Will people pay to watch you play GURPS?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I'd need 10,000 hours to learn to be good at producing, directing, acting and editing a stream and I'm not doing that work on spec.

The top quality professional productions hire a producer. The real problem is that streaming RPGs is fundamentally improv theater, and like anything in the entertainment industry, for every big success who gets paid millions there are a legion of wannabes who get paid scale for limited work and support themselves with another job, and while I don't think I'm bad at RPing, I also don't think I'm good enough to be anything but part of that legion.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

Some of these comments got me thinking about this.

I went to a college where they specifically paid one or more people to tutor sports players. I asked why? I was told that was because the players were giving time to the college in practicing, typically a couple times a week.

I was in theatre. We typically had three or four rehearsals in a week. Each of which lasted longer than a typical sports practice session. And in one musical production, we actually had rehearsals thirteen (13) days in a row! Did we have special tutors? No.

Did your shows bring in revenue sufficient to pay for full-time tutors?

It's not weird that people whose talents appeal to literal miĺlions are able to generate more revenue than those whose talents appeal to their parents, other theatre kids and maybe a couple of hundred other people. I don't know the audience turnout, but probably less than the ticket sales for college football games.

The unfair part is that schools often use revenue generated by the popularity of their football programs to pay for stuff that benefits kids in the school who did nothing to earn that money. They build facilities or even pay for teachers who teach mostly kids who don't bring in anything to the school beyond the bare minimum tuition. And for over a century, it was illegal to pay the students who brought in massive revenues any part of that money, even if it was money directly earned by advertising using their name, image or likeness.

In fact, student athletes were even prevented from working most part-time jobs, even if they somehow found time for them. They were just supposed to subsidize everyone else while having a lower standard of living.

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by TGLS

Yeah, but a college can make money off its sports teams.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Did your shows bring in revenue sufficient to pay for full-time tutors?

I admit the sports program made more than the theatre department. But the theatre department was second among money making groups at the college. And our annual summer musical took in more money than college sports did during that time.

But of course watching people play college sports is much more important than all the non-sports-team college students getting help.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

I admit the sports program made more than the theatre department. But the theatre department was second among money making groups at the college. And our annual summer musical took in more money than college sports did during that time.

But of course watching people play college sports is much more important than all the non-sports-team college students getting help.

More people want to pay money for watching it, which might not make it subjectively more important to you or somebody else, but objectively means the athletic department receives more money and thus have more money to spend.

The fact that sports which bring in less revenue than their travel costs are subsidized by football, is, of course, a travesty. One of those old injustices that has gone on so long that people just accept it.

[J. Edward Tremlett]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

But of course watching people play college sports is much more important than all the non-sports-team college students getting help.

"of course." Sports is always viewed as a major cash cow for schools, to the point where academics and other extracurricular activities often get sidelined (or shafted) so long as the sportsball team gets everything it needs to make alumni happy and bring in game, parking, and merchandising dollars.

/rant

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by J. Edward Tremlett

"of course." Sports is always viewed as a major cash cow for schools, to the point where academics and other extracurricular activities often get sidelined (or shafted) so long as the sportsball team gets everything it needs to make alumni happy and bring in game, parking, and merchandising dollars.

/rant

As soon as 102,321 people start paying significant anounts of money for tickets for plays put on by the theatre department, LSU will build a theatre that ranks among the largest in the world.

It's not some evil administrator deciding this. It's one of the purest forms of democracy possible. Given a chance, people prefer to attend college football games over attending college theatre productions. Because of this, the people whose job it is to make the football enjoyable for the paying audience are more valuable to the school than theatre students. Or theatre teachers. Or, indeed, almost any teacher, professor or school administrator, as the $200+ million direct annual income from college football doesn't begin to account for what it brings in through boosters, alumni donations, brand value, etc.

Edit: The point where this is relevant for gaming is that I play RPGs to entertain me and my friends. I don't care whether they appeal to anyone else and I certainly don't expect other people to pay travel costs associated with my hobby, let alone expect them to pay for special effects, voice actors, celebrity cameos, etc. In fact, if I were offered the same money as my hour costs for legal work, but for running games, if it meant that I had to give up creative control and final cut rights, accept studio interference, maybe even retcons that tested well with audiences...

I think I'd say no. Then it would just be a job and not even one I could find either meaning or fun in. Maybe someone else would accept studio interference as the price to pay to bring their art to the people and that's fine too, but I don't really have any art I want to bring to the people. I just want my campaigns to be internally consistent enough so I can enjoy them. The only audience I care about are the players and then only because they are my friends.

[Alden Loveshade]

Sorry if I didn't make things clear.

This is the official reason the sports players got an exclusive tutor. It was because the players couldn't study when they were practicing/playing. (Money was not an "official" reason.)

Meanwhile, theatre students, who spent much more time practicing/performing than the sports players, did not get an exclusive tutor.

And there's more. I was in a college class with a student "star athlete" who had a lot of trouble using a keyboard. That wasn't because of the physical movements. It was because he effectively couldn't read. But guess what? In his previous semester at college, he got all A's! I "casually" asked about those classes, and guess what I learned? Every one of his teachers that semester was a coach.

So I did some more investigating....

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by J. Edward Tremlett

"of course." Sports is always viewed as a major cash cow for schools, to the point where academics and other extracurricular activities often get sidelined (or shafted) so long as the sportsball team gets everything it needs to make alumni happy and bring in game, parking, and merchandising dollars.

/rant

Only in the USA I think. I don't even know any other rich English-speaking countries where university sports are a major revenue generator and capital sink. Which is why Icelander's comments sound strange to me! I'm not sure if he has even visited the USA.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Only in the USA I think. I don't even know any other rich English-speaking countries where university sports are a major revenue generator and capital sink. Which is why Icelander's comments sound strange to me! I'm not sure if he has even visited the USA.

He was clearly talking about the US and I've visited 11 of the original thirteen colonies, plus some states that were even newer.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by TGLS

Yeah, but a college can make money off its sports teams.

Technically they can make money off their stage productions, sports are just a much better investment in that category.

But I'd say another big reason is that college athletes are basically required to practice and play as part of their scholarship, and the time spent on this doesn't contribute any credit hours. By contrast, someone in theater is either getting college credit for their rehearsals and performances or is doing it without anything riding on it (unless the quality of performance dictates their grade - I was never in any theater classes so I have no idea - but then that's the same as studying).

Essentially, the university hires the athlete to work for them (playing on the relevant sports team, which requires going to regular practice) by covering their tuition costs. But working for them in this regard makes coursework harder for them (how much harder than it is for the students who have jobs outside the university to cover those same costs is up for debate), so the university also pays for tutoring for them as a further incentive.