I've always thought CR etc are more show than game. The data strengthens my view.

Quote from: Xúc xac;1054902No, they don't care about seeing the dice. If the GM says "roll" and the player says "I got a 7", I don't need to see a close up of the dice. Most of the time, I don't even care to know it's a "7". If the rules only have "miss", "hit", and "crit" as possible results, I don't care if you missed with a 2 or a 12. If the rules don't distinguish between them, why should I? A miss is a miss.

Agreed. Also the stats show that they do care more about visible character sheets. If viewers weren't interested in the game why would they be interested in the character sheets?

Quote from: JRT;1054917A lot of people don't actually play Football or Basketball, but prefer to watch the big leagues play on TV or in stadiums.

If Video Games and Table-top games become a spectator sport like physical sports, why is this a bad thing, or why do people seem to be against this general concept?

It's the difference between "the game is for the people who play it" and "the game is for people who don't play it". We who play it prefer the former.

Yes, anyone's local game can be "for those who play it". But if the games become written and published "for those who don't play", then the hobby as a whole shifts in undesirable ways.

Quote from: mightybrain;1054925Agreed. Also the stats show that they do care more about visible character sheets. If viewers weren't interested in the game why would they be interested in the character sheets?

Because when your character sheet looks like an IRS tax form (like the last three versions of D&D do), you might want to see an example in the hope that it will show you how to fill it out right.

Quote from: Motorskills;1054900You have decided that it is an either / or, but of course none of this stuff happens in a vacuum (well maybe in Montevideo, I dunno).

This is very similar to your assertion that LARPers are just like TTRPG players.

Quote from: Motorskills;1054900Exactly so. Friendships can and are built through shared interest in (say) Critical Role, and then someone in that circle offers to run a game, or then someone else introduces the circle to a game store gathering, etc. (Or that kind of thing in a different order of events).

It's not rocket science.

There's no membership quiz required.

Except that isn't what is happening, is it?

Everyone that wears a Star Wars shirt at the mall thinks they are a sci-fi expert. The bigger the shirt, that fatter and slower and more out of breath the person is.

It appears that these RPG shows help sell books, and may (or may not) create new gamers.

Of course, in the future, when you mention you play D&D, the other person might say "oh yeah, I used to watch that."

But so be it. The survey does show there's an appetite for RPG watching (how fucking weird) and its a beneficial sales and marketing channel for publishers.

Clearly, smaller RPGs should get their own shows happening.

Quote from: RandyB;1054930It's the difference between "the game is for the people who play it" and "the game is for people who don't play it". We who play it prefer the former.

Yes, anyone's local game can be "for those who play it". But if the games become written and published "for those who don't play", then the hobby as a whole shifts in undesirable ways.

Well, there's no evidence that the rules for these games will change based on media viewing, any more than the rules for Football or Baseball changed because it became a huge spectator sport.

Quote from: JRT;1054981Well, there's no evidence that the rules for these games will change based on media viewing, any more than the rules for Football or Baseball changed because it became a huge spectator sport.

1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
2. Go read the intro to Pathfinder 2, focusing on the Inclusiveness Manifesto. (That's my name for it, not the heading in the book.) "Play for the sake of those not at your table" feeds the "RPGs as spectator activity" quite squarely.

Quote from: JRT;1054981Well, there's no evidence that the rules for these games will change based on media viewing, any more than the rules for Football or Baseball changed because it became a huge spectator sport.

The NFL has been putting in rules, for years now, that limit what defensive players can do. Why? Because fans love offense.

Quote from: JRT;1054981Well, there's no evidence that the rules for these games will change based on media viewing, any more than the rules for Football or Baseball changed because it became a huge spectator sport.

Pick a better example since this one is 100% untrue.

Quote from: RandyB;1054930It's the difference between "the game is for the people who play it" and "the game is for people who don't play it". We who play it prefer the former.

Yes, anyone's local game can be "for those who play it". But if the games become written and published "for those who don't play", then the hobby as a whole shifts in undesirable ways.

Regarding #1, somebody feel free to send me to a good reliable source that shows evidence of the sports game rules changing over time due to media influence and I'll be satisfied.  As for #2, I read it, and while a bit heavy handed I think it's more of a "don't be a jerk" clause, but YMMV.

And, regardless of that, being too much of a purist won't do you any good.  If the hobby does transform itself to a spectator driven hobby, you're just going to have to deal with it, since the majority ultimately rules.  The people who were afraid D&D would poison or eclipse the war gaming movement complained, but that didn't prevent it from happening.

Quote from: JRT;1054917If Video Games and Table-top games become a spectator sport like physical sports, why is this a bad thing, or why do people seem to be against this general concept?

I'm not against it, but I also don't care about it.

Some years ago I came to the realization that I'm not a part of the mainstream RPG hobby, these days. I used to be, but the hobby has changed over time and now "my" part of it is a tiny sliver. The most popular games aren't games I'm interested in (the RPG shelves at my local gaming stores are full of books I'd never buy). The culture around RPG gaming isn't something I'm invested in (except my tiny little sliver). The social media dramas and the youtube streams and such aren't things I want to participate in or consume (although I do still participate in a few forums: this one is probably the most "mainstream" of them -- the others are all more niche). I purchase very little (and even then, I think I only use maybe half of the few RPG items I purchase, which probably means I should make fewer purchases). I'm essentially irrelevant. None of that is a complaint, though. I'm content with the situation.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1054995I'm not against it, but I also don't care about it... I'm content with situation.

That's truly the most mature attitude to have, and I wish more people espoused that attitude.

Quote from: JRT;1054981Well, there's no evidence that the rules for these games will change based on media viewing, any more than the rules for Football or Baseball changed because it became a huge spectator sport.

I doubt RPG rules will change, because there's no money in them. However, all major televised sports have modified themselves over time for the needs of the media, or demands of the audience. There is far too much money in professional sports, and competition for viewership, to not ensure the audience is maximized.

Here's an article by the NFL
https://operations.nfl.com/the-game/impact-of-television/

Here's another on changes to various sports
https://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/tv-and-culture/10-ways-television-has-changed-sports.htm

Quote from: RandyB;1054982"Play for the sake of those not at your table"

A) Fuck Paizo.

B) WTF does that even mean???