Post

This is what I mean when I worry about how history gets warped: this @npr.org piece by @scottgreenstone.bsky.social is gonna circulate, & it makes some not-quite-right assertions about the history of the form. That’s typical (like the emphasis on D&D), but the citations are what get me.

It’s mostly a local Seattle live show piece that got picked up, but what feels weird is that it links to a random blog, & goes to the effort of citing an academic book (one I’m in, for the record), but it’s @shellyjones.bsky.social Watch Us Roll that would give him the better origins. Minor whinge.

What’s interesting to me is that D&D gets framed here as the driver and the focus (unlike other recent mainstream pieces on CR & D20 that focus on the productions themselves) — and honestly our extant scholarship hasn’t really corrected that in easily-citable ways.

Also what is FASCINATING to me is that the moment that AP “begins to pick up” in this framing is when the monetization platforms spin up.

To be fair: it’s… fine. And God knows give NPR & affiliates your eyeballs. Just the usual specter that folks who write about games & game-related stuff face, as Gita Jackson has noted (and I’ll teach day one)