Some great tweets from mike mearls a couple weeks back

[Cybren]

A few weeks ago, Mike Mearls observed how he thinks actual play content like Critical Role was really good for developing how people interact with RPGs. I found them insightful and agreed with them (though I imagine a large segment of the forum won't). as I'm on my phone and mearls didn't create a thread by replying to his own tweets, I can't format them all that well, but here they are. Much like Drake, you need to start from the bottom:
https://m.imgur.com/a/okl0X

[NNescio]

As entertaining as Critical Role is I think it's horrible for learning the rules system, due to the constant handwaving, houseruling, and OP custom classes and items.

It's sorta like... watching Calvinball to learn how to play basketball, maybe?

Good pointers on how to roleplay, I admit. But I do regret a lot about introducing the people I play with to it, because they're now all clamoring to play Mercer's homebrewed classes (and DM Guild materials). Which are admittedly, well, fun and interesting in isolation, but interact very poorly with the preexisting rule system and are quite on the overpowered side, even without multiclassing interactions and good choice of feats.

Especially the Blood Hunter, gah, it makes playing a Cleric just plain unfun.

[Cybren]

As entertaining as Critical Role is I think it's horrible for learning the rules system, due to the constant handwaving, houseruling, and OP custom classes and items.

It's sorta like... watching Calvinball to learn how to play basketball, maybe?

I think it's more like learning a language in a real world context vs out of a textbook. Most people learning English in a classroom will learn that you use "who" as a subject and "whom" as an object, but in actual English conversation using "whom" will at best mark you as a bit weird or stuck up.


Good pointers on how to roleplay, I admit. But I do regret a lot about introducing the people I play with to it, because they're now all clamoring to play Mercer's homebrewed classes (and DM Guild materials). Which are admittedly, well, fun and interesting in isolation, but interact very poorly with the preexisting rule system and are quite on the overpowered side, even without multiclassing interactions and good choice of feats.

Especially the Blood Hunter, gah, it makes playing a Cleric just plain unfun.

I can't speak to Critical Role, or Mercers character building options- I don't watch it, and only mention it because Mearls did. (I will say "blood hunter", just as a name, is the exact opposite of the kind of aesthetic I'm into in fiction/media/my life in general). My preferred D&D actual plays are Acq Inc and The Adventure Zone- both of which also play pretty fast and loose with the rules, (which is one of the points Mearls was making as a positive of actual play content), though to different degrees

[Madbox]

I agree with what he had to say, but with a caveat: some people are best with a permissive system, but some really do need a crazy detailed rulebook to keep it fun. I mean, the folks at Critical Role do great with loose rules, and seem to have fun, but we all know that guy who would abuse that like crazy.

It's like how we can get one thread on this board saying that 5e isn't tactical enough, right next to a super-detailed optimization thread, sandwiched by the perpetual debates of "Is GWM OP?" and "Why I do/don't allow feats/multiclassing". What is right for one group is rarely right for others, and even painting the community in the broadest strokes possible still leaves out sizable, highly vocal minorities.

It's the internet. Someone will find a reason to be ticked off.

[Alcibiades]

I've certainly witnessed a change in playerbase/dynamic in online play (particularily live play, can't speak for PbP too much) where a lot of the people who are new to TTRPGs were inspired to try it because of Youtube shows like that and even a relatively frequent topic of table talk in some groups.

The emergence of video (specifically Youtube episodic shows and/or twitch streams) seems to me what's made the big difference, podcasts weren't nearly as popular when they were the main medium to broadcast your d&d games.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I have to admit that I got back into playing D&D pen and paper because of Critical Role. Ironically, now that I am playing D&D P&P, I have no interest in watching the show because of how different it is from the actual game I play.

[MaxWilson]

A few weeks ago, Mike Mearls observed how he thinks actual play content like Critical Role was really good for developing how people interact with RPGs. I found them insightful and agreed with them (though I imagine a large segment of the forum won't). as I'm on my phone and mearls didn't create a thread by replying to his own tweets, I can't format them all that well, but here they are. Much like Drake, you need to start from the bottom:
https://m.imgur.com/a/okl0X

Wow. That's great! I 100% agree--thanks for posting.

Discussion forums are potentially valuable for DMs (although not as valuable as good blogs), but I die a little inside every time I see someone "playing" D&D by posting a build on a forum and analyzing its peak DPR at 20th level.

[ZenBear]

I am in absolute agreement with Mercer. Theory and optimization has its place, but for newcomers and burnt out former players alike, getting to watch the fun at the table -- the jokes and the off topic tangents, the tension of the die roll, the joy of victory and the humor of defeat -- draws people in and shows them what D&D is really about.

