TheRPGSite

I don't get the RPG streaming fad. I get that guys like that there are somewhat attractive women doing it who often will dress up in provocative clothing while steaming but I have noticed that when folks that hit a larger market of streaming that they aren't playing the game at the table that the way I think most gamers do (or I'm way out of touch). They are playing for "performance" and not playing for "plays" sake. I'm almost feel that the streamers are to RPGs as cosplayers are to comicbooks or other fandoms in that the use of the source material is only for the dress up or the use of RPGS is only for the performance. I also am skeptical that folks that do the streaming also are in it for money as I see that usually they collect money and things.

I just was watching a D&D 5E stream and the way the players talked, interacted with each other, and did things it was obviously they were doing for what made the best "show" and not for what made the best "game" if you get me.


I'm going to go out and continue to yell at clouds.

No that's obvious. But you have to make certain compromises to make a D&D game watchable on a stream. So they're running a show more than running a game. But that's fine, it is entertaining to watch sometimes.

Though Critical Role always puts me to sleep; what I always enjoy is Chris Perkins' games and those always still feel real.

(shrugs)  If I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone mutter that Doing Things Differently From Me Isn't Playing The Same Hobby I would be pretty derned well off.

I don't give a damn about the game system.  Or the game setting.  Or whether you're doing hack-n-slash or dungeon fantasy or comedies of manners.  Or whether you're doing SF (or whether your SF is Old Trek vs New Trek vs B5 vs Firefly vs Traveller vs Shadowpunk vs Transhuman Space ...).  Or whether your group's a bunch of friends who've been gaming together for twenty years vs whoever shows up at 7 PM Tuesdays at the FLGS.  Diceless, storygames, LARP, online chatroom, MMORPG, screw it.  You playing make-pretend with a bunch of friends?  It's all the same hobby.

I don't really see an issue with it. My only concern is because some of the shows are staged or highly edited to get the best bits, newer gamers might hesitate to GM because they want their sessions to be perfect like the RPG stream. But at the same time, there are plenty of RPG streams that are just a bunch of people playing the game with no edits and no script. And even without RPG streams, I remember having my own expectations set too high by some of the sample session sections in old RPG books (which were a little too perfect). If it gets more people in to the hobby, that is a good thing.

I just tried streaming my Tuesday campaign as a podcast (we did 2 sessions, unfortunately ran into technical issues recording a third, but should be back on next with another recording). I have to say, you are aware you are being recorded and putting that out there. It can change your behavior. I Basically made a decision, and told everyone to just play the way they always do. So those of us who tend not to use lots of voices and stuff, didn't do so. We just played how we always do. I also made a point of putting out one of our weaker sessions on the first go (just so I wouldn't be afraid of letting people see the cracks in the sessions). But I did all that because I wanted there to be no gap between the podcast sessions and my regular sessions. I don't think it is bad if youtube channels or podcasters decide to make their sessions with an eye toward entertaining the audience.

Being observed changes things.  That's true no matter what the activity, though sometimes the changes are so minimal as to be irrelevant.  The more important a particular activity is, the less likely it will be changed significantly by observing it, though even that's not 100%.  See televised courtroom proceedings, for example.  Nothing that happens in a tabletop game is terribly important, therefore there is no brake to changes other than the desires of the participants to avoid such.

Depends. Some of these are more like acting and less like playing an RPG. But that is only in the presentation. Some come across more like a sit-down LARP. Others come across as more like a stage play nearly. But they are still rolling the dice and doing normal game stuff.

Take a look at the video for DragonStrike for example. Its presented as a little movie. But throughout theres still the normal gameplay to resolve things. (just not as much as the actual game has.)

Whereas the Record of Lodoss War anime while based on BX D&D player logs. Has none of the actual gameplay shown. Same with the novelizations of those player logs.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1015476(shrugs)  If I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone mutter that Doing Things Differently From Me Isn't Playing The Same Hobby I would be pretty derned well off.

I don't give a damn about the game system.  Or the game setting.  Or whether you're doing hack-n-slash or dungeon fantasy or comedies of manners.  Or whether you're doing SF (or whether your SF is Old Trek vs New Trek vs B5 vs Firefly vs Traveller vs Shadowpunk vs Transhuman Space ...).  Or whether your group's a bunch of friends who've been gaming together for twenty years vs whoever shows up at 7 PM Tuesdays at the FLGS.  Diceless, storygames, LARP, online chatroom, MMORPG, screw it.  You playing make-pretend with a bunch of friends?  It's all the same hobby.

Haha bravo!!!

Quote from: Ulairi;1015441I get that guys like that there are somewhat attractive women doing it who often will dress up in provocative clothing while steaming...

This also happens in regular tabletop games. :D

I played in an online convention game that was set up to be live-streamed. I didn't know the other players at all but they all seemed to be hamming it up waaaaaay beyond what I've normally experienced... like there was some Junior Thespian award being given out afterward. It wasn't a bad game over all but I did end up feeling odd for not engaging in any dramatic gnashing of teeth or crying.
I'm not really sure it had to do with the camera or if they always played that way but they did at some point mention 'putting on a show'.

Is American foot ball a team sport?  Its different than soccer or Rugby.  Football was designed to be watched as much as played.  The changes are bigger now that its watched on TV.

Quote from: Ulairi;1015441I don't get the RPG streaming fad. I get that guys like that there are somewhat attractive women doing it who often will dress up in provocative clothing while steaming but I have noticed that when folks that hit a larger market of streaming that they aren't playing the game at the table that the way I think most gamers do (or I'm way out of touch). They are playing for "performance" and not playing for "plays" sake. I'm almost feel that the streamers are to RPGs as cosplayers are to comicbooks or other fandoms in that the use of the source material is only for the dress up or the use of RPGS is only for the performance. I also am skeptical that folks that do the streaming also are in it for money as I see that usually they collect money and things.

If my games were streamed:
[GM]Right, you approach the forest and an Aldryami steps out to greet you
[Player1] What's an Aldryami
[GM] An elf, they live in forests
[Player1] He's elvish? There's a bloke down the chip shop who swears he's Elvish
[GM] "Greetings, who are you who want to enter the forest?"
[Player2] "I am Hallax the Bard and we are friends of the elves"
[Player1] Bard? You're barred!
[Player3] "We are looking for the Wind Cat and need to pass through your forest to find it in its mountains"
[Player1] Have you seen this video about a cat?

There is a reason why streamed games look rehearsed, they are designed to avoid the above.

Same Hobby? Sure.
Same activity? No.

Whatever RPG they are playing, they add an OOC metalayer to it, namely one of performance for entertainment by viewers.
Playing the game with that metalayer, like any metalayer, is different than playing without it.

I think it's largely a generational thing. Some people, most of them younger, subscribe to the adage that If it's not on YouTube, it didn't happen.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1015663Same Hobby? Sure.
Same activity? No.

Whatever RPG they are playing, they add an OOC metalayer to it, namely one of performance for entertainment by viewers.
Playing the game with that metalayer, like any metalayer, is different than playing without it.

I agree with your point in general but it feels like you've really made an overbroad statement. Could you give an example of what play without OOC metalayer would even look like? That sounds like some kind of ideal 'method' notion of RPG playing, there is always an OOC metalayer to play, from character builds to passing the cheetos. And aren't players and GMs often 'playing' to each other? That is part of the fun of a game.

Some (not all) gamers that broadcast their sessions on video streams simply are doing it to entertain viewers that are in their chatroom. There's all kinds of reasons why a person would watch (and maybe even throw some money at) such things. And it doesn't have to be RPGs that they're doing. It could be any topic/subject.

Quote from: Voros;1015721I agree with your point in general but it feels like you've really made an overbroad statement. Could you give an example of what play without OOC metalayer would even look like? That sounds like some kind of ideal 'method' notion of RPG playing, there is always an OOC metalayer to play, from character builds to passing the cheetos. And aren't players and GMs often 'playing' to each other? That is part of the fun of a game.

For every game session that doesn't have OOC yapping in it, there are 1,000s of game sessions that do. They are rare. But they exist. If I know someone is an OOC yapper, they don't get an invite.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1015723Some (not all) gamers that broadcast their sessions on video streams simply are doing it to entertain viewers that are in their chatroom. There's all kinds of reasons why a person would watch (and maybe even throw some money at) such things. And it doesn't have to be RPGs that they're doing. It could be any topic/subject.



For every game session that doesn't have OOC yapping in it, there are 1,000s of game sessions that do. They are rare. But they exist. If I know someone is an OOC yapper, they don't get an invite.

Are you talking about cracking jokes at the table ?

Quote from: Voros;1015721I agree with your point in general but it feels like you've really made an overbroad statement. Could you give an example of what play without OOC metalayer would even look like? That sounds like some kind of ideal 'method' notion of RPG playing, there is always an OOC metalayer to play, from character builds to passing the cheetos. And aren't players and GMs often 'playing' to each other? That is part of the fun of a game.

CRKrueger and his friends must be telepath aliens playing through their minds alone, with no need for accessories.

The truth is they use as many "OOC" mechanics as everyone else, but as those mechanics are familiar to them, they forget they exist.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1015663Same Hobby? Sure.
Same activity? No.

Whatever RPG they are playing, they add an OOC metalayer to it, namely one of performance for entertainment by viewers.
Playing the game with that metalayer, like any metalayer, is different than playing without it.

As someone that has experience with both improv acting in front of an audience and tabletop RPG, if I was looking for pure, in-character immersion as my priority, I get a lot more of that from improv acting than a tabletop RPG. RPG mechanics are a lot more immersion-breaking than the presence of an audience.

And, unless you are playing solo, there is always an audience when you roleplay. I see people playing for the audience of other players all the time in games.

I keep reading the title as "RPG Steamers," and it makes me think of games that are like a huge lump of shit.

Quote from: Voros;1015721I agree with your point in general but it feels like you've really made an overbroad statement. Could you give an example of what play without OOC metalayer would even look like? That sounds like some kind of ideal 'method' notion of RPG playing, there is always an OOC metalayer to play, from character builds to passing the cheetos. And aren't players and GMs often 'playing' to each other? That is part of the fun of a game.

1. Any RPG, by definition, is going to have a possible OOC metalayer as players may make decisions and have their characters act for game reasons, for a variety of social reasons, etc.  Usually, this is going to show up from decision to decision.  In other words I make 12 decisions IC, 1 decision OOC because I want to encourage the new player, 4 decisions IC, 1 decision OOC because I know how game rules work and my character doesn't, 5 decisions IC, 1 decision OOC because goddamn that would make for a cool story arc, etc.

This type of metalayer may be present, or not, and for the most part is internal to the thinking of the player and no one will ever really know why the character is acting as they do.

What many of the professional youtubers are doing is different.  They are sitting down at the table knowing this will be a performance to entertain others and gain viewers for the channel and their personal and collective brands - this is a mandatory OOC metalayer you can't get away from.  If the session isn't entertaining, who cares how much you liked the roleplay of your character?

2. Any game of any type will have non-game socialization, everything from Poker to Cataan to Trivial Pursuit to Chess to RPGs.  That level of non-game social interaction is going to vary from group to group and has absolutely nothing to do with the game or activity itself.  Two friends playing Chess might non-stop talk in the park or the parlor, but not say a word during a timed competitive match.  Pretending that such communication is the same thing as a mandated OOC game mechanic as Itachi is doing, is a tired form of distinction denial.

3. Every RPG in which the player may choose how the character advances will have OOC downtime as the character obviously cannot choose how to spend XPs, Bennies or pick Feats, etc.  This is part and parcel of the game medium and again, has nothing to do with when you are actually roleplaying as the character, does the game itself force you to make OOC decisions, or is the fact that you've all assembled to entertain an audience influence and form an overarching context and constraint to the roleplay.

@Baulderstone, because someone at your table tends to ham it up doesn't mean you guys are doing the same thing as Critical Role.  If my table had someone who obviously was doing that all the time, they'd get voted out pretty quick.  Also, why bring out that tired old saw of "If you want to improv act..."  That's so beneath you, that's an Itachi move.  Should I counter with "If you want narrative authority you should Sim?" ;)

It's a Roleplaying game.  God forbid someone in between ordering pizza, leveling characters, taking a piss, and snack breaks, wants to actually roleplay while playing one. :rolleyes:

Two cents.

I generally find watching people playing ttrpgs extremely boring and sometimes painfull, in a platonic sense. So it makes sense for me that those streaming-guys try to put up a show and editing to make it more bearable. Makes it seem more funny and attractive as hobby. I would not call it a different hobby. More of a subset within the hobby itself.

Quote from: Teodrik;1015810I would not call it a different hobby. More of a subset within the hobby itself.

Yep.

Ulairi, I agree with your OP...but I support RPG streaming (even if I don't watch it).

RPG streamers are low budget reality shows. Thus, success depends on the widest audience getting the most entertainment...so Show First, Game Second would make the most sense.

However, they apparently are promoting actual RPG play to a new generation...and that's awesome.

BTW, there is no doubt cosplay has been a huge boon for anime fandom (and thus sales).

I am hoping this symbiosis will benefit RPGs in the same manner.

Quote from: Ulairi;1015441I'm going to go out and continue to yell at clouds.

That's healthier than posting in political threads!

At worst, you get some fresh air!

Frankly, everything I've seen of them is garbage. It's not gamers actually playing the way gamers play (of course, that would be unspeakably boring to watch anyways), it's like one of those 'reality' shows that's full of would-be actors and made-up drama. It's bullshit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1016035Frankly, everything I've seen of them is garbage. It's not gamers actually playing the way gamers play (of course, that would be unspeakably boring to watch anyways), it's like one of those 'reality' shows that's full of would-be actors and made-up drama. It's bullshit.

