Would you ever watch other people play RPGs, as entertainment?

[RangerWickett]

Wil Wheaton has managed to make a decent YouTube series called Tabletop, wherein geek celebrities play games. With enthusiastic editing and an emphasis on people being funny and cracking jokes, it ends up being pretty entertaining. And it helped me grasp how Fiasco could be played.

Do you think it's possible to make a show about people gaming that would be entertaining to outsiders? Would it work better with one-shot style games, or could you ever design a storyline entertaining enough to keep people watching an ongoing campaign?

I've got this wild idea for a Price is Right style gameshow, where random people get called into the game until their PC is killed. Y'know, the sort of Running Man/Hunger Games-style entertainment we apparently have desired since the dawn of time.

If you're editing afterward, you can combine a lot of camera angles and use the best footage, then gloss over the parts that were slow but important with montage shots and narration, probably with cool graphics and music. But if you film it in front of a live audience, you'd need some sort of scoreboard to help people keep track of what's going on. So maybe the Price is Right isn't a good model. Maybe something more like Jeopardy, where you earn a chance to go on, and then you play for the whole session.

Prizes? Returning winners? A different dungeon every week?



Or what about something less life-and-death, and more "This week, on . . . "? I bet we could get hundreds of people to chip in $5 apiece to get Kevin to record his D&D sessions, since then they'd update faster than this storyhour. Not sure that would cover expenses, though.

What do you think?

 

[Razjah]

I would give it a chance. I think a key aspect of Tabletop is the interview sections that get worked into the gameplay sections. Having the players and GM tell only the camera why they are doing certain things would be neat. The audience could relate with certain characters or players. Combat could be skimmed with round summaries similar to the time jumps Tabletop uses.

I'm not such a fan of the $5, but if it is only $5 a month and it goes up weekly (and is fun) it could do well enough.

 

[Kaodi]

I think first you should take a close look at the games Tabletop has ruled out as potential episodes and figure out why. Maybe get in contact with Wil himself (you are sufficiently high profile that I bet you could wrangle some of his time) for advice, because I think that he was talking at one point about how they were thinking about doing an RPG episode or short series.

I watch a fair amount of Tabletop, and if there was a show done in a similar fashion for D&D I would definitely give it a look. I might also think that such a show could make use of audience participation which would add an extra hook that might help if it is not quite as action packed. For instance, if there were a number of plot threads that the DM could choose to develop further, it would be if that could be voted on. Fluffier elements, like villain names (just an example), could be an appropriate area for audience participation too I think.

 

[scourger]

Yes, Chris Perkins has many celebrity games posted on youtube.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In general: short term, yes, long term no.

Add celebrities- not gaming industry celebs, but those with at least some mainstream recognition- to the mix and you may have a more attractive product.

 

[Jupp]

I've watched/listened to the PA podcasts and the Critical Hit podcasts so yes, I'd watch that if the group has the talent to fill out the show. I think for a podcast/vidcast it is especially important that the players/DM are entertaining enough in order to transport the topic to the audience.

 

[3catcircus]

It'd be different it was sports where the players may be way more talented at it than you. But watching a bunch of people who may be at the same or lower level of competence at the activity than me? Nope.

Now - if it were a commentary show, that'd be different. But watching people do what I do? No.

 

[Umbran]

Now - if it were a commentary show, that'd be different. But watching people do what I do? No.

Here's a big point.

Actual play is not entertaining to watch. It's a bunch of people sitting around a table, talking, and things do *not* progress very quickly in real time. They have to either be scripted, or *incredibly* entertaining individuals for the actual play to be worth my time watching, and I understand what's going on at the table. For a general audience, who do not understand the mechanics, it would be confusing and boring.

A highly edited presentation, that condenses down the interesting bits, maybe. The individuals still have to be incredibly entertaining - because I will refuse to conscience the idea that this become like "Real Gamers of Wisconsin", where schadenfreude and the player's dysfunction are the real points of interest. But now you're no longer actually watching play, any more than watching a sports news program with "highlights" is watching a football game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

No.

 

[MarkB]

It'd be different it was sports where the players may be way more talented at it than you. But watching a bunch of people who may be at the same or lower level of competence at the activity than me? Nope.

I get that when watching "Let's Play" videos of computer game playthroughs. There are some decent narrators out there who make it an entertaining experience, but if it's a game I'm familiar with I tend to find myself occasionally crying out in frustration if they miss something obvious or screw up tactically - even though most of the time they're only doing the same things I did when I first played the game.