I thought this would be of interest to folks here:

WotC's Mike Mearls on the History & Future of RPG Discusion & Design

by Morrus
Saturday, 6th August, 2016 09:22 PM

D&D 5E lead designer Mike Mearls has some thoughts to share on how roleplaying games are discussed and shared online. "It's interesting seeing reactions at GenCon to Critical Role's show in Indy. Illustrates a big divide in how designers grok TRPGs these days. It'll be great to see a higher level of awareness of how RPGs have transformed and what that means for their future."

He went on to elaborate:

"I believe that the rise of 3/3.5e and online discussion forums created a massive, fundamental shift in how RPGs were viewed and used. 3e, and then into 4e, D&D was very dense, rules heavy, complicated, and filled with character building options. That was the game. That spread to other RPGs, placing the baseline complexity of the typical RPG at the extreme upper end of what we saw in 80s/90s.

At the same time, online discussion veered heavily toward character optimization and rules details. It was a culture of read and dissect. Both the indie and old school design movements rose in counter to this, focusing much more heavily on actual play at the table. However, the prevailing, forum-based online culture made it very hard to communicate meaningfully about actual play.

That changed when streaming and actual play vids became accessible to the average DM. The culture of actual play had a platform. We can now meaningfully interact based on what we're doing when we play, rather than talk about the stuff we do when we don't play. This is HUGE because it shifts the design convo away from "How do we design for forum discussions?" to "How do we design for play?'

As game designers, we can actually watch how RPGs play and what rules and concepts facilitate the effects we're looking to create. The tension between theoretical discussion vs. actual play has always been a big part of RPG design. I believe at the table ruled for a very long time, swung hard to theory, and now back to table-driven design. Theory is useful, but it has to be used in service to actual, repeatable results in play. And I say this as someone who veered to theory.

So [...] that's why I see Critical Role at GenCon something that can be very good for the hobby and designers. All of this is IMO, based on observations from this specific perch over 16 years. Your mileage may/can/should/will vary.

This ties into the huge success of 5e and the growth of RPGs - people can now learn by watching. The rulebook is not a barrier. We don't learn sports like baseball or soccer by reading the rules - we watch and quickly learn how to play. The rulebook is a reference, like the NBA's rulebook. Comes out only when absolutely needed. Barriers are now gone. Design accordingly."

For me there are other elements to the topics he talks about. A rulebook - for me - needs to be a thing I can get pleasure from reading; it's more than a reference book. And forums are also about creating stable communities, not just dissecting rules (though they are getting fewer and fewer). One of the great effects of things like Critical Role, etc., is not only that it teaches how to play, but it helps to advertise and "mainstreamify" a hobby which is traditionally played behind closed doors.

[Edit - For what he's referring to with Critical Role, see here.]

I think actual play mattering is cool. I am not so sure how valuable Play Vids are for design though. I think they could be potentially useful but I can see them running into the same pitfalls people at the forge ran into (thinking you are a social scientist when you are not, and developing more theory that isn't necessarily reflective of what goes on at most tables----because my guess is there is a self selecting thing going on with who posts these in the first place). Definitely don't want more people talking about 'good design'. Personally I would rather base things on what I see at live tables.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;911772and developing more theory that isn't necessarily reflective of what goes on at most tables----because my guess is there is a self selecting thing going on with who posts these in the first place). Definitely don't want more people talking about 'good design'. Personally I would rather base things on what I see at live tables.

Yeah. The Penny Arcade rpg sessions are a great example of RPG casts as entertainment for the audience as well as the players. But a lot of play isn't broadcast to the internetz.

Quote from: Mearlspeople can now learn by watching. The rulebook is not a barrier. We don't learn sports like baseball or soccer by reading the rules - we watch and quickly learn how to play. The rulebook is a reference, like the NBA's rulebook. Comes out only when absolutely needed. Barriers are now gone. Design accordingly.

All I know is 75% of the actual play podcasts/videos I've encountered were kinda boring, not very helpful for learning the game and even harmful to understanding its true potential.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;911780All I know is 75% of the actual play podcasts/videos I've encountered were kinda boring, not very helpful for learning the game and even harmful to understanding its true potential.

This. TRPGs are not spectator-friendly. I went on my own Twitter rant specifically to counter Mearls', hammering on this point. You can watch and be fully engaged with soccer, baseball, and other spectator-friendly games and sports. You can't with TRPGs; you have to play to be engaged. You can't fix this without making TRPGs into something else, so this "we can stream actual play" thing is limited only to those willing to go from watching to playing- which, again, is limited only to those already sold on the medium. Normie interest reliably dies if they watch first; there's no hook for them as there is with spectator entertainment, because the game is only there for those that play. The game does not exist for watchers, readers, or talkers; only for players.

Spectator-friendly entertainment exists for watchers (et. al.) and players alike; you need not actually do it to get full engagement from it. That's where Mearls goes wrong; he fails to see this as a curious normie would, assuming that one table is the same as any other, when that is not the case. (This is why spectator-friendly entertainment has a strong away-from-play authority, formal or not, to impose and enforce standardized rules for players- so that everyone's talking about the same thing. We know that TRPGs don't do this, despite the wishes of the Organized Play crowd and others wanting this medium to be something that it's not.) It's a pipe dream, and I suspect he will admit it if pressed.

