From Basements to Blockchains: How Roleplay Gamers Pioneered the Creator Economy

15.5.2026
Metropolia LUME-project DAO specialist Anna Puhakka

The cultural history of the internet is often told through silicon chips and fibre-optic cables. A more human story, however, began in the basements and wood-panelled dens where tabletop roleplaying games (RPG) first took shape in the 1970s. This article traces the evolution of the web through the experiences of tabletop roleplaying communities, with a particular focus on Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) players during periods of platform change. The key takeaway from RPG communities for cultural producers lies in understanding how creative work is increasingly shaped by digital infrastructures.

The Analogue Roots of Participatory Culture

When D&D was published in 1974, it was structurally unusual: a rule system designed not as a finished product but as a framework to be expanded, modified and shared by its players. Innovation scholar Eric von Hippel used the term “lead users” to describe groups encountering emerging social and technological needs, often years prior to wider marketplace recognition. RPG communities fit Hippel’s description well. These communities immediately began producing their own adventures, distributed through photocopied newsletters, hand-stapled zines and convention networks. In the language of contemporary media theory, this represented participatory culture in its earliest analogue form (Jenkins, 2006).

As tabletop RPG communities moved online during the Web1 era, they carried with them a culture built around open standards, collaborative worldbuilding, and shared creative ownership. Early internet forums, fan sites, and digital archives became spaces where players openly modified rulesets, expanded fictional universes, and circulated community-created content.

The idea that a creative framework could be shared for others to build upon, without giving up control of the core intellectual property, was already embedded in RPG culture long before Creative Commons licensing was formalised in 2001. These communities were, in effect, conducting an extended live experiment in what Yochai Benkler terms commons-based peer production: the collaborative creation of shared cultural resources outside both the market and the state (Benkler, 2006). Players were no longer passive consumers. They were active stewards of a shared creative space.

From Forums to Platforms

The transition into Web2 dramatically expanded the reach of tabletop gaming culture. Virtual tabletops (eg. Roll20 and Foundry VTT) made remote play accessible, while streaming platforms transformed collaborative storytelling into spectator entertainment. Critical Role, a live-streamed Dungeons & Dragons actual-play series featuring professional voice actors, demonstrated that tabletop roleplaying could attract a global audience. In 2019, Critical Role’s crowdfunding campaign for its animated series The Legend of Vox Machina raised more than eleven million US dollars. This signalled the commercial maturity of the RPG creator economy.

This commercial growth came with a structural cost that took years to become visible. As creators moved their work onto centralised platforms, their roles became that of  tenants than owners. Characters, campaign worlds, fan wikis and streaming archives lived on servers controlled by corporations whose priorities were shaped by shareholders, not communities. Algorithm changes could bury years of content and platform closures could erase entire archives of lore. Writer Cory Doctorow has described this dynamic, originally developed in the context of social media, as ‘enshittification’, a process by which digital platforms initially attract and serve users before gradually prioritising extraction and monetisation over community wellbeing (Doctorow, 2023).”

The Open Game Licence Moment

The risks of platform dependency became clearly visible in 2023. That year, the corporate owners of the D&D game, Wizards of the Coast, proposed revisions to the Open Game License. The licence had governed third-party D&D content for more than two decades. The proposed changes would have significantly increased corporate control over community-created work. The backlash was swift. Publishers, developers and players began migrating toward alternative open systems almost immediately. Although the revisions were ultimately withdrawn, this incident exposed a structural vulnerability that had for a long time been concealed behind convenience. Creative work built on corporate permission remains subject to corporate decisions. For many creators, this was the moment that made the theoretical risks of platform dependency feel real.

Web3 and the Question of Ownership

This tension helps explain why some of the most influential Web3 experiments have emerged from RPG and creator communities. One example is the Loot project, released in 2021, which echoes the original design philosophy of D&D in a significant way. Like the 1974 D&D rulebooks, Loot began as a minimal framework rather than a finished system. It consisted of 8,000 text-based “bags of adventuring gear” (NFTs), released without artwork, formal mechanics, or a central development team (Loot Project, 2021). The project functioned as an open-ended prompt for community-driven worldbuilding and experimentation (Adventure Gold DAO, 2021).

The ecosystem that formed around Loot also experimented with NFT-based forms of character representation. The ownership of a “bag” could act as a portable on-chain identifier through a crypto-wallet signature across community-built applications. While not a formal decentralised identity system, it anticipated later discussions around interoperable digital identity and composable user-owned assets.

This experimentation emerged alongside growing interest in standards such as W3C Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) and self-sovereign identity (SSI), which seek to formalise user-controlled digital identity. In parallel, decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs) have explored governance models that distribute decision-making through token-based voting and smart contracts which could be compared to the distributed narrative authority found in tabletop role-playing games.

However, empirical studies have shown that governance activity within DAOs is often disproportionately driven by a small subset of highly active members (World Economic Forum, 2022). This concentration of influence challenges the ideal of full decentralisation, even while these systems echo the shared authority of RPG cultures. Ultimately, these developments highlight a central tension in creative digital systems. Whilst ownership and governance are described as decentralised, they remain tethered to uneven participation and the realities of infrastructural control.

Cultural Production as Infrastructure Management

For cultural producers, this history suggests that the decisive question is not which technology they use, but how it structures power: Who retains the ownership of the work and does the technology support continuity within creative communities? The aim is not to reject platforms, but to understand their role more precisely from visibility, and collaboration to how they define what can be preserved, shared, or monetised over time.

Web3 offers one avenue to make this logic explicit. It embeds ownership, identity, and governance into infrastructure itself. But its lesson is broader than any single technology.

Cultural production in a digital era is always also about infrastructure management. The question I propose cultural producers ask themselves is not whether new systems are “better”. Rather ask whether these systems strengthen the capacity of creative communities to sustain themselves and ownership of their work across technological change.

Sources

Adventure Gold DAO (2021). Adventure Gold and the Loot Ecosystem. AGLD Whitepaper. Available at: https://adventuregold.org

Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press. https://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdf

Doctorow, C. (2023). “Social Quitting.” Locus Magazine, January 2023. Available at: https://locusmag.com/feature/commentary-cory-doctorow-social-quitting/

Goel, A.; Rahulamathavan, Y. (2025). “A Comparative Survey of Centralised and Decentralised Identity Management Systems: Analysing Scalability, Security, and Feasibility.” Future Internet. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi17010001

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. NYU Press. https://nyupress.org/9780814742952/convergence-culture/

Loot Project (2021). “Loot (for Adventurers) FAQ.” lootproject.com. Available at: https://www.lootproject.com/faq

von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press. Available at: https://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/DemocInn.pdf

Wizards of the Coast (2023). “An Update on the Open Game License (OGL).” D&D Beyond, 13 January 2023. Available at: https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl

World Economic Forum (2022). Decentralized Autonomous Organizations: Beyond the Hype. White Paper, 23 June 2022. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/publications/decentralized-autonomous-organizations-beyond-the-hype

Comments

No comments

Comment