The Food Analogy

[Reynard]

This is mostly musing and hoping for pleasant conversation and light debate.

I really like the broad food based analogy* for RPGs. Like all analogies, it isn't perfect, but I think it hits pretty well overall.

GMing IS, in fact, a lot like cooking -- and that means GMs range from "toss it in the microwave" to "Michelin Star Chef" in the effort they put in and skill they show. Preparing some games is more like making classic breakfast -- simple but when done right, oh so satisfying -- while others are like quality BBQ -- lots of work and it takes real time, but the results are stupendous -- and yet others have evoke complex recipes with exotic ingredients.

Players, too, fit easily into the food analogy. Some have dietary restrictions. Others are willing to try anything. Some bring their own salt shaker to the table, while others critique every bite.

And if playing RPGs are like food -- cooking and eating, specifically -- then RPGs as products have interesting analogous forms: from a pile of fresh ingredients, to a bag of frozen burritos.

What do you think of the food anaology for RPGs? Do you consider a session like a meal? As a GM, do you think of yourself as something of a chef? If you don't like the food analogy, what analogy do you prefer.

Let's chat.

*or metaphor? I always forget.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

With gaming's communal story-telling, I'm reminded of the old Stone Soup folktale (beautifully portrayed in Jim Henson's Storyteller series):

A tramp knocked at the farmhouse door. "I can't let you in, for my husband is not at home," said the woman of the house. "And I haven't a thing to offer you," she added. Her voice showed unmasked scorn for the man she held to be a beggar.

"Then you could make use of my soup stone," he replied, pulling from his pocket what appeared to be an ordinary stone.

"Soup stone?" said she, suddenly showing interest in the tattered stranger.

"Oh yes," he said. "If I just had a potful of water and a fire, I'd show you how it works. This stone and boiling water make the best soup you've ever eaten. Your husband would thank you for the good supper, if you'd just let me in and put my stone to use over your fire."

The woman's suspicions yielded to her desire for an easy meal, and she opened the door. A pot of water was soon brought to a boil. The tramp dropped in his stone, then tasted the watery gruel. "It needs salt, and a bit of barley," he said. "And some butter, too, if you can spare it." The woman obliged him by adding the requested ingredients. He tasted it again. "Much better!" he said. "But a good soup needs vegetables and potatoes. Are there none in your cellar?"

"Oh yes," she said, her enthusiasm for the miracle soup growing, and she quickly found a generous portion of potatoes, turnips, carrots, and beans.

After the mixture had boiled awhile, the man tasted it again. "It's almost soup," he said. "The stone has not failed us. But some chicken broth and chunks of meat would do it well."

The woman, recognizing the truth of his claim, ran to the chicken yard, returning soon with a freshly slaughtered fowl. "Soup stone, do your thing!" she said, adding the chicken to the stew.

When their noses told them that the soup was done, the woman dished up a healthy portion for her guest and for herself. They ate their fill, and -- thanks to the magic stone -- there was still a modest bowlful left over for her husband's supper.

"My thanks for the use of your pot and your fire," said the tramp as evening approached, and he sensed that the husband soon would be arriving home. He fished his stone from the bottom of the pot, licked it clean, and put it back into his pocket.

"Do come again," said the thankful woman.

"I will indeed," said the tramp, and disappeared into the woods.

The GM's magic stone is only the start of a really good Stone Soup. The players' contributions, the role of chance in the dice, that's what makes a truly delicious Stone Soup.

 

[Umbran]

What do you think of the food anaology for RPGs?

I think it is a useful analogy for discussion - for example, when someone fails to understand people having individual restrictions in how they play, pointing to allergies or other food restrictions can be useful to help them understand.

Do you consider a session like a meal? As a GM, do you think of yourself as something of a chef?

No. I use the analogy often enough in discussion, but I don't usually think in terms of that analogy in practice, outside discussion.

 

[Deset Gled]

Like any analogy it works to a point, then it doesn't.

One area where I think this one breaks down is the comparison to dietary restrictions. Some are choices. Some are mild. Some are severe. I know a kid who refuses to eat peanut butter. They just don't like it. I had a coworker a few jobs ago that had to be hospitalized when he unknowingly ate chicken with peanut butter in the sauce. He had a severe dietary restriction. I play with a guy who says peanut butter tastes itchy. He has a mild allergy. We do our best to accommodate his needs, but don't have to worry about him dying if we cross contaminate.

I know people who won't play certain games because they don't like them. I don't know of anyone that's ever had to be hospitalized because they accidentally played an RPG they didn't like. I know some people who are better at playing non-preferred games than others, but it's pretty rare someone can claim they have a medical reason why you should play one RPG instead of another.

 

[Blue]

I see the basics of it, but I don't like it very much. Basically because the roles don't make sense. GM as cook and players as consumers is a really old-school way of thinking about it. The GM does not have a meal without the players, they cannot be "the cook".

