Entry tags:
Five Things Make a Post, TTRPG edition
I have been reading the TTRPG space on bluesky.
1) Everything is commercial. Soooo much "buy my thing." You might think there'd be a mix of "buy my thing" and "hey come watch/listen to our playthroughs" but no. It's all "buy my thing."
2) It's really, really hard to avoid D&D and Pathfinder.
3) I had managed to forget how wank in TTRPG spaces goes down. It's never just "D&D has taken over the hobby and that sucks." It has to include "people who play D&D are stupid/cowards/wimps/conformist shills." Possibly with a side of, "if people were paying attention to what's good, they would buy my thing..."
(I do not like D&D. I do not play D&D. I have thought many negative things about D&D, and about D&D evangelists. I have never thought the only reason people play D&D was because they were too stupid to look at other game systems. I am damn well aware there is a ton of inertia involved, plus the hassle of convincing your entire gaming group to try something different.)
4) We don't have any shared vocabulary and this is a problem. Or rather: We have some words - crunchy, rules-lite, narrative game, OSR, "role-play vs roll-play," meta-gaming, RAW, probably a few more - but we have zero agreement on what they actually mean, on which games or play styles fall under which term.
5) Unlike the fanfic communities, there has been no serious meta looking into what's changed when a former on-paper hobby went digital. There are blog posts and such, but they're scattered as hell. And 2/3 of the discussion is weird hand-wringing about what people will or won't buy, not about how the hobby itself changes when the rules are on a screen rather than paper.
+1) If there are discussion groups about TTRPGs-as-a-fandom, I can't find them. Dammit.
+2) Don't get me started on the gleeblor.
1) Everything is commercial. Soooo much "buy my thing." You might think there'd be a mix of "buy my thing" and "hey come watch/listen to our playthroughs" but no. It's all "buy my thing."
2) It's really, really hard to avoid D&D and Pathfinder.
3) I had managed to forget how wank in TTRPG spaces goes down. It's never just "D&D has taken over the hobby and that sucks." It has to include "people who play D&D are stupid/cowards/wimps/conformist shills." Possibly with a side of, "if people were paying attention to what's good, they would buy my thing..."
(I do not like D&D. I do not play D&D. I have thought many negative things about D&D, and about D&D evangelists. I have never thought the only reason people play D&D was because they were too stupid to look at other game systems. I am damn well aware there is a ton of inertia involved, plus the hassle of convincing your entire gaming group to try something different.)
4) We don't have any shared vocabulary and this is a problem. Or rather: We have some words - crunchy, rules-lite, narrative game, OSR, "role-play vs roll-play," meta-gaming, RAW, probably a few more - but we have zero agreement on what they actually mean, on which games or play styles fall under which term.
5) Unlike the fanfic communities, there has been no serious meta looking into what's changed when a former on-paper hobby went digital. There are blog posts and such, but they're scattered as hell. And 2/3 of the discussion is weird hand-wringing about what people will or won't buy, not about how the hobby itself changes when the rules are on a screen rather than paper.
+1) If there are discussion groups about TTRPGs-as-a-fandom, I can't find them. Dammit.
+2) Don't get me started on the gleeblor.

no subject
I know,zero about this topic and I'm intrigued by
I'd be interested in any number of meanings
no subject
The lack of consensus is in what counts as proper role-playing, what is "just" rolling dice, how much record-keeping is appropriate (or required) for a proper game, and so on.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
...And yes. Very few of the hot debates of today are notably different from the hot debates of the 70s and 80s.
The key difference is "internet" and every time we make progress on debating how that works in gaming, or doesn't work in gaming, or could work better in gaming - whatever platform those discussions were happening on evaporates and we lose 3-5 years of useful essays.
no subject
... there's gotta be some kind of AP/recorded play community out there. I guess they just don't share the same spaces with the designers?
no subject
no subject
But there are some examples, such as Riley Hopkins and Their Amazing Friends (the designer of Interstitial running an AP of their game), and Oathsworn (all the players/GMs are active in a subcommunity of indie ttrpg design, and they custom-built a game for their finale). Probably more than that! Those are just two that come to mind when I think about ttrpg designers.
no subject
no subject
They're all in competition with each other. They're all trying to get their channel to be the next Critical Role. (Or, that's their pie-in-the-sky dream; the vast majority are aware they are never going to be anything like Critical Role.) There are probably some Discords about the technical side of things - how to best set up your play arrangement, software to use, best schedules, what to include/not include - but there doesn't seem to be a cohesive community in public spaces.
