TTRPGS, Blockchains, and NFTs

When Kickstarter announced recently that it would be investing in blockchain-based infrastructure, there was widespread backlash. Blockchain technology is environmentally damaging and is of limited use. Creators such as Possum Creek Games (Wanderhome) announced their intentions to move off Kickstarter, while companies such as Chaosium and Wizards of the Coast continue to express interested in non-fungible tokens, digital items which exist on a blockchain.

While I'm writing this article, I do need to point out that I'm not a great person to do so; my understanding of blockchains, NFTs, cryptocurrencies, and related technologies is very, very limited and my attempts to get a handle on the subject have not been entirely successful. I'm sure more informed people will post in the comments.

What the heck is an NFT (& what does it mean for digital artists)

What is a non-fungible token (NFT)? In this graphic designer's guide to NFTs, we explore how Non-Fungible Tokens work in the context of digital art and how you can start turning your digital creations into sought-after NFTs.

dribbble.com

Kickstarter is not the only tabletop roleplaying game adjacent company delving into such technologies. Call of Cthulhu publisher Chaosium announced in July 2021 that it was working with an NFT company to bring their Mythos content to a digitally collectible market, with specific plans to sell two different models -- the Necromonicon and a bust of Cthulhu -- from the Cthulhu Mythos; and while things went quiet for a while, last week the company tweeted that 'We have more - lots more -- to drop... when the Stars are Right." A Facebook statement from Chaosium's CEO appeared on Twitter talking more about the decision.

D&D producer Wizards of the Coast said in April 2021 that it was considering NFTs for Magic: The Gathering. More recently, an email from WotC's legal representatives to a company planning to use NFT technology in conjunction with M:tG cards, alleging unlawful infringement of its IP, indicated that WotC was "currently evaluating its future plans regarding NFTs and the MAGIC: THE GATHERING cards" but that "no decision has been made at this time."

On Twitter, ErikTheBearik compiled Hasbro/WotC's involvement with NFTs so far.

Gripnr is a '5e based TTRPG NFT protocol' with Stephen Radney-MacFarland (D&D, Star Wars Saga Edition, Pathfinder) as its lead game designer. OK, so that's about as much of that as I understand!

Some company in the TTRPG sphere have taken a stand. DriveThruRPG stated that "In regard to NFTs – We see no use for this technology in our business ever." Itch.io was a bit more emphatic:

A few have asked about our stance on NFTs: NFTs are a scam. If you think they are legitimately useful for anything other than the exploitation of creators, financial scams, and the destruction of the planet the [sic] we ask that [you] please reevaluate your life choices. Peace. [an emoji of a hand making the “Peace” symbol]

Also [expletive deleted] any company that says they support creators and also endorses NFTs in any way. They only care about their own profit and the opportunity for wealth above anyone else. Especially given the now easily available discourse concerning the problems of NFTs.

How can you be so dense?

NFTs -- non-fungible tokens -- and blockchains have been dominating the news recently, and with individuals and companies taking strong stances against them, it's fair to ask why. The environmental impact of the technology has been widely documented - it's inefficient, and the need for blockchains -- a sort of decentralized ledger -- to have multiple users validate and record transactions makes it very energy intensive. In an era when climate change is having more and more devastating effects around the world, use of such technologies attracts considerable backlash.

Other ethical concerns regarding NFTs specifically is that the purchaser of an NFT is not actually purchasing anything, and the value for the digital 'token' they've purchased is speculative. When you buy the NFT of a piece of art (for example) you don't own the art itself; you only own a digital token associated with the art. The whole concept is likened to a 'house of cards' or a 'scam' by its critics.

 

[Mistwell]

"Blockchain technology is environmentally damaging and is of limited use... my understanding of blockchains, NFTs, cryptocurrencies, and related technologies is very, very limited."

OK, fair enough that you feel you don't understand the topic well. So why start with a purely opinion-based comment that they are of limited use? You literally can't know if their uses are limited or not if you have a very limited understanding of the topic.

When the personal computer came out, a lot of people (most of them old white people in suits) said they wouldn't last and were a fad. They said people wouldn't buy them and they were overpriced calculators with such limited memory they would be nothing more than a toy. Their entire argument was, "It's of limited use." There was even a lot of "computers use too much electricity and are bad for the environment."

Same thing happened with video games.

Same thing happened with the internet.

Same thing happened with the world wide web.

Same thing happened with online shopping.

Same thing happened with social media.

It's become super trendy lately for people who don't know much about crypto currencies and related topics to bash them and then pat each other on for also bashing them. I see a lot of "hur hur hur, Crypto is a scam, amIrightoramIright?"

