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. :D
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.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;974602100% 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. :D
Not just saying what the monster is, especially if the characters given their background and experience in the world would know what it is, is super silly.
Quote from: saskganesh;974622Eh, some people watch TV. Some people will watch Anything on TV. And YouTube is full of Anything.
That sounds like an accurate explanation to me;).
Quote from: Ulairi;974623Not just saying what the monster is, especially if the characters given their background and experience in the world would know what it is, is super silly.
it would get to be like a videogame where some action you take causes a text balloon to pop up every. single. time. Enough already...I mean I walk up to a dog on the street, I know it's a dog. :) "The furry long-nosed quadruped barks and tries to hump your leg. It might be a dog..."
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;974626I walk up to a dog on the street, I know it's a dog.
That's fair, but keep in mind there's a strong contingent in the OSR that advocates using batshit insane grotesqueries in dungeons precisely to avoid the "been there, done that" reaction.
I think a lot depends on how much a group bothers to separate player knowledge and character knowledge. As a veteran player, I might know full well what bugbears, ogres, ogre magi and hill giants are and the difference between them, but if I'm playing a 0-level DCC funnel, my sword fodder certainly doesn't. In a case like that, should a DM describe the monsters, or just say "they're bugbears/ogres/ogre magi/hill giants"?
Quote from: Ulairi;974559I guess my groups and I have been the odd ducks out because we've always prioritized RPGs as games over storytelling platforms.
I am going to move this up to the top. You are not an odd duck in this (and I know my ducks). There's huge amounts of digital ink spilled across the internet regarding the storygamer/non-storygamer distinction. Pure Storygaming (as in preferring storygaming-specific systems) seems to be a low-popularity, but high visibility crowd. However people who bring bits of storygaming into their gaming has always been around, and it's rarely an all-or-nothing situation.
QuoteOver 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.
I would probably put the trigger being the rise of twitch, U-tube becoming a mature social media technology (along with the computer technology which has grown up around it), and video-game live plays making this seem like a good idea. I can't think of a reason why 5e would engender this kind of thing more than 4e or 3e, so I think this is just a point-in-time kind of thing.
QuoteA 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.
Just like sex and violence, pointing a camera at someone while they're doing something changes how they do it. :-P
QuoteA 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.
Neither. I'm not going to remember stories, and I'm not going to remember dice rolls. I'm certainly not going to remember that one time a player really needed a 20 and got it. That's right there with Rimmer recounting his Risk successes*. I'm going to remember events. Not stories, not rolls, events. Like that time Joe's thief tried to sneak up on the sleeping dragon with the rope to tie it up, but it woke up and took off while he had just one toe tied, but his leg got caught and the whole battle happened with him dangling and yelling, "don't kill it until I can get free!" Now that is an outcome of dice rolling and DM adjudication, but it isn't specifically not role-playing/storytelling either.
*Rimmer: "So there we were at 2.30am. I was wishing I'd never come to cadet training school. To the south lay water. We couldn't cross that. East and west, two armies squeezed us in a pincer. The only way was north. I had to go for it and pray the gods were smiling on me. I picked up the dice and threw two sixes. Caldicott couldn't believe it. My go again. Another two sixes! "
Lister: "Rimmer, don't you realise that no one is slightly interested in anything you say? You've got this psychological defect which blinds you to the fact that you're boring people to death. How come you can't sense that?"
Rimmer: "Anyway, I picked up the dice again Unbelievable! Another two sixes!"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.
Edit: Okay, so I should have read to the end. This conforms to my position.
I think this is a generational thing. Kids are too lazy to play games (video or tabletop), so they'd rather just watch people play them instead. Because doing anything besides staring at your phone is just too much work.
I think this is like the most boring generation in history. Their music is boring, they dress not outlandishly, but as blandly as possible.
Quote from: JeremyR;974638I think this is a generational thing. Kids are too lazy to play games (video or tabletop), so they'd rather just watch people play them instead. Because doing anything besides staring at your phone is just too much work.
I think this is like the most boring generation in history. Their music is boring, they dress not outlandishly, but as blandly as possible.
