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.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

One more thing-

I don't know if anyone has posted this, but I highly recommend it if you're into reading (with hyperlinked sources) instead of watching videos.

EE380 Talk

I was asked at short notice to fill in for a speaker in Stanford's EE380 course who had to cancel. Below the fold is a hastily updated vers...

blog.dshr.org

Please be aware that while it is relatively short, it is fairly dense.

The final takeaway (prior to the endnotes) is this, which I largely agree with:

I hope I've said enough to start some discussion. I think there are three basic lines of argument:

• That the externalities I describe don't exist. You'll have a hard time proving that the waste of electricity and hardware, and the crime wave, are imaginary.
• That although the externalities do exist, the benefits of decentralization outweigh them. The problem here is that since the systems are not actually decentralized, we get the externalities but don't get the benefits.
• That although the externalities do exist, and the systems aren't decentralized, they're making so much money that we shouldn't worry. The problem here is that the amount of actual money you can get out of a cryptocurrency equals the amount of actual money that has been put in, minus the actual costs of mining. So the big picture is that although there may be winners, in aggregate the system loses money.

 

[Umbran]

• That although the externalities do exist, and the systems aren't decentralized, they're making so much money that we shouldn't worry. The problem here is that the amount of actual money you can get out of a cryptocurrency equals the amount of actual money that has been put in, minus the actual costs of mining. So the big picture is that although there may be winners, in aggregate the system loses money.

This is an excellent way to phrase the point. Thank you for finding it.

Cryptocurrency does not create wealth. It just helps money change hands, at orders of magnitude higher cost than traditional methods.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is an excellent way to phrase the point. Thank you for finding it.

Cryptocurrency does not create wealth. It just helps money change hands, at orders of magnitude higher cost than traditional methods.

I don't know what point you're referring to, but if you second para is a restatement of it, it's a very weird thing to say as if it has any meaning at all. No currency creates wealth. It's not the point of a currency. Pointing out crypto doesn't create wealth is like saying a baseball doesn't do the dishes. Of course it doesn't. Why is this even being mentioned as if it's meaningful?

You then go on to say that crypto does what it's meant to do -- enable commerce -- at a much higher cost than traditional methods. This is a bad take as well. Yes, I can absolutely point to where crypto costs hugely more in terms of energy to do business than other currencies. Totally given, totally valid point. But this isn't the end of a cost/benefit analysis, and it appears, given the growth of crypto for legitimate means, that the other costs of doing business in a given currency are low enough for crypto to continue to gather use. Now, personally, I don't think this is so -- there are vanishingly small number of reasons I'd consider using a cryptocurrency over a traditional currency largely because none of the potential benefits accrue to me while many of the costs do. But this is my analysis, and doesn't invalidate someone else's. Nor does yours.

Again, can we discuss crypto in a way that deals with what it actually is instead of the continued portrayal of it as a cartoon villain?

 

[Mannahnin]

You then go on to say that crypto does what it's meant to do -- enable commerce -- at a much higher cost than traditional methods. This is a bad take as well. Yes, I can absolutely point to where crypto costs hugely more in terms of energy to do business than other currencies. Totally given, totally valid point. But this isn't the end of a cost/benefit analysis, and it appears, given the growth of crypto for legitimate means, that the other costs of doing business in a given currency are low enough for crypto to continue to gather use. Now, personally, I don't think this is so -- there are vanishingly small number of reasons I'd consider using a cryptocurrency over a traditional currency largely because none of the potential benefits accrue to me while many of the costs do. But this is my analysis, and doesn't invalidate someone else's. Nor does yours.

I'm a little confused, Ovinomancer.

What use-case DOES crypto currently have, that doesn't fail a cost/benefit analysis test?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm a little confused, Ovinomancer.

What use-case DOES crypto currently have, that doesn't fail a cost/benefit analysis test?

Not one I care about, so I haven't researched it. However, unless we're willing to say that every single person using crypto is a moron that can't do business (and given that it's growing in acceptance, despite recent dropping from some exchanges), there must be many. I'm unwilling to call a $7+ trillion (with a t) currency exchange accepted worldwide as not having any usefulness to people using it not being served by other currencies.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

One more thing-

I don't know if anyone has posted this, but I highly recommend it if you're into reading (with hyperlinked sources) instead of watching videos.

