In (rantish) Interactive Fantasy and Dysfunction, Wayne a.k.a. Cadriel wrote: What I'm getting from your whole post (I picked a line that really exemplified it well) is that you like Exploration of Setting. In fact, you seem to like Exploration of Setting so much that you can enjoy an otherwise dysfunctional game because of it. I used to be a major fan of RPG settings; there was a time when, indeed, Exploration of Setting jazzed me as much as it seems to do for you.

It's an interesting question.

My current method of thinking about games is to see them as a medium for creative expression. The act of creation is, I think, actual play.

I'll violate my analogy rule for clarity: the game book are the paints, the session is the painting.

Imagined play would probably count--but I don't think reading a book does that, mostly. And I wouldn't say dissecting a combat system is the same as playing the game in that sense (in the sense I'm talking about).

Perhaps curiously, I don't think one need play a game to *review* it. To me a review based on actual play seems like the most biased way possible to examine a rules set.

So I don't think reading a game is the same as playing it--although a sufficiently detailed thought experiment *would* count for *my* purposes ... so if people are commonly doing that, then okay.

-Marco

When MJ posted this, bells went off in my head -- this is what I was like, this explains why I used to buy everything game-related I could get my hands on, even games I knew (KNEW) I'd never, not-in-a-million-years ever, ever play.

I still have shelves full of game books that I know without much doubt will never be used in actual play, including whole games and game systems that will never be used or played. I've got Fading Suns and Mummy, for example, and I really like them both -- but I am betting they'll never be played. Elsewhere in my collection is an ancient copy of Call of Cthulhu, an old version of RIFTS and a couple supplements for it, ICE's MERP game and a pile of supplements, a copy of Elric, and so forth. All these games have been collecting dust for over a decade.

A vague realization of what MJ has brought to the fore is also why I stopped buying game books: I want Rune, I want TROS, I want Pendragon, I want etc. But I know I'll never get around to them all. I'll buy them, read them once, and they'll sit and do nothing for me afterwards.

In fact, in regards to the new version of D&D, I don't buy new material anymore, despite my nigh-on complete collection of "Basic" D&D, and both 1st and 2nd edition AD&D books. I'll never, not-in-a-million-years use it all.

Thus for 3E I've bought three books: the core rules. That's all I'll ever likely need. If something REALLY catches my eye, I'll purchase it, but its got to really do so (though I still have one indulgence: Dragon magazine).

And yet, even having known that, I've fretted over not having enough to purchase all the new books that come out, while at the same time wandering around bookstores looking at both game and fiction books and finding myself totally uninterested in actually purchasing anything. This is why the bells went off -- because I understand my own behavior and reactions now.

To tie all this in with the discussion, let's look at what Marco states about all this in regards to games and reading game books:

Marco wrote: Imagined play would probably count--but I don't think reading a book does that, mostly.

Perhaps curiously, I don't think one need play a game to *review* it. To me a review based on actual play seems like the most biased way possible to examine a rules set.

I'm a collector too, and buy stuff that I know I'm not going to play. Generally, I buy only core rules for games -- the only times I buy supplements are when I really, really like a system (e.g., Sorcerer, Buffy) or when a game's supplements are well-done enough that they can be used as resources for other games (e.g., many GURPS supplements).

I like seeing different ways of doing things -- so I'm a sucker for any system that has a "unique" element to it. I'm also a sucker for anything with "historical significance" -- e.g., original D&D, T&T, Monsters! Monsters!, Runequest...

Reading can be a substitute for playing... especially when you're isolated. These days, with 'net gaming, it's a lot easier, but when I first started gaming in the early '80s, I had no 'net access, and I lived on a farm, 2 miles from my nearest neighbor. And I wasn't old enough to drive yet. The nearest people I knew who also played D&D other than my brother were 30 miles away.

My brothers were 6 and 8 years older than me. I started gaming at 10, at which point my oldest brother was already in the Navy. My other brother moved out when I was 12... and we didn't move off the farm back into a town until I was 16. So for four years, reading gaming books and Dragon was all the "gaming" I had.

On reviews, I have to think that any review which doesn't include some actual play is incomplete -- things can look good on paper and not work out in play, or look bad on paper but work out in play. However, I do think that any review should definitely include a read-through, so the reviewer knows that he/she is reviewing the actual system, and not a house-ruled version or the like.

--Travis

Heh. I do this as well but I take it a step further. I rarely ever read the games I buy. I just like to have them.

greyorm wrote: Ok, seriously, none of this is BAD, per se, and I'm not intending to slam anyone here by doing it -- but recognizing that this is going on is a huge leap in understanding for me.

In my personal experience, reading a game is a substitute for play the way watching a movie can substitute for reading a book - they are related pleasures, but they are different ones, and one can carry out and enjoy both. :)

Reading a game can be a pleasure all its own, whether it's the "fiddly bits" of new mechanics, color and setting of a new game set, or anything else that might catch my fancy. And as long as I can have pleasure doing that, I've "justified" my purchase. I pull some game books off the shelf to reference, to get ideas, or just out of boredom. Others I didn't like so much, and don't pull out so often, but that's part of the "gamble" of buying books.

I have hope of using some of them in games one day. I have no belief I will, but still hope (I have dreadful luck finding gamers, in part due to a social dysfunction of mine that makes it diffuclt for me to actually approach people and initiate contact). Even without that hope, however, my games are justified as purchases. Just because I've never used something in a book doesn't mean it's a wasted purchase.