Subtract the being able to watch actual-plays, this sounds exactly like the generational complaints I heard about Gen X in 1992.
Quote from: daniel_ream;974634That's fair, but keep in mind there's a strong contingent in the OSR that advocates using batshit insane grotesqueries in dungeons precisely to avoid the "been there, done that" reaction.
I think a lot depends on how much a group bothers to separate player knowledge and character knowledge. As a veteran player, I might know full well what bugbears, ogres, ogre magi and hill giants are and the difference between them, but if I'm playing a 0-level DCC funnel, my sword fodder certainly doesn't. In a case like that, should a DM describe the monsters, or just say "they're bugbears/ogres/ogre magi/hill giants"?
absolutely! I'm all for the classic Sword & Sorcery "cthulhu" type of tentacular blob monstrosities that can't really be described/categorized. I also think the first time a group of players runs into a bugbear, a bit of descriptive flair is fine...but not every time after that. A D&D dungeon crawl is sort of a thing unto itself though. You're likely to be encountering certain critters over and over again...there's a point beyond which the effort to avoid just naming names becomes sort of silly.
Of the gaming-related podcasts I've watched, I find the visuals distracting. Not just in actual play, but any of them. It's just some guys sitting around talking. Sounds like radio to me. Given an audio podcast of a gaming session, where the audio was clear, I might give it a try while driving on a long trip. Audio books are too distracting to my driving, but if you miss a few points in an actual play, no harm done. Would be a nice break from music back in those times when I had 4 hours there, 4 hours back, all by myself, for the business trip.
People still ham it up for a radio broadcast, of course, but unless they are explicitly instructed to do so, most people will be more themselves, without the camera stuck in their faces.
Quote from: daniel_ream;974634That's fair, but keep in mind there's a strong contingent in the OSR that advocates using batshit insane grotesqueries in dungeons precisely to avoid the "been there, done that" reaction.
I think a lot depends on how much a group bothers to separate player knowledge and character knowledge. As a veteran player, I might know full well what bugbears, ogres, ogre magi and hill giants are and the difference between them, but if I'm playing a 0-level DCC funnel, my sword fodder certainly doesn't. In a case like that, should a DM describe the monsters, or just say "they're bugbears/ogres/ogre magi/hill giants"?
Yeah, considering all the push in the backstories thread that 1 level characters are just fell off a wagon from the farm in front of the entrance to a dungeon ( :D ) they very well might not what some of the more common beasts look like. OTOH, the reaction to stringing more than two adjectives together when describing anything in some earlier threads...
They're way too slow moving for me. Edit a 3 hour play session down to say 25 minutes and I might well watch it.
I do though appreciate that the Critical Role actors at least appear to be playing D&D, as opposed to those Chris Perkins things that are a hideous gurning self-conscious parody of a game. And I've watched plenty of short GM advice videos from Matt Mercer - he's a good GM and he gives good concise advice. Matt Colville is certainly my favourite GM-advice-giver, he takes a pretty similar approach to mine, but Mercer is worth watching too (and God there are some really awful Youtube GM-advice channels out there (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4HxRbBSPyg)*!)
*Obviously this guy is complaining about terrible GM advice, not giving it. Looks like I blocked most of the really bad Youtube channels so they're not showing up on my search. Nerdarchy are pretty bad but that pompous Australian railroading GM is probably the worst - can't seem to find his channel which is probably a good thing.
I am old. I find it hard to believe anyone would watch that shit EVEN WHEN I KNOW IT FOR A FACT. My mind does not want that to be true of the world.
Finding a good role-play game session online to watch is rare.
Quote from: Simlasa;974596That'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.
Amen... This is it! Everyone is an 'over the top' wannabe actor as you pointed out. Actually, that is one of the reasons I stopped listening to podcasts as well (role playing ones anyway). As they all (or most) seem to revolve around jokes or constant messing about. And the content just became a secondary afterthought. :(
If I wanted to listen to a comedy show, then I'd listen to (or watch) Alan Partridge or something. It's rare that these people manage to get a decent blend of 'good' content and comedy. Some do it better than others... But I'm too lazy to sift through the detritus these days.