You must have watched very few or only the "show" ones? I think of you look around you will find those "boring" sessions. But they get usually far fewer hits. That said I have seen a few of these sessions that very much feel like a show and lack a sense of being a real gameplay session. Others just have really energetic players who dont seem to be mugging the camera. Its just how they play.

Its the same with LARP videos. Theres many that are just players playing. And then there are those few that are really just a short movie pretending to be a LARP session.

What is streaming?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1016035Frankly, everything I've seen of them is garbage. It's not gamers actually playing the way gamers play (of course, that would be unspeakably boring to watch anyways), it's like one of those 'reality' shows that's full of would-be actors and made-up drama. It's bullshit.

There are a lot of different kinds of them apparently. I've been looking at them because someone asked me to livestream our sessions. There are the ones that are exactly what you are talking about, where they are designed with an audience in mind. But I've found others that actually seem more like an attempt to session log on youtube (these can be extremely boring, but I imagine they have some utility for the people in the game if they need to remember something that happened, or for people who might want to play that game and want to know how the mechanics play in action----also a new GM might benefit). People still know they are being filmed, but you also forget you are being filmed after a while. There is also wide spectrum in the middle. I have to admit, I don't really understand the attraction to them. But now that I've streamed a couple of sessions, I can at least see the utility of having that record there to go back to. I can also see it maybe benefiting someone who is a little unclear on some of the concepts or running an adventure. But I don't see much entertainment value (I've listened and it is pretty dull). I suppose people who haven't gamed in a while might get vicarious value from them. My guess is people don't listen to streams on this end of the spectrum the whole way through. They probably listen and view by skipping around to get a sense of things. Unless you are going full reality show though, I think the entertainment value of these isn't huge.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1016074What is streaming?

People recording sessions and putting them up on youtube and other venues. You can also livestream sessions where you literally just put your google hangouts session on youtube live.

Quote from: Ulairi;1015441I don't get the RPG streaming fad. I get that guys like that there are somewhat attractive women doing it who often will dress up in provocative clothing while steaming but I have noticed that when folks that hit a larger market of streaming that they aren't playing the game at the table that the way I think most gamers do (or I'm way out of touch). They are playing for "performance" and not playing for "plays" sake. I'm almost feel that the streamers are to RPGs as cosplayers are to comicbooks or other fandoms in that the use of the source material is only for the dress up or the use of RPGS is only for the performance. I also am skeptical that folks that do the streaming also are in it for money as I see that usually they collect money and things.

I just was watching a D&D 5E stream and the way the players talked, interacted with each other, and did things it was obviously they were doing for what made the best "show" and not for what made the best "game" if you get me.


I'm going to go out and continue to yell at clouds.

People changing their behavior in front of camera isn't a new phenomenon.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1015808... because someone at your table tends to ham it up doesn't mean you guys are doing the same thing as Critical Role.  If my table had someone who obviously was doing that all the time, they'd get voted out pretty quick.

You would really exclude a ham at the table? I find they often make the game more engaging and amusing, when I GM I found players reacted well to the GM haming it up as well.

As to Shawn excluding people who 'yap too much at the table' I get this surreal image of players in gimp suits around the table.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1016074What is streaming?

Livestream: essentially recording live before an audience. Its supposed to mean those videos that were posted straight to Youtube as the session is played. Some others have started to stretch the term to mean things like recorded before an audience and then edited.  Similar to how some TV shows used to be recorded live. Its also done by some digital artists. You literally see them drawing the piece over the course. People can later come in and see that recording.

Its effectively the same as recording a session and then later uploading it without edits. Or at least without many edits.

I completely avoided the problem by not watching streams. To me, it's as if they don't even exist. :D

But do steamers exist?

Take the red pill.

Quote from: Voros;1016114You would really exclude a ham at the table? I find they often make the game more engaging and amusing, when I GM I found players reacted well to the GM haming it up as well.

As to Shawn excluding people who 'yap too much at the table' I get this surreal image of players in gimp suits around the table.

We may be imagining different scenarios and using the term ham differently, but I find this a little odd too. I mean I love it when players ham up and have a good time at the table. It is absolutely not a requirement or expected, but if someone likes playing an over the-top buffoon and it isn't disruptive to play---I definitely could see an over-the-top buffoon who sidetracks the party all the time being a problem---I have no problem with it. I guess it might depend on the genre. But different strokes.

Krueger where would you draw the line on hammy behavior at the table?

Haming it up at the table only works if it is used sparingly. Used too often and it can overpower a gamin session like Brendan said.

Our group will include some ham from time to time but it is sparingly used. I think the folks that talked about how streaming "games" are similar to reality TV are spot on. That analogy is perfect in my mind.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016387But do steamers exist?

In RPGs? Sure. I think Castle Falkenstein and Space: 1889 would count as steampunk. Or I suppose any sci fi game with time travel you could end up on a paddleboat next to Samual Clemons (didn't they do that on ST:TNG?).

Or do you mean like in steam cleaning? Yeah, after the group has gotten their cheeto-dusted cooties or we're-bringing-our-kids-constant-illnesses germs all over my game books, I could see giving them a good steam cleaning.

So yeah, take your pick.

:p

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016387But do steamers exist?

I use one for vegetables all the time.

I like to eat vegetables, but it's hard to pick the wheelchairs out of my teeth.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1016393Krueger where would you draw the line on hammy behavior at the table?

Being a ham as opposed to playing one.  

We've all seen the disruptive players who usually conveniently come up with a roleplaying excuse to do PvP or otherwise be a fuckhead as "just doing what my character will do".  Well, right now, two of my players have characters that don't like,each other much.  They are good friends and they aren't trying to be disruptive, they're just good roleplayers who have characters that grind eachother's gears.

Similarly, I wouldn't be upset if a guy had a loud, gregarious sailor like John Rhys-Davies in Shogun, unless his characters were always of that type.

Baulderstone said you always have an audience when roleplaying and he's seen lots of players play to the crowd.  Well, someone roleplaying a ham is going to be in character, playing to the other characters, someone who is a ham is going to be playing to the other players and they always end up with a ham-worthy character.  That's the person that needs to find another table.

What's wrong with playing to the other players? It's better than playing to yourself.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1016496What's wrong with playing to the other players? It's better than playing to yourself.

Neither of which are really roleplaying, so...yeah.

I run a game of 2d20, or something else with so much obvious meta, why not?  Or you could ham, the fuck out of Necromunda, you'd fit right in.  My group plays role playing games to roleplay, and plays other games when not.  I know that somehow that's become rather odd.

I don't really understand what you mean about "playing to the players." How is that different than playing to the characters? Is it not the same thing.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1016503I don't really understand what you mean about "playing to the players." How is that different than playing to the characters? Is it not the same thing.

No. It is not.

Your character is fighting an orc.  You as a player are going to be ordering pizza after the fight.  
Now you are thinking about the fact that you are starving...and you don't want your character to die.
Your character probably wants to die even less, and doesn't know what pizza is, to him Round Table is furniture that isn't square and Dominos is a game.

If your last player was a quiet, ruthless assassin (or something) and this character is a loud, funny oaf, and your next character will be different, then you're roleplaying and will fit in just fine.  

If your assassin was a "Grim Servant of Death" who spoke mysterious mottos in "stage acting" theatrical voice, expressions, etc. before you played the loud, brash oaf, you'll probably want to leave yourself before you are asked to...but you will be asked to eventually.

I don't get how that part about pizza has anything to do with playing to the players lol

So far all I'm getting is you're saying being overly dramatic = bad.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1016507I don't get how that part about pizza has anything to do with playing to the players lol

The point is, you and your character do not always have the same thoughts and motivations.  If you are roleplaying Conan, some of the thoughts running through your brain are things Conan could have thought of, some of them will be things Conan could not have thought of.

If you are separated from your party, for example, your character might be alone even though the other players are at the table or in the room.  If you continue your stage acting, who are you performing for?  Are you performing for the other players, or is your character performing for the NPCs?  Who is the performance meant for?  Is it meant for you because you're running a movie in your head and your character is the star?  Again, if you're roleplaying a character who acts like that, then the character is simply behaving like that because that's how they behave.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1016507So far all I'm getting is you're saying being overly dramatic = bad.

What you should have gotten is that being overly dramatic=not what we do, so you won't fit in very well.  Does every single preference these days have to be deliberately twisted into a false claim of Badwrongfunitis?

Well, I interpreted "we" as in "the RPG community, RPG players." Or do you mean "we" as in "me and my group of friends."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1016520Well, I interpreted "we" as in "the RPG community, RPG players." Or do you mean "we" as in "me and my group of friends."

My table.  People were asking me specifically why these people wouldn't fit in at my table.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1016503I don't really understand what you mean about "playing to the players." How is that different than playing to the characters? Is it not the same thing.

Playing to the players = joking around or hamming it up in ways that dont fit the character. It is most often OOC. Bob is playing a grim assassin. But is acting more like the Shadow or Daffy Duck playing the Shadow. And is acting this out usually loudly at the table. The player is jolly and energetic and plays off the other players.
Playing to the characters = joking around or hamming it up in ways that do fit the character. It is most often IC. Bob is playing a loud boisterous barbarian. But is not acting this out at the table. Or is at least reasonably subdued about it. The character is jolly and energetic and plays off the other characters.

Or to put it differently. Think of it as akin to the players who come over to a session. And then just want to chat with the other players.

I dunno, it sounds like one could have both. A boisterous barbarian who also acts that way at the table sounds like just being in-character. And people usually get a kick out of that sort of thing.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016387But do steamers exist?

They do. I recently began to watch HyperRPG, although only their recorded videos on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRDPlyuTAus79rPdFERMS5A

I tried out twitch/switch (whatever) but it feels so alien for me, plus time zone difference is a problem watching it live anyway.

Every single one of those video'ed gaming sessions has put me to sleep except for Harmonquest, which isn't attempting at all to mimic a session (though, honestly, the behavior at the table fits a lot of what I've experienced, because we're not serious gd role players).:-)

Yeah, I just don't buy it.

Agreed. But football, especially the NFL, is garbage. Why support a sport in which the organization is scandal-ridden and the long-term brain damage done to players is becoming more widely known.

Because you like watching football? But that seems very OT.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1016891Yeah, I just don't buy it.

Exactly! Stick to the free vids! :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016511Does every single preference these days have to be deliberately twisted into a false claim of Badwrongfunitis?

... says the guy who typed "Neither of which are really roleplaying" just a few posts before.

Are people who sing Christmas songs on pop recordings doing the same thing as when I sing Christmas carols at church?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1016992Are people who sing Christmas songs on pop recordings doing the same thing as when I sing Christmas carols at church?

This is a bad analogy. First, is the song changing? If they are singing the same songs that you're singing at Church but are changing the words, melody, or music, in order for it to go over better for "TV" then no they are not doing the same thing you're doing.

The analogy is so bad that it isn't even worth discussing.

Something I noticed on social media that there is a "survey" going around about who makes up the "official" or "sponsored" D&D streams and the vast majority of the participants are actors and actresses. They are not doing this for the hobby but because it's another gig where they can collect a paycheck.

Like somebody or multiple people above said: this is reality television. It isn't how people actually play and I'm almost postive that a large majority of the participants wouldn't be playing at all if there wasn't money to be had for playing.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1016989... says the guy who typed "Neither of which are really roleplaying" just a few posts before.

So you define an acting performance where you're "playing to the other players" and "playing to yourself" as roleplaying.  Ok.  Good for you and yours I guess.  Me and mine define it differently, and drawing that distinction still isn't claiming you're BadWrongFun.

Quote from: Ulairi;1017005This is a bad analogy. First, is the song changing? If they are singing the same songs that you're singing at Church but are changing the words, melody, or music, in order for it to go over better for "TV" then no they are not doing the same thing you're doing.

What if they're the same words?

Think about the question. It's ambiguous, isn't it? If you do something performatively for an audience, are you doing the same thing as when you do it for social bonding and personal enjoyment? In some ways yes, in some ways no.

Anyone who thinks the top-rated D&D streams are just people playing games naturally, and it just so happens to come out in such a way that viewers choose it over other streams, are the sort of idiots who think porn is real.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1016992Are people who sing Christmas songs on pop recordings doing the same thing as when I sing Christmas carols at church?

Yes. The difference is they're making money.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017009So you define an acting performance where you're "playing to the other players" and "playing to yourself" as roleplaying.  Ok.  Good for you and yours I guess.  Me and mine define it differently, and drawing that distinction still isn't claiming you're BadWrongFun.

Somehow if you are performative at the table you are no longer 'roleplaying'? That is a unique defintion, would you care to explain exactly what you mean?

From what I can make of your earlier comments it is some subjective experience that takes place in the player's head and has little to no performative aspect at the table yet apparently is capable of being objectively determined by others at the table.

Is it really impossible for people to tell the difference between someone who sounds like with every character, every game that they're auditioning for Critical Role and someone who roleplays different characters differently?

Somehow I think not.

I have never listened to Critical Role for more than a few minutes so I have no frame of reference there. Are you saying they play the same OT character for every PC they create?

Critical Role is just voice actors trying to stay relevant is all, to viewers that have no money apparently.

Everyone in my D&D group listens to Critical Role religiously. I'm the exception. I've listened to a few episodes, but they are WAY too long, and I prefer to listen to audiobooks on my commute instead of a D&D game.

Though, I will say the voice acting is great, and Matt Mercer is a hell of a dungeon master.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017065Is it really impossible for people to tell the difference between someone who sounds like with every character, every game that they're auditioning for Critical Role and someone who roleplays different characters differently?

Somehow I think not.

