Play Is Paramount: Discuss

[Reynard]

I have been thinking about this, and I haven't really figured out how to articulate it. But discussion forums are a good way to eventually find that articulation, so I thought I would toss this out there:

The most important thing in TTRPGs is the actual experience of play. This goes for rules, of course, but also for settings, and player options, and the rest of the design. it also goes for play spaces, schedules and all the out of game ephemera. The experience at the table is what matters, so all the things around that should point to that.

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

 

[prabe]

I think I at least agree with the direction your thesis points at. None of the things you mention--rules or prep or ephemera--matter if they never arise in play; and at least in principle the point of all of them is shape the experience of play to be what the creators (the people who write the rules, the people who make the handouts, the people who prep the sessions) want it to be. Obviously, people will want different experiences of play, and even people who want the same might see (or prefer) different ways to get to them; your absolutist thesis doesn't seem to me to point to one-way-ism, in other words.

 

[payn]

 

[Fenris-77]

I think this is an important idea. People sometimes talk about systems as things in and of themselves that 'do things' but they really don't. Only the game played at the table is any real measure of a system. Now you might need to talk about 'usual play' or some kind of equivalent, but I don't see a ton of value is people judging systems or mechanics without discussing how they actually work at the table.

 

[Fenris-77]

The other thing that I like about this topic is that is locates 'the conversation' as the central mover of RPG play. Not rules, not mechanics, but the conversation. That's where play happens. I'm going to step down off this soapbox now, I think my biases are showing.

 

[aco175]

Seems like we had this conversation about what is playing the game. There was discussion about a DM making worlds and background and maps, but never using that stuff and only he enjoyed it. Is that play?

What about the rules makes the game? Are they hard and fast or can people make them up and it still be the same game? Would everyone now be playing different games?

The broad umbrella- ella-ella of playing the game seems to cover everything so it makes it hard to figure out what it really is.

 

[Fenris-77]

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.

 

[Reynard]

Seems like we had this conversation about what is playing the game. There was discussion about a DM making worlds and background and maps, but never using that stuff and only he enjoyed it. Is that play?

What about the rules makes the game? Are they hard and fast or can people make them up and it still be the same game? Would everyone now be playing different games?

The broad umbrella- ella-ella of playing the game seems to cover everything so it makes it hard to figure out what it really is.

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.

The thesis is not that everything is play, but rather than play is the most important thing, so work -- from world building to rules tinkering to painting minis and terrain -- that does not serve play is not optimal. Those things might be fun in and of themselves for the folks engaging in them, but if they are being done in service of the game, they should be aimed at enhancing play (as opposed to world building or painting minis in service of the actor's own zen).

Again, I don't think it is as hard and fast as I am saying it -- which is the point of the thread. I am sort of looking for the right words to describe what I really mean. And in looking for those words, discovering what I really mean in the process.

 

[Deset Gled]

The experience at the table is what matters, so all the things around that should point to that.

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

"Play is paramount" is pretty fair. It's a game after all, the point is to play. The only kinda-sorta counterpoint I can give is that "paramount" doesn't mean it's the only thing that matters.

There's a lot to be said about building. It's not the same as play, but it's also fun and also important. I have a current player that I suspect may enjoy character creation and building his characters more than he likes playing them. He definitely would rather make multiple characters and cycle through them than play one character through a long arc. And I have seen some DMs who clearly enjoy building their world and lore and narrative more than they enjoy having characters play through them.

What about people that like painting minis? What about people that like making costumes for cosplay or LARP? What about people that like to write long backstories for their character, even if it never comes up at the table? What about DMs that like making puzzles more than they like the social aspect of guiding a group through them? All of these things are their own experiences, and they're not the same as the experience at the table.

If "all the things" in a game point to table play and only table play, you're leaving parts of those aspects behind and missing out on the tertiary fun. All roads still lead to the table, sure. But we still want to make those roads as enjoyable as possible. Take the joy in the journey to the table, not just the destination. If game prep is terrible, it doesn't matter how fun the game is because some people won't get there.

But how much are we just playing semantics with absolutes here? Does saying "play is paramount" actually disagree with any of that? I don't think there's that much actual conflict here.

 

[Fenris-77]

The thesis is not that everything is play, but rather than play is the most important thing, so work -- from world building to rules tinkering to painting minis and terrain -- that does not serve play is not optimal. Those things might be fun in and of themselves for the folks engaging in them, but if they are being done in service of the game, they should be aimed at enhancing play (as opposed to world building or painting minis in service of the actor's own zen).

Again, I don't think it is as hard and fast as I am saying it -- which is the point of the thread. I am sort of looking for the right words to describe what I really mean. And in looking for those words, discovering what I really mean in the process.

This can be taken way too far. Take the GM for example. They might decide to do all manner of world building that won't ever really directly impact play at the table, but it does serve to better locate them next to the 'thingness' of the setting. Deciding that that work simply isn't useful is people talking about shizz they don't know about.

Can the GM go too far on the setting history side of things? Sure they can. Too far for 'useful in play' anyway. But useful in play isn't the only measure. There's play on the one hand, and design on the other. Lots of loud people conflate the two and tell us that nothing that doesn't add immediate table stuff is worth doing. but those people are idiots.