EE380 Talk

I was asked at short notice to fill in for a speaker in Stanford's EE380 course who had to cancel. Below the fold is a hastily updated vers...

blog.dshr.org

Please be aware that while it is relatively short, it is fairly dense.

The final takeaway (prior to the endnotes) is this, which I largely agree with:

I hope I've said enough to start some discussion. I think there are three basic lines of argument:

• That the externalities I describe don't exist. You'll have a hard time proving that the waste of electricity and hardware, and the crime wave, are imaginary.
• That although the externalities do exist, the benefits of decentralization outweigh them. The problem here is that since the systems are not actually decentralized, we get the externalities but don't get the benefits.
• That although the externalities do exist, and the systems aren't decentralized, they're making so much money that we shouldn't worry. The problem here is that the amount of actual money you can get out of a cryptocurrency equals the amount of actual money that has been put in, minus the actual costs of mining. So the big picture is that although there may be winners, in aggregate the system loses money.

The linked blog is pretty damming.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm a little confused, Ovinomancer.

What use-case DOES crypto currently have, that doesn't fail a cost/benefit analysis test?

To follow up, many cryptocurrencies are actually easier and cheaper to trade within the currency, so that's something that could be attractive. Also, it might be attractive that it is a decentralized currency and not one owned or regulated by a state entity. If I don't have easy access to a dollar or euro market, then crypto become even more appealing. I have easy access to the dollar market, so crypto actually has hurdles for me to overcome to engage in that market -- I have to do different things. But, if I didn't, then crypto markets are no real extra work (and less work in many cases) to engage in.

So, ease of transfers and the low cost of transfers is a big deal*.

*On the cost of transactions in crypto, the evaluation of these that I've seen in this thread are misleading in a sense, and true in a different sense. The actual cost of a transaction is very low in cryptos. The costs cited are rolling in the minting costs and averaging that out over each transaction. Minting in crypto is ridiculously expensive, yes, so if I'm interested in looking at a transaction in terms of total costs, those numbers make sense. If I'm not, if I'm looking at crypto only to see what I actually pay for a transaction, then they're far cheaper than many other markets for transactions. As a user and not a miner, the costs are low for crypto. Whether or not that's a useful consideration is up to each person -- but I'd caution you to maybe consider the total cost of other systems where we're mostly just looking at momentary costs to use them. The dollar market per transaction isn't cheap if you consider the entirety of the government's costs to maintain it. This isn't to say that crypto isn't ridiculously expensive in terms of energy for what it is, mind. That's one of my problems with it. It's just to remind people that we we talk costs in things like this, it's rarely apples to apples. It think crypto still fails when we do that, though.

 

[Mannahnin]

Not one I care about, so I haven't researched it. However, unless we're willing to say that every single person using crypto is a moron that can't do business (and given that it's growing in acceptance, despite recent dropping from some exchanges), there must be many. I'm unwilling to call a $7+ trillion (with a t) currency exchange accepted worldwide as not having any usefulness to people using it not being served by other currencies.

That seems like a logical fallacy.

My theory so far that it's currently held and traded by a) folks who have a sincere, but so far unfounded, belief that it WILL have a practical use along similar lines that you've suggested- something where independence of central governments is helpful (something democratizing, perhaps inspired by Neil Stephenson's Cryptonomicon), and b) speculators engaged in what's currently a Greater Fool investment.

Some people are a combination of the two, definitely, as I've met a bunch of them.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

Again, there's lots of good reasons to dislike crypto. I don't like it.

Me neither, Crypto sucks. I think I missed it through my read through of 16 pages, what don’t you like about crypto

 

[Cadence]

Not one I care about, so I haven't researched it. However, unless we're willing to say that every single person using crypto is a moron that can't do business (and given that it's growing in acceptance, despite recent dropping from some exchanges), there must be many. I'm unwilling to call a $7+ trillion (with a t) currency exchange accepted worldwide as not having any usefulness to people using it not being served by other currencies.

What's the $7t? (Googling around is the current market cap of all crypto's combined around $2 trillion-ish?).