Back in the day (hack kaf wheeze) there was this thing called PLAYTESTING.

Arneson ran BLACKMOOR for 2 years before showing it to Gygax, and we KNOW the rules were not static.  Gygax ran GREYHAWK for over a year before D&D was published, sometimes seven days a week, and we know THOSE rules were not static.

I'm convinced that somewhere in v. 3 or so, RPG writers stopped playing the damn rules they actually wrote.  That MUST be the case with Star Wars d20, because there are multiple places where the effect of the rule directly contradicts its description.  No, I don't remember, and I can't be arsed.

Most Hangout+ tabletop RPG sessions are metagamed. Hard to watch.

Never watched a video of other people playing. Would rather stab my eye with a fork. Video chat RPG sessions matter a lot more for focusing discussion on actual play.

Hmmm. I wonder if such a video could be made though. I really liked to watch Angry GM's Super Metroid playthrough, because he commented on the way the game was designed and how some of it could apply to table top RPGs.

So a series of game sessions, with commentary and asides about rules, design, play and whatnot.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;911784Back in the day (hack kaf wheeze) there was this thing called PLAYTESTING.

Good Lord, this. So many games look like no one's had the chance to take a good shot at the engine. And contradictory rules irk the hell out of me, especially when spread across a game line (hello, Palladium).

Quote from: Daztur;911788Never watched a video of other people playing. Would rather stab my eye with a fork. Video chat RPG sessions matter a lot more for focusing discussion on actual play.

I quite liked critical role.  Of course I was in the vineyard for 6-8 hours a day and I had to have something to listen to to make through the day.  

I think there is a lot to the OP though.  Kind of a "the medium is the message" thing.

You know, I kinda want to record audio of my game sessions but then make little animatics to go along with it. I like drawing character portraits and illustrating the highlights of game sessions. I should put the drawings to audio and do simple tweening animations and transitions. Maybe have little characters hopping around like Arc System's Blazblue Radio (https://youtu.be/CooR-GvnWLo).

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;911782This. TRPGs are not spectator-friendly. I went on my own Twitter rant specifically to counter Mearls', hammering on this point. You can watch and be fully engaged with soccer, baseball, and other spectator-friendly games and sports. You can't with TRPGs; you have to play to be engaged. You can't fix this without making TRPGs into something else, so this "we can stream actual play" thing is limited only to those willing to go from watching to playing- which, again, is limited only to those already sold on the medium. Normie interest reliably dies if they watch first; there's no hook for them as there is with spectator entertainment, because the game is only there for those that play. The game does not exist for watchers, readers, or talkers; only for players.

Spectator-friendly entertainment exists for watchers (et. al.) and players alike; you need not actually do it to get full engagement from it. That's where Mearls goes wrong; he fails to see this as a curious normie would, assuming that one table is the same as any other, when that is not the case. (This is why spectator-friendly entertainment has a strong away-from-play authority, formal or not, to impose and enforce standardized rules for players- so that everyone's talking about the same thing. We know that TRPGs don't do this, despite the wishes of the Organized Play crowd and others wanting this medium to be something that it's not.) It's a pipe dream, and I suspect he will admit it if pressed.

Click on that second link I posted, at the end of the post.  Tell me again how it's not spectator friendly.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;911784Back in the day (hack kaf wheeze) there was this thing called PLAYTESTING.

Arneson ran BLACKMOOR for 2 years before showing it to Gygax, and we KNOW the rules were not static.  Gygax ran GREYHAWK for over a year before D&D was published, sometimes seven days a week, and we know THOSE rules were not static.

I'm convinced that somewhere in v. 3 or so, RPG writers stopped playing the damn rules they actually wrote.  That MUST be the case with Star Wars d20, because there are multiple places where the effect of the rule directly contradicts its description.  No, I don't remember, and I can't be arsed.

Personal experience, and I'll stress as always, this is purely anecdotal, but I always felt the shift was during the 2e era.  All the 'optional' rules didn't feel optional to a lot of local players.

Quote from: The Butcher;911801Good Lord, this. So many games look like no one's had the chance to take a good shot at the engine. And contradictory rules irk the hell out of me, especially when spread across a game line (hello, Palladium).

Playtesting is still a thing, at least for some companies. I was surprised when I started reading 13th Age recently and saw the absolutely huge list of playtesters credited at the front. There had to be several hundred. I may not be too deeply interested in a lot of their stuff, but I have to give Pelgrane Press credit for making sure they put at least one of their games through a pretty thorough wringer before it saw the light of day.

But I get what you're saying. There's sadly way too many confusing rules out there that seem like no one ever actually sat down and tried using them before the book saw print.

As far as watching rpg sessions go, I'm happy to do it if I have lots of time to kill and the people playing are really entertaining. Unfortunately that just doesn't happen much if ever. The few times I've tried watching others play, I quickly found myself either getting bored or irritated. So watching other gamers scores pretty low as a spectator sport for me, personally.