Over the last couple years (it seems to coincide with the release of 5E) there have been a lot of shows of people playing table top RPGS and I finally watched an episode of Critical Role and I was bored out of my mind. A couple things from the show that really bothered me: They really skirted the rules so they could make their show more "dramatic" or "cinematic" not in the cinematic rules sense but in the "it looks good on camera" sense. A lot of these shows tend to really focus on role-playing or telling stories which is fine...but maybe this is just me and my 27 years of playing....but am I the only one who really doesn't remember any story shit from my gaming history? I don't remember role-playing but I do remember game play results/outcomes. What I mean by that is the time I ran a character with weird stats or the player whose roll succeeded when we really needed it to. But when it comes to role-playing a scene or some story thing nothing really stands out compared to things that are a direct result of....play.

I guess my groups and I have been the odd ducks out because we've always prioritized RPGs as games over storytelling platforms.

A friend once recommended one of the more popular ones and I was bored to death. Not my thing.

Critical Role and Penny Arcade are instructive examples. Both are highly polished. One is heavily focused on RP, the other heavily focused on combat. But to me, both move at a snail's pace. I did find both boring. The guys at Roll For Initiative podcast, on the other hand, have a far less polished actual play, but I thought it actually moved along nicely, and a lot of people have commented it's the best actual play out there.

Yeah, I agree. I guess they are trying to mimic that same insanely popular trend in video games. Sometimes I like to tell myself it's generational, but I'm usually able to recognize something good, generational or not, and that shit ain't good. Small numbers is my guess.

The only thing close I could watch is the HarmonQuest stuff. Harmon, Spence, and the guest are almost always really good, with varying degrees of annoyance by the other two regulars. But, it's also closer to a real Tv show with production, animation, editing, and so on.

Episode 1 is at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cuqqHGpRDE
[video=youtube;-cuqqHGpRDE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cuqqHGpRDE[/youtube]

"Yeah, well, I like to be the one to share that."

I have a huge list of "watch later" videos on YouTube, and I don't know that any of them are RPG play sessions. I have watched a few, but the ones I did, I found pretty tedious/annoying/painful to watch, and examples that were heavily "not my playstyle".

I care about both rules and roleplaying, and I do remember quite a bit of both from past play. However, the details of play that interest me are about tactics backed up by detailed rules for them, and I don't care to hear the mechanical details but I do want the GM to be using the rules and not half-assing them in favor of "fun" results, especially not habitually.

Also, the style of roleplaying I have seen too much of is exaggerated or campy, and I would rather have a player who has no acting skills say his character "tries to distract the guard by flirting" than hear him try to act it if he doesn't want to. I also sometimes find it painful when players over-act and exaggerate their characters, especially when they also take really dumb in-game actions along the same lines apparently for the sake of "roleplaying" but they're then roleplaying a caricature that is liable to be quickly avoided, arrested, and/or killed. It's a subjective matter of taste and judgment, but it seems like the people I've seen trying to do good roleplaying on YouTube videos that I've seen tend to fall into my "painful zone".

Quote from: Ulairi;974559Over the last couple years (it seems to coincide with the release of 5E) there have been a lot of shows of people playing table top RPGS and I finally watched an episode of Critical Role and I was bored out of my mind. A couple things from the show that really bothered me: They really skirted the rules so they could make their show more "dramatic" or "cinematic" not in the cinematic rules sense but in the "it looks good on camera" sense. A lot of these shows tend to really focus on role-playing or telling stories which is fine...but maybe this is just me and my 27 years of playing....but am I the only one who really doesn't remember any story shit from my gaming history? I don't remember role-playing but I do remember game play results/outcomes. What I mean by that is the time I ran a character with weird stats or the player whose roll succeeded when we really needed it to. But when it comes to role-playing a scene or some story thing nothing really stands out compared to things that are a direct result of....play.

I mostly remember the stories, role playing and dramatic moments that came up more than the rolls and mechanics with the exception of when the mechanics went awry in humorous or dramatic ways that contributed to the rp.

More on the topic, I only watch AP videos for game were I'm curious about how they work in play. I don't see ttrpgs ever being a spectator sport.

I've watched a couple. Or should I say, I have them playing in the background while I'm working.

I'm not too sure if RPing a good spectator sport. I mean, listening to a full game for 4/5 hours while not being able to participate is pretty frustrating. I've only watched a couple of youtube vids and I've only ever finished one of them (just over 5 hours). Mainly because the GM and players were entertaining and the scenario was pretty cool too. Plus, I was interested in buying the system at that point, so I had a interest from the off.

My main problem with youtube games is that they are always (or mostly) trying to put on a show for an audience. This means, that the hosts generally are trying to be 'funny' all the time. I'm sorry, but if you're not Bill Hick's I don't want to hear your jokes. I had listened to a podcast of 'Horror on the Orient express' and I stopped after about twenty minutes becase the players were joking all the time. It's CoC not Kindergarden Cop...

