Are RPGs Watchable?

[Celebrim]

First, to be a spectator event, all the participants have to be performing, not just talking. They need showmanship and screen presence. Most of us do not have those things.

With this I agree.

But with the notion that they are not performing for each others benefit, I must disagree. I think I see where you are coming from, in that most of the things players do to ham things up and entertain each other aren't entertaining to an audience, but critically I think you miss that these aren't usually part of a performance in a theatrical sense. But I have seen some very theatrical players in my day who very much are performing for the other players as an audience and enjoying the game - at the very least on the level of a mini-game within the game - as improvisational theater. This is I admit often done badly by many players when they try, and discouraged they usually don't try again, but it is a skill and one I admire as a DM and try to encourage.

As a DM, sitting back and just watching your RPers play together is one of the best experiences you can have. I introduced a brother and sister to gaming once, and they began to pickup where they had left off playing house and such 8 or 10 years prior as children and it was a thing of beauty how enjoyable to watch they made trivial points of play. On another occasion on a MUSH I had the privilege to watch what can only be called a performance by certain very skilled narrators who just brought their characters to life on the screen with words alone. In the PnP group I played as a player for the longest period (about 5 years), the first night what convinced me that this was a group I wanted to come back to, was watching three of the players RP out the 'integrate a new character into the party' scene with such grace and humor that it was just worth just sitting there and listening.

Third, given the above, they need to do so consistently. You can't watch someone looking in a book. You can't watch periods of inactivity.

I think it is impossible for any group to be continually performing without a script for the length of time it takes to play an RPG. That's why I think judicious editing and possibly some voice over summaries or narration are a necessary part of adapting the medium of an RPG to the medium of what amounts to television.

So the very nature of an RPG does not lend itself well to audiences.

Well, by its very nature its meant to be participatory. Video games are often much easier to watch and more enjoyable than PnP games, because there is at least something to look at and you, staring over the players shoulder, have much closer to their perspective and full share of the knowledge that they have. Which is why I think that a really good production of an RPG is not going to involve a static camera angle and just listening to the play. You have to know that when Marcus the Neuromancer takes 23 damage, that he's down to eight hit points - even if he's avoiding (as he should if he's performing) saying, "Hey guys, I'm down to 8 hit points" - so you need that over the shoulder shot of the character sheet or close up of his concern or its equivalent in some form. Since you aren't participating in the combat, you need it to play faster than you'd need it if you were thinking about the choices you would make if for no reason other than the fact that you aren't having to think about the choices you'd make and the resources you have at hand. So you need certain scenes to be abbreviated as well if they aren't really interesting to the audience.

 

[Asmor]

No.

Then again, neither are board games, video games, or sports.

I don't understand why people watch other people playing games. It makes no sense to me.

 

[Janx]

Let's pretend we're actually going to film a series of games. What would we need or do differently?

I think folks hit the head on "pro" people. We need players and GM who can perform for the camera, not just to be funny, but to keep the content on track. Just the right amount of bantering. Not too much petty stuff that disrupts normal game play.

I think the game material also needs to be carefully defined and selected. Boring adventures, complex combat rules, anything that causes the game play to break down, take longer to get to the point is footage that will be cut, so having less crap to film and pay actors for stuff that is going to be cut is desirable.

Out of these parts, let's say the chosen adventure is a bit of a rail road (not terrible, but not a pure sandbox that some would prefer). The players, knowing this is for film, don't whine about that. They don't spend the bulk of the game trying to do anything but head West to Rescue the Princess. This is where "pro" players know that this is a paid gig, and is less about their characters, than putting on a good show. So they make their PCs entertaining in the context of the adventure the GM is running. The audience is unaware that this is not a great adventure for just any group, because that's not the point.


I advocate a simpler rule set, I don't think it has to be super simple, but anything that takes a while to look up, or resolve the mechanics for needs to be trimmed down or it'll get edited out. Edited out material is time that was wasted. Time is money because actors, crew, editors have to be paid for making and dealing with all that wasted footage.

Assuming you're filming the actual game table (players faces), some CGI augmentation might help. Like pro sports using highliter graphics to show where the ball is, put an HP bar with PC name below each player's head when they are on camera. This way, the audience is aware of what PC they are and how well they're doing (HP = score kind of ).

I'd also use a tool like Roll20 for the battlemat. It'll look sharper/more in focus than an actual battlemat that the camera can't zoom in/around on as well.

