Play Is Paramount: Discuss

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I have a library of lore-heavy RPG books that very much seem to me to not have a primary focus of play at the table, so agree to disagree.

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

Clearly. I think it is.

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.

There are better options for you. Subjective. Again. Some of my favorite reads have been RPG books, and working out or discovering new ways to model a setting is one of my favorite activities. Maybe my most favorite , sometimes. And playing may or may not be any given hobbyist's most valued activity.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I have a library of lore-heavy RPG books that very much seem to me to not have a primary focus of play at the table, so agree to disagree.

No… again, you can enjoy them by reading them and that’s great. But that doesn’t change that they were written for play.

I mean, there could be someone out there entertained by boardgame instructions or by reading the Official Baseball Rules… and that’s perfectly fine. But their enjoyment doesn’t change the purpose of the books.

The lore of the RPG books is to serve play. That’s why the book was written. Contrast that to say Lord of the Rings which was written to tell a story. That Tolkien’s work has been used to launch a million RPG games and hundreds of products doesn’t mean that’s the reason Tolkien wrote the book.

Clearly. I think it is.

Yes, but you’re wrong.

There are better options for you. Subjective.

Yes, I said as much.

Again. Some of my favorite reads have been RPG books, and working out or discovering new ways to model a setting is one of my favorite activities. Maybe my most favorite , sometimes. And playing may or may not be any given hobbyist's most valued activity.

Cool. That’s all fine. You’re missing the actual distinction. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with your preference or what you enjoy or how. It seems to me like in your quest to take offense, you’re missing what’s actually being said.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No… again, you can enjoy them by reading them and that’s great. But that doesn’t change that they were written for play.

I mean, there could be someone out there entertained by boardgame instructions or by reading the Official Baseball Rules… and that’s perfectly fine. But their enjoyment doesn’t change the purpose of the books.

The lore of the RPG books is to serve play. That’s why the book was written. Contrast that to say Lord of the Rings which was written to tell a story. That Tolkien’s work has been used to launch a million RPG games and hundreds of products doesn’t mean that’s the reason Tolkien wrote the book.



Yes, but you’re wrong.



Yes, I said as much.



Cool. That’s all fine. You’re missing the actual distinction. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with your preference or what you enjoy or how. It seems to me like in your quest to take offense, you’re missing what’s actually being said.

You're saying play at the table is more important than anything else for RPGs. I have 35 years of experience to the contrary.

 

[SableWyvern]

You're saying play at the table is more important than anything else for RPGs.

I probably shouldn't speak for @hawkeyefan, but I did not take this from their comments (and I've butted heads with them enough that no one is going to accuse me of being biased in favour of reading generously).

There are a number of semi-related topics going on in this thread:

1. The OP's question: Is play paramount.
2. A weaker version of the OP's question: Is everything we do with TTRPGs related in some way to play or the idea of play?
   • Related, are games designed to played (ie, is their intended purpose to be played at the table)?
3. Defining play: Does any form of engagement count as play, or only the times we're actually "playing a session".

From what I can tell, Hawekeyfan, like me, is answering yes to question two and, with respect to three, considers play to be engaging in a session. I see no answer at all to question one in Hawkeyfan's posts.

When I formed my opinion on question 2, it occurred to me that answering yes here could be used as the foundation for an argument that the answer to question 1 is also yes. However, for myself, I rejected that, and do not believe that a yes to 2 necessitates a yes to 1. That the concept of play informs other things thatwe do does not make play universally more important. It just means it informs what we do.

For any given individual, designing worlds, prepping campaigns, watching actual plays, reading rulebooks, creating characters or anything else may be paramount. there is no objective measure by which anyone can say they're wrong, or that something else should be paramount, or that something else is paramount. Further, I posit that this position is entirely compatible with the belief that the design intent of these games is that they are to be played (and any exceptions not designed to be played are, IMO, probably not actually games) and that (with perhaps extremely rare exceptions) the concept of play influences all the ways in which we engage with TTRPGs.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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 think the best way to view it is prep is part of the hobby of RPGs, but not directly part of the play of RPGs.