You guys are likely the old white dudes (not in suits) complaining about those young kids and their rock music of this era. Twenty years from now, your kids will look back on these kinds of comments and laugh about it, while a huge portion of the economy runs on crypto currencies.

It's not ever going away and it will continue to grow at an extraordinary rate. You don't have to adapt to changes in society, but at least take a moment to acknowledge the possibility that "I don't fully understand this new thing" might be a sign you probably shouldn't be judging it as a fad or a scam.

 

[Abstruse]

It's become super trendy lately for people who don't know much about crypto currencies and related topics to bash them and then pat each other on for also bashing them. I see a lot of "hur hur hur, Crypto is a scam, amIrightoramIright?"

I wrote a 2500+ word post explaining the technology step-by-step. I understand cryptocurrency, the blockchain, and NFTs.

It's a scam. All of it.

 

[Abstruse]

Of course, the US dollar and all other currencies in use, including metal based ones like gold are scams too.

This is a common argument in favor of crypto that doesn't work for many reasons.

1) Cryptocurrency is not a currency. It is a commodity. It has value solely on the word of other people saying it has value. Gold, silver, and platinum have value because they are metals that are easy to work with that do not corrode or rust and are good conductors of electricity. Through most of human history, those metals have been effectively worthless except for their use as currency, but following the industrial and technological revolutions of society in the last century, that is no longer the case. Those metals have practical value and use.

2) The Dollar (and the Euro and the Yen and so on) are fiat currencies, which means they are not backed up by the value of a commodity. One pound-sterling is no longer worth a certain amount of gold or silver. However, that does not mean they are valueless because they are backed by the country that issues the currency. The US dollar will have value so long as the US remains a country, and will retain value so long as other countries continue to trade with the US. Cryptocurrency, as I said above, is not even a fiat currency. It is a fiat commodity. Actually, I'm not even sure if that's true because "fiat" requires a consensus that the item has value due to its use as a medium of exchange and there's no consensus that cryptocurrency has even that value - it only has value because a small niche says it has value and only among those in that group agree.

3) "This system we have in place now has problems!" is only an indictment of that system. It is not a defense of a separate system. Especially when that new system has all of the exact same problems and a whole host of new problems. It would be like saying "Insurance companies are exploitative! I have a solution, give everybody cyanide they can take when they get sick! What, are you against poisoning people? What are you, a shill for Big Pharma?!"

And that's just for a start. I'd keep going, but I've written enough huge posts for this thread as it is.

 

[Mistwell]

I wrote a 2500+ word post explaining the technology step-by-step. I understand cryptocurrency, the blockchain, and NFTs.

It's a scam. All of it.

OK. And if, in 20 years, it's still here and ubiquitous, then what? There were entire interviews with higher-ups at IBM who said the personal computer was never going to go beyond a toy. There were huge articles about the web claiming it was useless in computer magazines. Don't you even pause for a moment to consider even the slightest possibility you're them?

 

[doctorhook]

"Blockchain technology is environmentally damaging and is of limited use... my understanding of blockchains, NFTs, cryptocurrencies, and related technologies is very, very limited."

OK, fair enough that you feel you don't understand the topic well. So why start with a purely opinion-based comment that they are of limited use? You literally can't know if their uses are limited or not if you don't have a very limited understanding of the topic.

When the personal computer came out, a lot of people (most of them old white people in suits) said they wouldn't last and were a fad. They said people wouldn't buy them and they were overpriced calculators with such limited memory they would be nothing more than a toy. Their entire argument was, "It's of limited use." There was even a lot of "computers use too much electricity and are bad for the environment."

Same thing happened with video games.

Same thing happened with the internet.

Same thing happened with the world wide web.

Same thing happened with online shopping.

Same thing happened with social media.

It's become super trendy lately for people who don't know much about crypto currencies and related topics to bash them and then pat each other on for also bashing them. I see a lot of "hur hur hur, Crypto is a scam, amIrightoramIright?"

You guys are likely the old white dudes (not in suits) complaining about those young kids and their rock music of this era. Twenty years from now, your kids will look back on these kinds of comments and laugh about it, while a huge portion of the economy runs on crypto currencies.

It's not ever going away and it will continue to grow at an extraordinary rate. You don't have to adapt to changes in society, but at least take a moment to acknowledge the possibility that "I don't fully understand this new thing" might be a sign you probably shouldn't be judging it as a fad or a scam.

All of the nascent industries you mentioned offered some value to adopters. Crypto and NFTs don’t do anything except exist to be traded. NFTs aren’t even the art they claim to be—it’s just a holder for a link to an image, which can still be unhosted or swapped for another image on the hosting server, meaning the person buying the NFT hasn’t bought anything at all.

Blockchain might have some uses, but crypto and NFT are dead ends.

