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.

 

[gamerprinter]

Overall, blockchain really doesn’t seem like an ideal security method at all.

I didn't say it was, rather it was more secure than the other - for what little that means.

 

[doctorhook]

I didn't say it was, rather it was more secure than the other - for what little that means.

Fair enough! But I think that possibly undersells the significant security improvements that the “regular” internet now boasts.

Personally I’d love to see a better-structured internet, but I don’t know what that looks like. And I really can’t imagine blockchain being able to step up. It’s really just the wrong tool for transacting.

 

[gamerprinter]

I make art, write and design, then publish and sell/.promote online - that's all I really do. Everything else is banter. I generally avoid "argument" threads, so just because I posted, doesn't mean I'm picking a side. Just stating facts, here and there.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Firstly, I'm not a supporter of cryptocurrencies or NFTs. I'm interested in blockchain conceptually, but haven't seen an implementation that's worthwhile (it's an interesting concept, but execution is lacking). That said, there's quite a lot just wrong here:

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.

Cryptocurrency is absolutely, 100%, a currency. This really isn't arguable. It's traded on (some) currency exchanges and it used as a currency. Both definitionally and in actual use, cryptocurrencies are currencies.

Cryptocurrencies are absolutely, 100%, NOT a commodity. Commodities are raw materials or agricultural products that have inherent value for what they are -- food or things to make other things with. They are not valued based on what other people say they are worth (well, they retain value no matter what, but are traded and the price fluctuates based on what people will pay for them, so this is slightly caveated). The proof here is wheat -- a commodity that has value even if not on the market.

Gold, silver, and platinum have had historical value even before the minting of coins. They were valued for their luster, their workability (you could make durable things with them), and their longevity. All of this happened before and during their use to mint coins (which seems to be being confused with currency as a hasty generalization -- not all currencies have coins and not all coins are currency). In fact, it was these qualities that caused them to be used to mint coins -- the coins held intrinsic value as a commodity.

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.

The value of a fiat currency is based on the same thing that cryptocurrency is (and crypto isn't a fiat currency but it's also not a commodity, see above) -- faith. The value of the US dollar is entirely based on the faith of people that it's worth something. Just like cryptocurrency is. There's no magic actual promise behind the dollar that turns up at some point if you dig deep enough -- this is the point of fiat currency. In fact, the only reason cryptocurrency isn't a fiat currency is because fiat currencies are defined as currencies issued by fiat of a state, which cryptos are not. That's it.

Now, the fact that the US dollar is backed by the US government, and the potential economic output of the USA has a major effect, but you see this in the fact that the US dollar is stable in value. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile. This is because the basis of the faith in each is different and so has a different impact. But they're still effectively the same -- you're kinda comparing a bridge made of toothpicks to a bridge made of steel and saying that one isn't a bridge. They're both bridges, but no one has anywhere near as much trust or faith in the toothpicks over steel. That's the effective difference here.

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?!"

No arguments, here. There are good arguments to be made for cryptocurrencies, though. Primarily is the decentralized and open nature of the currency -- no one controls it directly and everyone can see what it's doing. That may not be persuasive to you, but that doesn't remove it as a good argument that is different from other monetary systems. I don't find it persuasive enough to overcome the problems with cryptocurrency, myself. Those have been well covered -- volatility, high levels of speculation inflating the values, energy cost, problems with transaction speed, etc.

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

Look, I'm sympathetic to your larger point that crypto is not the silver bullet anyone may say it is, and that it has serious problems. But the arguments you've made here are incorrect and don't go to help that claim. They harm your credibility with anyone that's managed to pay attention through ECON 101 and 102. Granted, that's not a large section of the population.

 

[gamerprinter]

... to pay attention through ECON 101 and 102. Granted, that's not a large section of the population.

I had both, but Macro was problematic for me, at the time. There's a non-economist online that explains it well - now I understand, not then, though.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Currencies like the US dollar are not entirely based on faith. They are backed by the productive capacity of the US economy. If the supply of dollars was less than needed to support the capacity of the US economy for enough by long enough then that would depress demand. Not having enough dollars to buy goods or services and prices would fall in a deflation. If the dollar supply exceeds the capacity again for long enough it would induce structural inflation.

 

[Parmandur]

Firstly, I'm not a supporter of cryptocurrencies or NFTs. I'm interested in blockchain conceptually, but haven't seen an implementation that's worthwhile (it's an interesting concept, but execution is lacking). That said, there's quite a lot just wrong here:

Cryptocurrency is absolutely, 100%, a currency. This really isn't arguable. It's traded on (some) currency exchanges and it used as a currency. Both definitionally and in actual use, cryptocurrencies are currencies.