Although, I have to say, and this just my personal preference. That I'd be far more interested in the actual story than the rules. While obviously, they are very important they are secondary to the story for me.

Quote from: The Exploited.;974576I've watched a couple. Or should I say, I have them playing in the background while I'm working.

I'm not too sure if RPing a good spectator sport. I mean, listening to a full game for 4/5 hours while not being able to participate is pretty frustrating. I've only watched a couple of youtube vids and I've only ever finished one of them (just over 5 hours). Mainly because the GM and players were entertaining and the scenario was pretty cool too. Plus, I was interested in buying the system at that point, so I had a interest from the off.

My main problem with youtube games is that they are always (or mostly) trying to put on a show for an audience. This means, that the hosts generally are trying to be 'funny' all the time. I'm sorry, but if you're not Bill Hick's I don't want to hear your jokes. I had listened to a podcast of 'Horror on the Orient express' and I stopped after about twenty minutes becase the players were joking all the time. It's CoC not Kindergarden Cop...

Although, I have to say, and this just my personal preference. That I'd be far more interested in the actual story than the rules. While obviously, they are very important they are secondary to the story for me.

When I say rules over story what I mean is result of play over "story" and by that I mean: the players making decisions and how their decisions impact the game via the rules. Like what Skarg mentioned above if a player says: I go up to the guard and try to flirt with him to let us into the castle.... is much more interesting to me (and the results determined within the rules of the game/world) than hearing some community college drama major prattle on.

I have no inclination to watch a recorded D&D game. I might if Gygax, Arneson, and Moldvay were all sitting around a table, but even then I'd rather they were sharing a nice bottle of scotch and sharing ideas and anecdotes rather than playing.

For me, these "liveplay" videos are akin to that skinny dork in the local game store telling me about his character in a campaign I've never played or heard of and wishing there were an easy way to say, "Whoa, Skippy. I don't don't give a flip about your game, or your crappy character," in some polite manner.

The format may be not everybody cup of tea but the main driver is the personalities involved. People watch them because they like listening to the people involved similar to listening to a talk show on TV or radio.

Quote from: The Exploited.;974576My main problem with youtube games is that they are always (or mostly) trying to put on a show for an audience. This means, that the hosts generally are trying to be 'funny' all the time. I'm sorry, but if you're not Bill Hick's I don't want to hear your jokes.

That's my main gripe as well... jokers hamming it up for the camera/microphone (on the podcast versions).
I actually took part in one of these things at a convention, and while chunks of it were good immersive fun early on I also felt this weird expectation to 'perform' and by the end it was feeling like a competition at the Junior Thespians league night.
Maybe those guys play like that at home but I doubt it.

Of all the ones I've watched I haven't seen any that were worth the watch time for information or inspiration, unlike the video game versions where I do get to see how the game plays (preferably free of too much extraneous interjection by the host) and maybe good info on how to get past difficult bits.

Quote from: Ulairi;974577When I say rules over story what I mean is result of play over "story" and by that I mean: the players making decisions and how their decisions impact the game via the rules. Like what Skarg mentioned above if a player says: I go up to the guard and try to flirt with him to let us into the castle.... is much more interesting to me (and the results determined within the rules of the game/world) than hearing some community college drama major prattle on.

100% this for me as well.  The amateur thespianism is something I generally find pretty embarrassing.  The fellow that wrote the Dungeon Alphabet and Stonehell has some gameplay vids of his Labyrinth Lord game on Youtube and I enjoyed those somewhat.  My enjoyment is derived primarily from the Tactical/logistical/dice roll aspect of the game and the story that arises from that rather than any manufactured drama from players trying to act out the situations...

Just for kicks, I went and looked up some of those LL vids I referred to and had a look.  They are a pretty accurate representation of my experience and the type of game I enjoy.  I noted in the comments for one of them some guy advises that the GM needs to not use "math" so much in describing things - "you see a 30 foot corridor" etc - and that he should "never" refer to monsters by name even if the players are familiar with it and know it's a bugbear for instance.  Instead he should always describe it as "the hairy, over-muscled bipeds mouth breathing and drooling before you resemble bugbears"...yeah...screw that.  lol.  As a player, if you and I both know it's a bugbear, just spare me the English Lit exercise and say its a Bugbear and lets move along.  

No idea. If I have the free time, I'd rather play a game than watch someone else play on YouTube or wherever.

I watch the BattleTech "Death from Above" Twitch/YouTube actual plays, but that's because while I'm interested in the game Hell if I can find anyone that plays it around here.

Eh, some people watch TV. Some people will watch Anything on TV. And YouTube is full of Anything.