I watched a session and a half of Rollplay Blades, which I found reasonably entertaining. However, I had a specific purpose in watching, in that it's a system that uses some assumptions that I wasn't familiar with, and I was attempting to better grasp how to run the game.
I stopped about a third of the way into session two, as I had learned what I needed, and it wasn't entertaining enough on it's own merits to keep following. I can understand why some people may have enjoyed it, however.
Quote from: flyingmice;974667I am old. I find it hard to believe anyone would watch that shit EVEN WHEN I KNOW IT FOR A FACT. My mind does not want that to be true of the world.
Pretty much my feeling. My kids like to watch videos of people opening blind bags of toys. I'm like, what about seeing someone else experience that is interesting? I could see the joy in watching a friend open a birthday present you gave her, but watching a total stranger open a package of a toy they aren't even going to play with (they all seem to be adult collectors)? I wish my wife had never shown them the first one.
I needed something to listen to at my last job. Long. And lots of it. I listened to a bunch of critical roll. Maybe 50 episodes.
I really like their charcter back stories and intros. Or I like how each character has a strong sense of who they are, they have some history, some reason to be adventuring and a few links to other members of the party.
I realise this is the opposite of DCC 0 level funnel but I like how Critical role does it. Actually I think every player should listen to the first 10 minutes or something of that show so they know what a back ground is.
Quote from: Headless;974710I needed something to listen to at my last job. Long. And lots of it. I listened to a bunch of critical roll. Maybe 50 episodes.
I really like their character back stories and intros. Or I like how each character has a strong sense of who they are, they have some history, some reason to be adventuring and a few links to other members of the party.
I realize this is the opposite of DCC 0 level funnel but I like how Critical role does it. Actually I think every player should listen to the first 10 minutes or something of that show so they know what a back ground is.
Okay, this makes me curious. Maybe I'll check them out.
Quote from: Headless;974710I needed something to listen to at my last job. Long. And lots of it. I listened to a bunch of critical roll. Maybe 50 episodes.
I really like their charcter back stories and intros. Or I like how each character has a strong sense of who they are, they have some history, some reason to be adventuring and a few links to other members of the party.
I realise this is the opposite of DCC 0 level funnel but I like how Critical role does it. Actually I think every player should listen to the first 10 minutes or something of that show so they know what a back ground is.
I disagree. I like the 0 level funnel from DCC or how HackMaster, Aces & Eights, and Palladium do it: random.
I enjoyed the first arc of the audio podcast The Adventure Zone, but mainly for the goofy voices and joking around of the participants. I also liked the earnestly game dad playing D&D for the first time with his adult sons. The game itself seemed authentic but in the GM-scripted tradition of play. I eventually switched to other stuff for my commute but I could see going back.
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.
Both bore me to fuckin tears. I only watch/listen to actual plays to get a sense of how a game plays.
I love that people are streaming games (and talking about/reviewing/etc). I can't for the life of me understand why this could ever be a bad thing. You don' like? Don't watch!
given the prevalence of shitlord bollocks that seems to pervade Youtube, I'd much rather watch a haphazard game of DnD hosted by jobbing actors or former porn stars.
That's what makes Youtube so good (apart from the shitlord bollocks).
It's interesting to see how games play as well. See how people handle the system - or see just how other gamers roleplay.
Hmm, I haven't done this yet, perhaps I should. I occasionally watch video game play-throughs of games I remember but never got around to, and now no longer have the patience to grind out (a lot of 8-bit and 16-bit games I missed fill here). Also I could watch Street Fighter games endlessly as a spectator. And I do visit my friends when they are playing a tabletop RPG even though I am not a player in the game (I have my reasons); I find listening in live and bantering part of the fun.
Yet would I like it if I didn't know the people and couldn't banter with them live? I don't know. I do know that I'd find the descriptive part and player in-character interaction probably the best part.
I know I could really care less about listening to half-assed, fumble-bum tactics described in strict game terms. That sounds about as boring to me as listening to someone rattle off the audio play-by-play of Speed Chess matches. If I wanted watch strategy and tactics there's better games for me to do that, (video games nowadays do have cpu v. cpu, and PvP online recording). It's been ages since I've seen a tabletop party organize into an efficient tactical machine, let alone one also with interesting cinematics that could hold my interests for an hour on end.
