The Geek Cove

This is not metaphorical. I mean actual, literal pieces of paper/plastic/metal/whatever explicitly erected to inform the public.

“How did you know this was the right trail?” I read the sign.

“Wow, how did you know what that flower is?” There’s a SIGN.

“How did you know we needed to use the side door?” THERE IS A SIGN POSTED ON THE FRONT DOOR.

Just…why are we having such different experiences of the world? People can read. I KNOW they can read. There’s nothing wrong with their vision.

Just. READ. THE. GOD. DAMN. SIGN.

This also applies to:

Syllabi

32 oz of water

2 tablespoons of sugar

a quarter teaspoon of salt

Built In 1899 / 8 br / 4.5 ba

$1,850,000

I apologize in advance for the long paragraphs below detailing my personal experience. I want to explain how liveplay shows looked 10 years ago and the impact they had on me.

I started watching some of the liveplay shows on the Geek and Sundry youtube channel circa 2015 like early Critical Role. Some weren't liveplay, but edited, such as Titansgrave and The Adventure Zone. They did have professional actors with improv training and production teams behind them, but they weren't nearly as polished or as much of a phenomenon as they are now.

At the start, Critical Role appears to have been filmed in one of the Geek and Sundry meeting rooms. They had 4 static cameras. They usually had 1 on the DM, 1 on each side of the table, which appears to be a pretty similar to what it looks like now.

Occasionally they would switch to the 1 focused table when looking at maps. The maps looked like this in episode 1:

There would be frequent bouts where they would pull out the sourcebooks and look for a rule, and discuss interpretations of it. I feel like they would go on random tangents sometimes, but these might have been in-character jokes, I don't remember super well.

For me, these shows were a great intro into the hobby. They provided a way to see people play and see them use the rules live. After a couple of hours of watching I thought "hey, I get it. I could try that". I wasn't as afraid of trying them out anymore.

It was also nice to see that the games weren't just focused on combat and finding loot. It was inspiring to see them so character focused and the players so friendly with each other.

Another factor is that ttrpgs at the time had a reputation for being overwhelmingly for white cis straight men. Media representation solidified this: If there was a girl at the table, there was only one, and she was typically sexually harassed or treated way differently than anyone else. This reputation really prevented me from getting into the hobby. I was afraid of sticking out. I was afraid of the men treating me strangely for being there, either negatively or positively. I was nervous about being talked down to as the rules were explained. I was afraid that if I messed something up, they would accuse all girls of being bad at ttrpgs. Liveplay shows not only let me learn the rules and social expectations to feel more comfortable, but they let me see women in these games, and they were interacting with men who treated them respectfully. It is so much easier to do something after you see someone like you do it.

When I first joined my college's ttrpg club in 2016, the club was overwhelmingly cis straight white men. I did experience some amounts of weird treatment that made me a little uncomfortable, but knowing that people like me did belong helped me power through it. Within the next couple of years, the diversity of the club greatly increased. There were a lot more women and queer folks (a few more non-white folks, but not as diverse in that regard as I would have liked). Although I'd like to take complete credit for this change as the president of the club, I feel like that change in part because of liveplay shows and other ttrpg media.

I did not experience anyone expecting the game to be like these liveplay shows. I think most people at the time had a good understanding of what a normal game might look like: shorter games, no minis, regular people with ok improv skills, just a buncha friends screwing around.

All that is to say, even I was disappointed the first session I rejoined a local group this year because they were so combat focused and lacked a lot of roleplay. Once I adjusted my expectation, I had more fun, but I still wish that I could play in something with more roleplaying, like the tables I run.

I think that CR and other live play shows specificially attract people interested in roleplay and character driven stories and thats just not everyone who plays TTRPGs. There are plenty of people there just for the rules or structure. This creates conflict when the live play fan joins a group with these other people and their priorities dont mix. But this was always going to be an issue eventually, the live play shows just give new players more understanding of what they enjoy before joining.

I have played different TTRPGs that aren't focused on dungeon crawls, like Candela Obscura which is a rules-light system. It can be a lot of fun for people looking for a more roleplaying driven narrative. Pathfinder, especially 1e, is usually considered to be way more rules-heavy than DnD 3.5e or 5e. Typically Pathfinder Society scenarios try to balance NPC interaction equally with combat. It's a little disingenuous to try and say those who prefer character roleplaying should be playing a different TTRPG when the actual scenarios created by Paizo are intended to appeal to both types of players.

You say that you regard both player types as valid, but seperating them out in the first place as people who "just play" and people who "roleplay" is a false dichtomy. Both of them are playing a roleplaying game, and in fact, the former type of player seems be the one actually actively with all the rules of the game, which are there to create the intended experience of the roleplaying game. Maybe the latter type of player is too, but if they aren't and are there just to act out the personal character drama they thought out before the campaign even really started, and only detachedly engage with the combat and other game mechanics, rolling lazily when the dm tells them to and refuses to even learn their own characters mechanics, it's absurd to give them the label of "roleplayer" out of these two types of players.