I've only just started even paying attention to things like critical role and most of my groups are made up of either older people or folks who don't stream, but I can't say I've seen this sort of difference. I've seen people who do different degrees of performance at the table (whether it is for themselves, for others or a product of them getting character I don't know). But whether I have a guy hamming it up and performing or a person who is more reserved, those two things don't appear to create an immersion divide. I've met plenty of people who don't seem to get into character at all who when you talk to them, it is clear they are playing immerssively. And the same with performative players.  i wouldn't say such people are playing a different game. That said I do think making a TV around people playing D&D adds a whole other element that means it isn't really a proper session. And the more produced, edited and scripted---editing really I think are the key here---the more I think it is less of a genuine session. But to me, if you are there, playing a character and rolling dice (and there is a GM), you are playing an RPG. Even then, not everyone gets immersed. So I don't even think that is the thing that defines an RPG experience ( I personally think it is the best RPG experience, but played with too many people who do the third person thing not to call that roleplaying as well). This line though between performative and a person playing a character, that sounds like an incredibly blurry one to me.

I think the issue with performance is when it is disruptive to play or when it brings down the pace and natural flow of the rest of the group (for example spending 45 minutes of actual time in game talking with the innkeeper about his brewing process or something when the rest of the group clearly doesn't want to indulge in that kind of pacing).

Quote from: Wooster;1017137Though, I will say the voice acting is great, and Matt Mercer is a hell of a dungeon master.

This is the part I am wary about with these streaming games. Nothing against Mercer, he seems like he would be a great GM and I am sure this stuff is bringing more people into the hobby, but this is also a very produced show, and I wonder if this is setting unrealistic expectations on the part of new people coming into the hobby (and whether that impacts how they judge GM abilities and whether they take a chance GMing). Add to that, what works for fun at the table, is not necessarily what works for an audience watching a streamed session. Presumably people are smart enough to realize all this, I've just also heard people are more and more reluctant to GM as these become more popular (could be totally inaccurate information of course). And even back in the day, our expectations were often set unrealistically high by GM advice that painted a picture of sessions that rarely ever occurred at a real table (or presented an ideal). But something different here I think because you are watching it on the screen and it looks like a regular game.

I remember seeing some of Chris Perkin's GM'd sessions and thinking "My God, this is appalling". :eek: When I saw Matt Mercer GM I think it was the first time I'd seen a streamed game with normal decent GMing - and above average voice acting of course, but that wasn't what I was looking for. In terms of the actual craft of GMing Matt seems like a pretty normal competent GM running a pretty normal, middle of the road sort of game. His group of voice-actor players seemed pretty normal too, except all the women are skinny-good-looking Hollywood actress types, no average looking women.  A normal mixed-sex D&D group would more likely have a mix of good looking and less good looking players of both sexes. In interviews Mercer comes across pretty well too, often has nuggets of decent advice. Matthew Colville  is probably the most illuminating of the Youtube GM-advice givers; most of them are pretty terrible. I guess if it gets more people GMing & playing then it's all good.

Chris Perkins is amazing though.

Quote from: S'mon;1017148I remember seeing some of Chris Perkin's GM'd sessions and thinking "My God, this is appalling". :eek: When I saw Matt Mercer GM I think it was the first time I'd seen a streamed game with normal decent GMing - and above average voice acting of course, but that wasn't what I was looking for. In terms of the actual craft of GMing Matt seems like a pretty normal competent GM running a pretty normal, middle of the road sort of game. His group of voice-actor players seemed pretty normal too, except all the women are skinny-good-looking Hollywood actress types, no average looking women.  A normal mixed-sex D&D group would more likely have a mix of good looking and less good looking players of both sexes. In interviews Mercer comes across pretty well too, often has nuggets of decent advice. Matthew Colville  is probably the most illuminating of the Youtube GM-advice givers; most of them are pretty terrible. I guess if it gets more people GMing & playing then it's all good.

I don't think it actually does. Just a small audience consuming more of the same content.

Are these streamed sessions done all in one take?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1017192Are these streamed sessions done all in one take?

If they are actually being streamed and the poster isnt just using the term out of context. Then yes. Its live and all in one take, or all in one take at least. (thogh then its not a livestream anymore its just a recording.)

Livestream means its going up to posting as it is happening.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017009So you define an acting performance where you're "playing to the other players" and "playing to yourself" as roleplaying.  Ok.  Good for you and yours I guess.  Me and mine define it differently, and drawing that distinction still isn't claiming you're BadWrongFun.

No, I define "roleplaying" as playing a role as if the situation/milieu you're playing in was real, and your persona really present in it.

You'll note, perhaps, the complete absence of qualifiers.  It has nothing to do with how many people are at the table, whether there's a "table" at all, how many people are spectators, your entirely subjective judgment of the quality of the acting, whether people are any good at it or not, how pretty the players are, how stilted or practiced they are, or what game system they're using.  This brings up two of what I call the Gaming Geek Fallacies (My Game Is Great, Your Game Sucks  (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2013/09/ggf-4.html) and "X" Is The Opposite Of Fun (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2013/09/ggf-5.html)), but above and beyond that, the notion that a RPG session isn't really "roleplaying" because you think that the participants have an ulterior motive of which you disapprove, and you think they're all too polished in their gameplay, is one of the most inane concepts I've ever heard on a gaming forum, and that's saying something.

People game for a lot of reasons.  They game for fun.  They game for the intellectual challenge.  They game as catharsis.  They game to "win."  They game because they're bored.  They game to impress people as to how great/cool/smart/quick-witted they are (yeah, I know ...).  They game for the escapism.  They game as rebellion.  They game for a whole lot of reasons, I'm not remotely prepared to tell them they're not really roleplaying because I don't like those reasons, and that's about as mild as I can phrase my feelings on the subject.

You're claiming that these people, doing some things differently than you would prefer or approve of, Aren't Really Roleplaying.  That, sir, is the very definition of BadWrongFun.

Well, Ravenswing, it does seem at least weird that these people are doing it for money. Part of the thing about this being is a hobby is that it's an end in itself, it's something you would do regardless of any other reward. I'm pretty confident that most of these voice actors and improv comedians never played RPG's before this and wouldn't be doing it except for this. This isn't like cosplayer's and me liking Firefly for different reasons, both of which are valid, it's the idea that someone's been hired to like Firefly or is doing it for their career. They can do whatever they want, but it seems to me that the outcomes of doing something for extrinsic reasons might be different than doing things for extrinsic reasons. Most of the people that are famous for online computer gaming would be computer gaming even if it didn't make them money or make them famous. Though it's certainly nice to live in a world where someone even COULD become famous by playing an RPG.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1017261No, I define "roleplaying" as playing a role as if the situation/milieu you're playing in was real, and your persona really present in it.

You'll note, perhaps, the complete absence of qualifiers.  It has nothing to do with how many people are at the table, whether there's a "table" at all, how many people are spectators, your entirely subjective judgment of the quality of the acting, whether people are any good at it or not, how pretty the players are, how stilted or practiced they are, or what game system they're using.  This brings up two of what I call the Gaming Geek Fallacies (My Game Is Great, Your Game Sucks  (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2013/09/ggf-4.html) and "X" Is The Opposite Of Fun (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2013/09/ggf-5.html)), but above and beyond that, the notion that a RPG session isn't really "roleplaying" because you think that the participants have an ulterior motive of which you disapprove, and you think they're all too polished in their gameplay, is one of the most inane concepts I've ever heard on a gaming forum, and that's saying something.

People game for a lot of reasons.  They game for fun.  They game for the intellectual challenge.  They game as catharsis.  They game to "win."  They game because they're bored.  They game to impress people as to how great/cool/smart/quick-witted they are (yeah, I know ...).  They game for the escapism.  They game as rebellion.  They game for a whole lot of reasons, I'm not remotely prepared to tell them they're not really roleplaying because I don't like those reasons, and that's about as mild as I can phrase my feelings on the subject.

You're claiming that these people, doing some things differently than you would prefer or approve of, Aren't Really Roleplaying.  That, sir, is the very definition of BadWrongFun.

It's got nothing to do with like or what I prefer.  Things are what they are.  I played AD&D a whole summer with a guy who treated the game entirely as a tactical exercise.  He never roleplayed once, and he'd be the first to admit it.  He's a gigantic skirmish miniatures game guy these days and he loves it because it suits him better.   These days we play online games together and when we physically get together for a game, it's Necromunda or Blood Bowl. If he wasn't a good friend of ours back then in High School we probably would have stopped playing with him.

Every Roleplaying Game session must contain non-Roleplaying, it's the nature of the beast.  When you have someone though, who obviously and overtly is playing with other motivations, which doesn't fit on with the rest of the table that well, it's better for them to find a table where people do what they do.

It's like what Gronan said, find a table where the ratio of cardplaying to non-cardplaying is the same as what you like.  Roleplaying is a little different, because a large amount of choices and decisions can be roleplaying, or not, and noone but you will never know because the motivation is internal.  Doing a stage acting performance the same way no matter what character you play though, isn't one of those ones that's internal.

Quote from: Ulairi;1015441I don't get the RPG streaming fad. I get that guys like that there are somewhat attractive women doing it who often will dress up in provocative clothing while steaming...

I've never watched an RPG streaming. Could you supply a sample link or so, in order for me to judge what they are doing?

Quote from: finarvyn;1017365I've never watched an RPG streaming. Could you supply a sample link or so, in order for me to judge what they are doing?

One example. But damn the DM "uhs" alot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNOuQhXaLas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNOuQhXaLas)

This seems to be livestream. But the camera changes so not sure how they are doing that without edits. Id guess some sort of program thats changing cameras?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6ndE0N4l1g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6ndE0N4l1g)

And one using a map.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E8vnMr6RX4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E8vnMr6RX4)

And some weirdo names Shawn Driscoll fumbling his way through the Traveller Chargen. :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfcZMjyTa1g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfcZMjyTa1g)

And one thats a bit more showy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0WMyutMnBE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0WMyutMnBE)

So, I recored and posted an entire arc of my homegame on youtube. Go watch it, if you can; Random ACKS of violence.

It's uneditied, raw, two-to-three hour sessions of me, my friends, and my two young kids. There are huge stretches of nothing. There are off-color jokes. Book consulting and chart-flipping. Players misunderstanding the GM. People eating snacks. Interruptions. Bathroom breaks. Kids wandering in and halting the game. One notable instance has an entire character generation.

It's dull and horrible,  basically unwatchable. I tell you now that it was a blast to play, though; all of the people involved laud that campaign to this day.

So no, they're not doing the same thing that you see at tables,  because that's a  chore to watch. They're making something watchable and hence marketable.

Quote from: Azraele;1017375So, I recored and posted an entire arc of my homegame on youtube. Go watch it, if you can; Random ACKS of violence.

It's uneditied, raw, two-to-three hour sessions of me, my friends, and my two young kids. There are huge stretches of nothing. There are off-color jokes. Book consulting and chart-flipping. Players misunderstanding the GM. People eating snacks. Interruptions. Bathroom breaks. Kids wandering in and halting the game. One notable instance has an entire character generation.

It's dull and horrible,  basically unwatchable. I tell you now that it was a blast to play, though; all of the people involved laud that campaign to this day.

So no, they're not doing the same thing that you see at tables,  because that's a  chore to watch. They're making something watchable and hence marketable.

That's true. And I think that's my issue with them. They aren't playing D&D because it's their hobby. It's a gig and they are doing it for money or to get other gigs. Not all streamers but the "pro" or the ones that gather any sort of audience.

And I agree with Brendan, I have noticed a lot of people (on social media) that are terrified to become game masters because of these shows. It presents an unrealistic bullshit view of what the hobby is and how to properly play. I don't even think if we actually studied it enough that it is growing the hobby. I think the audience that watches these shows is very small (obviously it's an niche within in a niche) and their hobby is watching people playing these games. I would bet real money that a lot of folks that watch streaming of D&D never actually play D&D.

I don't like these things that treat the source material as just a derivative and nothing more. That includes cosplaying, streaming, etc. Those are fine hobbies or things in and of themselves but they are not part of the original source hobby.

Quote from: Ulairi;1017376That's true. And I think that's my issue with them. They aren't playing D&D because it's their hobby. It's a gig and they are doing it for money or to get other gigs. Not all streamers but the "pro" or the ones that gather any sort of audience.

And I agree with Brendan, I have noticed a lot of people (on social media) that are terrified to become game masters because of these shows. It presents an unrealistic bullshit view of what the hobby is and how to properly play. I don't even think if we actually studied it enough that it is growing the hobby. I think the audience that watches these shows is very small (obviously it's an niche within in a niche) and their hobby is watching people playing these games. I would bet real money that a lot of folks that watch streaming of D&D never actually play D&D.

I don't like these things that treat the source material as just a derivative and nothing more. That includes cosplaying, streaming, etc. Those are fine hobbies or things in and of themselves but they are not part of the original source hobby.

If I ever go mad, I will dig through the hours (and hours) of footage we shot and grab the few transcendent gems that emerged from the sessions. Those rare few moments when the entire group was fully engaged and the game and show were both at peak entertainment. Maybe we'll do a little retrospective clip show thing, like best of the worst.

It's a ton of work though, and I can't imagine that it's actually worthwhile to shoot and edit that way if you're trying to crank out marketable product at an efficient clip. Better just to shoot from a script.

I share your frustration, but the forces that cause streamed games to suck as they do are at least apparent.

Quote from: Ulairi;1017376And I agree with Brendan, I have noticed a lot of people (on social media) that are terrified to become game masters because of these shows. It presents an unrealistic bullshit view of what the hobby is and how to properly play. I don't even think if we actually studied it enough that it is growing the hobby. I think the audience that watches these shows is very small (obviously it's an niche within in a niche) and their hobby is watching people playing these games. I would bet real money that a lot of folks that watch streaming of D&D never actually play D&D.

