Critical Role. Good/Bad/Other?

[MadBear]

I'm just curious how many people on this forum watch Critical Role? Is there anyone who was brought into the D&D fold here because of it? What are your thoughts on Matt Mercer's campaigns so far?

My thoughts:
- I just made it 1/2 way through his last campaign over the last 6 months
- I love the role playing that takes place between the players and the DM
- I enjoy the overall story lines and how Matt tries to connect peoples backgrounds to the plot
- I find it really funny
- It is a bit too on rails for my taste, but I can see the merits of that style of play

[Lolzyking]

Its okay but mercer doesn't really understand the balance of 5e (just look at his homebrew)

I'd also agree that its too on the rails and they never have a 'real' combat encounter.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I don't watch Critical Role, Rollplay, Missclicks, Harmontown or any of the other various celebrity D and D shows or podcasts. I'm leery of idiosyncratic rules interpretations getting widespread traction, and I'm doubly nervous about appeals to authority based on some people who make money from streaming D and D as spectator entertainment.

[Avonar]

It's entertaining when not taken seriously. I watch/listen to it from time to time because it can be pretty funny and the story is decent?

However.

We have a group of 20-30 people who regularly play in one shot games, and I think that people trying to copy it breeds bad player habits. People wanting their character to be a bigger deal than the actual story, players going off track to do things they think will be a bit quirky etc. A lot of people seem to treat Critical Role as the pinnacle of D&D/Tabletop gaming, which I would definitely disagree with.

[Vogie]

I really enjoy it. While something like Godsfall has a better production value, Critical Role is really good as a "Mass Market" D&D type of thing. And if you like content, boy do they have content, even if it's following his very specific narrative structure.

IMHO, They're basically the Big Bang Theory of D&D. I don't know if that's objectively good or bad, so if I had to say anything, it'd be solidly "Other".

I also tend to listen to Podcasts at up to 2.7x speed, so the fact that they all Enunciate and articulate exquisitely is a HUGE plus.

[suplee215]

I always been interested in DnD but never bothered to do it until I saw Critical Role. I love it and I think the key to DnD that Matt Mercer says all the time is for the group to know what to do. I began DMing almost a year ago and while I use a few things from the show I don't do everything. Also a main reason for the show's success is how talented these professional actors are and that cannot always be replicated by people.

[The Jack]

I don't really care for three hour videos, but the little bit I watched seemed despicably railroaded, and I'm not a fan of overly long descriptions of irrelevant things.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

CR seems good. It is REALLY good for the game, a group of charismatic players and even, gasp, female players making it look like fun.

It is a bit on the rails.

It is also a decent example of what to expect and what to act like when you play!

[GlenSmash!]

I watched about 10 episodes of the first campaign, but since the new campaign started this year I just skipped to it and have now watched 10 of the 11 episodes of the new campaign.

I would not watch it as a how-to for running D&D, except that it's always useful to see how other people play and run the game even if you prefer to do things different. I've also read transcripts from play-by-post games and found a lot of useful things in seeing how other DMs do things.

I like that Mercer is really good at taking a players approach to a scenario figuring out what kind of check it would call for and assigning a DC. I dislike that often the players ask to make checks, instead of describing what there character is doing or trying to do.

But remember. It's a show. it's meant to entertain. I do find it entertaining. I'll probably watch every episode of the new campaign. I also find Harmonquest very entertaining to watch, but wouldn't want to play in that game week in and week out.

It's also super long, so I tend to listen to it while doing housework, driving, or playing video games.

[War_lord]

I don't like it. It's too divorced from D&D as a game for me to watch it for instructional purposes, and its entertainment value appears to come from "quirkyness" that doesn't appeal to me. I also worry about people watching it and thinking it's representative of D&D as a game or experience.

[Knaight]

It's D&D for an audience and not the players - which is it working as intended. That does make it a questionable model for actual D&D games, and this comes through with commentary about it being scripted, on rails, etc. The needs there are different.

[E’Tallitnics]

Critical Role is 100%, Spot On, Fully Formed D&D! It is such because it’s the game they want to play, and that’s exactly how D&D is played.

I’ve been glued to the screen for C2 to up my narrative skills as DM. Matt does a beautiful job! I can wait for Season 8 of the AL to start.

Critical Role has also brought D&D to the attention of thousands of people that might not have experienced a game, and that’s an invaluable contribution to our community. (C2E2 had a peak of almost 125,000 viewers!)

So yeah, in the playground here there’ll be those that poo poo on CR for this or that ‘offense’ to D&D, but at the end of the day they’re playing their game and there’s no one to say that’s “wrong D&D”.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

So yeah, in the playground here there’ll be those that poo poo on CR for this or that ‘offense’ to D&D, but at the end of the day they’re playing their game and there’s no one to say that’s “wrong D&D”.

I don't think they're playing "wrong D&D". What they do works for them. But they are not playing D and D, either; they are creating a television show about playing D and D. There's a difference. I wouldn't enjoy playing at a table that performative, and I would hope that people who get into the game through the various shows enjoy it as a game to be played rather than as content to be consumed.

[Knaight]

I don't think they're playing "wrong D&D". What they do works for them. But they are not playing D and D, either; they are creating a television show about playing D and D. There's a difference. I wouldn't enjoy playing at a table that performative, and I would hope that people who get into the game through the various shows enjoy it as a game to be played rather than as content to be consumed.
Exactly. There's a fundamental difference between creating a performance and playing a game, even when the game has some performative aspects. There's aspects of creative design in both playing RPGs and making RPG centered performances (including actual plays), and different designs are used for different design problems - as they should be.

[Level2intern]

I love CR as it gives me some enjoyable dnd related content to zone out to on my commute. Listening to Mercer has shown me a couple of different things to try in my games that I think have made me a more engaging dm.

But... his rules knowledge blows some times. I get it, they can't stop the show to look up every little thing. I pull my hair out listening some times. And the players need to read their damn spells. The druid is soooooo terrible. "I cast windwalk! Wait what does windwalk do again?" Facepalm... read the damn card! Why would you prepare it if haven't ever read the spell?! I'm sure she is a lovely person lol

It's free. Its entertaining. It's good exposure for the hobby. It's not perfect but I'm thankful it's out there.

[snowman87]

Like any form of entertainment, it has things to like and dislike. I enjoy how grand the storylines are and keep the players engaged. I like how immersed in character the players are in what they are experiencing. I dislike how often they do silly things just for the sake of being funny, although this has lessened over time. I HATE how, after over 3 years, none of the players can seem to remember how the rules work or what their characters can do or have. It's fairly obvious that they do this because they enjoy hanging out more than the actual activity, but it's their game and they can play how they want. All this is just opinion, too, so few will agree entirely.

[quark12000]

It got me back into D and D. I love it.

[JackPhoenix]

I watched few D&D streams, including CR. I consider them an utter waste of time.

[Tanarii]

I personally find his games boring to watch. Id also find it boring to play in. A lot of my players say the same.

In many of the episodes I've watched, even his own players appeared to visibly bored. But obviously they enjoy it enough to keep doing it, so maybe I'm just projecting.

Other than that, he's appears to be pretty good at doing what he has set out to do: run a game for a bunch of actors and stick it online to entertain people that enjoy watching his games.

I've talked some crap about him before, so I thought I'd be a mite more reasonable for once. :smallamused:

[Nettlekid]

It's a solid show. Unlike a lot of celebrity D&D, where celebrities try D&D because it's become popular, these guys were playing their own game and THEN made it into a show so you know that they actually care about the game. I think this new campaign is putting too much effort into making it like a TV show with twists and turns rather than a straight-up game, which I'm not crazy about, but the players seem to be having a good time. No matter what you can't fault Matt Mercer's incredible worldbuilding and his ability to add depth to any interaction. I will echo that I don't love his Homebrew - most of it seems just a little too strong and doesn't have its own niche.

I can't agree with people in this thread that his games are railroady, though. Just because a DM sets up a situation as having a clear path to follow doesn't mean the DM is forcing the players to follow that path. I can't think of any situation where the players tried to do something and were flat-out shut down. On the flipside, there were a number of occasions where they did something unorthodox and unexpected and he rolled with it rather than shutting it down.
The best one that I can think of is when he gave them a Gate scroll from a random loot table and they used it to summon a Goristro that they knew they'd have to hunt down at some point. He had a whole adventure planned for them to go to the Abyss and work their way through a hellish labyrinth, and he threw it out because between their clever idea and perfectly lucky dice rolls they pulled that plan off.

There's also the time that he had to completely make up the Fire Elemental Plane encounters on the spot because he didn't expect them to go there to collect the Plate of the Dawnmartyr and had nothing planned. Granted it wasn't a very interesting, fleshed out story, but something that you're designing off the cuff rarely is compared to something you had planned for a while.

