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.

 

[Umbran]

I read a hypothesis the other day that the rise of weird investments these days (like cryptocurrency and NFTs) is related to the way the current economy strongly benefits those who are already rich. The TL;DR version is that the richest are so flush with cash that the investment opportunities in traditional areas (like the stock market) can't really absorb that sort of money, so instead they go looking for other places to invest.

I find the idea that the stock market can't absorb that kind of money... odd, seeing as most of the money is already in the stock market. There is no upper limit on the amount of money the stock market can absorb, because there's no cap on the price of stocks.

I expect the NFT phenomenon is driven by the same psychology as the "get rich quick" scheme, but is a legal, and easy to enter. It is the "lifehack", the "one weird trick", of finances. It is presented as a way that anyone with money can make money out of the magic of computers. Since to most people they are new, it feels like getting on the "ground floor", which will of course pay out like Apple stock did if you bought it back in the beginning, before the iPod.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I read a hypothesis the other day that the rise of weird investments these days (like cryptocurrency and NFTs) is related to the way the current economy strongly benefits those who are already rich. The TL;DR version is that the richest are so flush with cash that the investment opportunities in traditional areas (like the stock market) can't really absorb that sort of money, so instead they go looking for other places to invest.

Every economy favors the rich.

But as to the hypothesis, I would say nonsense. The truly wealthy's money is not in speculative areas (things which may or may not increase in value). Their bedrock surety is in a variety of the things that can be counted on: land, blue chip stocks, precious metals, rarities.

The people desperately chasing the high-growth options such as playing the stock market, investing in crypto currencies, and the like, are gambling, pure and simple. And the first, and really only, rule of gambling is that the house never loses.

 

[doctorhook]

I read a hypothesis the other day that the rise of weird investments these days (like cryptocurrency and NFTs) is related to the way the current economy strongly benefits those who are already rich. The TL;DR version is that the richest are so flush with cash that the investment opportunities in traditional areas (like the stock market) can't really absorb that sort of money, so instead they go looking for other places to invest.

Yeah Dan Olson makes the same point quite explicitly (in the 2hr video linked in the first comment). Not only is the current situation favouring the already-wealthy, but that it was inevitable and by-design in most crypto designs. He calls crypto a fight between the 5% and the 1%; it’s never truly been for “average” or working class individuals.

Crypto and NFTs are hyped for security, privacy, and democratizing finance… but Olson clearly illustrates how it provides less of all those things than we already have. He points out that most of the problems crypto solves were created by other cryptos, and that they mostly don’t do a damn thing to address underlying issues with the banking and finance industries—it just moves them away from regulators.

Frankly, the whole concept functions as an anarcho-capitalist dream of having an unregulated and unregulatable currency underpinning the economy. (I will make no further political comments about this per the rules, but it’s hard to separate the political motive from that design so I had to mention it. Suffice it to say this technology sounds like a big mistake to me.)

 

[THEMNGMNT]

Money has no inherent value. It's just a social construct. I don't find it strange that some people are now trying to assign a value and build social equity in another imaginary thing.

 

[Jd Smith1]

They are offsetting their carbon impact by buying carbon credits, which is just a way for polluters to escape their actual impact.

Didn't the ruling last week from the Western District of Louisiana put an end to carbon tax issues?

Especially since Trump's bill went down in the same court, and the USSC killed Obama's law.

Side issue, I know, but I was literally just reading about it.

 

[Beleriphon]

The stupid thing is that you are buying proof of ownership of a thing, not ownership of the thing itself.

And the thing? You want to show it to someone then the technology they use (usually a web browser) will create a copy of it on their device so they can view it.... so then they have ownership of a copy of the thing without buying an NFT.

That is, NFTs are proof of ownership but not ownership of a thing that can only be displayed/shown to others by creating a copy because of how the internet and web browsers work.

Which is all true, thus why I followed up with Not Direct At Morrus part. NFTs are just dumb, you're buying a receipt to something.

Blockchain in and of itself isn't actually a bad idea. Using it as proof of ownership of say a land deed is very helpful. Assuming it was run by a trustworthy agency, like say the government.

