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.

 

[MichaelSomething]

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.

Wait a minute. My TTRPG philosophy boils down to "sacrifice people for the sake of TTRPGs" so we're opposed now???

 

[Maxperson]

Wait a minute. My TTRPG philosophy boils down to "sacrifice people for the sake of TTRPGs" so we're opposed now???

I hope you are at least getting some significant unholy power for that!

 

[soviet]

From where I'm standing, design won't ever serve verisimilitude/realism/simulation simply for the sake of verisimilitude/realism/simluation divorced of all other context. On the other hand, it might serve a desire for verisimilitude/realism/simulation in play.

Ergo, I think you're wrong to suggest that serving realism is something that is inherently in conflict with or different than serving play. Of course, if a particular kind of simulation isn't important to you, then a design serving that kind of simulation is not facilitating the sort of play you want.

You have never read Rolemaster

 

[SableWyvern]

You have never read Rolemaster

I'm currently running Rolemaster. Because it facilitates the sort of play I want.

 

[aramis erak]

I'm currently running Rolemaster. Because it facilitates the sort of play I want.

Rolemaster plays pretty damned well - two tables for 90% or more of non-combat actions (Moving Maneuver and Static Maneuver tables)... and if the GM is well organized, even combat snaps along.

 

[SableWyvern]

I don't agree with that. It conflates game design with game prep.

The DM is prepping the game for group play, which is part of his job as DM and so is part of his game play. The DM making rules changes to adapt a system to the setting isn't prep for group play. It's different from creating an NPC or dungeon. Design and prep are two different things.

I agree that it is false to say design is prep but, in my experience, design can be a part of my preparation.

If I'm prepping a trip to the desert, I may need to design rules for sandstorms and dehydration. If I'm converting a module from another system, I have to make decisions about how to convert traps, magic, creatures and the like.

Statting out monsters, setting difficulty levels, designing magic items or unusual spells, working out how to apply existing mechanics, building encounter tables, creating new mechanics. These are all aspects of design that I often consider and engage in when conducting prep.

 

[soviet]

Rolemaster plays pretty damned well - two tables for 90% or more of non-combat actions (Moving Maneuver and Static Maneuver tables)... and if the GM is well organized, even combat snaps along.

Rolemaster is great! I love Rolemaster and I agree with you. BUT there are some occasional parts (XP, potential stats, the versions that average three stats to determine the stat bonus) where the simulationism has taken priority over the playability. A very small part of a fantastic whole, though.

 

[aramis erak]

Rolemaster is great! I love Rolemaster and I agree with you. BUT there are some occasional parts (XP, potential stats, the versions that average three stats to determine the stat bonus) where the simulationism has taken priority over the playability. A very small part of a fantastic whole, though.

Front-loaded complexity. I made it playable in the 90's by using spreadsheets on my Apple II. (And no, I don't still have them.)