Play Is Paramount: Discuss

[prabe]

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.

My take on the OP--which I at least mostly agree with--is that all those things that are prep, including all the GM facing things in something like the Great Pendragon Campaign--only matter if and when they land on the table. Or at least, that the point of them is the at-the-table experience.

The book thing smacks of one of my pet peeve category errors: Books are not TRPGs, the media and experiences are very different, comparisons between them are at best of limited use.

 

[Desdichado]

It'd be nice if that material wasn't shaped like something that was meant to be used at the table.

I'm not sure what you mean. It is meant to be used at the table. But there's a culture of writing that has developed that has, I believe, become geared towards being entertaining for GMs to read, because they know that more of them will buy and read it then will run it. I don't know how many modules I've read where it gives historical context to what the PCs are meant to see that there is literally no way for the PCs to ever find out. It's just there for the GM reading it.

At first stuff like this kind of irritated me, but on reflection, I think it's smart to pay attention to actual use cases and structure your product accordingly.

 

[soviet]

I'm not sure what you mean. It is meant to be used at the table. But there's a culture of writing that has developed that has, I believe, become geared towards being entertaining for GMs to read, because they know that more of them will buy and read it then will run it. I don't know how many modules I've read where it gives historical context to what the PCs are meant to see that there is literally no way for the PCs to ever find out. It's just there for the GM reading it.

At first stuff like this kind of irritated me, but on reflection, I think it's smart to pay attention to actual use cases and structure your product accordingly.

You said what he said, just with 10x the word count.

 

[soviet]

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.

This doesn't work because it means most roleplayers 'play' on most days of their lives.

Read a book = played
Painted a model = played
Chatted about our game at the pub = played
Posted on ENWorld = played
Thought about my character on the bus = played

It also leaves no obvious way to distinguish these activities from actual play of an RPG.

'Hey soviet, when are we playing?'

Me, looking confused: 'Tonight, tomorrow, Friday, Saturday, and any other times you want'

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I consider all activity in which I engage with the hobby to be play. That includes prep, character generation, worldbuilding (whether for an active campaign or otherwise), reading game material, or just conversation. Those things come up far more often than active play in any case, and I afford them commensurate priority.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This doesn't work because it means most roleplayers 'play' on most days of their lives.

Read a book = played
Painted a model = played
Chatted about our game at the pub = played
Posted on ENWorld = played
Thought about my character on the bus = played

It also leaves no obvious way to distinguish these activities from actual play of an RPG.

'Hey soviet, when are we playing?'

Me, looking confused: 'Tonight, tomorrow, Friday, Saturday, and any other times you want'

Maybe a different term than, "when are we playing?" Should be used when describing getting together at the table to roleplay our PCs and NPCs.

 

[Fenris-77]

Anything that would surprise folks when you invite them to play x is probably a good general guide.

 

[mmadsen]

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

Is the experience at the table what matters, when 99 percent of the time and energy put into RPGs is not playing with a group at the table?

 

[Reynard]

Is the experience at the table what matters, when 99 percent of the time and energy put into RPGs is not playing with a group at the table?

"99 percent" feels like way too high a number. I do about an hour of prep for a 4 hour session, so that is 20% for me as GM. For players, one guesses very close to 100% is spent at the table. it certainly isn't spent learning their characters or the rules...

 

[prabe]

"99 percent" feels like way too high a number. I do about an hour of prep for a 4 hour session, so that is 20% for me as GM. For players, one guesses very close to 100% is spent at the table. it certainly isn't spent learning their characters or the rules...

Even those of us who run for players that do learn their characters and the rules, those players mostly only need to to the latter once and the former occasionally--approximately 100% of their engagement being at the table still sounds right to me.

I spend maybe fifteen minutes preparing, most sessions, where that means writing stuff down and the like, though I'm often turning things over in my head aside from that, and it doesn't feel to me as though I'm putting as much as 80% of my GMing energy into the actual session table time.

Yeah, "99 percent" is probably wrong.