Edit – I’ve been discussing this online and I don’t entirely agree with it myself anymore.
Edit 2 — Though it’s of course more complicated than that. Those discussions have shown up a number of related issues with reading vs playing (especially wrt designing-to-read). A good article on some of them, which Pandatheist on Twitter reminded me about, is Jason Manola’s RPG books as fiction.
A while back, David Perry said on Twitter “… I think we should not place the act of playing a game/content on a separate, higher plane of value than the act of reading and appreciating it on an individual level.”
I’m uncomfortable with this.
I associate writing-rpgs-to-be-read with the hobby’s nadir in the 1990s, when non-gaming writers churned out splatbook after splatbook with no understanding of play implications. It lead to a hobby with little value to me. I don’t want to see that happen again.
And this is a risk, because the reading-rpgs hobby is naturally robust, while the playing-rpgs hobby is much more fragile. It’s easy to buy and read rpg books; it’s hard to find good players, harder to find good GMs, and hard for busy adults to find time and space to play. Anything that moves rpg materials away from supporting the act of play is, consequently, risky to the playing-rpgs hobby.
Another problem is that people who read and theorise about rpgs, but don’t play them (or don’t play the kinds of rpgs they theorise about), can also damage the online discussion of rpgs. It’s very easy for them to get lost in theorising, compared to people who encounter the reality of actual play on a regular basis.
It follows from the above that we might need to place the playing-rpgs hobby “on a higher plane” in order to protect it.