 

[Cergorach]

Blockchain technology is environmentally damaging and is of limited use.

Then you claim you don't understand the subject matter, if that is the case, maybe do not make claims like the above...

Blockchain technology is not crypto or nft, they both use blockchain technology, but that doesn't make blockchain technology by definition environmentally damaging and of limited use, quite the contrary. The current implementation of the most well known crypto and nfts is environmentally damaging and of limited use.

In the same way that nuclear fission doesn't equal Chernobyl. Nuclear reactors are just one aspect of the nuclear fission technology. If you only look and use Chernobyl as the example of nuclear fission, everyone will see it as 'bad'. But the reality is, that probably this site is power by nuclear power (~16% of power generation in the UK is from nuclear reactors). Is it dangerous? Fnck yeah! But so is crossing the street...

BTC and it's ilk are like Chernobyl reactors, poorly run and poorly implemented systems that are damaging/dangerous, that does not mean that the technology behind it is 'bad', it isn't.

The current issue is that to many parties have a stake on either side of the fence, government/banking want crypto gone asap as it infringes on their classically held power. Everyone making money off or are investing in crypto, don't want to hear anything bad and ignore anything bad and only see their perceived advantages. In the meantime we're having power shortages due to (in part) of crypto mining, in computer land we have a shortage of GPUs because of huge demand from the crypto miners, making the chip shortages an even bigger issue (there's a huge investment in more GPU/ASIC production facilities)...

Keep in mind that the Bitcoin was the first working model of a blockchain and people now value it at ~$800 billion, that's pretty nuts if you think about it... Look folks, this half-baked concept car (pre-1900) we made is now the standard model car we'll forever use! The car industry is worth $3.8 trillion/year. Doing a bit of math, we spend 14 million times more energy per year making cars then what BTC currently costs in power, that's not even including the driving around and servicing the things... 110 Terrawatts sounds like a LOT, it is a LOT, and it's touted as using more like a small country, like the Netherlands. That might be true, we're tiny, we only have around 18 million people living here, that's like 0.0225% of the world population. I would prefer it if we would stop mining BTC to conserver power, but I would thing that we would save a TON more energy if we stopped producing 91 million cars per year...

 

[darjr]

“Oh hey this bad thing you’re discussing that is on topic for this place? Ignore it because there is another bad thing that isn’t on topic for this place.”

Uh. No.

 

[dragoner]

I think crypto is a rip-off, the whole tulip bubble for this generation, and I think the financial markets prey on people anyways, I mean it has a huge "grey-zone". I'll never use something like this, and give certain companies other activities, maybe it is time for them to go. I mean, honestly, if Cthulhu disappeared tomorrow, it was fun while it lasted, except maybe he could take zombies with him when he goes.

 

[doctorhook]

Keep in mind that the Bitcoin was the first working model of a blockchain and people now value it at ~$800 billion, that's pretty nuts if you think about it... Look folks, this half-baked concept car (pre-1900) we made is now the standard model car we'll forever use! The car industry is worth $3.8 trillion/year. Doing a bit of math, we spend 14 million times more energy per year making cars then what BTC currently costs in power, that's not even including the driving around and servicing the things... 110 Terrawatts sounds like a LOT, it is a LOT, and it's touted as using more like a small country, like the Netherlands. That might be true, we're tiny, we only have around 18 million people living here, that's like 0.0225% of the world population. I would prefer it if we would stop mining BTC to conserver power, but I would thing that we would save a TON more energy if we stopped producing 91 million cars per year...

The difference is that cars fulfill a need and have a clear use for most people. Bitcoin only exists as an investment security. It provides no value to its owners, but it costs a lot due “proof of work” by the network (which comes in the form of energy costs and environmental impacts). It has no clear advantages for conducting transactions either—it’s slow and expensive (due to the validation process) and has no mechanism for easy reversals in the case of undoing transactions. It’s too expensive to use Bitcoin once per day for a transaction, much less for the myriad daily purchases some people make. Ethereum makes no improvements upon these except for shuffling the issues around.

Ultimately the question about these is “why bother?” This is just a worse version of assets that already exist. If you want untraceable currency, start trading gold or Pokémon cards.