I haven’t used Critical Roles new systems but I assume they could get a big switch over if they push it hard

It’s launching sometime in 2025, so we’ll see how hard they push it when it’s ready. So far, they’ve only hinted at it. I don’t know if they’d want to do this, but they could also try to convince other smaller (but still big) streamers to use it too. There are some streamers they’re pretty close with (the Dropout guys for example) and others who they’re on friendly terms with (like Penny Arcade’s guys).

If WotC / Hasbro wanted to mount a charm offensive to get people to keep using D&D, I don’t know how influential they are. Other than Chris Perkins, I can’t think of any well known D&D employees at all.

this is just a denial that anarchist and communist societyies function

They don’t. There has never been a communist or anarchist society that has functioned for an extended length of time as its own sovereign entity.

No, it isn’t. You’re so very smart.

I think what might be different this time is influencers. If Critical Role abandoned D&D completely, I think they’d probably stay popular and whatever system they switched to would get a lot of attention. I also think that they’d be likely to use a system that isn’t math heavy, and allows for a lot of role playing and acting.

The problem would probably be splintering. But, if a tiny company like Paizo made such a big impact on the D&D ecosystem with virtually no ad money back in the 3.5 days, just imagine what could happen today when so many D&D influencers exist. If they worked together on something, it could be a major change to the D&D ecosystem.

Moscow has survived attacks from France. Every viable political/economic system has to be able to defend itself. I hope you realize how ridiculous your argument is by giving an example of something that lasted just barely 2 months. That’s like claiming that a perpetual motion machine exists by showing some swinging pendulum for 10 seconds.

Not being able to defend itself is indeed an indictment of a societal structure.

After a whole 2 months. Clearly if one of your prime examples is something that couldn’t even last a quarter of a year, you don’t have a leg to stand on.

I already said it.

What about it?

How did that end?

How did that end?

I just wonder if maybe another big stumble from Hasbro will cause the rise of a new system.

Paizo is relatively tiny compared to D&D and especially compared to Hasbro, but Pathfinder gained a pretty sizeable following mostly from word of mouth, and this is basically before social media. One of the biggest “promoters” of D&D now is Critical Role, and before the stream started their home game was a Pathfinder game. But, CR is now also streaming their own game system called Daggerheart in addition to their main D&D campaign. I have a sense that many other D&D streamers have a “plan B” game ready in case Hasbro steps over the line again.

An interesting twist to all this is that you can’t copyright rules or stat blocks. That severely limits the kinds of “moats” that Hasbro can put up to prevent competition.

Anyhow, I think you’re overall right. I know Hasbro is going to push an exclusive VTT, and it’s just a matter of time before they try to push a LLM DM.

Ok, then disprove it. Show a counterexample.

You were two steps away from discovering libertarian socialism/democratic confederalism

Riiight, a tried and true political/economic system which is sure to work perfectly as soon as it’s tried, just like communism.

If your political system is based on hierarchy

If you’re human, your political system will involve hierarchy as soon as more than about a dozen individuals are involved.

This is literally capitalist propaganda

Suuure… it’s capitalist propaganda to acknowledge that all mammals act in ways that are hierarchical and unfair.

Yes, because we’re humans, and humans are mammals. Dolphins have a 1:1 male/female sex ratio, and yet male dolphins team up to control breeding access to females. Damn capitalism, making dolphins not share fairly!

Yes, and there’s a reason that those can’t exist in actual human communities of more than about a dozen people.

Capitalism is the current problem for 95% of the world

Capitalism isn’t the current problem for 95% of the world. The problem for 95% of the world is 1% of the people who have the power/wealth. Whatever “ism” you use, there will always be people at the top who are exploiting people at the bottom. Capitalism succeeded because it provided a new and more efficient form for the people at the top to exploit the people at the bottom. But, it was also better for the people at the bottom. Instead of being tied to the land where they were born, born into a trade, and so-on, now they at least had a tiny bit of agency in their lives.

Capitalism isn’t the cause of any of these problems, humanity is the cause of the problem. Humanity forms hierarchical groups, and people at the top exploit people at the bottom. In fact, you could probably extend it well beyond humanity. This is pretty common even in apes, and even in other mammals. Dolphins don’t know about capitalism, yet they still have hierarchies.

political and economic systems throughout history reflect an aspect of human nature to control and bequeath that control to their offspring, doesn’t take capitalism off the hook

Ok, so what puts capitalism on the hook? In what ways are people exploited more under capitalism than any other previous system? What makes capitalism so uniquely bad that you have to call it out rather than just acknowledging that it’s human, or even animal nature?

The system doesn’t create inequality, the inequality was always there.

People blame capitalism, but capitalism isn’t the problem. The problem, as always, is power.

Under feudalism things were much worse. Serfs worked 6 days a week, 12+ hours a day. Up to 3 days of that week was spent tending your lord’s lands for free.

Under absolute monarchies, dictatorships and police states you work as hard as you can for whatever hours your employer sets, and you keep any complaints to yourself or you’re dragged off to a camp, or summarily executed.

So far, every time “communism” has been tried, it was just a dictatorship or police state where the leaders pretend that there’s a higher ideal.

Capitalist republics don’t give people at the bottom much power, but they get a little bit. And, that little bit is the best that the people at the bottom have ever had, even if it isn’t much.

The fact that there are people at the bottom isn’t the fault of some political system, and especially isn’t the fault of capitalism, it’s the fault of human nature.