There were also a number of player decisions that, while they wouldn't have changed the game much, were absolutely up to the characters and weren't steered one way or the other. Vex denying Saundor for instance - Matt was prepared for her to take the corrupted Archfey up on his offer and she would have become a feytouched creature. Thanks to a clever plan and a Nat 20 Sharpshooter shot Matt allowed the party to receive a vision of his BBEG's domain far before he planned to introduce the character into the story. Keyleth put her hand into a Sphere of Annihilation and made a save to resist being drawn into it - if she hadn't made the save then she would have permanently died then and there. Every character death had the risk of being permanent, and Matt would tweet his rolls to prove he wasn't fudging them. Those are things that a railroading DM doesn't do.

[quark12000]

The backlash against this show by 'orthodox' players is both unfortunate and completely predictable.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The backlash against this show by 'orthodox' players is both unfortunate and completely predictable.

I'm more than a little shocked to see people jumping at it like it's complete "badwrongfun" but they were asked for their opinions, and they're entitled to them.

Critical Role is the main reason that I'm as into DnD as I am now. I was only interested through short tidbits of story that my brother had told me about when he and his friends went and played a game so I happened to catch Critical Role live pretty early on, I picked it up and never put it down.

I can agree that it's railroaded a bit, but I can't even wrap my head around how that's an issue when most published adventures put you in a similar kind of situation. You're given a "main quest" for a campaign and that's a rail you follow until you beat it or end up dead.

[Knaight]

The backlash against this show by 'orthodox' players is both unfortunate and completely predictable.

Backlash is a strong word - some people just don't particularly like it, including some very unorthodox players.

[2D8HP]

The backlash against this show by 'orthodox' players is both unfortunate and completely predictable.


Oh!

Now I want to watch it just so I may rant about heretic D&D!

Repent!

There is only one true way and it is through following in the steps of The Seven Geases, Conan, Elric, Jirel, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser!


Also, while I never watched the show, I did buy the Tal'dorei Campaign Setting by Matthew Mercer with James Haeck.

I haven't read much if it yet, but so far it's not too bad (no damn Harpers!), but it's no Lankhmar: City of Adventure, Logres, Mythic Iceland, 7th Sea, or Castle Falkenstein.

[guachi]

I neither find Critical Role particularly entertaining nor particularly useful.

It's great if others do. I've read lots of comments from people who like it. It's just not for me.

[mephnick]

I watched few D&D streams, including CR. I consider them an utter waste of time.

Honestly..yeah. Watching other people play D&D is really really tedious for me. I watch gamer streaming sometimes, but I just can't watch D&D, even if it's streamed by people whose other content I love (WebDM etc). We'll see when Colville's stream goes up because his style is closer to mine than Mercer's but I'm not holding my breath. But hey, people watch unpacking videos and I don't get that either.

[MadBear]

I can't agree with people in this thread that his games are railroady, though. Just because a DM sets up a situation as having a clear path to follow doesn't mean the DM is forcing the players to follow that path. I can't think of any situation where the players tried to do something and were flat-out shut down. On the flipside, there were a number of occasions where they did something unorthodox and unexpected and he rolled with it rather than shutting it down.


While I can't speak for anyone else, I don't think the game is "railroady" so much as it's rails are a too apparent for my taste. To me, like you pointed out, railroady is when characters are forced to take actions regardless if they want to go down that path or not. I rarely see that ever happen in CR. On the other hand, being on rails just means that the DM has a central story that they are guiding the characters towards, and I do absolutely see that in CR. I mean, if you look at the beautiful set pieces that Matt sets up in his games, there does need to be some consensus about where the players are going to do/what are they going to do, otherwise those pieces would go to waste. D

[EpicCyclops]

While I can't speak for anyone else, I don't think the game is "railroady" so much as it's rails are a too apparent for my taste. To me, like you pointed out, railroady is when characters are forced to take actions regardless if they want to go down that path or not. I rarely see that ever happen in CR. On the other hand, being on rails just means that the DM has a central story that they are guiding the characters towards, and I do absolutely see that in CR. I mean, if you look at the beautiful set pieces that Matt sets up in his games, there does need to be some consensus about where the players are going to do/what are they going to do, otherwise those pieces would go to waste. D

It is actually mentioned that Matt frequently has to load unused maps into his car 😊

I don't think it is very railroady either. I know of at least one point towards the end of the Chroma Conclave arc where the party had a clever solution that skipped a bunch of things he had planned.

There's also the fact that there is a balance to be stick between plot pacing and making time for the character shenanigans that his PCs clearly thrive on. I think he runs a game that is incredibly fun for his players, and that makes him a great DM. Obviously the pacing that other groups will enjoy will vary, and it's our job to notice that and adjust for it.

[Astofel]

When I first saw Mercer DM, I instantly knew that I wanted to do that, too. I love the way he makes the world interact with his players, how their backstories are always made relevant in some way, and how unique and interesting just about every NPC he comes up with is. Before I saw Critical Role I was hesitant to step into the DM's seat, the rules knowledge required seemed overwhelming and I didn't know if I could come up with a compelling adventure. But seeing Mercer at least made me want to see if I could. I've been running the game for about two years now and I've never looked back, I love running the game and my players love playing in it.

If what I've seen is anything to go by, my story is far from unique. If Critical Role can bring so many people into the hobby, and they're having a good time playing, I don't see how it could be anything other than a good thing, even if I didn't like it personally.

[Akolyte01]

The "it's a D&D themed show and reaaaal D and D" sentiment makes me roll my eyes out of my skull. Critical Role is exactly what people should aspire to in role playing.... You know, actually playing a role. Sure they're performing for the audience, but they are also performing each other, immersing each other in the world instead of playing a war game with levels.

If you aren't committing to your character, you aren't playing "real" D&D as far as I'm concerned.

That said, the criticism that it's fairly on rails is fair, and I definitely understand people preferring a different kind of game. And yes, several members of the class need to sit down and actually read the damn rulebook.

[Arkhios]

Mercer is a great DM and a storyteller (as well as a Voice Actor), of that there's on doubt in my mind. However, I agree that his grasp on Rules As Written is either lacking or voluntarily ignorant, which isn't exactly the best way to introduce new players to the game. Not once or twice have I encountered people complaining that their DM wouldn't agree to how Mercer rules things, and go on about fits of frustration because of it. But as I said, Mercer is a good DM. Being a good DM is about more than just knowing the rules like the back of one's hand. It would be fair to the spectators to be forewarned that the games run include houserules, and may not be entirely accurate in terms of how the game is written to be run. The importance and difference of houserules vs. Rules As Written should be taught up-front. Even to the new players, so that they'd learn to accept that while houserules are certainly encouraged, they are not the norm, nor is any single DM forced to use the same houserules as some celebrity DM.

[Snivlem]

I love it. And it is miles above any other streamed/recorded rpg - show i've seen, as i have never enjoyed watching any of those. Most of that is because of Matt's DM-skills, but most of the players are great as well. I totally get it if not everone enjoyes watching though, but the "it is not real d&d" comments in this thread are laughable.

[Cespenar]

The only real criticism I can send their way (ignoring the "REAL D&D" can of worms) is that the last time I watched them, they had too many people. Like, 7 people or so? These are all talented people, 7 is way too much for any of them to really say more than a couple of words.

Something like the Acquisitions Inc. sometimes ran much funnier because of the 4 people mechanic.

[mephnick]

The only real criticism I can send their way (ignoring the "REAL D&D" can of worms) is that the last time I watched them, they had too many people. Like, 7 people or so? These are all talented people, 7 is way too much for any of them to really say more than a couple of words.

Something like the Acquisitions Inc. sometimes ran much funnier because of the 4 people mechanic.

Yeah wayyy too many players. Especially since there's some dead weight they could easily cut..or so I hear from those that watch more than I do.

[strangebloke]

I like it, I can easily understand not liking it. Long episodes and no action.

As to how 'correctly' they play, Matt had a decent grasp of the rules but he house rules a lot of things. He's on par with that aspect of the game. His Homebrew is imbalanced, but so is most homebrew.

Except for there being seven players, I think his table would be great fun to play at. Everyone's engaged, the combat is punchy and dangerous (usually because the team is super unoptimized but whatever) and I like getting into character and faffing about, which is a clear priority of their team.

Don't see it as too railroaded. What, does everyone play westmarches and nothing else?

I don't know that DND is the best system for what they're playing, however.

[KillingTime]

I enjoy it, I think it's very entertaining.

Is it like the D&D tables I play at? No.
Does it inspire me to improve my roleplaying? Yes definitely.

I definitely agree that too many people are quick to accuse them of "playing the wrong way".
There are as many ways to play D&D as there are groups of players. I definitely don't think it's too railroady or too house-ruley. They are very open that they play with a loose interpretation of the rules as they prefer a more free-flowing narrative driven game.
And I think that given the constraints of keeping the adventures reasonably tight for a streamed audience, Mercer does an amazing job of keeping the plot reasonably fluid. They're certainly no more on rails than any of the pre-written campaigns from a bunch of different systems I've played in.

[Afrodactyl]

I generally enjoy it. Some of the characters can be a bit annoying at times, and some of the characters are consistently great, IMO. The descriptions are good and the narrative is good (if a little railroady).

Im forty something episodes into campaign one, but typically use it as background noise whilst doing other bits and pieces as I can't justify sitting and doing nothing other than watching YouTube videos while I have more important stuff to do.

