Actual Play podcasts

[iserith]

Another couple of pet peeves of mine when it comes to podcasts (if not regular games):

1. Players who ask a lot of questions of the DM. This drives me up a wall and it makes the podcast impossible for me to watch or listen to. Asking questions clarifies a situation, but isn't moving the action forward. It's a way of playing it safe since there are no in-game consequences for asking questions of the DM whereas taking action in the game world to answer one's own questions might come with risk. "Can I do this? Can I do that? Can I make a check to..." This is a pretty common way for people to play the game (not at my table!), but makes for an awful listening experience in my opinion. The action stalls when the 20 Questions sub-game is being played. After the DM describes a compelling moment in the game and asks "What do you do?" a player following that with a question is just about the worst way to respond in my view.

2. DM who dominates the conversation of the game. By design, the DM already controls two-thirds of the conversation via describing the environment and narrating the result of the adventurers' actions. Players only describe what they want to do. But commonly (and this is true of some of the very popular podcasts), the players offer very little to hold up their end of the basic conversation of the game, leaving the DM to pick up the slack. For example, a player might simply say "I attack the orc with my sword," which is fine as far as that goes, but this often means the DM will then describe some kind of complex maneuver that describes the character's actions (rather than just the result of those actions). Or "I make an Arcana check..." to which the DM responds with a description of what the character is doing that prompts the check. Not only is this a presumption of character action on the part of the DM, it lets the player off the hook for providing engaging description of what he or she wants to do. I'd be happier if the DM started asking the players to give more information as to goal and approach when describing what they want to do rather than fill in the blanks for them.

 

[MostlyDm]

That's my point though - if you're making a podcast, doing something that isn't potentially entertaining to an audience isn't a wise use of time in my view. My objection to many podcasts is that they play like they don't have an audience when in fact they do. The good podcasts in my view have participants that are aware of it and change their habits accordingly.

If it is more enjoyable for the participants to still engage in [whatever should be edited; in jokes, rules discussions, accounting minutia]... Why is it more wise to reduce their enjoyment and refrain, rather than simply edit out the stuff they don't think will appeal to the masses?

Assuming the rest of the game is still enjoyable for the listeners, what's the issue?

 

[iserith]

If it is more enjoyable for the participants to still engage in [whatever should be edited; in jokes, rules discussions, accounting minutia]... Why is it more wise to reduce their enjoyment and refrain, rather than simply edit out the stuff they don't think will appeal to the masses?

Assuming the rest of the game is still enjoyable for the listeners, what's the issue?

It's no issue for me as a listener as long as they edit it out. If I were running a podcast, however, I would consider anything that hit the cutting room floor to be a waste. I would make sure the participants were all on the same page in this regard.

 

[MostlyDm]

If I were paying people to act out parts in a podcast, I would agree.

I think most of these podcasts are also intended to be a fun game of D&D for the participants, though.

 

[Ristamar]

If it is more enjoyable for the participants to still engage in [whatever should be edited; in jokes, rules discussions, accounting minutia]... Why is it more wise to reduce their enjoyment and refrain, rather than simply edit out the stuff they don't think will appeal to the masses?

Assuming the rest of the game is still enjoyable for the listeners, what's the issue?

Sure, assuming the end product is good, a group can play however they want. However, that's a HUGE assumption given the amount of work it takes to put together an entertaining product.

A good 'cast doesn't just magically happen. The best and most popular 'casts are aware of their audience and play to it rather than treat it as an invisible bystander. It takes a lot of prep before the recording ever begins. You can't simply pull a gold nugget from a pile of garbage if you're relying on everything to work out in post. Making cuts can be difficult if the minutia, off-topic chatter, inside jokes, and cross talk rapidly cut in and out of the game narrative.

 

[iserith]

If I were paying people to act out parts in a podcast, I would agree.

I think most of these podcasts are also intended to be a fun game of D&D for the participants, though.

The question is whether the game could be fun without the stuff that would be edited out. I submit that it could be. I don't even have a podcast but very little of my games could be edited out since it's nonstop play except for 3-5 minute breaks every hour and a half or so. There are no side convos or rules discussion at all. So my perception may be a little different from others with regard to time spent at the table not actually moving the game forward.

 

[MostlyDm]

Sure, assuming the end product is good, a group can play however they want. However, that's a HUGE assumption given the amount of work it takes to put together an entertaining product.

A good 'cast doesn't just magically happen. The best and most popular 'casts are aware of their audience and play to it rather than treat it as an invisible bystander. It takes a lot of prep before the recording ever begins. You can't simply pull a gold nugget from a pile of garbage if you're relying on everything to work out in post. Making cuts can be difficult if the minutia, off-topic chatter, inside jokes, and cross talk rapidly cut in and out of the game narrative.

Sure, but I thought we were talking about existing podcasts that people like that do, in fact, have substantial editing (e.g. Godsfall or something). If they are having fun, and also editing it into something that thousands of people enjoy listening to... I'm not convinced that they need to dramatically change their play style.

 

[iserith]

Sure, but I thought we were talking about existing podcasts that people like that do, in fact, have substantial editing (e.g. Godsfall or something). If they are having fun, and also editing it into something that thousands of people enjoy listening to... I'm not convinced that they need to dramatically change their play style.

Nobody is asserting that they should?

 

[Ristamar]

Sure, but I thought we were talking about existing podcasts that people like that do, in fact, have substantial editing (e.g. Godsfall or something). If they are having fun, and also editing it into something that thousands of people enjoy listening to... I'm not convinced that they need to dramatically change their play style.

If they are satisfied with the work they are putting out and the size of their listener base, then I wholeheartedly concur.

 

[MostlyDm]

The question is whether the game could be fun without the stuff that would be edited out. I submit that it could be. I don't even have a podcast but very little of my games could be edited out since it's nonstop play except for 3-5 minute breaks every hour and a half or so. There are no side convos or rules discussion at all. So my perception may be a little different from others with regard to time spent at the table not actually moving the game forward.

Aren't most of your games online? Where by definition there is no need for visible side conversation because that can be done through a hidden medium?

As far as there being no "rules discussions" to edit out of your games... That's debatable. Heck, podcasts sometimes edit out things like *attack rolls* half the time to speed up the flow for the listener. But I'm betting you still have your players make attack rolls on occasion.

Even "nonstop play" is not always going to be a draw for a podcast.

Personally, I love interacting with minor characters in low stakes exchanges. I love it when the DM lets me haggle with a blacksmith over the price of crossbow bolts. I find that really fun. I find stuff like that adds to the feel of realism in the world, rather than it seeming like a nonstop high octane action movie.

But... A lot of people hate that stuff. A podcast might reasonably choose to edit it out.