I just want to clarify my point here. I have no issue with these shows. And I think they are bringing people into the hobby. I just am guessing if this is your first exposure to gaming, you might think the stuff Matt Mercer is doing is the norm. Fixing that is pretty easy. If someone joins your group after watching Critical Role, just give them a heads up that that show is made up of professional voice actors who are getting paid and has a budget. Most groups are going to be a lot more casual and probably less performative and fewer cool voices. It is also just one way of playing the game in terms of how they structure campaigns and stuff.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1017382I just want to clarify my point here. I have no issue with these shows. And I think they are bringing people into the hobby. I just am guessing if this is your first exposure to gaming, you might think the stuff Matt Mercer is doing is the norm. Fixing that is pretty easy. If someone joins your group after watching Critical Role, just give them a heads up that that show is made up of professional voice actors who are getting paid and has a budget. Most groups are going to be a lot more casual and probably less performative and fewer cool voices. It is also just one way of playing the game in terms of how they structure campaigns and stuff.

These show's don't bother you? for real? I watch them like my comp-sci buddies watch shows about "hackers": they make my flesh crawl, even if I'm enjoying them

Quote from: Azraele;1017384These show's don't bother you? for real? I watch them like my comp-sci buddies watch shows about "hackers": they make my flesh crawl, even if I'm enjoying them

No they don't. Things like this used to bother me (watching period movies used to bother me for example when I saw things I disliked, thought were inaccurate, etc). I learned to get way less uptight about these things. But it is a show, and they entertain people. Whether what they do matches what goes on at my table isn't really something that I worry too much about. My only concern really is new players coming into my group expecting me to either be like Matt Mercer or run campaigns the way he does.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1017382I just want to clarify my point here. I have no issue with these shows. And I think they are bringing people into the hobby. I just am guessing if this is your first exposure to gaming, you might think the stuff Matt Mercer is doing is the norm. Fixing that is pretty easy. If someone joins your group after watching Critical Role, just give them a heads up that that show is made up of professional voice actors who are getting paid and has a budget. Most groups are going to be a lot more casual and probably less performative and fewer cool voices. It is also just one way of playing the game in terms of how they structure campaigns and stuff.

I think it also goes the other way that people think D&D is sitting around tables speaking in funny voices. I know for me, that was always a reason folks that have never played told me why they didn't want to play: they didn't want to talk in funny voices.

I know you're not anti these things. I'm not really anti them. I just don't like them. I am fine that people enjoy them and everything I just don't want them to make it more difficult for me to find people to game with.

Quote from: Ulairi;1017387I think it also goes the other way that people think D&D is sitting around tables speaking in funny voices. I know for me, that was always a reason folks that have never played told me why they didn't want to play: they didn't want to talk in funny voices.

I know you're not anti these things. I'm not really anti them. I just don't like them. I am fine that people enjoy them and everything I just don't want them to make it more difficult for me to find people to game with.

I don't do funny voices, but I don't hate or dislike funny voices. If someone does them at my table, I am not going to stop them. I like having players who ham it up from time to time. I don't consider someone employing that style of play to be doing something wrong  in a roleplaying context. My only irritation is when someone expects me to do something (like if someone acts like I am doing something wrong because I am light on the voices or don't worry an adventure having a climax). But others want that stuff, I am fine with it. And I am fine with playing with people who do those things. I have my own style of play, but I don't isolate myself from people with different preferences. Most tables are made up of a few different sets of preferences. I have three groups at the moment. Each made up of different players with slightly different sensibilities. I adjust my style slightly to each one (and they in turn adjust to me).

Quote from: Azraele;1017384These show's don't bother you? for real? I watch them like my comp-sci buddies watch shows about "hackers": they make my flesh crawl, even if I'm enjoying them

I'm not sure that's a model to emulate, though. I manage programmers, so I say this with love, not malice--comp-sci types are (as a trend) a deeply insecure body of people desperate for respect they feel they are denied, and thus any unrealistic portrayal of what they do is seen as a personal affront, not simply 'getting it wrong.' I think a better model might be Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining what isn't accurate about a science movie, not being upset that it exists.

Lets keep in mind though that there is a huge difference between a live stream that is just a normal session in progress and a livestream that is a monetized "show". A non-monetized livestream might be goofy or flamboyant or even have some production. But its usually either an outgrowth of how that table plays. Or theyve seen a monetized livestream and think thats how its supposed to be done. The monetized ones tend to all be productions first and gaming sessions second. They are trying to attract an audience and garner income.

RPG streams are like reality TV. No, scratch that. They are reality TV. They're first and foremost products made for the entertainment of consumers. Even if they all began as some folks just playing their game and uploading it to the internet, the relentless logic of ratings means those streamers which consciously produce their streams based on what entertains an audience will ultimately rope in the most viewers, and monetization gives them a strong incentive to do so.

If the top streams don't already have professional writers, they will eventually, just as reality shows do.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1017390I don't do funny voices, but I don't hate or dislike funny voices. If someone does them at my table, I am not going to stop them. I like having players who ham it up from time to time. I don't consider someone employing that style of play to be doing something wrong  in a roleplaying context. My only irritation is when someone expects me to do something (like if someone acts like I am doing something wrong because I am light on the voices or don't worry an adventure having a climax). But others want that stuff, I am fine with it. And I am fine with playing with people who do those things. I have my own style of play, but I don't isolate myself from people with different preferences. Most tables are made up of a few different sets of preferences. I have three groups at the moment. Each made up of different players with slightly different sensibilities. I adjust my style slightly to each one (and they in turn adjust to me).

I'm basically where you are. I don't mind if someone hams it up or does that, as long as it doesn't become a distraction. I actually like it when I have a player that is more willing to talk in character and act a little bit because I've experienced folks that are more insular or less willing to do that will start to open up and broaden how they play.

I was just speaking from experience when people have found out that I play role-playing games they usually will ask if that's what we do. I think there is a belief that it's a bunch of nerds sitting in a basement acting like we are at a Ren Fair.

I do think the next generation is going to be introduced to role-playing games via these Twitch shows far more likely than any other route (unless a parent introduces them). I started gaming when I was young because my parents made my older brother let me play when he would have his friends over. If my first experience of table top gaming would have been a show like Critical Role it would have really turned me off. Now, I know there are people that are the opposite that they want the "acting" portion and there are a lot of people that I've met at cons that came into gaming via being drama geeks.

But everyday on Twitter I see a RT of somebody talking about all the anxiety they have about being a GM and I reply like: being a GM isn't difficult. Just start small and as you play the game will help you out. One of my issues with the modern focus of WoTC on "story telling" is that it hurts people becoming a GM because they think they have to be a story teller when we really don't. And the biggest hindrance for people playing games is having a referee to run the game. Magic and Warhammer are great because I can show up to a store and play. But, it's hard to play a RPG if there isn't someone willing to run the game.

I'm hoping that the stigma of the "dungeon" goes away and the belief that these games are really about "sitting around and telling stories with your friends" dies. D&D was most popular when that wasn't the marketing message.

Quote from: Ulairi;1017376...
I think the audience that watches these shows is very small (obviously it's an niche within in a niche) and their hobby is watching people playing these games. I would bet real money that a lot of folks that watch streaming of D&D never actually play D&D.

That may be true but I know of two cases of friends of mine who I never mentioned RPGs to as a hobby who watched Critical Role, became interested in playing and now do play. So it is clearly bringing people into the hobby which I can only see as a good thing.

And in terms of funny voices, there's a whole range of play and I have no problem with that, excluding someone who does is a bizarre idea to me.

I think there's an excellent section in the 5e PHB where they actually describe the range of role playing approaches, ranging from the full voice and gestures style to describing what your character does and says in a more third person style. When I read it I thought 'why haven't I seen this done before?' To anyone familiar with roleplaying it is beyond obvious but for new players and GMs it is very helfpul.

I also don't buy that a 'let's tell a story together' approach is anymore intimidating than a dungeoncrawl approach, they are just slightly different and will appeal to different players. And besides that it is all a false dichotomy as you are 'telling a story together' in a dungeoncrawl.

It has an effect on existing players too.

One of my players said that when they began D&D they had absolutely no interest at all in the roleplaying element. All they cared about was mechanics and combat. But after watching Critical Role, the drama and story telling is what they want to do most.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1017391I'm not sure that's a model to emulate, though. I manage programmers, so I say this with love, not malice--comp-sci types are (as a trend) a deeply insecure body of people desperate for respect they feel they are denied, and thus any unrealistic portrayal of what they do is seen as a personal affront, not simply 'getting it wrong.' I think a better model might be Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining what isn't accurate about a science movie, not being upset that it exists.

That aligns with my experience of computer geeks,  yup XD

I'm not, like, offended by this stuff; it just rankles me every time someone's like "We have to make a saving throw against their charisma or we'll lose our XP points!" or such nonsense. There's an element of my natural pedantry to this, I imagine, but I lack the self-awareness to tell you the extent.

To give you an example so you can gauge this against your own tolerance: I was trying to watch Harmonquest, and in the first episode their little goblin rogue guy is eviscerating people like a fucking cenobite. Just running past them, swinging his sword, and their organs explode everywhere. I can tolerate giant flying lizards and magic spells, but when mundane knives turn people inside out... I mean, does everything operate by cartoon logic? It was a signal to me that all the clever uses of terrain and physics that my players consistently delight me with was going to be completely absence and that I was basically watching "Dungeons and Ricks and Mortys", where physics is made up and reality doesn't matter.

If that doesn't even blip your radar; congratulations, you're in the target demographic for Harmonquest. I'ma  little ticked that I'm not; I really like Harmon's writing, and I like DnD, but this just wasn't the Reese's for me.

Getting caught up in all the minutiae is often looked at as a waste of time by a lot of D&D players. Who tracks encumbrance?

That said, as I've played more, I've delved more into that (and started tracking encumbrance) to help increase realism. But realism has its place.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1017446Getting caught up in all the minutiae is often looked at as a waste of time by a lot of D&D players. Who tracks encumbrance?

That said, as I've played more, I've delved more into that (and started tracking encumbrance) to help increase realism. But realism has its place.

Yes, realism has its place.  And that place is a tool, not a goal.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1017446Getting caught up in all the minutiae is often looked at as a waste of time by a lot of D&D players. Who tracks encumbrance?

That said, as I've played more, I've delved more into that (and started tracking encumbrance) to help increase realism. But realism has its place.

I do when I do character audits.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1017264Well, Ravenswing, it does seem at least weird that these people are doing it for money. Part of the thing about this being is a hobby is that it's an end in itself, it's something you would do regardless of any other reward.

A lot of hobbyists DO get money from their hobbies ‡.  My wife paints for fun, but she's also sold some of her paintings: does that mean she's not really an artist?  She quilts a lot, but she's also taken commissions to make quilts: does that mean she's not really a quilter?

Hell, I've gamed for money.  A number of people on this forum have.  Any of you ever get anything published?  Ever have your groups playtest anything you intended to publish?  Well, then, you've whored out too, right?  Absolutely, I do this hobby as an end in of itself, but I never minded the money from selling stuff.  One sale paid for a modest vacation for my wife and myself.  Another was the down payment on a new economy car after the previous car was totaled (ironically enough, while I was driving to GM a game).  My share of a four-way split was my books and expenses my final semester in college.  I don't apologize for any of that, and I spit contemptuously on the notion that I "wasn't really roleplaying" because US$ was coming in rather than going out.

Honestly, I think what's driving this is reflexive tribalism and fear: fear that what goes on at one's table isn't as Kewl as what's on YouTube.  Well, stipulating so, so frigging what?  Some of you are certainly better GMs than I am; some are certainly more skilled players.  Since I'm pretty sure there's not a single thing I do or have ever done at which I'm best in the world, it's a waste of time and breath to worry about it.

‡ - I won't say "make money," because the barest fraction of hobbyists who earn any dough from it come remotely close to breaking even on their outlay; my wife sure doesn't.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1017446Getting caught up in all the minutiae is often looked at as a waste of time by a lot of D&D players. Who tracks encumbrance?

That said, as I've played more, I've delved more into that (and started tracking encumbrance) to help increase realism. But realism has its place.

I track encumbrance...

I even made a chart:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2079[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Voros;1017432And besides that it is all a false dichotomy as you are 'telling a story together' in a dungeoncrawl.

You certainly *could*, if that's how you play, but not everyone does.

Quote from: Azraele;1017445To give you an example so you can gauge this against your own tolerance: I was trying to watch Harmonquest, and in the first episode their little goblin rogue guy is eviscerating people like a fucking cenobite. Just running past them, swinging his sword, and their organs explode everywhere. I can tolerate giant flying lizards and magic spells, but when mundane knives turn people inside out... I mean, does everything operate by cartoon logic? It was a signal to me that all the clever uses of terrain and physics that my players consistently delight me with was going to be completely absence and that I was basically watching "Dungeons and Ricks and Mortys", where physics is made up and reality doesn't matter.

If that doesn't even blip your radar; congratulations, you're in the target demographic for Harmonquest. I'ma  little ticked that I'm not; I really like Harmon's writing, and I like DnD, but this just wasn't the Reese's for me.

Well, I will not pretend that that doesn't seem stupid to me. Clive Barker's novel Cabal was ruined for me for just that reason--a character in is, not even a superhuman, just a serial killer, used a combat knife and cut a guys head in half (in combat no less, not with a helpless victim or something)--it was really, really stupid. But that's a difference in preference in combat realism which could happen between you and any new gaming group or experience. I don't really think the fact that it was a streaming game made that different-taste-ish event happen.  