[Wilb]

I find it odd. Mercer is an excellent DM and his work, both as a DM and as VA, is nothing short of fantastic. For some reason I've found a few PC actions to not sit well with me and I end up not wanting to keep watching it, and when I forced myself to watch it was like being a Star wars legends fanboy watching the new trilogy, watching a couple minutes in awe then finding a lot of stuff that doesn't sit well. I stopped watching it altogether a long time ago.

How can you feel good something exists yet you don't want to keep following it? Maybe I like that it brings new people to D&D, I don't get it myself, so I just find it strange, not good nor bad.

[Throne12]

So as someone who has watched all of CR videos. It a ok show. I based this opinion off the fact. That I have watch all of rollplay stuff, all of encounter roleplay, all acq inc with c team, a lot of dice camera action, all of Threshold, some of yorg cast, all nerdarchey, all the afistfulofdice guys stuff, all save of dice, then 100's of other smaller channels. All these Channels has there pro and cons. CR is nothing special it not even really that great that everyone makes it out to be.


P.s if y'all are Wondering how I have time for all these shows. I listen while working on a farm.

[SirGraystone]

In my opinion Matt Mercer is a good DM, he seem to run game heavy on roleplay which is great for those who like that kind of game. But something to remember for those new to D&D, he's been playing with those players for many years even before they started those videos, he knows his players well, and they are all actors. Most D&D games specially for new players are not like that.

[Raif]

Mercer is a great DM and a storyteller (as well as a Voice Actor), of that there's on doubt in my mind. However, I agree that his grasp on Rules As Written is either lacking or voluntarily ignorant, which isn't exactly the best way to introduce new players to the game. Not once or twice have I encountered people complaining that their DM wouldn't agree to how Mercer rules things, and go on about fits of frustration because of it. But as I said, Mercer is a good DM. Being a good DM is about more than just knowing the rules like the back of one's hand. It would be fair to the spectators to be forewarned that the games run include houserules, and may not be entirely accurate in terms of how the game is written to be run. The importance and difference of houserules vs. Rules As Written should be taught up-front. Even to the new players, so that they'd learn to accept that while houserules are certainly encouraged, they are not the norm, nor is any single DM forced to use the same houserules as some celebrity DM.

I will say that he has actively said many many times that he house rules things and is very aware that his stuff is not always RAW (he does have the knowledge of RAW, but changes things based on his desire for his game). The very first episode they did state that if you're a die hard rule person that their game might not sit well with them because he'd rather house rule or do things his way, which is every DM's right.

Other people taking that as "every DM needs to run it this way" is definitely a problem as a whole, as people who watch CR should be aware that it is very much not a "normal" game.

I thoroughly enjoy it for the entertainment value, and the challenge it presents on myself as a roleplayer to up my roleplaying game. It's a DnD game where it's roleplay oriented, not mechanics and dungeon crawling oriented, and I find that it speaks to what I enjoy out of DnD.

[2D6GREATAXE]

I really enjoy it! It got me and my friends back into D&D after 15 years.
No problem with Matt Mercer or any of the cast, I think the level of RP and unoptimised characters is something to aspire to. Its fun, and that's all that matters.

Just started watching Save or Dice, not bad, not great.

[Azgeroth]

its okay,

the roleplayying is great, the stories are good.. however...

giving the rogue boots of haste without exhaustion??? W T F!?!

creating a class that has better range, and dps than the ranger.. yeah thats fair..

then, give the druid fireball and firestorm!?!

oh, and start to tailor encounters so the barbarian cant mash everything to a pulp..

i stopped watching campaign 1 for a few months due to the above reasons, sorry if i gave any spoilers in there..

scanlan for mvp!

[Raif]

giving the rogue boots of haste without exhaustion??? W T F!?!

It's a pathfinder item that they translated to 5e but Matt forgot to initially add in the exhaustion that the 5e Haste spell has (Pathfinder version of Haste doesn't have the 1 turn downside). They played with it so much prior to the stream like that that Matt felt that it would be unfair to the player to change them. He's mentioned how much he regretted that choice and yelled at himself "Learn to balance your magic items!"




creating a class that has better range, and dps than the ranger.. yeah thats fair..

With a **** ton of downsides to be fair. Losing your weapon, possibly permanently is pretty **** mid combat. Also, standard PHB ranger is pretty bad to be fair.



then, give the druid fireball and firestorm!?!

I mean, it's basically the staff of the archmage? Legendary equipment is legendary? Also, it's not like anyone could cast those spells anyway on their team to step on their toes and they got it at level 16.

[Nettlekid]

He's also not egregiously anti-RAW. He keeps to the book about stuff like readied actions not including movement or readied spells burning a slot and requiring concentration, or keeping track of free object interactions, or being precise about attack ranges, which someone who was playing more fast and loose might not. And it should be noted that there's a big difference between establishing house rules versus just not knowing the proper rules. Like in the first campaign he had a house rule where spellcasters were limited to only one spell of higher than 2nd level per turn, rather than one spell higher than a cantrip. Once that rule was established he didn't waver on it. That's very different from say, forcing disadvantage on attacks while being Grappled because you think that's how Grappling works and don't check it. Some of the players sometimes messed up the rules like that, but Matt was on the ball about them.

[Tanarii]

The "it's a D&D themed show and reaaaal D and D" sentiment makes me roll my eyes out of my skull. Critical Role is exactly what people should aspire to in role playing.... You know, actually playing a role. Sure they're performing for the audience, but they are also performing each other, immersing each other in the world instead of playing a war game with levels.

If you aren't committing to your character, you aren't playing "real" D&D as far as I'm concerned.
This attitude right here is what I really dislike about the show. It promotes encourages among a certain viewer base the very worst of TSR late 80s and early 90s-era "roleplaying = acting" or "RPGs are about storytelling" elitism.

[MadBear]

This attitude right here is what I really dislike about the show. It promotes encourages among a certain viewer base the very worst of TSR late 80s and early 90s-era "roleplaying = acting" or "RPGs are about storytelling" elitism.

Maybe it's just the difference in the way we're reading what he said, but I took it as more tongue and cheek. Considering, his response is to those saying that "CR isn't real D&D".

[Tanarii]

Maybe it's just the difference in the way we're reading what he said, but I took it as more tongue and cheek. Considering, his response is to those saying that "CR isn't real D&D".In that case, blue text was required. :smallamused:

[MadBear]

In that case, blue text was required. :smallamused:

https://media.makeameme.org/created/a-fair-point.jpg

[Xaryo]

i stumbled on CR last weekand i've binged listened the 2nd season. im at episode 4 so far.
i find it very entertaining. i don't care how he house rule or bend the rules. the game is ment to be fun for everybody involved and if for that and the "cinematic"aspect some rules have to be bent, so be it.
each DM is different.

just treat it as an audio-book and enjoy the long drive...

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Maybe it's just the difference in the way we're reading what he said, but I took it as more tongue and cheek. Considering, his response is to those saying that "CR isn't real D&D".

I didn't read it as sarcastic or tongue-and-cheek. "Critical Role is exactly what people should aspire to in roleplaying", contrasting "immersing each other in the world" with "playing a war game with levels". Maybe I'm just not seeing where this is supposed to be, you know, funny.

[MadBear]

I didn't read it as sarcastic or tongue-and-cheek. "Critical Role is exactly what people should aspire to in roleplaying", contrasting "immersing each other in the world" with "playing a war game with levels". Maybe I'm just not seeing where this is supposed to be, you know, funny.

I'm specifically referring to the part where he starts by eye rolling people who say "CR isn't real D&D", and then at the ends says his way is "real D&D".

If that isn't tongue and cheek, there's some missing irony there on the posts part.

(I do think he is sharing his view of how he prefers D&D)

[smcmike]

It’s good. The voice work is very good, obviously, and allows for some very good interpersonal interactions (as well as interminable shopping trips). While I agree that this might set certain expectations for how a game should be run that are inconvenient for those of us who are bad at or uninterested in accents and dialogue, it’s still a fun thing to think about.

[BRC]

I love Critical Role. It's a great game, but I don't like holding it up as a model of "This is how D&D SHOULD BE PLAYED!" for three reasons.

1) Matt is a great DM, and like any Great DM, he's running a game for the players at his table. Customizing your game for your players is a vital GMing skill, but it's not one that always comes across especially well if you're just watching the game being run. The CR crew are a bunch of talented actors and enthusiastic RPers who have been playing together for years, so Matt can just unleash them onto a city and they'll run around having a good time. Look at the most recent campaign. Of the last four sessions, only one has actually been what I would consider an "Adventure", the rest have mostly just been the PC's running around the city. That works for the CR crew, but it won't work at a lot of tables. So, and GM who writes up a binder full of notes on a city, then drops his players there and expects them to have fun with that alone because "That's how they did it on Critical Role", will be disapointed.

2) Critical Role is a streamed game, which means that everybody, GM and Players, is doing this as a performance. They're genuinely playing D&D, and having a good time with it, but a lot of it is angled towards putting on a good show for an audience beyond the other players at the table. Your home game won't look like Critical Role, because you're home game isn't 7 performers putting on a show for an audience.

