Back when I frequented tech conferences I noticed most folks were either selling something or looking for work, but very few were actually buying or hiring. And while the free food and booze while chillin with familiar folks was fun as hell, it wasn't really financially beneficial.
This is the current state of 'indie communities', and I don't see it getting any better, as their gatekeeping now goes well beyond expelling bad actors, to demanding folks they'll never interact with not use their product over ideological differences. And if your game is designed as a political shibboleth, then that's all it will ever be.
But if TTRPG companies want to thrive they'll need to go beyond their comfort zones and engage groups completely unrelated to the field, which is exactly how Vampire: The Masquerade became the surprise hit it did. And there's plenty of opportunity here if only they'll take it.
Honestly if a journalistic outlet doesn't have a strong point of view that it's fairly open about, I don't think I trust that outlet, because it just means they've got a point of view they're not willing to admit, or that, at best, means they're so clueless they don't realize they've got one because they think they're "normal" or something.
This is only the case when reporting on taste and opinion rather than facts and evidence. And if an institution is interpreting right and wrong for you it goes well beyond a news outlet.
Curiously, he then goes from describing WotC's two recent, flagship publications as "excellent," to claiming that "you can’t help but smell the enshittification of the beloved role-playing game" on the horizon. So it's on "the threshold of something new," heralded by two "excellent" books...and thus you can smell "enshittification"? Huh. So...not exactly a super rigorous argument being developed.
Can't alienate their cash cow when it comes to TTRPGs now can they?
I suspect the author was given the assignment, or had the idea, of doing an article on Mothership, and then was looking to sexy it up by stirring the pot a bit. Poke the bear, drop a catchphrase, get some clicks. And this is reporting in the Internet Age: impressionist assertions based on a few anecdotes, wrapped in cliches and written to basically troll readers, rather than inform them. To create a controversy rather than add insight. To get clicks. To get people talking on sites such as this one.
And people wonder why AI is taking over.
Better to read two openly biased sources with opposing views than anyone that claims it's not biased or won't come forward with their own.
And some sites are so ideologically driven they won't even report on certain stories at all. For example 'left wing' sources not only failed to report on Gaiman's 'indiscretions' in the beginning, but actively dismissed the 'right wing' sources which did.
It's a bit of a miracle that Seth Skorkowsky's channel somehow rises above this when he is posting about games like CoC and Traveller.
His costumes and skits have a
lot to do with it.
You run a sci-fi game and suddenly you players have tons of world-building questions, yet most gamers don't question the occult in their game, "Obviously that spell should have more material components and less verbal!"
Just once, I'd like to run a sci-fi game and when someone asks why this or that works that way, someone else at the table just says, "Because it's Science." ... and then everyone else at the table nods and we move on.
Because Fantasy just
is, while Sci-fi needs a
reason.
A lot of people don't understand that any kind of engagement, including "hate clicks, angry comments, angry re-shares" generate money.
The fact 'engagement = endorsement' is yet another force corroding online dialogue, and sadly it's another thing I don't think will be getting any healthier.
WOTC got rid of their own forums, arguably for the same reasons: "social media made it unnecessary." That was true then. But for better or worse, it ties communities to platforms that we don't own.
It was never true, and now they're paying the price.
Outside of extremely moderated and focused platforms (like forums like this) there is no value left in engaging with the mass of Social Media, its just trash, and its trash controlled by the Tech Companies and in some cases, Governments.
Or mods on #Reddit. I wish I was kidding, because #Reddit has replaced forums almost entirely, and potentially gives randos control over your branding. And if you're ready to dismiss it, you might want to check their stock value.
I think that was true for a long time just with email spam. But now I think internet traffic is primarily video, isn't it?
Yes, but not all video platforms lead to the same
kind of engagement. For example, on most interaction is top down, with the video creator making content and the audience commenting on it. However on #TikTok the video/music
itself is the medium of engagement, and tools to remix it to create your own expressions is build-in.
As the maxim goes, the medium is the message.
What makes an expert opinion better than mine, anyway? (Obvious answer: expertise, usually derived from relevant study and/or experience). Instead we do the lazy thing and either say all opinions no matter how informed or uninformed are equal, or we simply say “the wisdom of the majority is probably right.” (Or we just select the opinion that agrees with our presupposition as “expert.”) in such an environment, no wonder the bots (which amount to an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters) can drown out useful information… we have lost (or perhaps abdicated) our ability to discern expertise.
You might have no idea how right you are.
I envision a future where talent collectives form corporations, train AI on their skillsets, and collect the dividends. Because why should the 'talentless hacks' who simply have the money to invest benefit from this model? Garbage in will always lead to garbage out after all.
