Play Is Paramount: Discuss

[dragoner]

True. Pedantry is cringe, too. Might as well turn off the internet.

... or leave the hobby.

 

[Agamon]

... or leave the hobby.

If only such things were limited to the hobby

 

[prabe]

Oh I meant the comparisons to other forms of play rather than this strained cooking metaphor.

But straining your ingredients is like curating game stuff for your table!

 

[dragoner]

If only such things were limited to the hobby

They aren't, turning turtle is a successful tactic though.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh I meant the comparisons to other forms of play rather than this strained cooking metaphor.

Oh. I've skipped some posts. Do you have a post number so that I can go look and give you an answer?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Oh. I've skipped some posts. Do you have a post number so that I can go look and give you an answer?

Here you go. The first one was a post in which I’d also quoted you… you responded only to the part addressed to you which was about the clumsiness of the cooking analogy.

These are about comparing play of a game with prep for play of a game and then using elements of a game for another, unintended form of play.

When I set up the soccer field for my kid’s league, was I playing soccer?

When I was a kid and used my grandfather’s chess set as action figures to act out little made up scenarios, was I playing chess?

The following includes an example that kind of points to the absurdity of describing all engagement with a hobby or activity as “play”.

No one is arguing that the hobby is not being engaged in some way.

It’s about defining any and all engagement as “play”. Which seems to obfuscate more than anything.

Like, if I said I saw Stephen Hawking play baseball one time, I’d expect some confusion. If I clarified by saying “oh, well… he was talking about baseball, so that means he was playing” people would look at me like I was insane.

It’s just silly.

I think that the elements of RPGs are distinct, and that those distinctions matter. That prep is one thing and then play at the table is another. When discussing these things, those distinctions matter. Any given game may expect prep of one type, and then play will be something very different. And then another game may expect an entirely different type of prep, and yield play that’s also very different.

To simply classify these things all as play obfuscates rather than illuminates and seems to be supported solely to assuage those who think their preferences are being attacked.

Aside from that, I don’t really follow the reason for lumping prep of all sorts and analysis of all sorts and discussion of all sorts as well as radically different activities like miniature painting and so on under the umbrella of “RPG Play”.

Can you explain what purpose that serves?

 

[aramis erak]

Cooking involves getting out the ingredients(game prep) and chopping/mincing/dicing/etc. the ingredients(more game prep) and then tossing all of those ingredients(game prep of individual monsters, traps etc. into a dungeon) in with the final ingredient(PCs) and then heating, cooling, etc.(group play).

Cooking is the perfect example of how D&D play works. Prep is play, too.

Cooking is not eating in the same way prep is not playing.

 

[Maxperson]

Cooking is not eating in the same way prep is not playing.

Play = cooking, not eating. The finished dish is the story that everyone has experienced after the end of the session.

 

[aramis erak]

Play = cooking, not eating. The finished dish is the story that everyone has experienced after the end of the session.

rejected as silliness, Maxperson.

 

[Maxperson]

rejected as silliness, Maxperson.

If you think it's silly, then I think you don't really understand what I'm saying.