As for learning how a system plays... Eh, I'd rather read it, read reviews & forum advice on it, and or just fumble along with a test RAW play, rather than hear about it in soulless mechanistic terms.
Quote from: Biscuitician;974772I love that people are streaming games (and talking about/reviewing/etc). I can't for the life of me understand why this could ever be a bad thing. You don' like? Don't watch!
Yeah, I think it's a good thing too. But I don't really watch them because I don't think games are all that interesting for the most part. Where youtube does shine for me is game reviews. I watch them all the time. But people who review games tend to take it more seriously.
If poker can become a spectator sport, then I suppose anything is possible.
Personally, I can listen to a condensed AP on a podcast, but it's much harder to pull off on video. But I do think short demos for any type of game can be worthwhile.
Quote from: Voros;974748Both bore me to fuckin tears. I only watch/listen to actual plays to get a sense of how a game plays.
I don't think you watching my group play would interest you. Watching yours wouldn't interest me. I don't think even watching gives me a sense on how the game plays because, at least from what I saw from CR, they really aren't running the rules as written. It's more about being dramatic or comedic on camera.
Quote from: gwb79;974852If poker can become a spectator sport, then I suppose anything is possible.
Personally, I can listen to a condensed AP on a podcast, but it's much harder to pull off on video. But I do think short demos for any type of game can be worthwhile.
I know in the late 90's early 2000' poker became a big fad and being on TV but is suffered from a lot of the same issues. The straight poker stuff I'm sure has some audience but it's not that large.
I can't sit through more than 60-seconds of most live-game casts. I liken it to people in gamestores or conventions telling me about their characters. I simply don't give a fuck. Mainly because I find they almost always play the kind of game in a manner I would never play or run as a GM.
The other side of it is I believe that playing an RPG isn't a spectator-sport. I don't allow people to watch my games, you're either playing or you're not there. It's distracting. I can't tell you how many times there's some new player that asks if their girlfriend/boyfriend can sit and watch and I tell them: fuck no. But they can play. Otherwise fuck no.
When I've watched some of these gamecasts, I often feel that there is an element of group-mugging for the camera, or it's just boring play - or worse: both.
Edit: I have watched some actual plays to see how a system works. I wasn't paying attention much to the game itself.
Our group also has stopped allow significant others/kids sit in and watch. More than happy to have them roll up a character and sling some dice.
Quote from: tenbones;974858The other side of it is I believe that playing an RPG isn't a spectator-sport. I don't allow people to watch my games, you're either playing or you're not there. It's distracting. I can't tell you how many times there's some new player that asks if their girlfriend/boyfriend can sit and watch and I tell them: fuck no. But they can play. Otherwise fuck no.
I can understand that, but I allow people to watch if they want. I spent some time watching other people play in my early GM days, and it was very instructive from the perspective of, "This is how not to do it." Though I suppose technically I wasn't so much watching the game as watching the players' social interaction centered around the game.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;974866I can understand that, but I allow people to watch if they want. I spent some time watching other people play in my early GM days, and it was very instructive from the perspective of, "This is how not to do it." Though I suppose technically I wasn't so much watching the game as watching the players' social interaction centered around the game.
I learned GM tips from actually playing in games with other people being the GM. That could be at a home, con, or store. I think it's really creepy when people just stand around and watch other people play RPGs because this isn't like baseball where most of us can't through a 95 mph baseball. Anybody can play D&D.
Quote from: Ulairi;974868I learned GM tips from actually playing in games with other people being the GM. That could be at a home, con, or store. I think it's really creepy when people just stand around and watch other people play RPGs because this isn't like baseball where most of us can't through a 95 mph baseball. Anybody can play D&D.