Quotet just rankles me every time someone's like "We have to make a saving throw against their charisma or we'll lose our XP points!" or such nonsense

Now that is more troublesome (unless that's something that actually happens in the game system they are using). Then they are just throwing word salad into the air and hoping that their audience (whom you would think would be apt to be the most likely to notice) would not catch on.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017468You certainly *could*, if that's how you play, but not everyone does.

This is an endless debate, the shorthand description for roleplaying to those new to the game is 'telling a story together' or 'making believe.' To most people those are a synonm, only those who post on online forums are parsing the difference, to most players it is the equivalent of debating how many angels can stand on the end of a pin. As usual you are bringing a MetricTon of baggage to the use of 'story' here that isn't actually neccessary.

I'm not too sure about that.  It's not that "let's tell a story together" or "making believe" is intimidating, it's just not a draw to most people.  For that to be a draw towards RPGs for the general public, I think "Let's tell a story/make believe together" would need to be an compelling offer when it [edit - is offered as an inducement to activities other than RPGs].  And it really isn't.

Quote from: Voros;1017581This is an endless debate, the shorthand description for roleplaying to those new to the game is 'telling a story together' or 'making believe.' To most people those are a synonm, only those who post on online forums are parsing the difference, to most players it is the equivalent of debating how many angels can stand on the end of a pin. As usual you are bringing a MetricTon of baggage to the use of 'story' here that isn't actually neccessary.

Nah, as usual you're trying to have it both ways - declaring that the specific definition of roleplaying as telling stories in the literal sense is what everyone does, then cry foul and pretend you meant the wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey version when called on your bullshit.

'Making believe' has nothing to do with RPGs? That is certainly the strangest claim I've seen in a while.

So you're actually fighting dragons when you sit down at a table? Sorry, the first thing anyone does when they sit at a table to play a RPG is to make believe, they make believe they are a wizard, or a space travaller and that character is moving through and interacting in an imaginary world. Whether that world is a dungeon complex, a forest or a city is not the huge difference you seem desperate to make it.

And as usual 'most people' is best interpreted as 'me.' How can anyone claim to know what attracts 'most people' to the table? There are a wide variety of players with a wide variety of interests that draw them to a table, to claim that your reason is the majority because reasons is a typical fallacy.

Quote from: Voros;1017587'Making believe' has nothing to do with RPGs? That is certainly the strangest claim I've seen in a while.

So you're actually fighting dragons when you sit down at a table? Sorry, the first thing anyone does when they sit at a table to play a RPG is to make believe, they make believe they are a wizard, or a space travaller and that character is moving through and interacting in an imaginary world. Whether that world is a dungeon complex, a forest or a city is not the huge difference you seem desperate to make it.

And as usual 'most people' is best interpreted as 'me.' How can anyone claim to know what attracts 'most people' to the table? There are a wide variety of players with a wide variety of interests that draw them to a table, to claim that your reason is the majority because reasons is a typical fallacy.

I didn't see anyone claim that "making believe" has absolutely zero, nada, nothing to do with RPGs.  

I did claim that going around and selling any sort of imaginative activity as "we're going to tell a story together" and thinking that's actually a interest-sparking opener for most people is wishful thinking, at best.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017585Nah, as usual you're trying to have it both ways - declaring that the specific definition of roleplaying as telling stories in the literal sense is what everyone does, then cry foul and pretend you meant the wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey version when called on your bullshit.

You are obsessed with this, want to show me where the storygamers touched you?

The mere mention of 'story' even in the least significant way and you're threadcrapping hard because you insist on a defintion of the term that no on who was part of your pointless internet drama cares about.

Look, an RPG session doesn't have to have a beginning, middle or end like a conventional 'story' (course most modernist stories are usually without one of those but that's a whole other kettle of fish when defining 'story').

But if you put most people down and said 'You're an elf, you're in a dungeon, do you turn left or right? I turn left. You see a door? What does the door look like?' etc they would say you are telling a story together. Since that word comes packed with evil heretical connotations for you (and a tiny percentage of people who spend their time on the net arguing over RPGs) then call it 'making believe.' Your obsession with the one word is beyond tiresome.

Quote from: EOTB;1017589I didn't see anyone claim that "making believe" has absolutely zero, nada, nothing to do with RPGs.  

QuoteI think "Let's tell a story/make believe together" would need to be an compelling offer when it has nothing to do with RPGs. (my bold)

Would you mind clarifying what you meant when you just said that 'let's tell a story/make believe together' 'when it has nothing to do with RPGs?

You seem to be contradicting yourself within a few posts, how did you not say 'making believe' has 'nothing to do with RPGs' when those were your exact words? I assume you meant something else then but mispoke?

As to whether 'making believe together' is the main attraction to RPGs' who can say? I never said it was the main attraction, merely not intimidating compared to dungeoncrawling. Different approachs appeal to different kinds of players.

I would say 'let's pretend we're in the world of LOTR together' is probably still the biggest attraction for most newbies.

Quote from: Voros;1017591You are obsessed with this, want to show me where the storygamers touched you?

The mere mention of 'story' even in the least significant way and you're threadcrapping hard because you insist on a defintion of the term that no on who was part of your pointless internet drama cares about.

Look, an RPG session doesn't have to have a beginning, middle or end like a conventional 'story' (course most modernist stories are usually without one of those but that's a whole other kettle of fish when defining 'story').

But if you put most people down and said 'You're an elf, you're in a dungeon, do you turn left or right? I turn left. You see a door? What does the door look like?' etc they would say you are telling a story together. Since that word comes packed with evil heretical connotations for you (and a tiny percentage of people who spend their time on the net arguing over RPGs) then call it 'making believe.' Your obsession with the one word is beyond tiresome.

The fact is " 'telling stories' kinda sorta maybe but not really it's a verbal shorthand because we don't know what to call it" went out the door as good RPG terminology when someone put narrative authority mechanics into RPGs.  When games contain mechanics for literal storytelling, blurry definitions that are only kept around because they are blurry don't do anyone actually trying to describe these games any good.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017604The fact is " 'telling stories' kinda sorta maybe but not really it's a verbal shorthand because we don't know what to call it" went out the door as good RPG terminology when someone put narrative authority mechanics into RPGs.  When games contain mechanics for literal storytelling, blurry definitions that are only kept around because they are blurry don't do anyone actually trying to describe these games any good.

Well, it's all gaming, isn't it? We're debating curry dishes here, I think.

I mentioned Harmonquest, not because I thought it represented anything we do at  the table (other than the juvenile behavior and innuendo I'm used to):-), but because it's fun to watch. To be frank, I wouldn't put a camera on any of my own sessions, nor watch anyone else's, because it seems anathema to what the activity actually is -- participative. To draw spectators, these streaming games need something beyond that, so I guess that's where we get into the whole "it's a story" (non) issue). In actuality, it's all stories, particularly the ones we tell about "the time when..." How we get there is unique to our groups, and our own, peculiar tastes.

But, here's the deal: this whole "storygame" kerfluffle is moot. Some folks want dedicated mechanics. Other folks let the inherent rules develop the story. GMs "storygame" all the time, even when systems aren't specifically dedicated to producing narrative outcomes. But, we're all narrating something, whether it's through a mechanic, or through considered application of a consequence, as deemed by our role. Best to get over that aspect of it, because it sorta just is. There are perks to many approaches. I personally like things to unfold organically. But we could probably debate what that means, too.

Anyway, on the question of these gaming "shows," it doesn't seem exactly like anything I personally do, specifically, though, in other ways, the basics are there. So, are they playing the same game? No, they're not, and, yes, they are (albeit "inexactly?"). Like you said, we don't know what to call it. Or rather, we can't agree on it. It's the second amendment. We argue via context.

Quote from: cranebump;1017605But, here's the dealBut, we're all narrating something, whether it's through a mechanic, or through considered application of a consequence, as deemed by our role. Best to get over that aspect of it, because it sorta just is.

You think that's true because that's what you do, but the crux of the whole kerfluffle as you call it, and why it isn't moot, is because that really really isn't true.

Harmonquest is hella fun to watch, though.

One of authors of Dungeon World was on Twitter saying he wants a version of D&D that is built for streaming. If that happens I'm out. The audience for streaming is nothing. It's bullshit outside of the bubble. Millions of people play D&D at the table and as a game. If that's what you want to do just do an improv stream and forget the game part at all.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017585Nah, as usual you're trying to have it both ways - declaring that the specific definition of roleplaying as telling stories in the literal sense is what everyone does, then cry foul and pretend you meant the wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey version when called on your bullshit.

The usual (insert term here) redefined to mean "Everything on Earth!"

Quote from: Ulairi;1017618One of authors of Dungeon World was on Twitter saying he wants a version of D&D that is built for streaming. If that happens I'm out. The audience for streaming is nothing. It's bullshit outside of the bubble. Millions of people play D&D at the table and as a game. If that's what you want to do just do an improv stream and forget the game part at all.

What the fuck is "built for streaming" supposed to even mean?

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017613You think that's true because that's what you do, but the crux of the whole kerfluffle as you call it, and why it isn't moot, is because that really really isn't true.

Harmonquest is hella fun to watch, though.

He said, objectively.:-/

Quit basking in your purity, Buddha. Post a vid or recording of what you do, and I'm pretty sure we'd hear you narrating something.

(And it's a kerfluffle because grogs like you and Pundit are baffled by your own orthodoxy. The world changes, Columbus.)

Quote from: cranebump;1017623He said, objectively.:-/

Quit basking in your purity, Buddha. Post a vid or recording of what you do, and I'm pretty sure we'd hear you narrating something.

(And it's a kerfluffle because grogs like you and Pundit are baffled by your own orthodoxy. The world changes, Columbus.)

Um...so which is it, Crane?

Is the way I roleplay the same way you roleplay and the types of games I prefer the same as the types of games you prefer, or...did things change? :D. Pick one.

Quote from: Omega;1017622What the fuck is "built for streaming" supposed to even mean?

Take away the randomness and the bad results like death because it screws up the show

Quote from: Omega;1017622What the fuck is "built for streaming" supposed to even mean?

Remove randomness and grindy elements that stall things or cause inconvenience, make it have a smooth plot arc more like a TV show, encourage players to get super into their one character so they are like a TV character rather than a nobody who randomly dies to goblins.

Quote from: Ulairi;1017618One of authors of Dungeon World was on Twitter saying he wants a version of D&D that is built for streaming. If that happens I'm out. The audience for streaming is nothing. It's bullshit outside of the bubble. Millions of people play D&D at the table and as a game. If that's what you want to do just do an improv stream and forget the game part at all.

Well, c'mon.  Let's say that one WAS created -- although like others I'm curious what manner of RPG would be "built for streaming" other than the terribly simple "Go rules-light, cementhead" version.  What, exactly, does that take away from you?  Would you no longer be allowed to play the version of D&D you prefer, in the manner you want?

Sounds, honestly, like the people insistent that MMORPGs (or LARPs, or storygames, or freeform, or ...) would Destroy The Hobby.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1017651Remove randomness and grindy elements that stall things or cause inconvenience, make it have a smooth plot arc more like a TV show, encourage players to get super into their one character so they are like a TV character rather than a nobody who randomly dies to goblins.

Few RPGs have grindy elements.
And if theres no random factor then you may not even be playing a game or role playing at that point. It has become a script or improv acting. And in this case literally a TV show.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1017654Well, c'mon.  Let's say that one WAS created -- although like others I'm curious what manner of RPG would be "built for streaming" other than the terribly simple "Go rules-light, cementhead" version.  What, exactly, does that take away from you?  Would you no longer be allowed to play the version of D&D you prefer, in the manner you want?

Sounds, honestly, like the people insistent that MMORPGs (or LARPs, or storygames, or freeform, or ...) would Destroy The Hobby.

I'm lucky that I have a stable group and we don't like D&D because it isn't our game anymore. However! If I had to move or my group ended, do you know how hard it is to find players to play something other than CURRENT D&D? D&D, the current version, has been like 95% of the hobby for a whole lot of years. An unhealthy D&D means an unhealthy hobby. I think if they did the stupid thing and built a game for "streaming" it would have a big impact on the hobby in general. Nothing will kill it but it can wound it.

I'd rather tell people that want to do improve to do fucking improve! There is already a hobby for improve and no need to even pretend you're playing D&D when you don't want to play a game. Why should I change? They are the ones who suck.

Quote from: Omega;1017689Few RPGs have grindy elements.
And if theres no random factor then you may not even be playing a game or role playing at that point. It has become a script or improv acting. And in this case literally a TV show.

ie. HarmonQuest (Pathfinder with complete GM Fiat)

Quote from: Ulairi;1017690I'm lucky that I have a stable group and we don't like D&D because it isn't our game anymore. However! If I had to move or my group ended, do you know how hard it is to find players to play something other than CURRENT D&D? D&D, the current version, has been like 95% of the hobby for a whole lot of years. An unhealthy D&D means an unhealthy hobby. I think if they did the stupid thing and built a game for "streaming" it would have a big impact on the hobby in general. Nothing will kill it but it can wound it.

I'd rather tell people that want to do improve to do fucking improve! There is already a hobby for improve and no need to even pretend you're playing D&D when you don't want to play a game. Why should I change? They are the ones who suck.

