Play Is Paramount: Discuss

[SableWyvern]

Except the counterpoint here applies only to the individual 'you' being referenced while the OP could be (and I read it as) in reference to the hobby as an aggregate whole.

Fairly big difference in scale, there.

I don't see anything in the OP that suggests answers made from the perspective of individual enjoyment are irrelevant or disallowed.

In my own case, I've already stated that I don't find the original question important, and part of the reason for that is that I think the only answers that matter are the ones we each decide upon individually for ourselves.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not like you to say you don't like something

I don't call things I don't like silly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, generally. Like I said, people should enjoy what they want. I respect their taste, even if I disagree.

But the idea that play isn’t the intended focus of an RPG? That’s not a stance I can really respect because I think it’s incorrect.

You're welcome to disagree, but that doesn't make your stance any less subjective.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is cooking dinner eating?

Is walking to the bedroom being asleep?

Is logging in to Netflix watching a film?

Are those appropriate metaphors for what's being talked about?

 

[SableWyvern]

Are those appropriate metaphors for what's being talked about?

There are a number of us who strongly and fundamentally believe that that, yes, they are -- and, when you say prep is play, the comment makes no more sense to us than claiming that cooking is eating or that writing is reading.

If you're simply looking at play in a really broad sense as things we do for fun or leisure or connected to entertainment, then I can see where you're coming from. Within that frame of reference, prep is play. However, I feel that in the context of "playing the game", prep is not play, and calling it such doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are a number of us who strongly and fundamentally believe that that, yes, they are -- and, when you say prep is play, the comment makes no more sense to us than claiming that cooking is eating or that writing is reading.

If you're simply looking at play in a really broad sense as things we do for fun or leisure or connected to entertainment, then I can see where you're coming from. Within that frame of reference, prep is play. However, I feel that in the context of "playing the game", prep is not play, and calling it such doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose.

I'm just talking about what I want out of the hobby. For me, prep, reading, and design, and especially worldbuilding, are at least as fun and engaging for me as play at the table, and far more frequent, to the point where a game compromising setting logic and verisimilitude unnecessarily for "playability" reasons tends to annoy me. But, I clearly have a pretty high tolerance for detail and rules complexity.

 

[SableWyvern]

I'm just talking about what I want out of the hobby. For me, prep, reading, and design, and especially worldbuilding, are at least as fun and engaging for me as play at the table, and far more frequent, to the point where a game compromising setting logic and verisimilitude unnecessarily for "playability" reasons tends to annoy me. But, I clearly have a pretty high tolerance for detail and rules complexity.

That's pretty much true of me as well. But the fact that I might enjoy prep as much as actually running the game during a session, or that I don't want to compromise the things I like for someone else's idea of "playable" doesn't in any way mean that prep is playing the game. It just means it's fun and a thing worth doing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's pretty much true of me as well. But the fact that I might enjoy prep as much as actually running the game during a session, or that I don't want to compromise the things I like for someone else's idea of "playable" doesn't in any way mean that prep is playing the game. It just means it's fun and a thing worth doing.

I agree with all of that. What I disagree with is the OP's thesis. Play is not necessarily always the most important thing in RPGs, and engagement should not have to revolve entirely around it.

 

[Reynard]

I agree with all of that. What I disagree with is the OP's thesis. Play is not necessarily always the most important thing in RPGs, and engagement should not have to revolve entirely around it.

I understand the fun of trying to figure out (and this is just an example) how the presence of a dragon's lair in a region impacts the local ecology and economy and so on. But the lair is there for the PCs to visit and maybe all die in. So while a foundation of what seems logical and reasonable is a good beginning but ultimately the final details should focus on that play experience. All IMO, of course.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't call things I don't like silly.

I never said I don’t like those things. I said calling them something they’re not is silly.

I enjoy reading some RPG books in and of themselves. That doesn’t change the fact that their primary purpose is for play anymore than the fact that I can also use them to stabilize a chair with an uneven leg.

You're welcome to disagree, but that doesn't make your stance any less subjective.

I don’t think what I said is very subjective.

I agree with all of that. What I disagree with is the OP's thesis. Play is not necessarily always the most important thing in RPGs, and engagement should not have to revolve entirely around it.

But if you don’t play, then there’s no game. So then, what were you doing when you read that gazetteer?

You were reading.

Which is perfectly fine, of course. I mean, I might argue that if you want to enjoy the pleasure of reading, there are better options… but I wouldn’t go so far as to say there’s no enjoyment in reading an RPG book.

But reading is not playing.