I mostly learned by being the GM. And you definitely need some of that experience before watching. But when I'm running or playing, I'm in the game, not a detached observer (or mostly not). Watching the nuances of body language and listening to the nuances of a somewhat badly run game is highly instructive--and even more so if you can then watch the same things in one that works. Of course it's kind of creepy. This person is analyzing your behavior while you play. I tolerate it now (when it comes up) because it was useful to me. Kind of a pay it forward thing.
If you don't like them don't watch them. Some people like them and find them enjoyable others don't just like just about everything else. No one is objectively correct in their opinion.
I tried to watch a few RPG sessions on youtube, but could never stand more than a few minutes. There's ONE I can watch, it's about a group of animals trying to prevent the 9/11 terror attacks. It has short, action packed episodes (~2 hours) and a hand grenade tossing kangaroo as one of the player characters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L57cm_eU5R8
Quote from: Nexus;974874If you don't like them don't watch them. Some people like them and find them enjoyable others don't just like just about everything else. No one is objectively correct in their opinion.
Hey you're right! Let's institute a rule on discussion forums throughout the internet - no talking about stuff that involves any sort of subjectivity! Objectivity only from now on!
:)
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;974892Hey you're right! Let's institute a rule on discussion forums throughout the internet - no talking about stuff that involves any sort of subjectivity! Objectivity only from now on!
:)
People can talk about whatever they want. But then if you choose to have a discussion in public, others are going to express their opinion of it. At least iI didn't set the thread on fire and station archers... :D
Quote from: Nexus;974874If you don't like them don't watch them. Some people like them and find them enjoyable others don't just like just about everything else. No one is objectively correct in their opinion.
Take a stand you fence-squatter!
Quote from: Many peopleI have watched some actual plays to see how a system works.
This is the only reason I do. There are a lot of indie games that are atrociously written, and watching the author play out a session or two is often useful for determining what the author intended, as opposed to what he said.
Quote from: Nexus;974874If you don't like them don't watch them. Some people like them and find them enjoyable others don't just like just about everything else. No one is objectively correct in their opinion.
I can objectively say I am correct in my opinion that your opinion that no opinion is objectively correct is objectively correct, but isn't that contradictory then?
Quote from: daniel_ream;974962This is the only reason I do. There are a lot of games that are atrociously written, and watching the author play out a session or two is often useful for determining what the author intended, as opposed to what he said.
More accurate.
Quote from: tenbones;974944Take a stand you fence-squatter!
What grown man and a consenting fence to in the privacy of their own yard is their own business. :p
One Shot is interesting to have playing in the background if I'm doing something else. But they have improv professionals on as guests, and the audio (it's a podcast) is spliced together a bit to streamline it.
But yeah - I'm not going to sit down and watch a full session.
Tabletop RPGs are not spectator sports. You have to fold, spindle, and mutilate the medium to make them something watchable- and thereby gut the power of the medium. Critical Role is an excuse for actors to get their faces and names out there between gigs. Acquisitions Inc. is PR for PAX and PA. You can see the influence of these two in others rising in their wake, especially those featuring 5th Edition (less so for Pathfinder).
There's something else to consider: the popular podcasts' presentations now define tabletop RPGs in general (and the game used specifically) to their audience, especially to non-players lurking in that audience, and I don't see this being good for the medium anymore than I did for Geek & Sundry's tabletop RPG series. The magic doesn't work when you're not at the table; you have to be participating to grok it. The only way around this is to do what the poker productions do: add live commentary that's off-camera, and fill downtime with explanatory bits and player spotlight bits. Guess what's unlikely to happen? Anyone actually doing that.
Watching a video to learn how to play/run a game is just fine. It's another way to show how it's done. That is not even on the same strange PLANET as watching for entertainment... :P
I do think it is a good thing for the hobby. Makes it all less esoteric and weird.
I don't care if it's good or bad for the hobby. It's not as if I'm being strapped down and forced to watch YouTube Clockwork Orange- style.
I have such limited free time, watching other people play a game is about the past thing I'd use it for. Too many books to read, time with kids, squeezing in a game here and there, etc.
For sure. But it does bring new people into the hobby. Friends who have never played D&D post about CR on FB and get involved. It's all good even if it's not my thing.