Cryptocurrencies are absolutely, 100%, NOT a commodity. Commodities are raw materials or agricultural products that have inherent value for what they are -- food or things to make other things with. They are not valued based on what other people say they are worth (well, they retain value no matter what, but are traded and the price fluctuates based on what people will pay for them, so this is slightly caveated). The proof here is wheat -- a commodity that has value even if not on the market.

Gold, silver, and platinum have had historical value even before the minting of coins. They were valued for their luster, their workability (you could make durable things with them), and their longevity. All of this happened before and during their use to mint coins (which seems to be being confused with currency as a hasty generalization -- not all currencies have coins and not all coins are currency). In fact, it was these qualities that caused them to be used to mint coins -- the coins held intrinsic value as a commodity.

The value of a fiat currency is based on the same thing that cryptocurrency is (and crypto isn't a fiat currency but it's also not a commodity, see above) -- faith. The value of the US dollar is entirely based on the faith of people that it's worth something. Just like cryptocurrency is. There's no magic actual promise behind the dollar that turns up at some point if you dig deep enough -- this is the point of fiat currency. In fact, the only reason cryptocurrency isn't a fiat currency is because fiat currencies are defined as currencies issued by fiat of a state, which cryptos are not. That's it.

Now, the fact that the US dollar is backed by the US government, and the potential economic output of the USA has a major effect, but you see this in the fact that the US dollar is stable in value. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile. This is because the basis of the faith in each is different and so has a different impact. But they're still effectively the same -- you're kinda comparing a bridge made of toothpicks to a bridge made of steel and saying that one isn't a bridge. They're both bridges, but no one has anywhere near as much trust or faith in the toothpicks over steel. That's the effective difference here.

No arguments, here. There are good arguments to be made for cryptocurrencies, though. Primarily is the decentralized and open nature of the currency -- no one controls it directly and everyone can see what it's doing. That may not be persuasive to you, but that doesn't remove it as a good argument that is different from other monetary systems. I don't find it persuasive enough to overcome the problems with cryptocurrency, myself. Those have been well covered -- volatility, high levels of speculation inflating the values, energy cost, problems with transaction speed, etc.

Look, I'm sympathetic to your larger point that crypto is not the silver bullet anyone may say it is, and that it has serious problems. But the arguments you've made here are incorrect and don't go to help that claim. They harm your credibility with anyone that's managed to pay attention through ECON 101 and 102. Granted, that's not a large section of the population.

I'm not set against blockchain and crypto entirely myself...in time, their value may become more clear and normalized.

But NFTs are bad news.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Currencies like the US dollar are not entirely based on faith. They are backed by the productive capacity of the US economy. If the supply of dollars was less than needed to support the capacity of the US economy for enough by long enough then that would depress demand. Not having enough dollars to buy goods or services and prices would fall in a deflation. If the dollar supply exceeds the capacity again for long enough it would induce structural inflation.

What percentage of that productive capacity does a dollar represent, then? No, the productive capacity of the US doesn't back the currency, it supports the faith in the currency. There's no backing here. Backing has a specific meaning in currencies -- that the currency represents and is tradeable directly (ie, without purchase) for the backing. I cannot trade my US dollar in for any portion of the productive capacity of the US.

And then you mention inflation, which is a faith problem in currency not one that is directly tied to supply vs capacity. I'm not even sure how one would measure currency supply versus economic capacity. What's the metric for this?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not set against blockchain and crypto entirely myself...in time, their value may become more clear and normalized.

But NFTs are bad news.

NFTs are foundationally neutral. They are, however, a weird concept, and one hard to explain, and one quite often poorly explained and even more poorly understood. That, by itself, is still neutral, but it absolutely creates a situation where people make bad choices because they cannot understand the risk/reward picture at all and also one where predators can induce people into said bad choices. The explosion of investment into NFTs baffles me, but like all speculative investment you shouldn't be betting money you aren't willing to burn. The problem I see is that the NFT market has so suddenly expanded, and because of that influx has shown sudden inflation in some prices, such that it enticed people who can't afford to burn investment money to enter the market because of the lure of getting rich quick. Frankly, though, the NFT market is still more understandable and more transparent than the subprime mortgage market of the aughts, and some of the current markets that exist at the periphery of the stock market. I'm not sure why the much smaller NFT market is getting dogpiled while those are largely accepted as evils that no one can fix.

 

[Jd Smith1]

.