Design equals... Play?

[Caldis]

To take the superhero example a little further, though, suppose you had simply been given the narrative power to define your superpowers on the hop?

My current thinking on this is the only difference between this example and mine is a matter of time.  It certainly resonates with me as being superior because there is less of the stoppage of play but the difference still remains.  At some point the people involved are thinking about what they want to bring into the game (even if only for an instant) and at another they are expressing it in the game.  


Because roleplaying is a social interaction with groups of people it requires that ideas be communicated in some form (email would be a valid form).  This is similar to any media or art form, ideas are important but they are not the art form.  What is printed on the page or captured on film or painted on canvas are expressions of ideas in the creators mind just as role play is an expression of those involved.

What sets role play apart as a distinct expression of ideas is exploration and specifically the elements of exploration as well as the shared interaction of the participants.  Character, situation, and setting are required elements with color and theme being added as necessary.

[ffilz]

2) However, if the player were to describe his character's career at the table with the other players, that would be play.

I don't think this would be play. The character isn't being inserted into the SIS yet. Now you could modify the Traveler character generation so that it was play. If one player generates an event as part of his life path generation, and that affects the other players life paths, then it could be play, because then SIS is being created.

So if we're looking for ways to identify prep and play based on the rules, I would look for rules that support interraction between the players, and creation of SIS.

Players deciding as a group what characters to create could be play, but if they then independantly design the character they have chosen from the group created set, I would think they have retreated back to prep.

Frank

[M. J. Young]

Disagreeing with Frank, I would say that Traveler character creation done in open form is as much play as any moment in-game when one player is in the spotlight. It's also functionally the same as any mechanic in which one player has the opportunity to define aspects of the shared imagined space. I agree that it's borderline, but I think the revealing of the character to the other players is play. You're introducing the character into the shared imagined space--in the same way that my reading my journal to the players is play, because it brings everyone back to the shared imagined space.

As to play-by-e-mail, play-by-mail, and play-by-post games, the medium must be recognized. In face-to-face play, I speak into the shared imagined space, and that is how my imaginings are conveyed to others. These alternative media use writing to speak into the shared imagined space, so when I write my entry and hit send, that has the function of contributing to the shared imagined space. The process of everyone "hearing" and incorporating my thoughts into their versions is slower, but it is the same process.

Chris, I agree with what you're saying. I think (it's been a couple days since I read it) that my impression of the original question was that we wanted to know whether you could tell whether something was or was not play by reading the rules. I'd say normally you probably can, although the Traveller example suggests that there will be some aspects of some games for which the rules are not clear as to whether they are or are not. You could create a Traveller character by yourself, or alone with the referee, or with the group corporately. John makes a good case for the idea that if you do it with the group, in that you're making the rolls and introducing everyone to your character's history as you do so, you're playing--particularly if they are also doing so. You might from that argue that group character generation might always be play--if I'm rolling up a new D&D character and the rest of the players are making suggestions for what I should take and such, arguably we are cooperatively adding this character to the shared imagined space as we create him.

So I'll concede the point. Unless the rules make it clear that something is to be done with the group or apart from the group, it could be either, and you'd have to observe how it is actually done to know.

--M. J. Young

[ffilz]

Ok, I can mostly buy that, but part of what I was thinking on the Traveler generation is that I'm not sure that as you're generating the character that you really are introducing it into the SIS. The character still exists in a vacuum. I guess if you fix the number of terms (duration of the lifepath), you could relate things to the campaign history (gee, you got that award for Meritorious Combat Under Fire in 2388, so you must have been involved with the Belter Rebelion). But in normal Traveler generation, you don't know when you're going to stop the lifepath generation, so you can't tie events as you generate them to the SIS. Only at the end, when you can tie the events to particular dates could you go back and determine when they happened.

So in this way, I think group character design where the players say "Gee, why don't you be my brother and you learned to be a fire mage in the Academy while I swashed my buckles around town..." is more in the line of play.

Traveler is definitely a good example to examine to make these distinctions.

Frank

[timfire]

I think ... that my impression of the original question was that we wanted to know whether you could tell whether something was or was not play by reading the rules.

Actually, the original question was whether designing rules - meaning formulating a game system - could be considered play. That topic morphed into whether game prep could be considered play. I consider those to be seperate topics.

Anyway, I think this thread has run its course. People are welcome to branch off, as usually, but as the starter of this thread I'm calling it closed.