[indrabar]

I am in absolute agreement with Mercer. Theory and optimization has its place, but for newcomers and burnt out former players alike, getting to watch the fun at the table -- the jokes and the off topic tangents, the tension of the die roll, the joy of victory and the humor of defeat -- draws people in and shows them what D&D is really about.

^^ This right here. Watching Acquisitions Incorporated is what prompted me to give D&D a try in the first place - they made it look like so much fun.

[Corran]

Edit: Nevermind, I read the actual thing that he said. Yes, playtesting is helpful for designers to create meaningful, fun and balanced mechanics. I dont see how live play adds anything to that, as live play is not playtesting. Gen con shows and live play dnd shows do have their value, but I dont believe this has anything to do with helping the designers with anything else than promoting a product. Which is fine. As for the shows themselves, well, it depends on the content. If you enjoy watching it and perhaps you can draw some inspiration out of it, then it's all good. Other than that I dont know what else to say, except perhaps that watching is a poor alternative to actually playing the game (dont get me wrong though, I do enjoy some of these shows, such as Perkins' acq inc).

[georgie_leech]

Edit: Nevermind, I read the actual thing that he said. Yes, playtesting is helpful for designers to create meaningful, fun and balanced mechanics. I dont see how live play adds anything to that, as live play is not playtesting. Gen con shows and live play dnd shows do have their value, but I dont believe this has anything to do with helping the designers with anything else than promoting a product. Which is fine. As for the shows themselves, well, it depends on the content. If you enjoy watching it and perhaps you can draw some inspiration out of it, then it's all good. Other than that I dont know what else to say, except perhaps that watching is a poor alternative to actually playing the game (dont get me wrong though, I do enjoy some of these shows, such as Perkin's acq inc).

It's somewhat relevent to D&D. mostly because it's been pretty terrible at at teaching newcomers to the hobby what good play actually looks like. So it's a boon to accessibility that these sorts of programs exist.

Otherwise WotC might actually need to improve how they teach new players in the books. :smallwink:

[ZenBear]

Yes, playtesting is helpful for designers to create meaningful, fun and balanced mechanics. I dont see how live play adds anything to that, as live play is not playtesting.

By watching people actually play the game and have fun, you get to see what parts of your game add to that and what parts get in the way. It's different for every group, but patterns emerge.

[LaserFace]

A few weeks ago, Mike Mearls observed how he thinks actual play content like Critical Role was really good for developing how people interact with RPGs. I found them insightful and agreed with them (though I imagine a large segment of the forum won't). as I'm on my phone and mearls didn't create a thread by replying to his own tweets, I can't format them all that well, but here they are. Much like Drake, you need to start from the bottom:
https://m.imgur.com/a/okl0X

Pretty great find. I think Actual Play does a great job of displaying the spirit of the game, and reminding folks about how D&D can actually be fun.

And he's absolutely right about "your mileage may/can/should/will vary". Some groups may hand-wave some aspects of the game, alter others, and be by-the-books with things already there that they value. And, I think every group should explore what they find fun at the table. If everyone is unified around the notion of contributing to the fun of the group, you really can't go wrong.



Discussion forums are potentially valuable for DMs (although not as valuable as good blogs), but I die a little inside every time I see someone "playing" D&D by posting a build on a forum and analyzing its peak DPR at 20th level.

Yeah, me too. I get it, people have fun in a variety of ways, but I get the impression these people can't see the forest for the trees.

[Laserlight]

I die a little inside every time I see someone "playing" D&D by posting a build on a forum and analyzing its peak DPR at 20th level.

De gustibus non est disputandum. I can think of several games (eg Traveller, BattleTech, GZG's Full Thrust, Car Wars, Champions) where the ability to custom design your character or vehicle was a major part of why the game was popular. Some people would play the Design part, some the Combat part, and some both.

I was going to say that I don't play the Design subgame in D&D...but I do like to change characters to try out a new build every few months, instead of sticking with one character for years. So to some extent, yes, I guess I do.

[Zalabim]

Discussion forums are potentially valuable for DMs (although not as valuable as good blogs), but I die a little inside every time I see someone "playing" D&D by posting a build on a forum and analyzing its peak DPR at 20th level.

Personally, I "play" D&D by creating customized character arcs (origins, accomplishments, endings) for all my characters even though the games they were written for never go anywhere, but I don't post those on a forum. It would kill me inside, but you cannot kill that which is already dead.