For the table, I'd probably shoot it like KoDT style, everybody all on one side (but with GM in the middle). This way, the camera can setup facing everybody pretty easily for most shots (barring close-ups).

 

[Umbran]

I think I see where you are coming from, in that most of the things players do to ham things up and entertain each other aren't entertaining to an audience, but critically I think you miss that these aren't usually part of a performance in a theatrical sense. But I have seen some very theatrical players in my day who very much are performing for the other players as an audience and enjoying the game - at the very least on the level of a mini-game within the game - as improvisational theater. This is I admit often done badly by many players when they try, and discouraged they usually don't try again, but it is a skill and one I admire as a DM and try to encourage.

There is a difference between playing to an audience who are *also* participants and playing to a passive audience (who may not even be present, represented by a camera). The dynamic and style are different.

 

[Celebrim]

There is a difference between playing to an audience who are *also* participants and playing to a passive audience (who may not even be present, represented by a camera). The dynamic and style are different.

Well, I'm not a professional actor or even someone you'd want to put on a stage in a school play, but as I understand it, the trick is to act as if the camera (or audience) is not there.

I'm saying that I have personally witnessed players whose play was, at times or regularly, improvisational theater and was entertaining in the way that live theater is entertaining. Ironically, more often than not, I've seen it from people who don't regularly play RPGs...

Much has been made of Chris Perkin's skill at making NPC's come to life, doing voices, giving them individual traits and personalities, and so forth. Well, sometimes you have players that do the same thing for their PC and interact with the other PC's as if they were NPC's and you get out of that actual theatrical banter and dialogue which is entertaining in the way that theater is entertaining. But to do that you need players that care about timing, pacing, and immersion as much as a good DM does. And that requires both players of a certain skill and a very high comfort level with that, because your fellow players are an audience. As a GM, the players are an audience. There may be some differences in dynamic and style related to play acting together and play acting for an audience, but when I've seen play acting together done well, the differences in dynamic and style seem to disappear.

 

[Umbran]

Well, I'm not a professional actor or even someone you'd want to put on a stage in a school play, but as I understand it, the trick is to act as if the camera (or audience) is not there.

I'm saying that I have personally witnessed players whose play was, at times or regularly, improvisational theater and was entertaining in the way that live theater is entertaining. Ironically, more often than not, I've seen it from people who don't regularly play RPGs...

Well, maybe we have a language problem here.

When you are playing standard theatre to a passive audience, you are not expecting any major input from that audience. You may use the very subtle sounds of the audience to inform your timing or expression, but otherwise, playing to a passive audience is a bit oratory in nature. It is you, expounding to, expounding to the world.

When I speak of playing to an audience that is also an active participant, I mean it in the improv theater sense - improv is not about orating in fine way for others to consume, but about using setups you are given, and giving back setups in return. In improv, you need the others to act back at you, and you don't know what it is they are going to do. You are using the audience to inform your authorial choices as you act - something you don't do with a passive audience. It is, done properly, a different kettle of fish - and it is that difference to which I refer.

 

[Serendipity]

Watching other people play an RPG is among the most tedious things I can envision. At best it's going to make me want to play in that game, and that's pretty unlikely (but it's been known to happen). Unless it's a game I'm invested in to some degree it's just not that interesting.

 

[1of3]

Well, I'm not a professional actor or even someone you'd want to put on a stage in a school play, but as I understand it, the trick is to act as if the camera (or audience) is not there.

Only in the sense of not being bothered by it. Of course, actors position themselves in such way that the camera looks at the interesting parts. That is true for Wheaton's Tabletop, pornos or just about any production.

 

[TarionzCousin]

3) I'm hoping Tabletop changes this with its new RPG show. That said, they'll all be professional actors and the like, and it will be very expertly edited and cut, so I'm sure it will be very watchable.

I quite enjoyed the Dragon Age RPG episode they did.

I hope Wil Wheaton does what he's done with his boardgame show: pause for commentary, use professional entertainers, and edit the show well.

It also wouldn't hurt to have simple animations and visible maps.

So, yes, I think it is possible to have an entertaining and watchable RPG show--but it shouldn't be hours long with the camera filming everything.

 

[MichaelSomething]

what you see is a mix of an RPG and professional improvised comedy.

Those aren't the same thing?