I'm not sure how to solve it. It's not a commercial kitchen with everyone following the executive chef. It's not a pot-luck where everyone coordinate but brings their own thing.

Hmm, maybe if we take it back a step. The GM is the ingredients. What is at hand to cook with. If all you have is some stale saltine crackers and half a jar of of chives, the resulting dish isn't going to be much no matter the skill of the chefs.

And that analogy puts the players as a bunch of people hanging out together in the kitchen chatting and preparing food. Alice, Bob, and Charlie are riffing back and forth on an entree with Danielle acting as soux chef, with Edvard making a dessert that everyone will enjoy while checking that everyone is okay with peanuts. And everyone having as much fun talking as cooking.

But even that isn't right, because it captures the GM creating the context and situation that the players create the story in, but it doesn't reflect how the GM enables and reigns in the players, how they move onto the next course or challenge, how they improv a dessert when it turns out that the cake was dropped.

Eh, I think the analogy hides more than it illuminates because it takes the GM's large and important role but then consumes how the players are the ones that give it shape and direction and movement.

 

[Reynard]

Like any analogy it works to a point, then it doesn't.

One area where I think this one breaks down is the comparison to dietary restrictions. Some are choices. Some are mild. Some are severe. I know a kid who refuses to eat peanut butter. They just don't like it. I had a coworker a few jobs ago that had to be hospitalized when he unknowingly ate chicken with peanut butter in the sauce. He had a severe dietary restriction. I play with a guy who says peanut butter tastes itchy. He has a mild allergy. We do our best to accommodate his needs, but don't have to worry about him dying if we cross contaminate.

I know people who won't play certain games because they don't like them. I don't know of anyone that's ever had to be hospitalized because they accidentally played an RPG they didn't like. I know some people who are better at playing non-preferred games than others, but it's pretty rare someone can claim they have a medical reason why you should play one RPG instead of another.

Of course you can stretch an analogy to the breaking point, but one wonders if there is any benefit in doing so. What can we glean by really testing the food analogy with respect to dietary restrictions?

 

[Blue]

I know of people who won't play certain games because they don't like them. I don't know of anyone that's ever had to be hospitalized because they accidentally played an RPG they didn't like. I know some people who are better at playing non-preferred games than others, but it's pretty rare someone can claim they have a medical reason why you should play one RPG instead of another.

I had one player who told me my description the previous session of (TW: bugs) a cavern absolutely creeping with roach-like bugs swarming over everything ended up giving him nightmares.

I'd argue that's at least in the realm of my lactose intolerance where if I eat something like mashed potatoes made with butter and milk I'll be bloated and gassy for hours.

But it's just an analogy, it's not expected to be perfect.

 

[Reynard]

I see the basics of it, but I don't like it very much. Basically because the roles don't make sense. GM as cook and players as consumers is a really old-school way of thinking about it. The GM does not have a meal without the players, they cannot be "the cook".

I'm not sure how to solve it. It's not a commercial kitchen with everyone following the executive chef. It's not a pot-luck where everyone coordinate but brings their own thing.

Hmm, maybe if we take it back a step. The GM is the ingredients. What is at hand to cook with. If all you have is some stale saltine crackers and half a jar of of chives, the resulting dish isn't going to be much no matter the skill of the chefs.

And that analogy puts the players as a bunch of people hanging out together in the kitchen chatting and preparing food. Alice, Bob, and Charlie are riffing back and forth on an entree with Danielle acting as soux chef, with Edvard making a dessert that everyone will enjoy while checking that everyone is okay with peanuts. And everyone having as much fun talking as cooking.

But even that isn't right, because it captures the GM creating the context and situation that the players create the story in, but it doesn't reflect how the GM enables and reigns in the players, how they move onto the next course or challenge, how they improv a dessert when it turns out that the cake was dropped.

Eh, I think the analogy hides more than it illuminates because it takes the GM's large and important role but then consumes how the players are the ones that give it shape and direction and movement.

I see what you are saying but I think in most (not all) circumstances, the players are more like the folks standing around snacking on cheese and sipping wine while the GM cooks. The meal itself, and the joy found in it, comes from everyone's involvement, but in most games I have experienced, the players do not add much during the preparation process aside from indicating their preferences (which is, to be clear, very important).

 

[Blue]

I see what you are saying but I think in most (not all) circumstances, the players are more like the folks standing around snacking on cheese and sipping wine while the GM cooks. The meal itself, and the joy found in it, comes from everyone's involvement, but in most games I have experienced, the players do not add much during the preparation process aside from indicating their preferences (which is, to be clear, very important).

I have to disagree. Because "preparation" in this case is "the primary making of the meal", and in an RPG that can't be anything but actual play -- where it all comes together. GM prep is more like shopping for ingredients and meal planning. It's getting everything you need for that, but it is not that.