They don't seem to think of themselves as game-players as much as "influencers." Or - they think of on-camera as the normal way to play these games; they don't look for "a group to play with" but "a group to stream with" and details about the game(s) involved are less important than finding a group with compatible schedules.
There are plenty of people who have or intend to have APs (video or podcast) in the designer spaces, but that seems to be either "I have made a game and am looking for a group to play it" or "I am/our group is wrapping up a Thing and we are looking for The Next Thing; what looks good right now?"
Also, looking at TTRPGs from the lens of "what about this will play well on camera" is weird.
no subject
Okay, this is pretty dammed backhanded in its own right. I'm aware of narrativist rpgs and sometimes play them, but I play D&D because I enjoy it, not because of inertia or hassle.
no subject
I hang out in the non-D&D corners of Bluesky as much as possible - I'm looking at several specifically not-D&D feeds. I don't run into many people who actively prefer D&D to other games, and I've been a non-D&D player for long enough that I forget they exist. (...despite the overwhelming majority of D&D players to people who play anything else.)
I see a lot of grumbling about how hard it is to find other games, or get people to play them. Also see a lot of grumbling about "my local college group/gaming store plays nothing but D&D and everyone complains about it" and/or "everyone I know who plays D&D has an elaborate set of house rules they use to change what they don't like, instead of playing another game."
I didn't intend to say "all D&D players should (want to) play something else" (except in the general fannish sense of "everyone should be watching MY favorite shows and writing fic about MY blorbos; how dare all those people write elaborate novels about characters I don't want to read").
no subject
no subject
I am currently in 4 online games a week that I found through Roll20. (I really have to drop at least one of them.) It's a little like when the library or the local game store hostsd weekly D&D games, and you can show up for that and maybe make friends and potentially wind up playing in other places.
Some of the ads for "looking for players" are wild, though. Less "post-apoc zombie hunters, thursday evenings 7pm Eastern" and more "looking for 2-3 players to feature on our weekly streaming sessions - must have good camera and video setup."
And then there's startplaying.games - for professional GMs to offer their services - often $15-$20 per player per session. (Very often there's a "first session is free" option so people can find out if the gm/game is a good fit for them. But not always.)
The bios and game listings are fascinating, in the sense of, "how the hell is this supposed to be enough info for me to decide if I want to hand this person $80/month," and that's entirely outside of "why would I pay someone for a friend activity?"
no subject
The idea that they're defaulting to stream I hadn't heard, though. Ow, my head.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Aside from the cost, from the beginning I thought D&D in all its guises was needlessly complex and that made it hostile to a good RP experience. I worked for Flying Buffalo in the early '80s, the makers of Tunnels & Trolls, and that was a lightweight system. Not the level of Melee or Wizards, but perhaps my brain is just oriented towards lighter systems.
no subject
I liked the complexity - but I learned AD&D by reading the books on my own, and there was enough content for me to really sink myself into. It took a lot of playing to realize that most people (1) do not read game rules for fun; (2) are never going to read all the rules, just the ones most relevant to the character(s) they wanted to play; (3) are not going to play with all the rules they have read, just the ones necessary for everyone at the table to more-or-less agree on what's going on.
I stopped playing D&D before 2nd edition came out. I was, of course, aware of each new edition, and the cash-grab involved in those; I have entirely lost any sense of what's considered the minimum amount of books to play. But I gather there's a whole lot more supplements these days, not the occasional "here's a photocopy of the Dragon Magazine article with the character class I want."
no subject
I don't particularly like D&D. I don't like class-level systems, flat out; the only one I find acceptable is Earthdawn and that's because a) there's actual worldbuilding about why it works that way and b) "levelling up" isn't the way you get better at thing, it's 'when you are good enough at thing you can choose to level up and unlock new things to get good at'. I have reams of comments about the failings of D&D as a system (some of which are neatly summed up by the current GM of my in-person group as "D&D is allergic to flavor").
What is my current in-person table playing? D&D, lightly hacked to stink less on the actual personality available on the character sheet front. And it's fucking great, because the campaign is built as the sort of thing D&D is made for ("people who are epic-hero exceptional and need to save the world via a variety of mechanisms that substantially include combat"), because we've built the flavor hacks, and, fundamentally, because we've got a solid roleplaying table.
