honestly. being real. ive looked into a lot of various indie ttrpgs that haven't spoken to me, and i end up just coming back to D&D over and over. and i think i finally fully understand why that is.
D&D is very heavy on rules for what can happen in combat, but fairly light on rules for when it comes to story structure and roleplay. as a result, roleplay scenes feel a bit more natural and flowing, with the only mechanical aspect being the occasional skill check for like, intimidation / deception / persuasion / etc. but then, unlike the roleplay, the things that can be achieved in combat are pretty strictly regulated. this is fun for how i like to roleplay, as someone who used to do a lot of freeform RP--the problem with freeform RP style combat sometimes is that if you're RPing combat with someone who gets really wound up about making their characters always win, it can be really fucking hard to counteract the shit they have their characters pull out of their back pocket. having a VERY clearly defined and strict set of rules for specifically combat makes it so that when combat DOES happen, people can't just Say Shit about what they have their characters do--they have a limited character framework to work in and a limited set of tools that they can work with, and enjoyable combats come from using those tools in that framework creatively, effectively, and excitingly. this makes combat feel like it has genuine stakes, and when done right can be very intense and exciting. and then when you do actual like, character interaction and story building? there's just not a lot of strictly defined rules for what can and can't be done in those realms, both for a player and the DM. there aren't any constraints on the structure of the narrative that the DM presents, which means it's fairly easy to rip out the pre-packaged D&D lore, re-fluff a few things that heavily reference that lore, and just homebrew your own story structure and lore and world and characters and pantheons and the like.
my problem with a lot of indie TTRPGs is that a lot of them are married to either a very specific story structure that the system mandates that you follow, or a very specific pre-made world that the system is mechanically built to form around, and that level of pre-determination doesn't interest me either as a player OR as a GM. like these are fundamental rules in these systems that would gut it if you tore them out and replaced them with something else, which means that if you tried to go against those premade structures/settings, you would basically have to homebrew the entire goddamn thing from scratch anyway. D&D's relative rules-heaviness of combat and rules-lightness of roleplay makes it easier for D&D to provide me the kinds of stories that i actually want to participate in, even if people insist it's not as "flexible" as many people think it is. like. yes. don't run a regency romance game in D&D, obviously. but if ur running a high fantasy type of game focused on adventuring, D&D can be adapted pretty well to a homebrew setting and world with minimal effort.
and tbh, i really think that's why it has the cultural dominance that it does, and why i personally keep engaging with it as a ttrpg even as people yell from all sides to play something else. "just do freeform RP!" ive done freeform RP. it's good for character building and dialogue and intrigue and sex but it fucking sucks when characters have to fight. i fucking hate it when im trying to RP fighting in freeform RP and whatever person im fighting against just keeps fucking kicking my ass no matter what i have my character do because my RP partner is so invested in forcing me to lose or give up that they just pull whatever the hell they can think of out of their back pocket to beat my character into submission. at least with an incredibly well-defined set of rules for how combat works, your opponents are also working in a limited framework with limited tools, so even if they do fucking kick your ass, it doesn't feel completely stupid and arbitrary, and since opponents' attacks are governed by dice rolls almost as much as players' attacks are, the amount of arbitrariness in the combat is not wholly stacked against you unless you're fighting against something that's WAY out of your party's league--and even then, those creatures and people are still going to be bound by their dice rolls as much as you are, they might just have better bonuses and/or fewer penalties to make things a bit more favorable for them. that horrifying fucking monster you're fighting may have an insane bonus to attack, but it could still roll a critical fail when it tries to attack you, just as much as you might roll a critical fail to attack it in turn. everyone operates under the same rules and will have similar limitations placed on them by those rules, and participants have much less leeway to make their characters' combat prowess be whatever the hell they want whenever anything even mildly threatening happens.
2 notes
·
View notes
Ted Sarandos tries so hard to be like-able and relatable more than any other studio executive I've ever seen.
Like, look at this dude?
Don't you just want to punch him in the face?
And it gets worse...
He might look friendly and charismatic amongst these familiar faces, but at the end of the day, Ted is just another studio executive who is willing to cut costs wherever he can, in what he sees as loose ends capable of saving Netflix millions, but actually does in fact result in devastating repercussions for real people.
And yet still, I question his plan for all of this, as Ted is behind the company that has changed the way entertainment is consumed in the first place, with their company flourishing as a direct result of the 07-08 writer's strike. At first it was slow, but then it was full speed ahead, with Netflix starting a trend of streaming that upended the entire entertainment industry, essentially forcing everyone to follow suit. This has then brought us to a point where the conditions and compensation for workers do not at all match what is expected of them, because it is all based on an expired business model that no longer applies.
And yet, Ted has chosen the route as a CEO to create this friendly mask of familiarity amongst his talent and in the business as a whole, in a way that makes you want to trust him.
When new productions are coming out, he's in attendance making small talk and gushing in interviews about how important it is to tell all these stories, making it clear he's trying to convey that morality and this idea of doing the right thing, is important to him presumably.
But how can he call himself 'a union man', from 'a union family' and push this moral agenda, if he's going to continue to play one of the biggest roles in this strike, with the ability to solve it swiftly by just meeting the guilds demands, all the while tearing down that moral image entirely in the process by refusing to do so?
Because the thing is, this image of morality is him using human emotions that he knows make people fall in love with movies and TV in the first place. He knows that a lot of the support comes from people who give a fuck about human lives and people being treated fairly, especially now in 2023.
So, why in the hell would he expect the people he is presenting this morality to, as a cornerstone of their mission (manipulation tactic to distract from the true goal: exponential growth of profits...), to just sit by and be okay with the writers and actors and anyone and everyone on these movies/shows sets, to feel like they are being taken advantage of and abused because of his working conditions???
In the scenario Ted wins and the writers lose, Ted STILL loses, because this facade is now overshadowed by resentful workforce and an audience that is going to have a hard time getting behind trusting this company long term, eventually leading to their downfall.
You think people want to watch a show where we know the working conditions were awful, with them being on the cusp of changing that, only to be fucked over and have to go right back to those conditions?
The strike is a double edged sword at this point, but there's no denying these executives (esp charismatic Ted) would be much better off taking the -0.3 annual costs and calling it a day.
I guess it doesn't really matter though, because to Ted and all these other executives, the bottom line for investors will always be short term growth. They care about right now, not the future. If they can keep up the act that everything is going swell and convince their investors (and competitors) that profits went up this quarter and are projected to continue going up in the next one, they're doing their job. Even if that means burning to a crisp later on, so be it. It'll most likely be someone else's problem by then anyways...
Regardless, I look forward to seeing Ted succumbing to his inevitable fate of meeting the guilds demands, all while he himself has spent years building up and fostering this friendly image, encouraging this idea that morality is important to the end goal. Who would have thought Ted?? That your facade would contribute to backfiring in a strike for workers rights, supported heavily by the very public your company has spent the last decade providing content to, that supports that very same message?
12 notes
·
View notes