Play Is Paramount: Discuss

[Maxperson]

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".

I can be engaged with the game without playing the game, as an observer for instance. However, I cannot be playing the game without being engaged with it. If I'm at the table and not engaged, I'm just a lump taking up space.

Engagement is a necessary element for play, like the DM being healthy enough to run the game, players showing up, etc., but that doesn't mean that it's more important than play. I think your sports example is flawed, because it's overly narrow. You can say that professional sports play wouldn't exist without the engagement of fans and therefore engagement is paramount to professional sports play, but you can't say that the game of football wouldn't exist without the engagement of fans, so engagement isn't paramount for playing football.

RPGs are a group social activity that we do presumably to have fun. We don't need the engagement of others like Critical Roll does in order to play the game. If we are playing and enjoying that play, we have achieved that goal.

 

[Maxperson]

For the record, I take no real position on the original question. ; I can see how others may enjoy the theory debate that goes with it, but I don't see any practical application to my gaming.

I agree. It has no practical adaption for my gaming.

What I think is paramount are the people. No DM and players, no engagement. No DM and players, no group game play. You must have a people who want to engage in the goal of playing the game before anything else can happen.