The same table has also played other systems, mostly what I call "sloppy GURPS" ("we have character sheets in GURPS in case we need to roll checks on something but otherwise we're just playing"). I might see if we can put together an Earthdawn one-shot sometime if we want a break or want to play down extra people (or down the GM), or some other things. But at the same time it's hard enough to assemble our five adults for the game we're already doing.
My other current game plays Deliria and that is a hell of a lot of fun. It's the sort of system I prefer, but alas it was not popular enough to get a second edition to clean out the jank so we have to houserule a lot.
D&D was my ... third? Fourth? major system pickup. (Shadowrun, Earthdawn, the World of Darkness starting with Vampire, then D&D. WIth a sidebar into Paranoia on the way there but that wasn't a system to me such as a howling descent into madness. :D ) Doing my own game design meant I had to shake the idea that I needed super detailed combat rules for a game that shouldn't be combat-focused, but it wasn't D&D that got me into that mindset, it's every major system.
(I settled on "look if you have one challenge to handle a social conversation or pick a lock, you have one challenge to figure out how your fight goes, not a round-by-round bullshit", for the record.)
no subject
PbtA also kicked off a set of GMless games, starting with Dream Apart/Dream Askew and the "Belonging Outside Belonging"/"No Dice No Masters" games, probably kicked off by the PbtA setup where the GM does not roll dice. (GM does stuff, just not stuff with randomizers attacked. So - "the werewolf attacks" and it's going to do 2 harm unless you do something to stop it.)
no subject
no subject
I'd also say there's still a lot of the TTRPG space that has consciously forgotten that Dungeons and Dragons evolved out of the tabletop wargame space, but still has the echo of that in their design and mechanics, even if they use different dice, different randomization methods, or other such things that make them appear superficially different. Which makes a lot of the wank about how you choose to use your randomizers and skills, rather than fundamentally different forms of gameplay. If there was a shared vocabulary, or at least nailing down definitions enough to make it clear which things applied where, I think we could do a lot of classification and organization, so that you could make it much clearer which game systems are closer or farther away from each other, and players could figure out which games are more likely to appeal to them and which ones aren't, without having to make the investment of time and/or money.
I do agree there should be more talking about on-line gaming, but less about the streamers and the cameras and that kind of thing and more about "what kind of neat tricks could you pull with a game or its various elements in a digital copy of a book, or an adventure book, or even how to make the rules work better when you can just Ctrl+F to find the thing you're looking for, and what kinds of resources do you have access to when you can play games over the Internet, in Tabletop Simulator, or other such spaces that make the table digital?" There's still the assumption that everyone is going to be bringing books and paper to a physical table in a local space, even if they might have something like a digital dice roller or similar.
no subject
...This can mean "the only available PDF is basically unprintable" - it's drenched in colors that are horrible on a home printer, or it's all black background with white text (including the character sheet), or the size/shape is not good for paper.
On the down side: a great many of them are not beta-read/edited; their structure is incoherent; their rules have never been tested by people who didn't have the designer talking to them so they weren't learning only from the text.
There's some amazing innovations going on in the solo ttrpg world. There's also some horrible "this... this is your draft, right? This is... not finished? OMG what do you mean this is the finished version?" along with a notable amount of "this is not a game; it's a mindfulness exercise sprinkled with game vocabulary."
no subject
The design of things that aren't intended to be printed really could go places, but also, having a version that can be printed is probably also something to keep in mind.
(And yes, definitely, please get them proofed and tested with people who don't have access to the designer to make them better and more enjoyable to others.)
no subject
(Still, much as I don't like how much things seem to mostly play out on Bluesky and Twitter now, I am grateful that fuckers like Zak S don't seem to have found quite the same niche to thrive in as they did back in the day...)
no subject
And that makes sense for a tweet-length posts, but you don't develop working theory from that kind of back-and-forth chatter that's never compiled into actual paragraphs.
You don't need to agree with GNS theory to understand it and use the awareness of it to discuss types of games or types of players. (And maybe it was more-or-less complete and no longer worth arguing in 2005... but we're now a generation later and are dealing with people who learned GNS theory from tweets rather than an essay. Bleh.)
The death of semi-closed online communities - mailing lists, G+ groups, and even forums - in favor of "everyone has ONE FEED ALL CONTENT, all mixed together and viewable by the entire world" has done us all no favors.
RPG.net is still active, and I should probably poke my head in over there more often.