Acting was good but the story was.....ehhh.

Absolutely. Just pointing out that

A. the rants go both ways in the name of 'discourse'. I dislike it. it isn't constructive.

B. There are a multitude of voices that are fuelled by tribalism like sports team/fantom behaviour.

My gripes against dnd are valid to me but I won't lecture you on it.

Neither is liking dnd a personality yet here we are.

I agree that the unsolicited rants are tedious and annoying but they exist for a reason.

Cause and effect.

Is that really the case, though? I find that I only really think clearly in conversation, when there are real, not imaginary people to have a dialogue with. For me, the funniest, most engaging and most surprising TTRPG moments come out of this interplay.

A nascent idea but you could roll based on your character's physical action: nod, shake, shrug, hold up hand, lean in, lean out.

This determines the npcs response by having you roll on a scale based on the action.

Over time you build your vocab and play better.

What about a solo ttrpg where you couldn't speak but instead decipher a language word by word.

An alien garbled language where you roll on a table to generate responses from npcs and build your journey towards understanding

Hm. Depends on the branding but I would think branding goes beyond just being on the front page. It should exist as a theme across the pages.

If it's just a logo then first page is fine.

The question I really need to ask is why classes and character creation are separated by gameplay?

This does seem like a thing in a certain subset of games that like the HR equivalent of 'tell us your name and tell us one thing about you' level of performance.

You don't meet in a tavern, you have known each other for a while, reputation has got you here, but now it's the big leagues