(Of course, though I think I was that way at one point, I'm not one of those people who "needs" to get book X or book Y for game ABC. I look for the ones that sincerely interest me, or that have a chance of interesting me. If I didn't randomly stab in the dark at books, I would probably not own some of the stinkers, but I also wouldn't own some of the games that I love the most, the games that I truly hope I will one day be able to play or run with a group).

I'm babbling. I hope I didn't stray too far from the mark.

here's a couple ideas that srping to mind about reading game texts in place of actual play...

first, there's the issue of buying all the suppliments even when unable to use them. to a certain extent, I think that should be encouraged. the lightning bolt struck me early last year when I read Robin's Laws; he wrote that if you are using an original gameworld as opposed to something from non-game-related fiction, players should be allowed and encouraged to read as much of the game material as possible, because it helps to understand the game world.

the unfortunate obstacle to this is the use of "GM only metaplots"; GMs are encouraged by game publishers to stick to the metaplot, while each game suppliment is seeded with "GM secrets". the comical thing about this is that if gamers followed the advice of game publishers, sales would go down, because GMs would forbid players from exploring the suppliments.

outside of the realm of reading game books for their indirect benefits to play, there is also the issue of people reading gamebooks they will never play. the implied question in marco's post is "why do people read game books instead of either playing the game or reading an actual novel?" he hints at an answer when he talks about "thought experiments". although most people play "what if" with ordinary novels, a game suppliment encourages this far more; when you look at lists of "classes", races, spells, gadgets, super powers, or what have you, it's pretty much implied that you are supposed to imagine possible combinations of those features... and when you read about critical situations brewing in a setting's backstory, it's pretty natural to start playing "what if?" with all the potential flashpoints.

game books are actually much better for this than ordinary novels. a novel -- well, a good one -- only presents information relevant to the story. playing "what if" games in your head using an ordinary novel is thus more arbitrary than playing "what if" with statted-out entities. it's more satisfying to spin a tale from a thoroughly-described background than it is to rewrite someone else's plot, because it feels more like "this really could happen" (within the context of the game world.) rewriting the ending to the Lord of the Rings just feels like a personal argument with Tolkein (at least, it did before game materials made it easier...)

I've got a big stack of Wraith: the Oblivion supplements sitting on my book shelf which I know for sure will never see the light of day. Nevertheless, I bought them because I was fascinated with the setting, the character possibilities, the art, and just the ephemeral self-guided tour through that universe without the confines of a linear story. I can flip through the book section by section out of order, revisit one chapter or passage of flavor text without having to remind myself of context.

For me, the appeal of reading game books is similar to the appeal of writing game settings. I write games because I love coming up with settings, characters and self-contained scenes but have no particular talent or desire for thousand-page spanning sagas. I think that prediliction in writing style is what makes core books and supplements such intriguing reading material. To me, anyway.

I wonder... what sort of market (if any) do you think there would be for "setting/books" marketed to a non-gamer crowd? There's enough of us who enjoy reading works of fiction in what might be considered a "simulationist" rather than "narrativist" framework, yet the only place people generally WRITE like that is, well, rpg books...

As I pointed out earlier, I can be the same way as gobi when it comes to setting books. Yum... all that material without a story to get in the way.

I don't think I'd go so far as to call reading a "simultionist play style" but I do think game readers may share some of the underlying impulses that drive simulationist play. I also think reading a book can substitute for actual play of the game, if the reader has sufficient gaming background for it.

That said, I've never been able to read RPGs just for the sake of reading. My usual reading method has me creating a character, then examining the rest of the book in light of that character's abilities and how the rules and setting will affect or define him. Without at least that much of a tie to actual play, the reading seems pretty tiresome to me.

Actually, this seems to back up reading as play, since my preferred mode tends toward Sim:Char, not system or setting so much...

Hello,

This thread may be of interest:

Sim essay: reading the game is the start of play?

Also, this topic strikes me as best suited for the GNS Discussion forum, so I'm moving it there.

Best,
Ron

Lxndr wrote: I wonder... what sort of market (if any) do you think there would be for "setting/books" marketed to a non-gamer crowd? There's enough of us who enjoy reading works of fiction in what might be considered a "simulationist" rather than "narrativist" framework, yet the only place people generally WRITE like that is, well, rpg books...

As I pointed out earlier, I can be the same way as gobi when it comes to setting books. Yum... all that material without a story to get in the way.

M. J. Young wrote: So I'm wondering whether reading game books and supplements is a sort of substitutionary simulationist play style.

WDFlores wrote: I don't see reading as being particularly simulationist. RPG material in the form of supplements and such are, I believe, most immediately percieved to support Sim play more than anything else because they provide a basis by which to judge the "accuracy" of Sim play in a given game world. However, I can imagine they can be used just as easily to fuel either Narrativist or Gamist play.

Hi everybody,

Unarmed, welcome to the Forge! This is a tricky topic to dive into, not only because it tickles some touchy emotions, but it also derives from several layers of discussions so far. Let's see if I can clear things up a little.

The suggestion I made in my essay doesn't say, "Reading game texts is a Simulationist act." It says, rather, "Simulationist play can incorporate reading text into the act of play, in a way that seems unlikely or impossible for Gamist or Narrativist play." In other words, everyone reads game texts. The question is whether a certain kind of reading is considered to be "playing."

And before anyone gets all excited about solo adventures and so forth, bear in mind that they require playing in a dice/Exploration sense, as if the game-author were sitting across the table from you. I'm talking about reading, per se.

Best,
Ron

M. J. Young wrote: So I'm wondering whether reading game books and supplements is a sort of substitutionary simulationist play style.