[Hrugner]

De gustibus non est disputandum. I can think of several games (eg Traveller, BattleTech, GZG's Full Thrust, Car Wars, Champions) where the ability to custom design your character or vehicle was a major part of why the game was popular. Some people would play the Design part, some the Combat part, and some both.

I was going to say that I don't play the Design subgame in D&D...but I do like to change characters to try out a new build every few months, instead of sticking with one character for years. So to some extent, yes, I guess I do.

I'm personally big on the design part and world building. I'm honestly not sure what to do with 5e in that regard as it's a pretty sloppy game.

As to watching how people play and designing for that, it's an interesting idea but spurs a race toward simplicity that doesn't often pay off. People subconsciously crave simplicity, but are willing to stop a behavior when it's simple enough that it doesn't need doing anymore. If you are watching play as it happens and attempting to recreate that dynamic, you're likely losing the begining and end of the simplification cycle and won't see people who have stopped playing and are just there, or people who over complicate the rules as they get a handle on them.

[thebiglost1]

I like the crew and their interactions but I honestly wish mercer wasn't so rules intensive and actually had a little give here and there. Sure the use some homebrew and pathfinder carryover but he doesn't allow ANYTHING that isn't rules specific.

[Joe the Rat]

It's somewhat relevent to D&D. mostly because it's been pretty terrible at at teaching newcomers to the hobby what good play actually looks like. So it's a boon to accessibility that these sorts of programs exist.

Otherwise WotC might actually need to improve how they teach new players in the books. :smallwink:Seeing as they've off-loaded any interaction over 140 characters, it's par for the course.


But it's always sort of been like that. Some time back, some blogviator wrote a lovely piece on the role of the Older Brother/Cousin/Uncle that introduced you to the game by playing. The rules were less-than-perfect, there was no internet (and the turnaround on questions to Dragon? hoo boy), so you needed direct play.
Now you don't require a friend, relative, or weird guy at the comic book store. Like everything else in the universe, there's a how-to on YouTube. Heck, I'd say it's probably the "Let's Plays" that have as much to do with the rise of online RPG demos as anything else. And frankly, there are only a handful of WotC stream players that do a really good job of setting out what it is they are doing without being overly dry or confusing.

But there is a bit of a spectrum on the style of 'Plays - where is the focus of this broadcast? CR and Mercer is solidly at the "Entertainment" end of the game stream. A cleanly made, edited program with a party made up of professional voice actors. It's gonna look good. This doesn't mean there's not mechanical development and playtesting going on - you simply don't see that in the videos. And you do learn the basics of the game... and a lot of stuff that is not necessarily indicative of the base model. Like car commercials.

The dryest, "Demo" end games I can think of are the early AI games (Season 1 & 2), And various first-timer's games (Starwalker's HotDQ campaign and the Canadian Contingent (Quill18 & Briarstone) are the ones I know best) - but that is in part because everyone is still learning the rules. These are not-WotC, which is a great feature, because it shows you how someone muddles through the rules and available media to make the game work, and how they grow over time. These can also be painful, as they often do NOT drop all the off-topic inanity, rule lookups, rule arguments, and a lot of rolling. rattle rattle rattle. And the mistakes! Well, I see mistakes. And yell at the screen several months after posting. For the record, WotC-run games are not immune to this issue. Use your thrice-damned sneak attack, you gooberous Rogue player!

In between for me is the carnival hellstorm that is the Extra Life games. A fair amount of rule-splaining (because not every "game industry luminary" is up to speed), and a lot of internet-fueled hosebagging (which really is typical of every table I've been at). But you see some really interesting ideas in there. Using Druid and Noble to fake being a vampire, for instance. Even then, these are people who are (a)vocationally entertainers: Penny Arcade, WoTC and WoTC affiliates, designers, writers, Convention regulars, and a ton of "You Tube Channel" personalities who make an effort to be entertaining while being the person playing games for you. But sometimes they try too hard to be clever. Later AI seasons I find fall more to the middle - enough rulesing between abuse and not-appropriate-for-this-forum jokes to help you learn, but with a focus on rule of funny and the occasional drama (and whatever the hell blackmail material Patrick has on Chris to pull off half of his nonsense) overriding.

[Finieous]

Edit: Nevermind, I read the actual thing that he said. Yes, playtesting is helpful for designers to create meaningful, fun and balanced mechanics. I dont see how live play adds anything to that, as live play is not playtesting.

I see it as the difference between quantitative product research and focus groups. With the former, you can get lots of data on product features, self-reported preferences, etc. With the latter, you can watch what real people do with the product, what their actual user experience is, apart from what they might otherwise have reported about the experience after the fact. Both are important.

I'm a product manager so this post is work and not goofing off. :smallbiggrin: