Play Is Paramount: Discuss

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I've had prep--in two cases, fairly extensive prep for whole campaigns--that never got used at all. They were still interesting to do, but I'd not have done them if I'd not thought at the time in each case that they'd get used.

 

[Fenris-77]

I've had prep--in two cases, fairly extensive prep for whole campaigns--that never got used at all. They were still interesting to do, but I'd not have done them if I'd not thought at the time in each case that they'd get used.

The tatters and shards of my unused campaign prep could fill many scrolls in valhalla.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The tatters and shards of my unused campaign prep could fill many scrolls in valhalla.

I've done bits and bobs of stuff that never got used and mostly shrugged. I feel a little like an idiot doing if for whole campaign setups, though. That was a case of not thinking hard about the player groups I'd be trying to sell them on.

 

[Fenris-77]

I've done bits and bobs of stuff that never got used and mostly shrugged. I feel a little like an idiot doing if for whole campaign setups, though. That was a case of not thinking hard about the player groups I'd be trying to sell them on.

I never feel like an idiot for that stuff. There's really no accounting for player and group taste. It's all grist for the mill.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I never feel like an idiot for that stuff. There's really no accounting for player and group taste. It's all grist for the mill.

I knew these people for a long time, though; it was just that there was an element in one case I was unaware one player was hostile too, and another one developed a hostility to a specific class of system or time that I wasn't expecting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Because that's what RPGs are... people playing around a table (physical or virtual). People engaging with RPGs in ways that don't consider how things go at the table, while perfectly fine, are of less importance. Play is paramount in importance.

Just like all the examples that have been provided of people enjoying something in a way other than intended.

I've had prep--in two cases, fairly extensive prep for whole campaigns--that never got used at all. They were still interesting to do, but I'd not have done them if I'd not thought at the time in each case that they'd get used.

One of my major milestones as a GM was when a campaign that I'd spent tons of effort on just didn't really get a chance to get going because of two of my players. I spent a stupid amount of time preparing the campaign... NPCs and backstory and all kinds of other things. The PCs were intricately tied into the campaign in ways that I worked with each player to establish.

This was for a game my group was playing twice a week. I had three players that could make both games, and then one that could only make one game, and a fifth who could only make the other. I saw this as an interesting opportunity to do something interesting, so we created two sets of PCs... one group for each weekly session. Everyone was on board, so I ran with it. This effectively doubled a lot of the effort I was putting in as I had two sets of locations and characters to detail, and also had to have the two games connect in some ways. So I set all this up... just hours and hours of effort.

And it lasted maybe 6 sessions. One player was just eternally dissatisfied with his character so we kept making new ones. He was only in one of the games, so I thought we could accommodate it. One player that was in both groups didn't enjoy one of the groups of characters as much as the other, so he was pushing to just play one group. Basically, trying to accommodate all of this on top of all the prep and everything else... it was just too much. I ended the campaign.

Afterward, I looked at the amount of prep I had done... the amount I had read, the books I'd purchased, the amount of writing I did... and all that time was essentially lost. Did I enjoy all that prep in some way? Yes... but only because I was expecting for it to be used in play. I would not have done all of that had I known that it would never really get going.

This was my last straw with Pathfinder and the D&D 3.X system, too... and is one of the things that led to me trying to find games where this kind of thing would be less likely.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because that's what RPGs are... people playing around a table (physical or virtual). People engaging with RPGs in ways that don't consider how things go at the table, while perfectly fine, are of less importance. Play is paramount in importance.

To some people. Probably many people. But not everyone, which means the unqualified, objectively-stated claim is false.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To some people. Probably many people. But not everyone, which means the unqualified, objectively-stated claim is false.

No. To the hobby. If people didn’t actually play these things, no one would produce them.

 

[Fenris-77]

No. To the hobby. If people didn’t actually play these things, no one would produce them.

Watch out, the word objectively has been deployed. I expect ecumenical and ontological to follow in swift fashion.

 

[prabe]

Watch out, the word objectively has been deployed. I expect ecumenical and ontological to follow in swift fashion.

Ruh-roh.