3) Matt Mercer has a very "Classic" idea of what a D&D game should look like. He's a very talented actor and worldbuilder, but his adventure design is quite tame. Dungeons full of monsters, Evil Dragons threaten the world, go get some super magic artifacts so you can defeat them, ect ect. There's nothing wrong with sticking to stuff like that, but RPGs can do so much more. I was listening to The Adventure Zone, which has numerous serious flaws, both as a D&D game and as a performance, but the adventure design in TaZ is a good demonstration of the sort of awesome stuff a DM can do if they don't feel constrained by the Idiom or Aesthetics of classic D&D. All of Matt Mercer's stuff feels like something that could have fallen out of a WoTC published adventure module or setting book.


If you MUST pick a Streamed game to model yourself after, Critical Role is probably the best one out there, but you should be basing your GMing and Playing on what's most fun for you and your table, not mimicking somebody else.

[strangebloke]

I love Critical Role. It's a great game, but I don't like holding it up as a model of "This is how D&D SHOULD BE PLAYED!" for three reasons.

1) Matt is a great DM, and like any Great DM, he's running a game for the players at his table. Customizing your game for your players is a vital GMing skill, but it's not one that always comes across especially well if you're just watching the game being run. The CR crew are a bunch of talented actors and enthusiastic RPers who have been playing together for years, so Matt can just unleash them onto a city and they'll run around having a good time. Look at the most recent campaign. Of the last four sessions, only one has actually been what I would consider an "Adventure", the rest have mostly just been the PC's running around the city. That works for the CR crew, but it won't work at a lot of tables. So, and GM who writes up a binder full of notes on a city, then drops his players there and expects them to have fun with that alone because "That's how they did it on Critical Role", will be disapointed.

2) Critical Role is a streamed game, which means that everybody, GM and Players, is doing this as a performance. They're genuinely playing D&D, and having a good time with it, but a lot of it is angled towards putting on a good show for an audience beyond the other players at the table. Your home game won't look like Critical Role, because you're home game isn't 7 performers putting on a show for an audience.

3) Matt Mercer has a very "Classic" idea of what a D&D game should look like. He's a very talented actor and worldbuilder, but his adventure design is quite tame. Dungeons full of monsters, Evil Dragons threaten the world, go get some super magic artifacts so you can defeat them, ect ect. There's nothing wrong with sticking to stuff like that, but RPGs can do so much more. I was listening to The Adventure Zone, which has numerous serious flaws, both as a D&D game and as a performance, but the adventure design in TaZ is a good demonstration of the sort of awesome stuff a DM can do if they don't feel constrained by the Idiom or Aesthetics of classic D&D. All of Matt Mercer's stuff feels like something that could have fallen out of a WoTC published adventure module or setting book.


If you MUST pick a Streamed game to model yourself after, Critical Role is probably the best one out there, but you should be basing your GMing and Playing on what's most fun for you and your table, not mimicking somebody else.

I think you really nailed it here. I think it also needs to be said that his players are incredibly attentive, and as a DM, getting your players to pay attention is the hardest thing ever, particularly if you're not a professional writer and voice actor. I see a lot of DMs losing their players' attention while one character is off on a side quest or while the NPCs are talking.

His newer campaign shows signs that it may include some more open ended problems eventually. There's a lot more moral murkiness so far, at least.

Really, the people to learn from here are the players. Take notes, pay attention. Don't get angry because your girlfriend's character is flirting with an NPC. Think about fun/quirky things you can do with your character. Don't be a slave to optimization. Particularly if you like role play, there's a lot to emulate.

[ZorroGames]

Never watched nor do I plan to intentionally.

When OD&D came out in the 1970s I played and then DM’ed for decades. Took a break at AD&D/2nd and am back because of 5e.

Now I pretty much just play AL. Might DM someday.

Watching people play D&D is like watching Basketball - rather watch paint dry.

[white lancer]

I think BRC said most of what I was going to say on this. Critical Role tends to attract two different extremes: those who hold it up as the end-all be-all of D&D and are dissatisfied that their games don't look like that, and those who disparage it as "not real D&D" at all. I suspect at least some of the latter crowd have cropped up in response to the former group, given that comparing everything to CR can indeed get annoying; regardless, I see both extremes as nonsense.


He's also not egregiously anti-RAW. He keeps to the book about stuff like readied actions not including movement or readied spells burning a slot and requiring concentration, or keeping track of free object interactions, or being precise about attack ranges, which someone who was playing more fast and loose might not. And it should be noted that there's a big difference between establishing house rules versus just not knowing the proper rules. Like in the first campaign he had a house rule where spellcasters were limited to only one spell of higher than 2nd level per turn, rather than one spell higher than a cantrip. Once that rule was established he didn't waver on it. That's very different from say, forcing disadvantage on attacks while being Grappled because you think that's how Grappling works and don't check it. Some of the players sometimes messed up the rules like that, but Matt was on the ball about them.

Yeah, I'm with you here--obviously Matt misses things on the rules from time to time, but it's not like he's throwing them out willy-nilly. He has a couple of house rules that are applied consistently (both the 2nd-level spell one and the potions as bonus actions come to mind), but he clearly has a good knowledge of the rules. I don't see him making mistakes notably more often than other streamer DMs, including the likes of Chris Perkins, and those other DMs don't usually have 7 players to keep track of.

[Tanarii]

I think you really nailed it here. I think it also needs to be said that his players are incredibly attentive, and as a DM, getting your players to pay attention is the hardest thing ever, particularly if you're not a professional writer and voice actor. I see a lot of DMs losing their players' attention while one character is off on a side quest or while the NPCs are talking.what episodes did you watch? Every single one I've watched, he appears to struggle to keep his players attention,msspecially when one character is dominating the game.

It's an honest question. I'd love some examples of what you think you're seeing. Because I'm not a fan and I find the show boring, I've only a fairly small sample to go off of, although I selected from several seasons.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

those who disparage it as "not real D&D" at all. ... I see both extremes as nonsense.

As a member of the "not real D&D" faction, I want to clarify a bit. I don't base that on Mercer's DMing style (or the styles of the Rollplay, Missclicks et all crowds), or the way the game is run, or because it emphasizes roleplaying and I'm a wargamer, or because it has some rules fuzziness or anything. It's because it's broadcast entertainment. The process of playing the game is inevitably altered by the process of creating content, which isn't unique to D and D.

[Matrix_Walker]

I enjoy it. I got hooked last year and have managed to get caught up.

They are frustratingly bad at knowing their individual stuff and the rules in general, but the role-playing force is strong with them.

While you should not use them as a guide for the rules, they do make the games fun and approachable to a wider audience. Being voice actors with occasional interesting guest stars brings more exposure than you would otherwise get in a podcast of this kind. I think Crit Roll has been really good for the hobby.

[Tanarii]

They are frustratingly bad at knowing their individual stuff and the rules in general, but the role-playing force is strong with them.If they make very bad decisions consistently, which is an accusation I've seen leveled against the, both because of a lack of rules knowledge and generally, then the roleplaying force is not particularly strong with them. Roleplaying is about making decisions for your character, not just funny voices and talky-time. As fun and game-enhancing as that stuff can often be.

[Matrix_Walker]

If they make very bad decisions consistently, which is an accusation I've seen leveled against the, both because of a lack of rules knowledge and generally, then the roleplaying force is not particularly strong with them. Roleplaying is about making decisions for your character, not just funny voices and talky-time. As fun and game-enhancing as that stuff can often be.

Just having the force with you doesn't make you a Jedi... I don't think they make too many dumbass moves, every party has their share. And I'm sure they have had their share of situations where they went in ways they otherwise would have if they had more opportunity to hash things out with the GM, but you have to keep things moving briskly for a podcast entertainment show. I think that characterization is a bit harsh.

[DigoDragon]

I'm in an interesting spot with Critical Role. The GM running the 3.5 campaign for my local group is a big fan of CR and has stolen ideas from their episodes several times for the campaign. Only one player on the PC side has watched any episodes of CR, so most of us don't know what ideas have been cribbed until the GM mentions them. However, I don't know if it is his poor execution or that CR scenes don't translate well to our group, because the stolen ideas often feel railroaded and boring when our GM implements them.

An example was when our party wizard was killed in a drider encounter. After winning the battle, we collected his body and what little loot we found to bring back to the nearest temple for resurrection. This was a huge financial blow because our party has always been behind on the recommended WBL chart. We scrapped together what was needed and paid for the rez. The wizard's player was definitely ready to come back and we had a plan to return to the dungeon soon to recoup some of our losses. The GM then wanted to make a grand scene of this, wanting to describe in great detail the ceremony and wanting each of us to write a speech that would beg the wizard to come back to life, with personal reasons why we needed him. We were not invested at all in this and wanted to instead focus on our revenge plot against the driders. It turned into a two hour (real time) scene that bored everyone but the GM. I think whatever episode he took it from was a big moment on the CR show, but it did not translate well to our table.

