Cause and correlation aren’t the same thing, though.
Indeed no.
I’m not sure “being deskilled” is what is driving people to online role playing as opposed to participating in TTRPGs in person.
I’m thinking the ease of simply pushing buttons & getting enjoyable results- with no books to read, no rules to master, minimal math use required, etc.- is sufficient to explain the preference for certain online RPGs without a presumption that a larger percentage of new gamers lack certain knowledge or skills needed for TTRPGs.
OK, I think you're confusing what I'm talking about. I'm saying that you require a skill level to play an RPG. Especially one that goes beyond a very simple and robust core mechanic.
It could be that more innumerate people are trying RPGs because more people are trying RPGs in general.
Yes, that's right.
I would propose that it is probably impossible to avoid alienating everyone within a game group to some extent with
any game.
I’ve played in at least 100 different RPG systems since 1977, with individuals in 5 cities in 3 different states. I can’t think of a single game in which everyone was happy with the system. (At least one GM I know killed a series of campaigns because HE didn’t like the systems
he chose to run them.) Some played in systems they disliked nonetheless because of their valuation of the social interactions you pointed out. (In my case, it was GURPS.)
I’ve seen several campaigns die stillborn because too few people were interested in using a particular system- some were my own. Some were major systems, some weren’t. Some were crunchy, some were relatively streamlined.
I know gamers who absolutely refuse to RP online, despite having the resources so to do, and a lack of an active game group.
I’m not sure if alleviating mere innumeracy is sufficient to sway large numbers people to online gaming.
Yes, I read your original post.
As noted, I’ve seen the dynamic of system preferences dictating what actually gets played. I’m sure most veteran gamers have. It’s not exactly a profound truth.
Gaming is nowadays on a scale that none of us are used to or can easily comprehend.
If you agree that you can be a good roleplayer whether you use Dndbeyond or not, I agree.
If you agree that learning to drive an automatic doesn't make you a bad driver, I agree. (I drive a hybrid myself, they're all autos)
If you agree that it is a good idea for someone to learn "stick shift" to get a licence, I'm on the fence.
Why is that? Well, there's a lot of automakers nowadays and they have a lot of different vehicles. You won't lack choice. Maybe less, but you'll still have a choice.
If BMW was responsible for 99% of the automotive market and they quietly switched to automatic only, do you think that might affect the above?
If any other car that used "stick" also came with no added quality of life features, do you think that would make a dire situation for those automotive makers worse? If everyone drives stick, then you can switch to another manual gear transmission vehicle easily. If everyone drives automatics then minimising the shock in changing over and having to think about how it works needs to be accounted for.
As I wrote earlier in the thread:
1. DnD recruits players to TTRPGs.
2. Players learn the game.
3. Most stay there. That's fine. People can and should like things.
4. Some come out and try other TTRPGs. Awesome.
5. The market for TTRPGs has expanded beyond our ability to understand.
6. If we want to make sure that we continue to have fresh roleplayers than making the games easier to switch to is an important design consideration.
What is so controversial in these statements that you and other moderators are feeling the need to come and tell me I'm wrong? Is commenting on facts that apparently are "well known and uncontroversial" causing you to come and comment at me?
As a "schmoderator" will
you tell me where the moderation guidelines are? I can't find them and I would quite like to know and yet, I keep being ignored in favour of snide comments and constant policing of my opinions.