Play Is Paramount: Discuss

[SableWyvern]

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

It's not part of play. Many of us vocally agree here.

But the way we engage with the material always, or almost always, involves the concept of play at some level. The material cannot easily be divorced entirely from the idea of play, and that idea influences the nature of our interactions.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Same here.

But the lair is there for the PCs to visit and maybe all die in.

Not necessarily. The lair might be there for a host of other reasons which may or may not ever impact any PCs. That said....

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.

.....at-table play is still the most important element of the whole thing. Though perhaps sub-optimal, you can play without worldbuilding, you can play without minis, you can even play without prep, but if you never play at all then there is no game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Same here.

Not necessarily. The lair might be there for a host of other reasons which may or may not ever impact any PCs. That said....

.....at-table play is still the most important element of the whole thing. Though perhaps sub-optimal, you can play without worldbuilding, you can play without minis, you can even play without prep, but if you never play at all then there is no game.

But, you can derive a lot of enjoyment out of the hobby even if you don't play (or rarely play). I only ever play once or twice a month at best, but I engaged with the hobby, with great enjoyment, every day.

 

[SableWyvern]

.....at-table play is still the most important element of the whole thing. Though perhaps sub-optimal, you can play without worldbuilding, you can play without minis, you can even play without prep, but if you never play at all then there is no game.

This seems to pre-suppose that play is necessary.

For me, it is. But it's not some universal truth -- if someone gets all the enjoyment they want or need out of non-play elements, then clearly play is not the most important element for them..

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

To RPGs. Role-Playing Games. If you’re not playing, then there is no game. One may be engaging in the hobby in some way, and that way may be totally satisfying to the person. I’m not arguing about preferences here.

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.

Yes. Like me setting up the goals for my soccer team. Engaging with soccer. Arguably essential for soccer to function.

But not playing soccer.

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.

I think it kind of has to. I mean, let’s say I read an RPG sourcebook… something with a lot of setting detail. Even if I’m reading that material with no intention of using it in play, I’m still going to engage with it with some imagined game in mind. Because that’s the way it’s written.

And I don’t just mean the obvious things like stat-blocks and the like, though those are certainly a part of it. But more importantly, how situations are presented but not resolved. A book for gaming is (most likely, one would hope) presented with gaming in mind. The conflicts introduced won’t be resolved in the book… because they’re meant to be resolved in play.

So even if I’m reading such a book with no intention to actually play, I’m still going to imagine how it would go in play. I mean… how can you not?

As for something even more active like making NPCs… I mean, if it’s not for play, then what would it be for? I mean… I’ve made up my fair share of fictional characters over the years. But what would make one an NPC as opposed to just a fictional character?

This seems to pre-suppose that play is necessary.

For me, it is. But it's not some universal truth -- if someone gets all the enjoyment they want or need out of non-play elements, then clearly play is not the most important element for them..

I’m thinking of the difference between spectator and participant. I watch baseball. I enjoy it, I follow my team and the standings, I pay attention to how players are doing, I watch highlights. I don’t play baseball… but clearly I’m engaging with the hobby.

For me to do that… for me to be able to enjoy the hobby, there needs to be a game that happens. There needs to be players and umpires and coaches and so on to facilitate play for me to enjoy.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It's not that cooking is eating. It's that assembling the ingredients is part of cooking.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

But those logical details ARE part of the play experience. When the PCs approach the region with the dragon's lair, they will see the impact it is having on the region and that impact affects the play experience. The local ecology and economy are going to be present in play, and to me at least, it's every bit as important as the lair experience with the dragon.

 

[SableWyvern]

It's not that cooking is eating. It's that assembling the ingredients is part of cooking.

But in the analogy that was being used, playing the game was being treated as eating, not cooking.

If you were to use cooking as the basis of analogy, and thus compare playing to cooking instead of to eating, then assembling the ingredients in your kitchen would certainly be part of cooking, but the analogy being made would be that shopping for those ingredients is not cooking and reading recipes online isn't cooking.

When someone tells you that prep isn't play, they mean it in the same way that someone means cooking isn't eating and shopping isn't cooking. The fact that you can come up with different analogies with different messages doesn't change that.

 

[Maxperson]

But in the analogy that was being used, playing the game was eating, not cooking.

If you were to use cooking as the analogy, then assembling the ingredients in your kitchen would certainly be part of cooking, but the analogy being made would be that shopping for those ingredients is not cooking and reading recipes online isn't cooking.

When someone tells you that prep isn't play, they mean it in the same way that someone means cooking isn't eating and shopping isn't cooking. The fact that you can come up with different analogies with different messages doesn't change that.

Hmm. To me the PCs are just another ingredient added to the mix. A dash of lava in a cave here, a pinch of red dragon there, toss in some PCs and viola!