I've caught pieces of CR episodes since then and I didn't get into it. Feels more like a show than a game session. My opinion has likely been colored by the uninteresting experience of our GM though.

[strangebloke]

what episodes did you watch? Every single one I've watched, he appears to struggle to keep his players attention,msspecially when one character is dominating the game.

It's an honest question. I'd love some examples of what you think you're seeing. Because I'm not a fan and I find the show boring, I've only a fairly small sample to go off of, although I selected from several seasons.

I don't know, how engaged are your players when there's seven of them at the table?

I think that they're pretty attentive in general. Nobody's spending all their time on their phone, everyone's listening enough to pick up on little jokes and subtleties, they take notes when he gives out the names of NPCs, and they pick up on subtle nuances of inter character relationships.

Check out...I don't know I think it's c2e5? The first one with the gnolls, towards the end. The rogue scouts ahead whilst inebriated and everyone is laughing their butts off.

I will say that the beginning of c1 they're not super attentive, and they had a definite spotlight hog in the party.

[ProsecutorGodot]

If they make very bad decisions consistently, which is an accusation I've seen leveled against the, both because of a lack of rules knowledge and generally, then the roleplaying force is not particularly strong with them. Roleplaying is about making decisions for your character, not just funny voices and talky-time. As fun and game-enhancing as that stuff can often be.

Characters can have a personality that might force them to make a poor decision. Matt Colville actually had a pretty informative video about Metagaming that touched on why it's okay for characters to make suboptimal decisions if it fits with their characters and why choosing (or forcing another player to choose) a tactically advanced decision could be considered metagaming.

Keyleth is a pretty good example of roleplay interfering with tactics. The player has a decent grasp on the rules but constantly, and infamously, made regrettable choices. She and the other players at the table were very clear on multiple occasions however that this wasn't the players lack of rules knowledge most of the time (we don't talk about the Kraken episode), but her making choices based on what Keyleth would do. This is getting backed up pretty well by the fact that her character in the second campaign is making strong tactical decisions pretty early on in combats and making good use of the often undervalued dodge action.

There's a weekly talk show on Tuesdays where they often explain the decisions they made, and why they're often Roleplaying choices and not a misunderstanding of how things work like people all too frequently assume.

Characters can make bad decisions, players can make mistakes. If you can play in a campaign that's gone for 350+ hours (a lowball estimate) and not make a mistake every now and then I applaud you.

[Joe the Rat]

Not my cup of tea, because I am a coffee drinker.

It's fun, colorful, and well presented. It teaches me nothing, other than the DM doing all the color is annoying, but that's because I am well into the hobby. But it's a fair starter.

What I am looking for is how games are run, how people approach problems, use descriptive vs immersive (and blended) play, and the opportunity to "armchair DM" and yell at the stupid mistakes players and DMs make with rules.

The Acq. Inc. brands are where I go for entertainment, mostly because my intended style runs closer to Perkins, Holkins does a good job of running a funny game straight, and I have my own version of "Patrick Rothfuss BS" to deal with, so misery enjoys company.

[GlenSmash!]

its okay,

the roleplayying is great, the stories are good.. however...

giving the rogue boots of haste without exhaustion??? W T F!?!

creating a class that has better range, and dps than the ranger.. yeah thats fair..

then, give the druid fireball and firestorm!?!

oh, and start to tailor encounters so the barbarian cant mash everything to a pulp..

i stopped watching campaign 1 for a few months due to the above reasons, sorry if i gave any spoilers in there..

scanlan for mvp!


what episodes did you watch? Every single one I've watched, he appears to struggle to keep his players attention,msspecially when one character is dominating the game.

It's an honest question. I'd love some examples of what you think you're seeing. Because I'm not a fan and I find the show boring, I've only a fairly small sample to go off of, although I selected from several seasons.

If either of you is game to give it another go, I'd say the start of Campaign 2 is a much better entry point than the first episodes. For one they are no longer struggling with converting their characters and magic items from Pathfinder.

Also, they are actually playing at the levels most of us play at.

[strangebloke]

If they make very bad decisions consistently, which is an accusation I've seen leveled against the, both because of a lack of rules knowledge and generally, then the roleplaying force is not particularly strong with them. Roleplaying is about making decisions for your character, not just funny voices and talky-time. As fun and game-enhancing as that stuff can often be.
They screw up tactics sometimes. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it isn't. Their builds are horribly suboptimal, but for clear reasons, like the wizard who has all mental stats above sixteen and all physical stats before 14.

Overall, from what I've seen, (haven't watched 90% of the first campaign) they don't screw stuff up nearly as often as people claim they do. They scout ahead, they use control spells effectively and everyone carries health potions.

Sone of the players understand the game better than others, and some of them have a bag mindset for their character. Laura always defaults to healbot with her spells which isn't very efficient. Liam is obsessed with DPR, which is a bit silly now that he's a wizard.

Sam has fantastic tactics and plays dirty. Travis understands his character's role well and outside of the occasional misstep is very reliable.

Overall, they're a very normal team in terms of competence, outside of times where they are being intentionally stupid.

[GlenSmash!]

They screw up tactics sometimes. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it isn't. Their builds are horribly suboptimal, but for clear reasons, like the wizard who has all mental stats above sixteen and all physical stats before 14.

Overall, from what I've seen, (haven't watched 90% of the first campaign) they don't screw stuff up nearly as often as people claim they do. They scout ahead, they use control spells effectively and everyone carries health potions.

Sone of the players understand the game better than others, and some of them have a bag mindset for their character. Laura always defaults to healbot with her spells which isn't very efficient. Liam is obsessed with DPR, which is a bit silly now that he's a wizard.

Sam has fantastic tactics and plays dirty. Travis understands his character's role well and outside of the occasional misstep is very reliable.

Overall, they're a very normal team in terms of competence, outside of times where they are being intentionally stupid.

I shout at Travis, that Hex gives Disadvantage to one type of ability checks, but he never seems to listen :smallsmile:

At least he remembers to cast it.

[Tanarii]

Just having the force with you doesn't make you a Jedi... I don't think they make too many dumbass moves, every party has their share. Fair enough. Like I said, it's an accusation I've seen leveled at one. I didn't necessarily think they're terrible decision makers myself.


I don't know, how engaged are your players when there's seven of them at the table?Its hard to tell sometimes. :smallyuk: I let them use phone character apps.


Check out...I don't know I think it's c2e5? The first one with the gnolls, towards the end. The rogue scouts ahead whilst inebriated and everyone is laughing their butts off.Cool thanks will do. When I've got a bug up my ass about something, I need to go see if I'm totally wrong. :smallamused:


Characters can have a personality that might force them to make a poor decision. Matt Colville actually had a pretty informative video about Metagaming that touched on why it's okay for characters to make suboptimal decisions if it fits with their characters and why choosing (or forcing another player to choose) a tactically advanced decision could be considered metagaming.Metagaming isn't even a thing unless the player or DM forces it to be. And consistently terrible decision making "because it's what my character would do" is one of the worst kinds of forcing metagaming to be a thing. It's causing the exact problem it claims to solve.

OTOh I agree that no one is an optimal decision making machine or anything. The occasional subpar decisions (for reasons) aren't a crime against gaming. I'm hardly a master decision maker myself, I tend to make them too quickly without thinking through.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

OTOh I agree that no one is an optimal decision making machine or anything. The occasional subpar decisions (for reasons) aren't a crime against gaming. I'm hardly a master decision maker myself, I tend to make them too quickly without thinking through.

Performers also have different incentives. If the optimal decision is boring but there's the opportunity for some hilarious japery, they might opt for the japery; their main objective is entertaining the audience, after all.

[Beleriphon]

Something like the Acquisitions Inc. sometimes ran much funnier because of the 4 people mechanic.

I actually prefer Acquisitions Inc. in part because I think the cast are hilarious, and the DM is usually a member of the D&D team.

[Grear Bylls]

At first, I loved it, but over the course of two episodes, I didn't. Too many players.

I honestly love the one shots, but other than that, I find it, "a thing". It exists. It does stuff. But I don't really care that much.

P. S. I originally tried to do everything they did as a DM. I tried to get my players to do that too, but it... didn't work out

[strangebloke]

Performers also have different incentives. If the optimal decision is boring but there's the opportunity for some hilarious japery, they might opt for the japery; their main objective is entertaining the audience, after all.

TBH, I'm not really sure what egregious combat misplays everyone's even talking about. From what I've seen it's mostly pretty normal "I forgot x modifier" mistakes or positioning errors. Most of the truly awful decisions are plot related or at least out of combat. Deals with demons, cliff diving, picking a fight at the wrong time because character is emotional, making a decision on behalf of a party member without their permission...

And in general, a lot of those misplays are related to the key flaws of the character. If role playing doesn't involve playing to your traits and flaws, I don't know what it involves.

[WOTC_GM]

I quite enjoy the show, and I think it's a great example of what D&D is like for those who would be otherwise unaware. I also believe that if more D&D groups (both players and DMs) would put half as much effort into their character building/roleplaying and world-building we would all be better off for it.