Now if that example sounds hyperbolic again, it kinda is, but it's also very much a real thing that people in the ttrpg sphere have begun to have to deal with since the rise of these liveplay shows.

Also, the comparison to a dungeon crawling card game isn't fair. Obviously you aren't roleplaying when you play one, because it's not a roleplaying game.

"It's a little disingenuous to try and say those who prefer character roleplaying should be playing a different TTRPG when the actual scenarios created by Paizo are intended to appeal to both types of players", this is fair. It was a bit presumptious of me to label you, or the hypothetical roleplayer in this scenario, as someone who wouldn't enjoy dnd and pathfinder. Both games do have some rules for character interaction (though somewhat mechanically lacking to warying degrees. That's a whole different conversation), but again, these are still ultimately games about going to dangerous places, killing things and getting loot. Any character stories that told in them should ultimately be informed and involved in that premise, because if they aren't, the players ought to playing something more befitting of what kind of experience they want. It's not a value judgement of the players, but rather just advice for them to find the kind of game they would enjoy more.

"tldr: Both types of players (character roleplayers or rules lawyers) are valid at a TTRPG table, and character roleplayers who specifically joined because of their interest in live play shouldn't get flack for not being the same as the rules lawyers." Again, this framing is a false dichtomy. Both type of players are "roleplayers" if they are playing a roleplaying game, but they just have differing specific interests and skillsets in the game. These usually overlap, and both players can potentially learn to be more like the other. If they can't, or don't want to, maybe they should be playing different games from one another.

(I also really take issue with conflating these two broad groups as "rules lawyers" and saying that the "roleplayers" are the people were brought into the hobby in the first place by liveplay shows, but this post is way too long as is.)

I'm glad that you agree that those who put little effort into the roleplaying aspect of the game have formed bad TTRPG habits. My hope is to enable people, who may be too shy to roleplay, to feel comfortable enough to test their boundaries.

I apologize in advance for the long paragraphs below detailing my personal experience. I want to explain how liveplay shows looked 10 years ago and the impact they had on me.

I started watching some of the liveplay shows on the Geek and Sundry youtube channel circa 2015 like early Critical Role. Some weren't liveplay, but edited, such as Titansgrave and The Adventure Zone. They did have professional actors with improv training and production teams behind them, but they weren't nearly as polished or as much of a phenomenon as they are now.

At the start, Critical Role appears to have been filmed in one of the Geek and Sundry meeting rooms. They had 4 static cameras. They usually had 1 on the DM, 1 on each side of the table, which appears to be a pretty similar to what it looks like now.

Occasionally they would switch to the 1 focused table when looking at maps. The maps looked like this in episode 1:

There would be frequent bouts where they would pull out the sourcebooks and look for a rule, and discuss interpretations of it. I feel like they would go on random tangents sometimes, but these might have been in-character jokes, I don't remember super well.

For me, these shows were a great intro into the hobby. They provided a way to see people play and see them use the rules live. After a couple of hours of watching I thought "hey, I get it. I could try that". I wasn't as afraid of trying them out anymore.

It was also nice to see that the games weren't just focused on combat and finding loot. It was inspiring to see them so character focused and the players so friendly with each other.

Another factor is that ttrpgs at the time had a reputation for being overwhelmingly for white cis straight men. Media representation solidified this: If there was a girl at the table, there was only one, and she was typically sexually harassed or treated way differently than anyone else. This reputation really prevented me from getting into the hobby. I was afraid of sticking out. I was afraid of the men treating me strangely for being there, either negatively or positively. I was nervous about being talked down to as the rules were explained. I was afraid that if I messed something up, they would accuse all girls of being bad at ttrpgs. Liveplay shows not only let me learn the rules and social expectations to feel more comfortable, but they let me see women in these games, and they were interacting with men who treated them respectfully. It is so much easier to do something after you see someone like you do it.

When I first joined my college's ttrpg club in 2016, the club was overwhelmingly cis straight white men. I did experience some amounts of weird treatment that made me a little uncomfortable, but knowing that people like me did belong helped me power through it. Within the next couple of years, the diversity of the club greatly increased. There were a lot more women and queer folks (a few more non-white folks, but not as diverse in that regard as I would have liked). Although I'd like to take complete credit for this change as the president of the club, I feel like that change in part because of liveplay shows and other ttrpg media.

I did not experience anyone expecting the game to be like these liveplay shows. I think most people at the time had a good understanding of what a normal game might look like: shorter games, no minis, regular people with ok improv skills, just a buncha friends screwing around.

All that is to say, even I was disappointed the first session I rejoined a local group this year because they were so combat focused and lacked a lot of roleplay. Once I adjusted my expectation, I had more fun, but I still wish that I could play in something with more roleplaying, like the tables I run.