I doubt they would make the official version of D&D tailored for livestreams. My guess is the person wanted a version of the game tailored to it (so like optional rules in the back of the PHB or a variation rulebook specifically made for livestreams. Personally i am not sure a game tailored to livestreams really helps for viewing purposes, because if people are watching D&D, they probably want to see D&D (there may be people commenting something wasn't dramatic enough because a character died due to a bad roll or something, but I am sure a lot more people watch these things as if they were gladiatorial matches, with the PCs dying being half the fun.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1017694I doubt they would make the official version of D&D tailored for livestreams. My guess is the person wanted a version of the game tailored to it (so like optional rules in the back of the PHB or a variation rulebook specifically made for livestreams. Personally i am not sure a game tailored to livestreams really helps for viewing purposes, because if people are watching D&D, they probably want to see D&D (there may be people commenting something wasn't dramatic enough because a character died due to a bad roll or something, but I am sure a lot more people watch these things as if they were gladiatorial matches, with the PCs dying being half the fun.

I think for a lot of people in the "indy" scene they don't view D&D as a game but as a storytelling "thing". The reason why baseball (or any professional sport) is popular is that anybody can go out and play in a ball game but how many of us can throw a 95 mph fastball? The drama around it's the bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, bases loaded and we're down by 3 and I step up to the plate is so compelling and dramatic is that 99.97% of the time the batter is going to fail but it's that small chance of success that gets people on the edges of their seat and for a stadium with 30,000 people to go silent.

I agree with you that people want to watch the game they play but at a level they don't play: professional actors and actresses, fancy sets, really neat dwarven forge dungeons, etc.

I don't think they need rules for that. If you're that concerned with the "presentation" of the reality TV show being put on, just lie. Change things on the fly for what you actually want because you obviously don't care about the players actions and the results of the dice. Just lie.

Quote from: Ulairi;1017690I'm lucky that I have a stable group and we don't like D&D because it isn't our game anymore. However! If I had to move or my group ended, do you know how hard it is to find players to play something other than CURRENT D&D? D&D, the current version, has been like 95% of the hobby for a whole lot of years. An unhealthy D&D means an unhealthy hobby. I think if they did the stupid thing and built a game for "streaming" it would have a big impact on the hobby in general. Nothing will kill it but it can wound it.

I'd rather tell people that want to do improve to do fucking improve! There is already a hobby for improve and no need to even pretend you're playing D&D when you don't want to play a game. Why should I change? They are the ones who suck.

I haven't played D&D since 1979, and I live in the sticks; I'm well aware of the demographics, thanks.

But I don't need ten thousand players, or a thousand, or a hundred.  I need three or four.  The big change in moving to the sticks is that for the first time in my GMing career, I haven't had a waiting list the last couple years.

That being said, I've heard riffs like this every time there was any change.  People said that RuneQuest would "kill" the hobby.  People said that AD&D would "kill" the hobby.  People said that MMORPGs would "kill" the hobby, or the rise of Vampire would "kill" the hobby, or the perceived decline in FLGSs would "kill" the hobby.  3.0, storygames, 3.5, 4.0, 5.0, open d20 licensing, Pathfinder ... the capacity of gamers to beat their chests and cry that Anything Different will doom the hobby (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-golden-age-is-over.html) is pretty large.

Well, tough.  Each and every time they were wrong.  Because, crazily enough, the "hobby" does not equal "Every gamer alive has to play the game the exact same way I do with the exact same set of rules or it all goes wrong."  See, I'll give you MY perspective: as a dyed-in-the-wool GURPS GM, I would not be materially affected if D&D -- a game I happen to think sucks -- vanished tomorrow.  I would still have my group, and we'd still have fun around my table, and we'd keep on trucking.  Even so, we're not offended that quite a large number of people play D&D still.  It takes nothing away from my gaming, it doesn't impact my fun.

Seriously, what's up?  If I said that I felt threatened, as a hockey fan, that a lot of people preferred baseball or basketball or NASCAR, you'd think I had a screw loose.  If, as a classical and folk singer, I declared myself offended and threatened that a lot of people preferred hip-hop or country, you'd think I had a screw loose.

Quote from: Voros;1017593Would you mind clarifying what you meant when you just said that 'let's tell a story/make believe together' 'when it has nothing to do with RPGs?

In case my edit didn't clear it up, what I meant was that I don't think "let's tell a story/make believe together" is a pitch that materially increases the general public's interest trying something that isn't an RPG - even if the hypothetical non-RPG activity has some aspect which could be credibly pitched that way.  I don't think the general public is looking for a way to do that, cares about that, or wants to invest precious free time in that sort of exercise.

And I don't think it would work to pitch RPGs that way either.  Just because lots of the existing RPG scene would say "but that's what we do!" doesn't mean the general public is similar to the general RPG scene.

And yet the general public does love-love-love to play games.  The variance between the # of people willing to play non-RP games and those willing to play RPGs is where the answers are - not in what some of the people who already play RPGs like about it.

Quote from: EOTB;1017723In case my edit didn't clear it up, what I meant was that I don't think "let's tell a story/make believe together" is a pitch that materially increases the general public's interest trying something that isn't an RPG - even if the hypothetical non-RPG activity has some aspect which could be credibly pitched that way.  I don't think the general public is looking for a way to do that, cares about that, or wants to invest precious free time in that sort of exercise.

And I don't think it would work to pitch RPGs that way either.  Just because lots of the existing RPG scene would say "but that's what we do!" doesn't mean the general public is similar to the general RPG scene.

And yet the general public does love-love-love to play games.  The variance between the # of people willing to play non-RP games and those willing to play RPGs is where the answers are - not in what some of the people who already play RPGs like about it.

As an aside I think the largest disconnect for folks that love to play games be it card, board, whatever, and playing RPGs is purely on having somebody run the game for them. I mean there is an RPG for almost every taste out there but there isn't somebody willing to run it for everytaste. That's my experience with running a lot of people that have never played before and we usually run GURPS and Palladium which traditionally are considered "difficult" games.

Quote from: Ulairi;1017725As an aside I think the largest disconnect for folks that love to play games be it card, board, whatever, and playing RPGs is purely on having somebody run the game for them. I mean there is an RPG for almost every taste out there but there isn't somebody willing to run it for everytaste. That's my experience with running a lot of people that have never played before and we usually run GURPS and Palladium which traditionally are considered "difficult" games.

I agree this is a huge issue, because being a DM is really a skillset rather than a hat someone puts on and takes off.

And yet, even if I went up to someone and said "I want to play a game of make believe with you, and all you have to do is show up and participate because I do all the prep and heavy lifting" - I still don't think that's a winner with most adults.

My personal hypothesis is that the RPG community chooses to most loudly trumpet the very things that distinguish them as a niche community, and disparage what is normal game-related behavior in nearly every other type, because it desperately wants to remain a niche community.  It was happiest when the fad ended and all these metagamers took up other stuff.  It takes pride in liking something most other people don't engage in, to the point of territoriality.

Quote from: EOTB;1017729I agree this is a huge issue, because being a DM is really a skillset rather than a hat someone puts on and takes off.

And yet, even if I went up to someone and said "I want to play a game of make believe with you, and all you have to do is show up and participate because I do all the prep and heavy lifting" - I still don't think that's a winner with most adults.

My personal hypothesis is that the RPG community chooses to most loudly trumpet the very things that distinguish them as a niche community, and disparage what is normal game-related behavior in nearly every other type, because it desperately wants to remain a niche community.  It was happiest when the fad ended and all these metagamers took up other stuff.  It takes pride in liking something most other people don't engage in, to the point of territoriality.

I agree. I've never described role-playing games as games of make believe. I've always tried to connect it to things that I know regular people or the person I'm talking to is interested in. I remember in high school and college I'd tell new players that it was like playing Ultima Online or EverQuest but they could do whatever they want. Now that I'm an old working joe, I usually relate it to something that people like. In my office I'm surprised by how many people play board games they get at one of the larger LGS chains here in Milwaukee. One of my coworkers when he was a kid was a big fan of HeroQuest (the real one not the made up bullshit that just grabbed the rights to the name).

To many RPGs want to pretend that they are some bohemian artist and don't want the normies playing.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017604The fact is " 'telling stories' kinda sorta maybe but not really it's a verbal shorthand because we don't know what to call it" went out the door as good RPG terminology when someone put narrative authority mechanics into RPGs.  When games contain mechanics for literal storytelling, blurry definitions that are only kept around because they are blurry don't do anyone actually trying to describe these games any good.

This all came up in reference to explaining the game to newbies, to a newbie parsing these differences, while important to some in the hobby, are of little to no importance and would probably turn them off the whole thing. I thought jargon was a common criticism lobbed at the (long gone) Forge?

As Ulairi says, references to video games to explain RPGs to the average person are probably more fruitful, although no doubt even more flawed.

One thing I've noticed about the explosion of board games is unlike most RPGs they don't require a gamesmaster. Someone has to explain the rules but after that everyone just plays. I think GMing, not any particular style of play, is what is most intimidating in RPGs.

Quote from: EOTB;1017723In case my edit didn't clear it up, what I meant was that I don't think "let's tell a story/make believe together" is a pitch that materially increases the general public's interest trying something that isn't an RPG - even if the hypothetical non-RPG activity has some aspect which could be credibly pitched that way.  I don't think the general public is looking for a way to do that, cares about that, or wants to invest precious free time in that sort of exercise.

And I don't think it would work to pitch RPGs that way either.  Just because lots of the existing RPG scene would say "but that's what we do!" doesn't mean the general public is similar to the general RPG scene.

And yet the general public does love-love-love to play games.  The variance between the # of people willing to play non-RP games and those willing to play RPGs is where the answers are - not in what some of the people who already play RPGs like about it.

I gotch'ya. I figured you must have meant something else and it was getting lost in translation.

Certainly emphazing the 'game' part of RPGs is a legit and probably fruitful approach in these days of video game domination and board game popularity.

@Ulairi about the last way I'd explain the RPG community in general is 'bohemian' but I do agree there is often a hostility to 'normies' playing the games. I remember the bizarre blog post by Rients where he said he didn't care if RPGs were not bringing in new players and favourably compared RPGs to a niche activity like barbershop quartet singing!

Q: Are RPG streamers and regular table top people playing the same hobby?

A: I don't even know what an RPG streamer is. Sounds like a weapon.

Quote from: Omega;1017689Few RPGs have grindy elements.
And if theres no random factor then you may not even be playing a game or role playing at that point. It has become a script or improv acting. And in this case literally a TV show.

D&D has plenty of grindy elements. By grindy, I mean bean counting. Resources, encumbrance, random encounters, hit points, it's literally all grinding through stuff. For any of that to matter you have to be using it up.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017692ie. HarmonQuest (Pathfinder with complete GM Fiat)

I saw an interview with the GM of HarmonQuest and surprisingly enough he said he let the dice handle most of the incidents, and had a rough outline about where each session would end. But yeah, they skipped most of the cumbersome rules which made sense for the format.

Quote from: EOTB;1017729My personal hypothesis is that the RPG community chooses to most loudly trumpet the very things that distinguish them as a niche community, and disparage what is normal game-related behavior in nearly every other type, because it desperately wants to remain a niche community.  It was happiest when the fad ended and all these metagamers took up other stuff.  It takes pride in liking something most other people don't engage in, to the point of territoriality.

Dunno ... I've seen many a forum thread over the years bemoaning the end of the fad (or the closing of the local FLGS, or Those Damn Kids And Their Card Games, or ...) and asking what could be done to Bring The Hordes Back.  For what it's worth.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1017769D&D has plenty of grindy elements. By grindy, I mean bean counting. Resources, encumbrance, random encounters, hit points, it's literally all grinding through stuff. For any of that to matter you have to be using it up.

That is resource management. Not grinding as the term is most commonly used for. Grinding is when you have to perform the same task over and over and over to make some sort of advancement and has nothing to do with resource management. (aside from the obvious need to manage your resources so you can grind at all.)

Quote from: Omega;1017822That is resource management. Not grinding as the term is most commonly used for. Grinding is when you have to perform the same task over and over and over to make some sort of advancement and has nothing to do with resource management. (aside from the obvious need to manage your resources so you can grind at all.)

I was speaking more generally. Combat that doesn't have a story purpose tends to be looked at as just filler. (You know, the random encounter that's just fighting some wolves or whatever -- they're important because they tax resources, ie., resource management is often the reason for "grind.")

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1017823I was speaking more generally. Combat that doesn't have a story purpose tends to be looked at as just filler. (You know, the random encounter that's just fighting some wolves or whatever -- they're important because they tax resources, ie., resource management is often the reason for "grind.")

By whom? For a lot of people story elements are just filler.

Quote from: Ulairi;1017840By whom? For a lot of people story elements are just filler.

Sadly I have to agree, there are some players/characters who are there just to 'kill stuff'.

Quote from: joriandrake;1017851Sadly I have to agree, there are some players/characters who are there just to 'kill stuff'.

Nothin' wrong with that; right now my wife is playing a sword-and-planet version of this guy:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2087[/ATTACH]

Everything is "can I kill it, plunder it, or fuck it?" and it's fucking awesome

I run in such a way that "the players engage the world in the way they want" is a totally valid style of playing. I've got a scheming thief and an assassin masquerading as a wizard god-king (who the party killed unceremoniously) in the party as well. "Loose collection of murder hobos" is the perfect descriptor for them, and it's great. They have crashed through the delicate webs of intrigue of a dark-elf mafia, an alien apocalypse-king, artifact-hoarding grey aliens, a cthulhu deep one cult, and stolen the chosen elven messiah and swapped him for dragon eggs.

All from drunkenly veering between their most recent crime scenes. I challenge any living human being to write a more entertaining story.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1017654Well, c'mon.  Let's say that one WAS created -- although like others I'm curious what manner of RPG would be "built for streaming" other than the terribly simple "Go rules-light, cementhead" version.  What, exactly, does that take away from you?  Would you no longer be allowed to play the version of D&D you prefer, in the manner you want?

Sounds, honestly, like the people insistent that MMORPGs (or LARPs, or storygames, or freeform, or ...) would Destroy The Hobby.