I've attempted to watch most of the other D&D shows, and CR is easily one of the best of the bunch. A lot of the other D&D series tend to lean far too much into the "Comedy" aspect with players that barely know how to play, or they are hosted by mediocre DM's that can barely hold the overall plot and story together.

That being said, I don't think that CR is the be-all end-all to D&D games, as it has its fair share of negatives. The long run time can be a bit much for casual viewers and the party tends to forgot/mess up rules on occasion, especially now that they have new characters and classes to play. The large party size can also off-putting, and if your not the kind of person who really gets into the roleplaying aspect of D&D the players themselves might come off as too "quirky" for some tastes.



I don't watch Critical Role, Rollplay, Missclicks, Harmontown or any of the other various celebrity D and D shows or podcasts. I'm leery of idiosyncratic rules interpretations getting widespread traction, and I'm doubly nervous about appeals to authority based on some people who make money from streaming D and D as spectator entertainment.

Saying that they are not playing "Real D&D/Actual D&D" because they make money from it or because it's filmed makes no sense to me. What do you consider "Real D&D" at that point? They took a group of D&D players who had already had a home campaign in progress, and offered to set them up so they could stream it live. Yes, they get paid to do so, but most if not all of the party members are in the SAG, and as such they would have to get paid to appear on the show in the first place. That being said however, they are not putting on scripted plays for the audiences enjoyment, they are playing D&D because the enjoy playing D&D.

I can understand if you believe that there are moments in which they are specifically doing/not doing things because they want to cater to their audience, but after having watched them over a long period of time, it becomes fairly evident that that really don't care about what the audience thinks of their actions. They don't have chat on screen while they play, and they consistently choose to do things that usually ends up angering the viewers more than placating them.



I personally find his games boring to watch. Id also find it boring to play in. A lot of my players say the same.

In many of the episodes I've watched, even his own players appeared to visibly bored. But obviously they enjoy it enough to keep doing it, so maybe I'm just projecting.

I can't say that I've never seen any of the cast members appear to be bored, but certainly not as often or as much as you would imply. There are plenty of moments where one or two members go off on their own and the rest of the party is just as interested to hear what is happening.

Admittedly there are a moments when half the party has to wait for the other half to finish what they are doing, but that's something every large group has to deal with at some point or another. I know it can be a PITA to get 7 people to show up and play on the same day, let alone keeping all of their attentions on the game 100% of the time.


All aboard the Railroad!

And to all the comments regarding how "Railroaded" the show is.. I have to assume you have all watched a very small and specific portion of one episode, or have a entirely different definition of what a DM railroading a campaign is.

Just because a DM preps ahead of time does not mean all of his content is railroaded into the story. There are plenty of examples of the party decided to do something unexpected and random that completely diverts the game/story down a different path, skipping maps the DM pre-made or forcing him to alter the story.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I love that you quoted my post then responded to a strawman that bears no resemblance at all to what I wrote.

[KorvinStarmast]

Critical Role is 100%, Spot On, Fully Formed D&D!
I have a family member who is a career cop. 20+ years. He refuses to watch TV cop shows, and almost never watches cop movies.

I feel similarly about D&D and critical role: it is a TV show about people playing D&D, and is related to "reality" shows like Survivor or Naked and Afraid, among others. It is meant to be entertaining, and it employs actors to entertain. I am glad it succeeds, if it puts a positive light on one of my favorite hobbies. I watched about 20 minutes of an episode last year and that was about all that I could stomach.

In defense of Mercer:

I love the way he makes the world interact with his players, how their backstories are always made relevant in some way, and how unique and interesting just about every NPC he comes up with is. That's certainly a fair point, and I also like that for him, the rules serve the table and the DM in pursuit of the game's primary purpose: fun.

[quark12000]

I actually prefer Acquisitions Inc. in part because I think the cast are hilarious, and the DM is usually a member of the D&D team.

I've watched that a few times and I like it except for the main character fellow (don't know his name, the cleric CEO guy). I find him very annoying.

[white lancer]

As a member of the "not real D&D" faction, I want to clarify a bit. I don't base that on Mercer's DMing style (or the styles of the Rollplay, Missclicks et all crowds), or the way the game is run, or because it emphasizes roleplaying and I'm a wargamer, or because it has some rules fuzziness or anything. It's because it's broadcast entertainment. The process of playing the game is inevitably altered by the process of creating content, which isn't unique to D and D.

True. There's no denying that some aspects of the game will be changed once you start to stream it. But the players are still very invested in the game, plenty of die rolls happen which alter the course of events, there's a lot of combat and decision-making that happens. It's a game of D&D that happens to a) be played by professional actors and b) be streamed.


TBH, I'm not really sure what egregious combat misplays everyone's even talking about. From what I've seen it's mostly pretty normal "I forgot x modifier" mistakes or positioning errors. Most of the truly awful decisions are plot related or at least out of combat. Deals with demons, cliff diving, picking a fight at the wrong time because character is emotional, making a decision on behalf of a party member without their permission...

There are a few prominent examples--the aforementioned "Wind Walk" being perhaps the most infamous. But for the most part, their errors are probably more common than forumers here would think: putting too much emphasis on in-combat healing, not focus-firing all the time, missing modifiers, etc. I suspect that most of those things happen at a majority of gaming tables, at least those not occupied by people who go on forums to discuss D&D. And it's worth noting that the crew gets better at tactics as they go along.

[Ganymede]

I think Critical Role is a lot of fun.

You can point it out to a newbie and say "This is what a D&D game might look like." Not every game of D&D looks like Critical Role, and it certainly doesn't have to, but it is a great way to see D&D in action. You get to see players and the DM learn, execute, relearn, and sometimes stumble though rules. You see characters and NPCs with developed personalities and motivations. You see game actions that result in consequences. You see the DM issue rulings in sticky situations and explain his reasoning. And you see everyone with a buy-in to the story, their characters, and the NPCs.


All in all, Critical Role is a good exemplar of a fairly complete D&D game, and players can draw as much or as little from it as they desire.

[emduck]

I've seen eight or nine episodes of C1, I think. (I've watched a bit of a few other D&D shows--most of AI, about 10 episodes of DCA, and a few episodes of Adventure Zone. For reference, I think AI from when Rothfuss joined up through about 2 or 3 PAX ago was my favorite D&D show. I wasn't a huge fan of the last couple ToA episodes.)

I found CR fairly entertaining but not terribly compelling, for reasons I can't completely put my finger on. I actually do like all the characters, but for some reason I just don't love the show. It's also weird that half the players don't know what their characters are capable of or what their spells do--I have a couple completely new players with a much better grasp of the rules.

I am, however, eternally grateful to it and other shows for whatever role (ha) they may have had in making D&D as popular as it is lately. I've been playing on and off since the 90's, and in the last couple years have been able to find non pbp games to play in for the first time in a very long time, so I'm pretty stoked about that.

[WOTC_GM]

I love that you quoted my post then responded to a strawman that bears no resemblance at all to what I wrote.

Admittedly I was reading through the many posts and saw multiple mentions of the term "Not real D&D" and thought it was being attributed to you, as the various arguments had extended mainly from your first post, which is why I had quoted your original post in regards to the "Not D&D" argument. My bad.

However, i'm not sure how you can claim it bears no resemblance to what you wrote, when you wrote in your following posts..


But they are not playing D and D, either; they are creating a television show about playing D and D. There's a difference.


Performers also have different incentives. If the optimal decision is boring but there's the opportunity for some hilarious japery, they might opt for the japery; their main objective is entertaining the audience, after all.

Which is why I brought up the fact that despite the fact that they are playing D&D live and getting paid to do so, this does not change the fact that they are still just playing D&D, and are doing so in a way that reflects how they would be playing regardless of the cameras/audience.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Which is why I brought up the fact that despite the fact that they are playing D&D live and getting paid to do so, this does not change the fact that they are still just playing D&D, and are doing so in a way that reflects how they would be playing regardless of the cameras/audience.

If what they were doing wasn't changed by the paycheck and the audience, it would be the first time in the decade that streamed game entertainment has been a thing.

[Avonar]

I don't agree with those saying that Critical Role is a good example of a D&D game. It really isn't. A normal D&D game doesn't have budget to be spent on fancy maps, set design etc. It's a show involving a game of D&D but I doubt you would ever see that game in a more natural D&D game, one for fun rather than as a show.

I have listened to some Podcasts that come off as being a lot more natural. I really enjoy Six Feats Under and it genuinely feels like a group of friends playing a tabletop game (13th Age instead of D&D but same concept). Critical Role feels very much manufactured I think. Not a bad thing, it's entertaining, but it's a show first and a D&D game second. So as good as it is for getting new people into tabletop gaming, if they come in expecting games to look like Critical Role they could be disappointed.

[Gwalchavad]

I don't agree with those saying that Critical Role is a good example of a D&D game. It really isn't. A normal D&D game doesn't have budget to be spent on fancy maps, set design etc. It's a show involving a game of D&D but I doubt you would ever see that game in a more natural D&D game, one for fun rather than as a show.