I think that CR and other live play shows specificially attract people interested in roleplay and character driven stories and thats just not everyone who plays TTRPGs. There are plenty of people there just for the rules or structure. This creates conflict when the live play fan joins a group with these other people and their priorities dont mix. But this was always going to be an issue eventually, the live play shows just give new players more understanding of what they enjoy before joining.

I have played different TTRPGs that aren't focused on dungeon crawls, like Candela Obscura which is a rules-light system. It can be a lot of fun for people looking for a more roleplaying driven narrative. Pathfinder, especially 1e, is usually considered to be way more rules-heavy than DnD 3.5e or 5e. Typically Pathfinder Society scenarios try to balance NPC interaction equally with combat. It's a little disingenuous to try and say those who prefer character roleplaying should be playing a different TTRPG when the actual scenarios created by Paizo are intended to appeal to both types of players.

I apologize in advance for the long paragraphs below detailing my personal experience. I want to explain how liveplay shows looked 10 years ago and the impact they had on me.

I started watching some of the liveplay shows on the Geek and Sundry youtube channel circa 2015 like early Critical Role. Some weren't liveplay, but edited, such as Titansgrave and The Adventure Zone. They did have professional actors with improv training and production teams behind them, but they weren't nearly as polished or as much of a phenomenon as they are now.

At the start, Critical Role appears to have been filmed in one of the Geek and Sundry meeting rooms. They had 4 static cameras. They usually had 1 on the DM, 1 on each side of the table, which appears to be a pretty similar to what it looks like now.

Occasionally they would switch to the 1 focused table when looking at maps. The maps looked like this in episode 1:

There would be frequent bouts where they would pull out the sourcebooks and look for a rule, and discuss interpretations of it. I feel like they would go on random tangents sometimes, but these might have been in-character jokes, I don't remember super well.

For me, these shows were a great intro into the hobby. They provided a way to see people play and see them use the rules live. After a couple of hours of watching I thought "hey, I get it. I could try that". I wasn't as afraid of trying them out anymore.

It was also nice to see that the games weren't just focused on combat and finding loot. It was inspiring to see them so character focused and the players so friendly with each other.

Another factor is that ttrpgs at the time had a reputation for being overwhelmingly for white cis straight men. Media representation solidified this: If there was a girl at the table, there was only one, and she was typically sexually harassed or treated way differently than anyone else. This reputation really prevented me from getting into the hobby. I was afraid of sticking out. I was afraid of the men treating me strangely for being there, either negatively or positively. I was nervous about being talked down to as the rules were explained. I was afraid that if I messed something up, they would accuse all girls of being bad at ttrpgs. Liveplay shows not only let me learn the rules and social expectations to feel more comfortable, but they let me see women in these games, and they were interacting with men who treated them respectfully. It is so much easier to do something after you see someone like you do it.

When I first joined my college's ttrpg club in 2016, the club was overwhelmingly cis straight white men. I did experience some amounts of weird treatment that made me a little uncomfortable, but knowing that people like me did belong helped me power through it. Within the next couple of years, the diversity of the club greatly increased. There were a lot more women and queer folks (a few more non-white folks, but not as diverse in that regard as I would have liked). Although I'd like to take complete credit for this change as the president of the club, I feel like that change in part because of liveplay shows and other ttrpg media.

I did not experience anyone expecting the game to be like these liveplay shows. I think most people at the time had a good understanding of what a normal game might look like: shorter games, no minis, regular people with ok improv skills, just a buncha friends screwing around.

All that is to say, even I was disappointed the first session I rejoined a local group this year because they were so combat focused and lacked a lot of roleplay. Once I adjusted my expectation, I had more fun, but I still wish that I could play in something with more roleplaying, like the tables I run.

I think that CR and other live play shows specificially attract people interested in roleplay and character driven stories and thats just not everyone who plays TTRPGs. There are plenty of people there just for the rules or structure. This creates conflict when the live play fan joins a group with these other people and their priorities dont mix. But this was always going to be an issue eventually, the live play shows just give new players more understanding of what they enjoy before joining.

"Miss" means an unmarried woman. "Mrs." means a married woman. (both of these have origins in the word "mistress" as in "mistress of the house".)

I've had people (usually children) ask me at work if I'm a missus or a miss. I have replied that I am a miz, full stop. And when they pressed for which one I was REALLY, I have replied, "Why? Are you going to treat me differently depending on whether there's a ring somewhere?"

That's what Ms. is for. That is its linguistic function. It says, "This is an adult woman," and nothing else. Nothing else is necessary, and in my case, nothing else is desired.

I also use miz for other women unless and until they express a preference for something else because I don't magically know everyone else's marital status when I meet them. That's a courtesy—I'm declining to assume marital status and allowing them to decide whether they wish to declare it.

$575,000 / studio / 1 ba / 542 sq ft

Manhattan, NY