 

[Abstruse]

BTW, anytime you see someone trying to dodge criticism of cryptocurrency by saying "You just don't understand! It'll be around forever! You sound like an old person angry at the kids these days!", mentally replace every time they say "cryptocurrency" with "pogs" or "beanie babies" or "double polybagged and boarded mint condition copy of Youngblood #1/2". Then remember at least with those, you actually got the pog or beanie baby and not a digital receipt saying you own a comic book or pog or a beanie baby.

 

[Mistwell]

All of the nascent industries you mentioned offered some value to adopters. Crypto and NFTs don’t do anything except exist to be traded. NFTs aren’t even the art they claim to be—it’s just a holder for a link to an image, which can still be unhosted or swapped for another image on the hosting server, meaning the person buying the NFT hasn’t bought anything at all.

Blockchain might have some uses, but crypto and NFT are dead ends.

They DO offer lots to people. Maybe not you. And I really don't want to get into the debate as to whether something I and many other value should have value to you. You don't have to value it. Heck, I have a couple of friends who place zero value on social media platforms and message boards. I am not going to try to convince them that social media and message boards have value - they just accept it has value to me and I accept it does not have value to them.

But there is a meaningful difference between "This thing has no value to me," and "This thing has no value to anyone." The later is false. It has value to many people. The number of people who consider it valuable increases every day. The number of people who think it has no value to them decreases every day. That trend doesn't appear to be changing, and its been going on for many years now.

 

[Mistwell]

BTW, anytime you see someone trying to dodge criticism of cryptocurrency by saying "You just don't understand! It'll be around forever! You sound like an old person angry at the kids these days!", mentally replace every time they say "cryptocurrency" with "pogs" or "beanie babies" or "double polybagged and boarded mint condition copy of Youngblood #1/2". Then remember at least with those, you actually got the pog or beanie baby and not a digital receipt saying you own a comic book or pog or a beanie baby.

The original poster, the person who wrote the article which starts this thread, SAID THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND IT VERY WELL. Which is why I directly quoted them and responded to them directly about that statement. And now you're trying to spin that as me manufacturing that claim?

It's been 14 years now of a world with crypto, and it hasn't peaked, is the major advertisements during the Super Bowl and major permanent sports arenas are being named over it. A single type of crypto is currently worth over a trillion dollars. How many years and how much impact on society does it take before you consider it more than pogs?

 

[Abstruse]

The original poster, the person who wrote the article which starts this thread, SAID THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND IT VERY WELL. Which is why I directly quoted them and responded to them directly about that statement. And now you're trying to spin that as me manufacturing that claim?

It's been 14 years now of a world with crypto, and it hasn't peaked. How many years before you consider it more than pogs?

Yes, Morrus stated he doesn't understand cryptocurrency. I have offered to explain it to him many times. He understands "This is all nonsense and I want nothing to do with it". That's all he needs to know, so like most people, he doesn't care to look into it more. He runs a news site so has to report on the news and, as an editor, knows he has reporters like me who have done the research he can lean on if necessary.

I also notice that in none of your posts, you have not refuted a single criticism anyone has made of cryptocurrency, the blockchain, or NFTs. All you've done is insult us and dismiss us as old people who just don't get it.

Wait, sorry, that's not entirely true. You said

But there is a meaningful difference between "This thing has no value to me," and "This thing has no value to anyone." The later is false. It has value to many people.

As of January 2022, only 400,000 cryptocurrency wallets (the accounts online that hold assets on the blockchain) have ever held an NFT, and 80% of all NFTs are held by only 40,000 wallets. That is a very, very small minority. To put that in perspective, more people own copies of Sonic Boom for the Nintendo WiiU than own NFTs. So no, this is not the "next big thing".

 

[aramis erak]

Those DAO folks?

Wow! Scam, all the way down.

I dunno if those folks were delusional, just didn't know, or where lying through their teeth to prop up "value".

which is the one of the central problems with dealing with many of these folks.

A lot depends upon how they set it up. If they do an escrow account with refund on fail, it might not end as a scam.

HasBro isn't a non-profit, nor a public benefit corporation (PBC), so they have to take the highest financial benefit to individual shareholders as the bar. A combined boycott & purchase offer at a credible offer... HasBro would legally be required to either accept it or put it to the board.

The amount needed, however, would be much easier achieved by creating a PBC which is dedicated to buying up HasBro stock so as to effect changing HasBro to a PBC focused upon the gaming industry.

Note that PBCs are a bit of a problem in the US, as many states don't actually differentiate them from for-profits. At present, it looks like 37 states have enacted enabling legislation, and the feds make no distinction. Canada makes no federal distinction and only BC does at a territorial level.
WotC is registered in Washington, which lacks a benefit corporation option.