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;975114When I was 12 most of my gaming group was made up of people one year older than me. They graduated into middle school and I was left behind in elementary school and I lost the ability to play D&D for awhile. During this dark-ish period, I was incredibly thirsty for anything that could fill that void. I was particularly enamored of any book that contained lengthy "transcripts" of play; it let me vicariously experience the "next best thing" to actually playing.
I feel that a lot of the appeal for actual play videos is being born from those who aren't getting to play as much as they would like, and are therefore seeking to satiate themselves with the best available substitutes. (A lot of people who read adventure modules for pleasure are doing the same thing.)
So... I get it. I empathize with the appeal. But they do virtually nothing for me and, like OP, I have yet to find one which features a play style that I would consider tolerable during an actual game. It's like the difference between porn and actual sex.
There's not really a distinction in my games, but: Yes. The most memorable moments from gaming are virtually never the things the GM planned for. It's almost always the shit that happened at the table, spontaneously and in the moment.
Then what about the non-gamers that post about them?
Quote from: Voros;975078For sure. But it does bring new people into the hobby. Friends who have never played D&D post about CR on FB and get involved.
Do they end up playing or just continuing to watch?
Quote from: Simlasa;975255Do they end up playing or just continuing to watch?
That's my biggest question. I know people that watch some of these things but they spend their play time playing computer or xbox games. I offer to run D&D for them and they haven't made the leap to wanting to play. I'm sure some have started playing. But, I bet for the bulk of the viewers it is folks that would to play but don't have a GM to play with.
Quote from: Ulairi;975285That's my biggest question. I know people that watch some of these things but they spend their play time playing computer or xbox games. I offer to run D&D for them and they haven't made the leap to wanting to play. I'm sure some have started playing. But, I bet for the bulk of the viewers it is folks that would to play but don't have a GM to play with.
Anecdote != data, and all that, but of the people I let watch a game, about half played. Some jumped in mid-session. Of those that played, a little short of half stuck with it for any length of time. Overall, probably about a 20% hit rate. I think that's not too shabby for a group of people self-selected as interested enough to at least watch, but not so enamored that they want to jump right in. Out of that 20%, I'd say most of them were simply shy.
Edit: All of that information was recorded, because I used to track such things. But I haven't in some time, and I've lost the numbers. It was all done before cell phones were a thing. That may skew it compared to today.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;975114It's like the difference between porn and actual sex.
You mean they're both awesome but one is more awesome??
Quote from: Simlasa;975255Do they end up playing or just continuing to watch?
Most try out playing. How many stick is up in the air.
I can sometimes watch it in small bursts, like 1/2 hr. If there was an edited, just the highlights video of about 1/2 hr, I'd be happy enough to watch that on a regular basis. But they typically go for a few hours, far too long and slow for me. I'd rather be doing something else.
I don't get it at all.
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;976126What about them?
Does your theory account for them, and how?
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;976278Well, if we follow my original metaphor of "the difference between porn and actual sex", you appear to be asking me why teenage virgins like looking at porn. ;)
That's only if we presume that RPGs are just as naturally interesting to people as sex is to virgin teenagers;).
I've watched some and have enjoyed some of them. Like Estar said, some you can just have going on in the background. Whatever, I'm a nerd. Sometimes it's cool to see how other people play. Sometimes they are good to see how a certain game is played (not all in book examples are great). Sometimes it's just fun to watch other people having fun.
Quote from: AsenRG;976469That's only if we presume that RPGs are just as naturally interesting to people as sex is to virgin teenagers;).
Heck, I remember being 12 years old, eagerly awaiting my birthday/Christmas Spectrum 48K, buying & reading huge piles of computing magazines (with the BASIC programs to type in yourself)... Once that Spectrum 48K actually arrived, I don't think I ever bought another computing mag... I was too busy playing ELITE. :cool:
While I don't find much enjoyment watching a group RPGing it up, I can understand why some others might enjoy it. I don't find much, if any, enjoyment watching a billiards tournament on TV, nor do I like watching tennis or golf. But I do like watching some poker games or football on TV. I've also found it helpful watching play throughs of new board games to make sure I had a good grasp on the mechanics and rules.