An RPG built for streaming would have to have a rule set that prevented you from ever having arguments at the table, ensured everyone's jokes were always on cue, never saw a pause in the action because you didn't have a mouth full of pretzels on your turn, emanated magic bladder-expanding rays to ensure that nobody ever needed a bathroom break.

Quote from: Ulairi;1017701I think for a lot of people in the "indy" scene they don't view D&D as a game but as a storytelling "thing". The reason why baseball (or any professional sport) is popular is that anybody can go out and play in a ball game but how many of us can throw a 95 mph fastball? The drama around it's the bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, bases loaded and we're down by 3 and I step up to the plate is so compelling and dramatic is that 99.97% of the time the batter is going to fail but it's that small chance of success that gets people on the edges of their seat and for a stadium with 30,000 people to go silent.

I agree with you that people want to watch the game they play but at a level they don't play: professional actors and actresses, fancy sets, really neat dwarven forge dungeons, etc.

I don't think they need rules for that. If you're that concerned with the "presentation" of the reality TV show being put on, just lie. Change things on the fly for what you actually want because you obviously don't care about the players actions and the results of the dice. Just lie.

I agree it is players / GM not rules that need adjustment. Rules lawyer arguments for one need to just be put away or at least ensure that the rules lawyers arguments are entertaining. If the target audience is gamers, I don't think unforeseen random events would really be a big deal, even a TPK has entertainment value, but it all hinges on the players and GM to make it entertaining. Non gamers might not appreciate such things as much but most gamers have been there (whatever there might be) so will be able to connect with the guy who throws his dice in the blender after missing the easy roll, or the one who sulks for an hour when he breaks his magic thingamajig, or laughs until he pisses himself when he fumbles and lops off his own head.

I vaguely knew this was a thing, but to me it is just another offshoot like LARPing. Not something all gamers are going to get or appreciate, but it is at least tangentially related.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1017775Dunno ... I've seen many a forum thread over the years bemoaning the end of the fad (or the closing of the local FLGS, or Those Damn Kids And Their Card Games, or ...) and asking what could be done to Bring The Hordes Back.  For what it's worth.

Yes, but it's often accompanied by a heaping side dish of cluelessness.  

As an example, on another board I frequent, there's a poster who often bemoans the drop in players as compared to the glory days, and their inability to fill out a table as they'd wish.  But then every so often some new blood will be convinced to try the game, and a thread will be opened to much anticipation.  

The usual course of the thread is that people come over for the first session, and spend several hours making characters from a gigantic buffet of very closely sliced character options presented.  Then a first session is described, often including significant doses of in-character acting, maybe just to buy starting equipment.  Then, with little time left in the game session, people hit the road to whatever the adventure is supposed to be, but usually some random encounter with a GM-created monster (the type that are similar to iconic monsters but with deadlier attacks) will kill some of these characters, at which point the session usually ends with the GM saying he promises the players that they can make up a new character for the next session and keep going.  Everyone agrees and thanks the GM for their effort.

Next comes the inevitable post of "everyone told me they liked it when I asked, but now they're saying thanks-but-no-thanks: what gives?"  When suggesting that a different, more gamist approach be used, an answer comes back that can be paraphrased to "BUT THAT'S NOT REAL ROLEPLAYING".

To bring it back to the center of the topic, I suspect that some streamer who has very little to do with the online RPG community and its decades of conventional wisdom will take up D&D and be a big hit with a new demographic.  When that will happen, I don't know.  But I am confident that a D&D streaming show at least as fun to watch as all the minecraft playthroughs could be made, and lord knows those get millions of eyeballs (including from children around my house).

Quote from: EOTB;1017873Next comes the inevitable post of "everyone told me they liked it when I asked, but now they're saying thanks-but-no-thanks: what gives?"  When suggesting that a different, more gamist approach be used, an answer comes back that can be paraphrased to "BUT THAT'S NOT REAL ROLEPLAYING".

Heh, cluelessness indeed.  I'd want to ask the fellow -- not that he'd listen, his kind never does -- if he'd been living in a cave in the Canadian Rockies all his days, to have never before encountered the syndrome of people avoiding offending him to his face.  (Or, for that matter, if he's always as forthright as he implies he wants himself.)

But this doesn't have much to do with his gaming style.  It's just that he sucks as a GM.  For pity's sake, I play GURPS, and my price lists run over 50 pages, and if it took me an entire seven hour session just to get characters set up and equipment purchased, I'd go hang myself.

Quote from: Ulairi;1017840By whom? For a lot of people story elements are just filler.

Pretty much every D&D player I know. And I know like 40 personally. Everyone is relatively new to most people here I'd imagine. (Started playing within the last 3 years.)

I'm the only one even aware of the old school sandbox hexcrawl open world style where you just let mechanics decide how things are generated, and I present it to them as a curious experiment of sorts.

I did manage to make my friends offline grow to appreciate it. They said at first they just wanted to "get on with the story" but eventually grew to appreciate the openness.

Quote from: EOTB;1017873As an example, on another board I frequent, there's a poster who often bemoans the drop in players as compared to the glory days, and their inability to fill out a table as they'd wish.  But then every so often some new blood will be convinced to try the game, and a thread will be opened to much anticipation...  

I give them a pregen (or they bring a predone PC along), and we get into the action right away alongside the existing players.
Even then, with an open access table, a lot of players just try it once. Maybe my style isn't what they were looking for; maybe a different sort of game would suit them better. Still at least we all get in a fun 4 hours adventuring, no one's time is wasted.

I just did my first actual livestream: https://youtu.be/PLZnEbaKvNk

We've done pre-recorded podcast sessions (which still feel like a livestream because they are unedited, but we make them knowing we can abstain from posting if they are truly terrible). This was a lot harder than I expected because you are aware you are live and that means are concerned anytime you take too long a break figuring something out (that concern is present in a regular game but here I felt it more intensely). Eventually I didn't realize I was on a stream though, and forgot people were even watching (which might be good or bad). It was easier to forget simple things as well because of the pressure of being live. I forgot to check for encounters every ten minutes, for example (which was a pretty important thing to forget about).

Also, I tailored that scenario to the medium, but way overestimated how lethal it would be. So I tried to go for a running man style, figuring that still played to the strengths of it being a game medium with random dice results, while amping up the entertainment value for viewers. It wasn't as lethal as I thought it was going to be (though we had an arm loss and a character death at the very end). In hindsight, I think designing it with the audience in mind is probably not a good idea. Also, running man style tends to produce more deliberation among the players (which probably takes away from viewer entertainment anyways). Next time, my plan is to not worry about that at all.

Thanks for the youtube link, it was interesting.

You 'uh' alot. Otherwise not bad.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1017994I just did my first actual livestream: https://youtu.be/PLZnEbaKvNk

We've done pre-recorded podcast sessions (which still feel like a livestream because they are unedited, but we make them knowing we can abstain from posting if they are truly terrible). This was a lot harder than I expected because you are aware you are live and that means are concerned anytime you take too long a break figuring something out (that concern is present in a regular game but here I felt it more intensely). Eventually I didn't realize I was on a stream though, and forgot people were even watching (which might be good or bad). It was easier to forget simple things as well because of the pressure of being live. I forgot to check for encounters every ten minutes, for example (which was a pretty important thing to forget about).

Also, I tailored that scenario to the medium, but way overestimated how lethal it would be. So I tried to go for a running man style, figuring that still played to the strengths of it being a game medium with random dice results, while amping up the entertainment value for viewers. It wasn't as lethal as I thought it was going to be (though we had an arm loss and a character death at the very end). In hindsight, I think designing it with the audience in mind is probably not a good idea. Also, running man style tends to produce more deliberation among the players (which probably takes away from viewer entertainment anyways). Next time, my plan is to not worry about that at all.

What is running man style?

Casual gamers just suck all around. Especially the ones in tabletop RPGs.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1018067Casual gamers just suck all around. Especially the ones in tabletop RPGs.

I like casuals since they tend to go with the flow.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1018067Casual gamers just suck all around. Especially the ones in tabletop RPGs.

(shrugs)  It's not that they "suck;" it's that they've different goals and imperatives.  Suggesting that they suck because they're not as into the hobby as you are is like me saying that anyone who doesn't do as much setting and prep work as I do sucks as a GM.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1018060What is running man style?

I wanted to take an approach that still felt like an RPG and not like we were bending the rules for the camera, but I still wanted it to be entertaining to view, so by running man I just meant it was intended to be very deadly and I had all the players make multiple back up characters on the assumption that several would die during play. So running man just meant the players went in expecting to have their characters die for the entertainment of the viewers. If we do another one, it would probably take a different approach, like a mystery inside a town.

We got 3,000+ views which was more than we hoped for. And some of the viewers expressed interest in learning more about RPGs (the audience was largely Deathblade's and so it was primarily Xianxia web novel fans, rather than RPG players).

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1018067Casual gamers just suck all around. Especially the ones in tabletop RPGs.

Nobody is hardcore as you and your solo RPGing, man. Wave that freak flag high.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1018083I wanted to take an approach that still felt like an RPG and not like we were bending the rules for the camera, but I still wanted it to be entertaining to view, so by running man I just meant it was intended to be very deadly and I had all the players make multiple back up characters on the assumption that several would die during play. So running man just meant the players went in expecting to have their characters die for the entertainment of the viewers. If we do another one, it would probably take a different approach, like a mystery inside a town.

We got 3,000+ views which was more than we hoped for. And some of the viewers expressed interest in learning more about RPGs (the audience was largely Deathblade's and so it was primarily Xianxia web novel fans, rather than RPG players).

Ah, then yeah, "fantasy Vietnam" style does produce more deliberation since the optimal way to play then is to meticulously inspect every five feet of floor for traps. It drove me crazy last time.

I think that's why most RPG streams gravitate more towards a narrative "storytelling" style because they want to remove the fear of acting from the players and have them just get on with it.

I actually did something similar, but in the opposite direction. I wanted to run a pickup game with rotating cast of players and within a short time slot. 3 hours. That meant it was kind of an "Adventure League but at home with friends" since I have so many players.

I made Short Rests only take 5 minutes. I basically made the rules to encourage the game to play out like an action movie.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1018083...

We got 3,000+ views which was more than we hoped for. And some of the viewers expressed interest in learning more about RPGs (the audience was largely Deathblade's and so it was primarily Xianxia web novel fans, rather than RPG players).

3000+ views, whoah. Goes to show the greater reach video achieves on the net.

Quote from: Dumarest;1018091Nobody is hardcore as you and your solo RPGing, man. Wave that freak flag high.

Yeah man fuck those regular people with friends, families and jobs.

Quote from: Omega;1018049You 'uh' alot. Otherwise not bad.

Very common habit. I went through a lot of mock interviews when I was in college, and we really got hammered on the um, you knows, and other fillers to make us aware of them. That has made them very noticeable to me when I see public speakers do it and a lot of them do it.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1018067Casual gamers just suck all around. Especially the ones in tabletop RPGs.

WTF does this even mean? Are there professional gamers? I thought the gamer world was made up of casual gamers (most of us people who have outside lives) and cat piss men (who don't).

Quote from: Voros;1018152Yeah man fuck those regular people with friends, families and jobs.

I have known a few of the stereotypically "socially challenged" roleplayer types in the past...no offense to anyone who sees themselves in that, but after a certain age it becomes sad to see a guy who's biggest turn-on is pretending to be an elf for a few hours a week and who wonders why most of the guys he used to play with are too busy now with wives and kids to get together for games every weekend.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1017075Critical Role is just voice actors trying to stay relevant is all, to viewers that have no money apparently.

An apt description.

Quote from: Azraele;1017375So, I recored and posted an entire arc of my homegame on youtube. Go watch it, if you can; Random ACKS of violence.

It's uneditied, raw, two-to-three hour sessions of me, my friends, and my two young kids. There are huge stretches of nothing. There are off-color jokes. Book consulting and chart-flipping. Players misunderstanding the GM. People eating snacks. Interruptions. Bathroom breaks. Kids wandering in and halting the game. One notable instance has an entire character generation.

It's dull and horrible,  basically unwatchable. I tell you now that it was a blast to play, though; all of the people involved laud that campaign to this day.

So no, they're not doing the same thing that you see at tables,  because that's a  chore to watch. They're making something watchable and hence marketable.

It is horrible, and unwatchable, and much more like a typical D&D game than the ridiculous stage productions we're otherwise talking about here.

Also, you look unbelievably worse with your beard shaved.

I have to wonder at whether this will cause long-term damage to hobby.  A bunch of kids thinking these reality-show stage-plays are how RPGs are played.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1018083So running man just meant the players went in expecting to have their characters die for the entertainment of the viewers. If we do another one, it would probably take a different approach, like a mystery inside a town.

You said this during the podcast about adjusting to the fact it being recorded. I am curious now on how my emphasis on first person roleplaying when I referee would look like to listeners. As a player  I just forget that the mic was there.

Well the thing about Critical Role is, it starts out pretty performy, which is to be expected since the actors' normal D&D game is now being filmed.  As it goes on though, it definitely gets better, and after a while they settle in and lay off hamming it up every second they get.  None of them are shrinking violets though.

HarmonQuest is something different, it's an improv & scripted, live & animated comedy show built around the context of D&D.

I've seen a couple where people are definitely trying to stay focused on roleplay and cut out the normal buzz of OOC stuff that goes on, without getting into stage acting mode.

Quote from: estar;1018854You said this during the podcast about adjusting to the fact it being recorded. I am curious now on how my emphasis on first person roleplaying when I referee would look like to listeners. As a player  I just forget that the mic was there.