 

[Reynard]

People can discuss what they want and how, but I don't actually find the question of whether prep is play to be especially interesting or relevant. As I have clarified, when I say "play" in the OP, I mean what happens at the table with everyone present. The question is not about defining play at all -- it is about whether the stuff you do away from the table should be primarily focused on what happens at the table. Asking whether making NPCs is "play" misses (or intentionally sidesteps) the point entirely, I think.

 

[SableWyvern]

it is about whether the stuff you do away from the table should be primarily focused on what happens at the table.

Well, I can better see where @Micah Sweet is coming from now.

As I've said, I believe that all forms of engagement have a degree of focus on play or the idea of play. But I don't think that means that "play is paramount", whereas you seem to be claiming that one position leads inexorably to the next.

If the question in the OP is whether time and resources should be allocated to engagement based primarily on the degree to which those resources will pay-off during play, then my answer is, "If that's the criteria you want to use, then yes; and if it's not, then no." It seems to me that this is the only possible answer.

All engagement relates to play, but you can't just assign a universal value to engagement by rating how much benefit it provides in play. If task A provides lots of benefit in play, but is boring and frustrating for you to do, you probably shouldn't prioritise doing that thing. If task B creates a small amount of benefit in play, but is fun for you, then it sounds like a good thing to do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I probably shouldn't speak for @hawkeyefan, but I did not take this from their comments (and I've butted heads with them enough that no one is going to accuse me of being biased in favour of reading generously).

There are a number of semi-related topics going on in this thread:

1. The OP's question: Is play paramount.
2. A weaker version of the OP's question: Is everything we do with TTRPGs related in some way to play or the idea of play?
   • Related, are games designed to played (ie, is their intended purpose to be played at the table)?
3. Defining play: Does any form of engagement count as play, or only the times we're actually "playing a session".

From what I can tell, Hawekeyfan, like me, is answering yes to question two and, with respect to three, considers play to be engaging in a session. I see no answer at all to question one in Hawkeyfan's posts.

When I formed my opinion on question 2, it occurred to me that answering yes here could be used as the foundation for an argument that the answer to question 1 is also yes. However, for myself, I rejected that, and do not believe that a yes to 2 necessitates a yes to 1. That the concept of play informs other things thatwe do does not make play universally more important. It just means it informs what we do.

For any given individual, designing worlds, prepping campaigns, watching actual plays, reading rulebooks, creating characters or anything else may be paramount. there is no objective measure by which anyone can say they're wrong, or that something else should be paramount, or that something else is paramount. Further, I posit that this position is entirely compatible with the belief that the design intent of these games is that they are to be played (and any exceptions not designed to be played are, IMO, probably not actually games) and that (with perhaps extremely rare exceptions) the concept of play influences all the ways in which we engage with TTRPGs.

Fair enough. For my part, I believe the answer to 1 is "no", and I'm not at all sure the answer to 2 is "yes", based on the many books I own and have read with no real belief I would end up using them in a game.

 

[SableWyvern]

Fair enough. For my part, I believe the answer to 1 is "no", and I'm not at all sure the answer to 2 is "yes", based on the many books I own and have read with no real belief I would end up using them in a game.

While you're reading them, do you not imagine what it would be like to run them or play in them, though (even if you know it will likely never happen)?

Maybe you don't but, for me, it feels impossible to read an RPG rulebook and not think about what play would be like. They are games, made to be played, and that's the lens I view them though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

While you're reading them, do you not imagine what it would be like to run them or play in them, though (even if you know it will likely never happen)?

Maybe you don't but, for me, it feels impossible to read an RPG rulebook and not think about what play would be like. They are games, made to be played, and that's the lens I view them though.

I do, but if I have no expectation of play, I can't consider them part of it.