Play Is Paramount: Discuss

[Umbran]

That is a pretty absolute statement and I recognize it probably won't stand up to scrutiny. So let's scrutinize.

So, I think that there's one point here that maybe doesn't fall over, but shows a crack or two...

Not all "play" happens at the table, and not all play is necessarily with the other players.

 

[Reynard]

So, I think that there's one point here that maybe doesn't fall over, but shows a crack or two...

Not all "play" happens at the table, and not all play is necessarily with the other players.

Figuring out which parts of engaging with the hobby count as "play" is the question, isn't it?

 

[TwoSix]

Figuring out which parts of engaging with the hobby count as "play" is the question, isn't it?

I would certainly count things like creating homebrew rules, or prepping for adventures, or designing a setting on your own as "engagement", but definitely not "play".

But, as always, different people make words different.

 

[Reynard]

I would certainly count things like creating homebrew rules, or prepping for adventures, or designing a setting on your own as "engagement", but definitely not "play".

But, as always, different people make words different.

I agree. I keep a pretty limited definition. "Stuff that happens at the table."

 

[Fenris-77]

So, I think that there's one point here that maybe doesn't fall over, but shows a crack or two...

Not all "play" happens at the table, and not all play is necessarily with the other players.

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.

 

[Umbran]

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...

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.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

We often sit around the gaming table discussing game anecdotes at the start of the session, but eventually someone always says "Ok, let's play" and we start the actual game session. So colloquially, we use the term "play" as a verb to denote the start of the actual game session.

It's just one of the many cases in English where one word might have both broad definitions but is also used for more specific situations.

Regardless of the words used, I think(?) we can all agree that there is a meaningful distinction that can be drawn and identified between a live session between participants in which the narrative space is being engaged and shaped, and other activities that utilize the tools and rulesets of TTRPGs.

 

[Fenris-77]

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 don't think it's obvious at all that engaging with the game outside of the narrower definition of play (i.e. the conversation) is play at all. When I'm planning a session I don't consider myself to be playing the game for example, nor when I'm thinking about what a PC of mine might do in an upcoming game.

We're talking about the same set of stuff of course, so how we parse that one word only really matters to the detail of this thread.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I pretty much agree with the OP's position, but I'm going to try and argue against it, just to see if there is any runway in that. So I'm going to make my statements a bit more pointed -- so feel free to disagree violently - no offence!

Position: Focusing on play is good for short campaigns and one-shots, but long-term will give a significantly worse campaign than if you had focused on other campaign aspects like plot arcs, clocks, world-building, rounded NPCs, campaign-specific rules and GM notes.

Evidence: The Great Pendragon Campaign. This book is probably 75% background, info, GM-only, custom rules and advice. I'd estimate that only a quarter is focused on the play experience. If the book simply was cut down to the adventures and player-facing "what happens this year" sections, this campaign would not be the "grail game" (#sorrynotsorry) that it is.

Evidence: The Lord of the Rings vs Other Similar Series. A book example, but I think helpful. Tolkien is not as good as writer technically as others who write epic fantasy. His characterization is solid, but not exceptional and his descriptions are prosaic. But I massively prefer his work to those of others. My contention is that he did not focus on writing a good book, but instead concentrated on world-building, and so although a standalone short story from him would be very forgettable, the long-form epic version benefits significantly from the non-writing focus and wins against writers who focused on the book they were writing.

Summary/Analogy: The non-play-focused part of roleplaying is like building a solid foundation. If you are just staying for a day, then a tent or a one-story shack is fine and fun, and you should focus on making that space as usable as possible for that day, but if you're going to live in a two-story building for years, building a foundation which you are not ever going to see or "play" in is vital.

 

[Reynard]

Position: Focusing on play is good for short campaigns and one-shots, but long-term will give a significantly worse campaign than if you had focused on other campaign aspects like plot arcs, clocks, world-building, rounded NPCs, campaign-specific rules and GM notes.

I am not sure this follows. The thesis is that as you do your prep -- world building, creating NPCs, etc... -- you do so with a mind toward how they affect play as your primary driving force. The thesis does not imply not doing that kind of preparation; it demands that kind of preparation is aimed at play, not done just for its own sake.