One thing I learned, after speaking with Elliot (who was looking at the comments and is more tuned into the livestream audience in general), is my impression of what was exciting didn't necessarily match what viewers thought was exciting. I assumed the deliberation about what to do would be boring for viewers, but apparently they enjoy watching that aspect of play (or at least enough of them do). Honestly after talking more with Elliot and doing more podcast recordings of sessions since, I think the best approach is to do whatever you find natural as a GM. Unless you are going into full production mode like Critical Role and hiring professional actors, I don't think playing to the mic makes much of a difference (and I suspect it might even detract from the experience for people because they can sense it).

I think first person would function totally fine. If you want to maximize the first person speak, it is probably easiest if it is in a scenario where there is more emphasis on RP (like a mystery scenario). At the very least, have NPCs early on speaking in character. Even in a dungeon scenario, if you want you can insist people keep the deliberation in character (my personal approach is to let people talk however they are comfortable---whether that is IC or OOC).

Also, if there is someone like you at the table, who is comfortable speaking in first person and committing to the character, that can encourage others to do so. But I think with a livestream, among the players, whatever self-conscious thinking they would normally have, is going to be amplified. So if someone is shy about that, they will probably be doubly shy when they know people are watching them live on youtube.  

Also, we did get plenty of people asking about roleplaying and asking about the specific game, so I think you do reach non-gamers and can potentially spark some interest in the hobby. Given that, I think it is better to try to present the game play as close to your actual table as possible. I think one danger of hamming it up for the mic, or trying to make the game too perfect for the mic, is it gives people unrealistic or odd expectations of how RPGs actually function. It is a little like the super perfect GM advice you used to see, where the book gives an extended example of something that would almost never actually emerge naturally in play (but looks and sounds awesome).

My podcast recordings of sessions I've mainly been using to keep track of my Tuesday campaign. I think streaming has utility there too because it honestly helps me if I have a question about something that happened. I can go back and confirm or realize I was mistaken. It also helps because you can catch inconsistencies. Again though, I don't know how many people are actually interested in listening to an actual campaign with all the speed bumps, warts and eccentricities of play (I've been making a point of not avoiding them).

No, they are not. In fact, only people in your current gaming group are possibly in the same hobby, and I'm not too sure about them. Back in the olden days, when men were men and women were women and we all had a brain the size of a walnut, everybody was in the same hobby. Since then, things got *different* and you couldn't trust anyone anymore. Now everyone wants to pretend they are in the same hobby, but they aren't!

Reductio ad absurdam.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1017994I just did my first actual livestream: https://youtu.be/PLZnEbaKvNk

We've done pre-recorded podcast sessions (which still feel like a livestream because they are unedited, but we make them knowing we can abstain from posting if they are truly terrible). This was a lot harder than I expected because you are aware you are live and that means are concerned anytime you take too long a break figuring something out (that concern is present in a regular game but here I felt it more intensely). Eventually I didn't realize I was on a stream though, and forgot people were even watching (which might be good or bad). It was easier to forget simple things as well because of the pressure of being live. I forgot to check for encounters every ten minutes, for example (which was a pretty important thing to forget about).

Also, I tailored that scenario to the medium, but way overestimated how lethal it would be. So I tried to go for a running man style, figuring that still played to the strengths of it being a game medium with random dice results, while amping up the entertainment value for viewers. It wasn't as lethal as I thought it was going to be (though we had an arm loss and a character death at the very end). In hindsight, I think designing it with the audience in mind is probably not a good idea. Also, running man style tends to produce more deliberation among the players (which probably takes away from viewer entertainment anyways). Next time, my plan is to not worry about that at all.

Too painful to watch more than a minute of it at a time.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1018876Too painful to watch more than a minute of it at a time.

All I can say in that case is you probably shouldn't watch it then.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1018881All I can say in that case is you probably shouldn't watch it then.

Patient: "Doctor, it hurts whenever I do this!"

Doctor: "So don't do that." :D

Quote from: RPGPundit;1018849I have to wonder at whether this will cause long-term damage to hobby.  A bunch of kids thinking these reality-show stage-plays are how RPGs are played.

Given that your definition of "damage to the hobby" includes other people playing RPGs in a style different to what you prefer, I guess the answer is almost certainly.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1018849I have to wonder at whether this will cause long-term damage to hobby.  A bunch of kids thinking these reality-show stage-plays are how RPGs are played.

No worse than any other group of morons who believe everything they are told or see.
"D&D is all about combat and miniatures! There is no role playing!"
"All DMs are railroading jerks out to kill off your characters!"
"Women never play RPGs!"

ad nausium.

A few will see these and think thats how its played. The rest will look up other videos and see thats not the case.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1015500Being observed changes things.  That's true no matter what the activity, though sometimes the changes are so minimal as to be irrelevant.  The more important a particular activity is, the less likely it will be changed significantly by observing it, though even that's not 100%.  See televised courtroom proceedings, for example.  Nothing that happens in a tabletop game is terribly important, therefore there is no brake to changes other than the desires of the participants to avoid such.

Schrodinger's RPG

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1017994I just did my first actual livestream: https://youtu.be/PLZnEbaKvNk

We've done pre-recorded podcast sessions (which still feel like a livestream because they are unedited, but we make them knowing we can abstain from posting if they are truly terrible). This was a lot harder than I expected because you are aware you are live and that means are concerned anytime you take too long a break figuring something out (that concern is present in a regular game but here I felt it more intensely). Eventually I didn't realize I was on a stream though, and forgot people were even watching (which might be good or bad). It was easier to forget simple things as well because of the pressure of being live. I forgot to check for encounters every ten minutes, for example (which was a pretty important thing to forget about).

Also, I tailored that scenario to the medium, but way overestimated how lethal it would be. So I tried to go for a running man style, figuring that still played to the strengths of it being a game medium with random dice results, while amping up the entertainment value for viewers. It wasn't as lethal as I thought it was going to be (though we had an arm loss and a character death at the very end). In hindsight, I think designing it with the audience in mind is probably not a good idea. Also, running man style tends to produce more deliberation among the players (which probably takes away from viewer entertainment anyways). Next time, my plan is to not worry about that at all.

I liked this better than critical role but it still felt awkward to me. I think, for me, the issue I have is that unlike professional baseball we can all play RPGs as well as anybody else. Maybe I'm too old for the whole streaming thing because reading apparently it's a huge thing for teens and twenty somethings.

Your game was much closer to my experiences playing a table top game. Just for me, I'd rather be playing.

Most RPG sessions at a table look like people doing their homework together is all. Very non-interesting for others to take notice of.

Quote from: Ulairi;1018959I liked this better than critical role but it still felt awkward to me. I think, for me, the issue I have is that unlike professional baseball we can all play RPGs as well as anybody else. Maybe I'm too old for the whole streaming thing because reading apparently it's a huge thing for teens and twenty somethings.

Your game was much closer to my experiences playing a table top game. Just for me, I'd rather be playing.

Although something baseball and RPGs do have in common is that you need to assemble a team of people to play. Baseball has bigger teams, and I can't remember ever playing it with friends outside of Little League where we didn't have to rely on ghost men and other compromises to play, but even RPGs, with its smaller player requirements, is still hard to coordinate.

I think most people would rather play a game than watch a stream, but getting people together to play is a pain in the ass. In the same way that some people like to read RPGs as a substitute when they can't game, I can see people using streaming the same way.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1019000Most RPG sessions at a table look like people doing their homework together is all. Very non-interesting for others to take notice of.

I think the utility of it isn't for people like yourself, who probably have all the answers to your gaming questions set. My experience from people who were asking me to do a stream was they fell into the following groups:

1) People who never gamed before and wanted to understand how it works.

2) People who understand gaming but don't understand some aspect to it, and want to see how a group handles it

3) People who want to see how other GMs handle a specific genre, system, play style, etc

4) People who just like watching people game

Mostly what I encountered was 1-3, but I've also met people who actually enjoy listening or viewing sessions. Personally, I would rather play. But now that I've done this stream and been doing podcast recordings of sessions, I think it can be fun. The biggest advantage though for me is using the podcast recordings as official records of sessions.

Brendan, just some thoughts for your podcasts/video/livestreams.

First the criticisms (everyone wants the bad news first, right?):

• Obviously, and I'm sure you're aware, your technical gear isn't very good for something intended for an audience.  I realize you're not going to have boom mikes and production-level gear, but a minor investment would go a long way.
• Also mike positioning and note positioning could be better.  You and others are moving away from the mike too much, it causes a lot of stops, starts, interruptions and confusion due to dropped audio.
• Video for these works a lot better when you have everyone in their own video box then the bouncing back and forth every time the mic picks up a sound interface.
• Your camera needs to be higher. People can understand better if they can see your mouth when you're talking and it's not blocked by Rob's head.

Now the praise:

• As a streaming GM, you were a lot better than many I've seen.  You have a voice that can handle the medium and your diction was good.  Too many people these days are half "Uh", "Like", "Actually", etc when you listen to them.
• A temple with a lot of secrets and traps might not have been the best choice for a livestream, because watching people silently think isn't that interesting, especially when we're not in on the secret, or can't see everything the players can...but, it was interesting. :D
• Anyone's first stream is going to be rough as hell, even if they are podcasters, but you could tune this up a lot I think.
• Wuxia is not a genre I'd call number one on my gaming list, but the video made me more interested in the game.

Matt Finch is trying out game streams to reach new OSR audiences.  I watched this one, and it seems representative enough of a typical D&D session that I'd send a link of it to someone curious about playing D&D.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFJymVHuQhs

Quote from: EOTB;1019252Matt Finch is trying out game streams to reach new OSR audiences.  I watched this one, and it seems representative enough of a typical D&D session that I'd send a link of it to someone curious about playing D&D.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFJymVHuQhs

That game session is a hair better. But still. Too much non-role-playing at the table.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1019171Brendan, just some thoughts for your podcasts/video/livestreams.

First the criticisms (everyone wants the bad news first, right?):

• Obviously, and I'm sure you're aware, your technical gear isn't very good for something intended for an audience.  I realize you're not going to have boom mikes and production-level gear, but a minor investment would go a long way.
• Also mike positioning and note positioning could be better.  You and others are moving away from the mike too much, it causes a lot of stops, starts, interruptions and confusion due to dropped audio.
• Video for these works a lot better when you have everyone in their own video box then the bouncing back and forth every time the mic picks up a sound interface.
• Your camera needs to be higher. People can understand better if they can see your mouth when you're talking and it's not blocked by Rob's head.

Now the praise:

• As a streaming GM, you were a lot better than many I've seen.  You have a voice that can handle the medium and your diction was good.  Too many people these days are half "Uh", "Like", "Actually", etc when you listen to them.
• A temple with a lot of secrets and traps might not have been the best choice for a livestream, because watching people silently think isn't that interesting, especially when we're not in on the secret, or can't see everything the players can...but, it was interesting. :D
• Anyone's first stream is going to be rough as hell, even if they are podcasters, but you could tune this up a lot I think.
• Wuxia is not a genre I'd call number one on my gaming list, but the video made me more interested in the game.

This is pretty helpful feedback. And I appreciate the positive stuff too. Some of the technical issues are related to my new computer (I changed computers last year and this affected my videos which got so bad I pretty much stopped doing youtube as a result---it is the primary reason I switched to a podcast format). The mic one is something I am aware of. Part of it is my mic can't go further back (it is on a short three leg stand), coupled with my tendency to move away from the mix. I have a blue snowball, which for some reason is on the quiet side (Adam has a similar model mic to me but his volume levels always come out much higher, even if I max my input and stand right up against the mic). I suspect the problem here may be the computer as well. So my plan is to eventually get a new one, because I'd honestly like to make youtube videos again anyways. On moving away from the mic, I don't know the best solution to that, because I find it actually hinders my GMing if I force my self to sit there and talk into the mic. Not sure if there is a better set-up or a mic that is more idea for talking at the distance I am at. I want to be comfortable when I run these, but I also don't like how low my mic sounds.

Fixing the camera angle should be no problem. My camera is built right into my laptop, so it is mainly a product of me tilting the screen to the best reading angle. For youtube streams I could tilt it forward to get more in frame.

I am not particularly savvy with technology so any recommendations on the mic or camera are more than welcome.

Going forward, I am hoping to adjust some of the settings in the hangouts to get around the issues you mentioned. We'll be on a different channel for most of them (that was Deathblade's channel, which we will probably return to once in a while for special sessions, but I intend to have more varieties of gaming sessions on a livestream channel dedicated to the concept.

I think for scenarios, I want to try out a bunch of different approaches and mix it up a bit. If we did another location exploration, I'd want to do put up an image of the full map for viewers. As long as there is a way to do that, where the players themselves can't see it. I think it will work well. I'd also like to get a dice roller up so viewers know what is being rolled. Next time, I will probably do a mystery scenario. I have been doing podcast recordings of my tuesday sessions, and might consider doing some of them as a stream at some point (but that is much more free-form, players just doing what they want in an open setting---so it may be a tougher watch).

I definitely understand peoples' reservations about livestreams, as I share many of them. But I also think it is becoming clear, people are coming into the hobby through livestreams, and often they are a first introduction to how gaming is done. So I think it makes sense to put out our own styles of gaming in the livestream format. That way at least people are aware of the different approaches.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1019260That game session is a hair better. But still. Too much non-role-playing at the table.

Different strokes and all that.  The people who'd ask me about D&D would probably be turned off by more.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1019000Most RPG sessions at a table look like people doing their homework together is all. Very non-interesting for others to take notice of.

I don't know if I'd go to quite that extreme, but I get what you're saying.  D&D is a lot like fishing: long periods of not much happening until some stuff happens that's really exciting or fun or funny or whatever for the people involved, but would still not necessarily seem that exciting (and maybe even just goofy/lame) to people just watching.