Alright, just remember to keep your thumbnail shocked picture confined to only one hand on the cheek. You need to save the two handed, "home alone" shock picture for when you react to someone's reaction.I need to make a youtube reaction video of my looking shocked about this. And then other people could react to that video! It's monetized reactions, all the way down.
A lot of people have heard of Bob Worldbuilder.Oh, but let me do you one better, it's someone you've never heard of discussing the opinions of other unnamed people you've probably also never heard of on a thing that didn't happen.
If it’s any comfort, it’s not just D&D. Any subculture or fandom on YouTube is exactly the same.The stuff like this is why I'm so burned out on D&D YouTube, actually YouTube in general. Its just exhausting and disingenuous.
Cocktail YouTube seems better. Of course, they're all buzzed, so ...If it’s any comfort, it’s not just D&D. Any subculture or fandom on YouTube is exactly the same.
D&D YouTube has a particular problem, in as much as whatever form of it a creator does they generally run out of enough good content to support a channel after, I don't know, maybe 25-50 videos. Mileage will vary, but a year or two of regular videos and almost anyone will be running dry. Their best advice, best stories, best game rules to summarize, best skit premises, best observations, best character builds, best whatever they do are used up, and because the hobby itself is a major time commitment they aren't going to come up with new experiences, etc. relating to it fast enough to fill weekly videos. The subgenres that can actually feasibly stay weekly indefinitely are liveplays, reading other people's rpg stories off reddit, and churning outrage bate out of whatever rpg-related opinion pops up online. And since the last of these generates the most clicks...The stuff like this is why I'm so burned out on D&D YouTube, actually YouTube in general. Its just exhausting and disingenuous.
Possibly. The topic of this thread is “scandal”. And the “debunking” thereof.Does this merit discussion?