I have listened to some Podcasts that come off as being a lot more natural. I really enjoy Six Feats Under and it genuinely feels like a group of friends playing a tabletop game (13th Age instead of D&D but same concept). Critical Role feels very much manufactured I think. Not a bad thing, it's entertaining, but it's a show first and a D&D game second. So as good as it is for getting new people into tabletop gaming, if they come in expecting games to look like Critical Role they could be disappointed.

A normal D&D game for Joe Middle-classes around a kitchen table, sure, it's not that. For people who have disposable income/time and a room to dedicate specifically to gaming, well, the fancy maps and "set design" are par for the course - DwarvenForge and Wyrmwood gaming are making money from *somewhere*. I'm not going to get mad at Mercer and crew because they have money/sponsorship to get all the toys I wish I could have. Go back to the first few episodes, and they were sitting around a couple of folding tables in what looks to be a comic shop, playing the same game they were at home.

I *am* going to get mad at Mercer because every week since the new campaign started he either uses an idea I used at my home game the previous Monday or uses an idea that I was going to use the following Monday. I want to know how he keeps getting a hold of my gaming notebook.

[Akolyte01]

Maybe it's just the difference in the way we're reading what he said, but I took it as more tongue and cheek. Considering, his response is to those saying that "CR isn't real D&D".

Yeah you got it it. I was provoking people who seem to think "real D&D" means "the way I play D&D". Describing the actions of your characters without actually getting in character seems like a waste of the medium personally, but plenty of people prefer to play that way.

[Akolyte01]

If they make very bad decisions consistently, which is an accusation I've seen leveled against the, both because of a lack of rules knowledge and generally, then the roleplaying force is not particularly strong with them. Roleplaying is about making decisions for your character, not just funny voices and talky-time. As fun and game-enhancing as that stuff can often be.

And this is the exact kind of ridiculous sentiment I was making fun of.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

Watching other people RP online isn't really my thing, but I took a look at CR because of all the noise about it.

It is not THE way to play D&D, but is certainly a perfectly valid way to play D&D.

There is a lot that players and GMs can learn from CR, especially about collaboration. Notice how the players and GM so often yield to others, even handing off the spotlight? This does not happen nearly so well in most other games. It's especially worth noticing how Mercer often just shuts up to make room for the players.

The story might be on rails, but the train makes many stops to let the players stretch and strut their stuff. For a bunch of voice actors, maybe that's just the thing. It's not about the story, since all stories are railroads, even when you're not handed a script.

Not RAW? Yeah. But D&D has been houseruled for better and worse since the beginning.

I'm not a fan of Mercer's classes, but that sort of thing is also tradition. Tradition! If you want a new class or subclass in your game, why not?

So, I think CR is a certain kind of good. It's not the place to go to learn about optimization, game design, D&D rules, but I think it's worth a look for some oft-overlooked aspects of play.

Anyway,

Ken

[strangebloke]

I don't agree with those saying that Critical Role is a good example of a D&D game. It really isn't. A normal D&D game doesn't have budget to be spent on fancy maps, set design etc. It's a show involving a game of D&D but I doubt you would ever see that game in a more natural D&D game, one for fun rather than as a show.

I have listened to some Podcasts that come off as being a lot more natural. I really enjoy Six Feats Under and it genuinely feels like a group of friends playing a tabletop game (13th Age instead of D&D but same concept). Critical Role feels very much manufactured I think. Not a bad thing, it's entertaining, but it's a show first and a D&D game second. So as good as it is for getting new people into tabletop gaming, if they come in expecting games to look like Critical Role they could be disappointed.
It is a show, sure, in the sense that you're watching it and as such it isn't for everyone. There are artificial time constraints, sure, and super nice dungeon maps... but I mean, there definitely are people who play with that level of bling, even if they're a minority. Really though all of the 'production value' really lies in the fact that the players are pretty good at improv. For them, it's probably not that different from the home game they had before.

Now, they have obviously changed their games for the stream. They've gone from 8 hours once a month to 4 hours every week. They dumped one player for undisclosed reasons. (best decision they ever made, IMO.) They switched to 5e from Pathfinder. They have more narrative-driven plots than they once did.

But videos of the home game that exist show that they're playing in a manner pretty similar to what they used to do. Matt Mercer can't pace around the room snarling anymore, and there's a little less alcohol involved, but otherwise... looks pretty similar. Laughing, funny voices, the whole nine yards.

Yeah you got it it. I was provoking people who seem to think "real D&D" means "the way I play D&D". Describing the actions of your characters without actually getting in character seems like a waste of the medium personally, but plenty of people prefer to play that way.
I mean, I agree, but DND really supports a smash-and-grab dungeon crawl, and sometimes the simple joy of playing on a physical table with IRL friends is enough to make it better than Diablo or the like.

Also, WRT to your other comment... Be nice. We don't know what kinds of mistakes Tanarii has heard about. He is absolutely right to say that players who do stupid stuff all the time in game because: "It's funny and in character!" can be very annoying.

"I don't cast fly on Johnny because I hold grudges and he was snoring last night!"
"Well, I just kill the guard." "What? Why?? That gains you nothing!" "IDK, I have a wisdom of -2, and I'm chaotic! I hate the government!"

It's very disrupting to most tables.


I shout at Travis, that Hex gives Disadvantage to one type of ability checks, but he never seems to listen :smallsmile:

At least he remembers to cast it.
Ha! To be fair, I'm not really sure when that would have been relevant in the game so far.

If either of you is game to give it another go, I'd say the start of Campaign 2 is a much better entry point than the first episodes. For one they are no longer struggling with converting their characters and magic items from Pathfinder.

Also, they are actually playing at the levels most of us play at.
I will second this. The first campaign production value at the start is pretty bad and one of the players is playing as a total spotlight hog. I got in at campaign 2 and then tried to go back... couldn't do it.

[Akolyte01]

Also, WRT to your other comment... Be nice. We don't know what kinds of mistakes Tanarii has heard about. He is absolutely right to say that players who do stupid stuff all the time in game because: "It's funny and in character!" can be very annoying.

"I don't cast fly on Johnny because I hold grudges and he was snoring last night!"
"Well, I just kill the guard." "What? Why?? That gains you nothing!" "IDK, I have a wisdom of -2, and I'm chaotic! I hate the government!"

It's very disrupting to most tables.



Valid, and definitely I would agree that those examples are a breakdown of roleplaying. But given that the critical role players definitely don't do stuff like this (with the possible exception of the one booted player) I interpreted Tanarii's critique to be of poor mechanical decision making, since the players do that frequently. So if I assumed incorrectly, I apologize!

[strangebloke]

Valid, and definitely I would agree that those examples are a breakdown of roleplaying. But given that the critical role players definitely don't do stuff like this (with the possible exception of the one booted player) I interpreted Tanarii's critique to be of poor mechanical decision making, since the players do that frequently. So if I assumed incorrectly, I apologize!

People are way too hard on them WRT mechancial/tactical choices. Sometimes, it's clear that they don't actually care about the optimal path at all, like Vex trying to make sure that her Bear never gets hurt even though that's the point of the beastmaster class. Other times, they just don't understand how to play efficiently, like Vex/Jester spamming cure wounds. Other times, they make dumb choices because it's in character and has a more interesting outcome, like Percy doing something really crappy or Grog doing something really foolish.

[Astofel]

I could argue that Critical Role actually is the pinnacle of D&D, in the sense that it's a game with a very skilled DM who knows his players very well and can craft a game perfectly suited to both them and him so everyone stays engaged and has a great time. Because really, isn't that what we're all trying to achieve in our games?

Of course, by calling it the pinnacle I don't mean for a second that everyone should aspire to play exactly like them. That would be dumb, people have different tastes. It's also far from perfect, and it's not the only pinnacle, but as far as how smoothly the game usually runs it's something we should strive for.

[Tanarii]

Check out...I don't know I think it's c2e5? The first one with the gnolls, towards the end. The rogue scouts ahead whilst inebriated and everyone is laughing their butts off.
I tried, I really did. I watched about an hour out of the four, from different parts of the episode. OH MAH GAD they're so boring! Especially Mercer.

So yeah, I'm probably projecting. The players look bored to to tears to me, but that's almost certainly because I am. 😂

[strangebloke]

I tried, I really did. I watched about an hour out of the four, from different parts of the episode. OH MAH GAD they're so boring! Especially Mercer.

So yeah, I'm probably projecting. The players look bored to to tears to me, but that's almost certainly because I am. 😂

Fair enough.

I mean, you'd be bored to death watching my home game as well, I'm sure. The medium isn't for everyone. I turn it on while I'm drawing, and sort of half-listen to it and half-not. It's quite fun.

[Tanarii]

Fair enough.

I mean, you'd be bored to death watching my home game as well, I'm sure. The medium isn't for everyone. I turn it on while I'm drawing, and sort of half-listen to it and half-not. It's quite fun.
I can see that. I draw a bit as well, and while it's fairly engrossing it's nice to look up once in a while.

But I can't imagine anyone wanting to play like that. And I stopped drinking coffee recently too, so I'm exactly not the caffeine-fueled ADD maniac I was a few weeks ago. I think.

