Play Is Paramount: Discuss

[Reynard]

There are a lot of cases (such as Hoard of the Dragon Queen) where the backstory bits shaped my GMing of the NPCs and thus affected the game. To a point, the same is true with the Strahd story. And the backstory elements of the Firefly adventure, The Wedding Crashers.

So, work aimed at play. That's the point.

 

[aramis erak]

So, work aimed at play. That's the point.

My point being that what may seem aimed at casual readers may actually be useful and play-influencing material. Reading it I wouldn't consider play. (As I noted, I think Umbran's definition, while dictionary-consistent, misses the point of a game having rules... game play being activity influenced by the game's rules.)
I apply it to sport, as well. I don't consider my time stabbing a swinging ribbon or golf ball on a string to be fencing, but my time practicing with others is... even tho the gear is the same. The use of the rules of Fencing don't matter to the ribbon stabbing - even tho the stabbing the ribbon is a very good skill builder. Kicking a soccer ball at an empty net is skill building, but at a defended net is play.

 

[Reynard]

My point being that what may seem aimed at casual readers may actually be useful and play-influencing material. Reading it I wouldn't consider play. (As I noted, I think Umbran's definition, while dictionary-consistent, misses the point of a game having rules... game play being activity influenced by the game's rules.)
I apply it to sport, as well. I don't consider my time stabbing a swinging ribbon or golf ball on a string to be fencing, but my time practicing with others is... even tho the gear is the same. The use of the rules of Fencing don't matter to the ribbon stabbing - even tho the stabbing the ribbon is a very good skill builder. Kicking a soccer ball at an empty net is skill building, but at a defended net is play.

I feel like you are misunderstanding the thesis. I did not say that only play matters. I said that the work done should be oriented toward play. In sport, practicing skills that make you better in a game is the very definition of making play paramount.

 

[FrogReaver]

I feel like you are misunderstanding the thesis. I did not say that only play matters. I said that the work done should be oriented toward play. In sport, practicing skills that make you better in a game is the very definition of making play paramount.

I think the disconnect is that this version of the claim is definitionally true - no one is arguing that practice doesn’t relate to play in some way.

From my perspective the discussion seems to be about how theory/optimization/etc connects to play, not whether it does at all.

 

[Umbran]

I get the looser definition you seem to be advocating, but I don't think it's useful when that broad.

I mean, that is exactly my point - in taking that stance, you start with blinders on.

The point is to stand beyond your own favorite bits for a minute, and remember that there's a whole of entertainment to be had that may not be your personal focus, because ignoring the other things is missing opportunities, both for your own game, and for the business that's required to make the hobby happen.

For example, raise your hand if you are absolutely sure that the dominant activity around the hobby is people playing at the table.

Now, consider how many people are spending how many hours watching actual play streams and podcasts.

Is your hand still up? Mine isn't.

 

[Umbran]

I feel like you are misunderstanding the thesis. I did not say that only play matters. I said that the work done should be oriented toward play. In sport, practicing skills that make you better in a game is the very definition of making play paramount.

Ah, so, while I don't think I was wrong to suggest broadening the definition of play, the sport analogy makes me think there's another route to much the same point.

But it does mean I negate your original thesis. Play is not paramount.

ENGAGEMENT is paramount.

Because, you see all those sports professionals? They wouldn't exist if folks not on the field weren't engaged with the game.

The work done should be oriented in getting people to engage with the game, even if their main way of engaging is not within your personal definition of "play".

 

[SableWyvern]

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.

Yes. It seems to me that even someone who has no ambitions or expectations of ever sitting down and actually playing a game will still, if they're making characters, do so from a position where they think about what it would be like to play those characters; if designing a gameworld, will be doing so from the position of imagining how it would work in play.

The idea that "this will be or could be played" is fairly central to just about everything anyone does with these games and informs the way we interact with them (I'm sure there are exceptions, but I find it hard to believe they would be very common).

I'm certainly against the notion of referring to any and all forms of engagement as play. If that's the case, then designing a game is playing the game. If that's true, the term "play" feels pretty meaningless to me.

 

[Maxperson]

IDK man. That GM doing GM stuff is doing something game related. Anyone who wants to try and parse it differently is selling something. It's not play exactly, but it's still game adjacent. Just like players thinking about how to advance or play their characters between sessions.

My feeling is that it's more than just game adjacent. Depending on the game being played, the DM prep is part of how the DM plays the game. It's solo aspect play to be sure, but people play solitaire and other games solo. That solo play then becomes something that the PCs may or may not encounter during group play.

 

[aramis erak]

I mean, that is exactly my point - in taking that stance, you start with blinders on.

The point is to stand beyond your own favorite bits for a minute, and remember that there's a whole of entertainment to be had that may not be your personal focus, because ignoring the other things is missing opportunities, both for your own game, and for the business that's required to make the hobby happen.

For example, raise your hand if you are absolutely sure that the dominant activity around the hobby is people playing at the table.

Now, consider how many people are spending how many hours watching actual play streams and podcasts.

Is your hand still up? Mine isn't.

Being one who doesn't usually enjoy APs... I have no heartburn at all saying most of those engaging with the game only through passive means (Reading, Watching, Listening) without input into the outcome are largely not playing.

Different part of the audience of the game, with different goals.

In the scope of the OP's post, I suspect even for them, the difference from other media is that the guys on screen/audio are engaging with the rules...

Ah, so, while I don't think I was wrong to suggest broadening the definition of play, the sport analogy makes me think there's another route to much the same point.

But it does mean I negate your original thesis. Play is not paramount.

ENGAGEMENT is paramount.

Because, you see all those sports professionals? They wouldn't exist if folks not on the field weren't engaged with the game.

The work done should be oriented in getting people to engage with the game, even if their main way of engaging is not within your personal definition of "play".

They audience are not playing the game... except in RPGs and boardgames as normally used. Streaming isn't normative use. Reading the setting isn't play; it's not egaged with the rules.

Play of the rules is engagement, yes... but it's also the highest priority of most rulesets I've read. (There are a few where it was clear that play wasn't a priority... can't bring titles to mind.)

 

[SableWyvern]

My feeling is that it's more than just game adjacent. Depending on the game being played, the DM prep is part of how the DM plays the game. It's solo aspect play to be sure, but people play solitaire and other games solo. That solo play then becomes something that the PCs may or may not encounter during group play.

My problem with that is that if GM prep is play, then so is adapting a system to a setting, which is essentially rules design, which means that designing a game is playing the game. Which can't be right.

I mean, you can call it play in the general sense that things we do for fun are play, but I don't believe "designing the game" is "playing the game".

On the other hand, I also don't think the distinction really matters in any meaningful way. Call it play or don't, I'll keep doing what I'm doing for the reasons I already do them, as (I presume) will everyone else in the thread.