context?

With that broad definition, I will not argue the point. Essentially anything you do for the game is aimed at play, and so, everything is paramount. I was just hoping for a bit of differentiation.

FrogReaver · 2026-04-15T23:38:02+0100

Fenris-77 said:
No, no, no. RPGs are also meant to be played, regardless of what some people may or may not enjoy doing with them. I feel like you're working to defend your own interests, which is unnecessary. I'm not judging anyone's engagement, I'm just saying that the principle that organizes most engagement with RPG materials is play and eventual play.

Honestly, some claims seem to be getting jumbled, it may help if we distinguish whether we’re talking about a telos claim (what RPGs are designed for), a descriptive claim (what most people actually do), or a normative claim (what should be considered central). Those are different questions, and I think some of the disagreement here comes from treating them as the same.

I agree that games are designed to be played (telos). I also agree that play is the typical convergence point of RPG engagement (descriptive) - play is the nexus where many activities meet. But design intent doesn’t determine which forms of engagement are primary or most important for any given person, and play being the nexus doesn’t make it the normative center. People engage with RPGs in many meaningful ways that don’t treat play as the primary or most important mode.

Recognizing play as the typical pattern (which I do) doesn’t require treating it as the evaluative standard. Typical isn’t the same as central and descriptive trends don’t create normative hierarchies.

Reynard · 2026-04-15T23:39:18+0100

mmadsen said:
Most time and energy (and money) put into RPGs does not lead to an actual game with players around a table.

::citation needed::

Reynard · 2026-04-15T23:40:31+0100

Gorgon Zee said:
With that broad definition, I will not argue the point. Essentially anything you do for the game is aimed at play, and so, everything is paramount. I was just hoping for a bit of differentiation.

I was being specific. What does "improving the game" mean if it doesn't mean "play"?

Desdichado · 2026-04-16T00:13:33+0100

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
The adventure would be vastly improved if it was written more like an OSE adventure, with bullet points and important ideas bold faced, and put all of the heavy duty reading in a separate lore book.

Vastly improved for play. But if twenty more people buy it and read it than run it, or even five times, then that suggests that optimized for use at the table is not the best way to optimize for sales. And that will vary by system and playstyle. What works for OSE or ShadowDark doesn't work for 5e or vice versa because the audiences are different.

I really started noticing this with the early Paizo adventure paths, but i think that's only become more pronounced in the 5e campaigns. They sell like hotcakes and people rave about them, but a common complaint is that they're not really super well designed for play without the DM having to do a lot of work to make them playable.

They're surprisingly readable, though.

Whizbang Dustyboots · 2026-04-16T00:51:13+0100

Desdichado said:
Vastly improved for play. But if twenty more people buy it and read it than run it, or even five times, then that suggests that optimized for use at the table is not the best way to optimize for sales. And that will vary by system and playstyle. What works for OSE or ShadowDark doesn't work for 5e or vice versa because the audiences are different.

If all the audience wants is cool lore and stories, and doesn't care about the game part of it, Paizo should just rip the Band-Aid off and sell that audience novels and lore books instead of wasting space with stats that won't be used by most of their customers.

They're under no obligation to sell this stuff in the form of an adventure module that serves neither audience as well as a dedicated product would. And I suspect, if they tried this approach, they'd find they'd make more money overall, with each customer being served better and a portion of them grabbing both products.

Scott Christian · 2026-04-16T01:03:45+0100

Fenris-77 said:
People interact with the hobby away from the table, there's no doubt about that. I'm not sure how much of that activity actually counts as 'playing' the game in any meaningful sense, as opposed to planning or something else. Perhaps I'm not thinking of something specific that you meant, or perhaps your definition of what 'play' means in this instance is quite different than mine.

So when I am designing an encounter and run a playtest with myself at the table, I am not playing? What if it is with one other person not in the actual campaign?

Fenris-77 · 2026-04-16T01:44:14+0100

FrogReaver said:
Honestly, some claims seem to be getting jumbled, it may help if we distinguish whether we’re talking about a telos claim (what RPGs are designed for), a descriptive claim (what most people actually do), or a normative claim (what should be considered central). Those are different questions, and I think some of the disagreement here comes from treating them as the same.

I agree that games are designed to be played (telos). I also agree that play is the typical convergence point of RPG engagement (descriptive) - play is the nexus where many activities meet. But design intent doesn’t determine which forms of engagement are primary or most important for any given person, and play being the nexus doesn’t make it the normative center. People engage with RPGs in many meaningful ways that don’t treat play as the primary or most important mode.

Recognizing play as the typical pattern (which I do) doesn’t require treating it as the evaluative standard. Typical isn’t the same as central and descriptive trends don’t create normative hierarchies.

See, I think the answer to all three is that game play is the central concern of RPGs. Not to everyone in every instance at all, but generally? Yes. The game is meant to be played. Some people do other things, sure, no problem, but that doesn't change what's true generally, which is what's at stake here.

mmadsen · 2026-04-16T02:03:06+0100

FrogReaver said:
Honestly, some claims seem to be getting jumbled, it may help if we distinguish whether we’re talking about a telos claim (what RPGs are designed for), a descriptive claim (what most people actually do), or a normative claim (what should be considered central). Those are different questions, and I think some of the disagreement here comes from treating them as the same.

Exactly. Games are mostly read and thought about, but the reading and thinking is motivated by the belief that it will all pay off in an actual game sometime — and books that are interesting to browse sell better than those that play well but don’t read well.

FrogReaver · 2026-04-16T03:22:05+0100

Fenris-77 said:
See, I think the answer to all three is that game play is the central concern of RPGs. Not to everyone in every instance at all, but generally? Yes. The game is meant to be played. Some people do other things, sure, no problem, but that doesn't change what's true generally, which is what's at stake here.

It seems like you’re using oriented toward play in a definitional way - where anything related to RPGs is, by definition, tied back to play, which makes play the central concern by construction. I’m using it in an experiential way where different people place the center of their engagement in different places. Those are two different framings and they don't actually conflict.