Most of my players still are though. They drink so many Monsters I'm surprised their heart doesn't stop. (Mostly college age kids.)

[KillingTime]

I'm a teacher in the real world, and one of the things we're trained to spot (and get used to spotting), is whether an audience is quiet/passive because they're engaged or because they're bored.
To my eyes, the CR players are almost always highly engaged.
Basically they always respond instantly to appropriate stimuli.

But watching other people playing D&D simply isn't for everyone, so I'm sure many people are projecting their own boredom onto the players.

[Rogerdodger557]

To everyone who's saying that CR is a show, and not D&D, y'all do know they started the first campaign 2 years before they started streaming, right?

To everyone who complains about them not knowing the rules of their characters, that game started in 4th edition(it's why they use the Dawn War pantheon), switched to Pathfinder(which is why Sarenrae got ported in), before again switching the 5th edition for the stream.

[Nettlekid]

To everyone who's saying that CR is a show, and not D&D, y'all do know they started the first campaign 2 years before they started streaming, right?

To everyone who complains about them not knowing the rules of their characters, that game started in 4th edition(it's why they use the Dawn War pantheon), switched to Pathfinder(which is why Sarenrae got ported in), before again switching the 5th edition for the stream.

This is why this second campaign is so interesting to me. The first one they were just playing their characters and kind of goofing around and they made a great story out of it, because it was a game first and a show second. This new campaign is a show and game at the same time, and I think everyone's putting maybe too much effort into having TV-show-esque mystery and twistery into their backstories, teasing them out in a way that keeps the viewers hooked, for the sake of the narrative and for audience interest. I appreciate the effort, but it makes it feel less like a genuine game where I don't think that would happen.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This is why this second campaign is so interesting to me. The first one they were just playing their characters and kind of goofing around and they made a great story out of it, because it was a game first and a show second. This new campaign is a show and game at the same time, and I think everyone's putting maybe too much effort into having TV-show-esque mystery and twistery into their backstories, teasing them out in a way that keeps the viewers hooked, for the sake of the narrative and for audience interest. I appreciate the effort, but it makes it feel less like a genuine game where I don't think that would happen.

This right here is the first truly awful experience in Critical Role for me. It makes sense for them to hold out this information for a while since this campaign could possibly be even longer in length than the first one, since the stream started years into their actual game.

The issue is that I really just want to know about these characters and the constant evasions of giving away ANY actual information is driving me up the wall. The early game narrative has been relatively slow (which isn't necessarily a problem) and many of the players are intent on not teasing anything about their characters.

Makes me appreciate Sam even more for spilling extra information during Nott's interrogation even though being charmed wouldn't have forced it on her.

[Nettlekid]

This right here is the first truly awful experience in Critical Role for me. It makes sense for them to hold out this information for a while since this campaign could possibly be even longer in length than the first one, since the stream started years into their actual game.

The issue is that I really just want to know about these characters and the constant evasions of giving away ANY actual information is driving me up the wall. The early game narrative has been relatively slow (which isn't necessarily a problem) and many of the players are intent on not teasing anything about their characters.

Makes me appreciate Sam even more for spilling extra information during Nott's interrogation even though being charmed wouldn't have forced it on her.

The thing I liked most about the first campaign was seeing the characters grow, and that's only interesting if you know where they're starting from. It's true that in the first game they'd had plenty of time to iron out how characters felt about each other before the stream started, but to the viewers we got summaries of the characters' personalities and backstories broadcasted to us before each of the first ten or so episodes, so there was no mystery. And I was okay with that. It's fun for characters to have secrets, but I'd like SOMETHING to know that they're not just faceless figures in the world. Like (as a generic example that's not actually about any current member) if someone was once a soldier in an army and their negligence of duty or possible betrayal killed their platoon we wouldn't need to know that, but I'd like to hear "Yes, I was inspired by this figure from my childhood to be a soldier so I served in the military, did a 10 year tour in such-and-such, but eventually put that behind me" so we at least know what they're about, even if that turns out to be skewed later on.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

To everyone who's saying that CR is a show, and not D&D, y'all do know they started the first campaign 2 years before they started streaming, right?


Streaming changes how people do things, even when those people are just broadcasting the practice matches they've been doing since 2004 to an audience of a few dozen people.

[DaveOfTheDead]

I enjoy it, I just don't have all the time in the world to do so. I watched/listened to well over half of season one and it got to the point I skipped a good chunk of those episodes to only go to the important ones. I'm on episode 8 of season two.

I enjoy it because I've been playing D&D for a year now and it gives me insight into how to DM. The main thing I lack is describing environments with detail. I do enjoy describing combat and get very into it. I also get hints on how to bring character backstory into the campaign with side quests, which I started to do in my homebrew before it fell apart. I'll also bring examples of it to my players to give them insight into how to act in character.

I understand it's not for everyone, and it seems to me that the people who don't like are RAW elitists. You know, the same people who hate on The Adventure Zone.

[Pelle]

I understand it's not for everyone, and it seems to me that the people who don't like are RAW elitists. You know, the same people who hate on The Adventure Zone.

Not at all. It seems to me that the people who don't like it just don't care about watching other people play D&D. Just like I enjoy playing soccer, it's not as fun to watch other play as playing myself. I mean, I enjoy hanging out with my friends and goofing around, but it's not fun to watch people I don't know doing the same.

I tried watching the first episode of the latest season, just for the reference. Too slow and boring, couldn't continue to watch. Not really entertainment IMO, but might give it a second chance though.

For a more interesting question; does anyone here like watching D&D streams, but not CR in particular?

[EvilAnagram]

For a more interesting question; does anyone here like watching D&D streams, but not CR in particular?

Now that is a good question. I enjoy the hell out of Critical Role, but I recognize that there are highs and lows to any game, and some people aren't willing to deal with that when they aren't playing. If you like the format, however, and don't like this show, I would be interested in seeing your point of view.

[KorvinStarmast]

Watching critical role is, for me, like watching porn: it is self abuse. I'd rather be playing D&D around a table with some friends than watching other people do it.

As to the porn analogy: when it was pointed out to me on a ship at sea that we were torturing ourselves by watching a porn movie on VHS -- you guys are watching someone else doing what you'd rather be doing, but you can't do it now -- I began to slowly lose interest in porn. It was one of those "aha!" moments.
I'd never quite perceived that, but when it was pointed out to me it made infinite sense. And I couldn't forget that point.

[Fayd]

I want to like CR way more than I actually do, but I just can’t make it through the 3 hour episodes. The Adventure Zone is more my speed.

That they’re loose with the rules doesn’t bug me at all. Rules serve the story, not the other way around.

[Zippee]

I feel similarly about D&D and critical role: it is a TV show about people playing D&D, and is related to "reality" shows like Survivor or Naked and Afraid, among others.

It really isn't this at all, it's a bunch of friends playing DnD in front of a camera live - that isn't the same thing as being a TV show about playing D&D.

Playing in front of an audience / knowing there is an audience does change somethings - to about the same extent as playing Roll20 remotely: it requires you be a bit more vocal with description and actually say stuff that around a table may just get left as a shrug or a point made by showing or pointing. But that does not make it a 'reality' show.

That aside,
I find it reasonable entertainment whilst painting, Mercer's style is a bit overblown for me and his poor grasp of vocal description makes me grind my teeth but overall it's entertaining and it does demonstrate how well story can be generated from character. I really don't get why people think it's a railroad, mostly the plot is crafted in front of the players for and about their characters, I see no tracks just good DM craft there.

As to accusations of poor decision making, this isn't helped by it not being RAW, especially as much of the homebrew is very close to emulating novice mistakes and errors - changes to the Action Economy, insistence on using Hold My Turn instead of Ready Action, changes to how many spells can be cast, erratic (or changed) application of concentration. And by far the worst the constant inclusion of attacks outside of Initiative and assumption that there is some kind of Surprise Round in existence, aaargh!

I can buy into the argument that suboptimal tactics are deliberate and due to RP but I'd find it a whole lot more plausible as an argument if after literally hundreds of hours of gameplay Liam wasn't still asking what the differences between Sneak Attack and Assassination were, or if any of them could remember what got doubled when rolling a crit (I mean this really winds me up, its so common but 40-50 episodes in and they still have to ask!), or if Mat didn't have to calculate their Spell DC or Attack Modifier for them from scratch and memory faster than they can locate it on their character sheet. That sort of behaviour has me tearing my hair out, novices and newbies is one thing but nobody after 400+ hours of tabletime should be asking what gets doubled when rolling a Crit (Actually by RAW the answer is nothing - roll the dice twice, but Mercer insists that doubling the dice is faster . . .the evidence in front of our eyes is that clearly it isn't, it just causes confusion!)

Above all else the fact that this plus other live streams and the assorted Roll20 and FG broadcasts streams means that huge swathes of people can get to the stage of seeing how an RPG works in principle and get to see 'ordinary' people having fun playing one means far more people are likely to give it a go - it removes the baseline hurdle of ignorance. This alone is utterly invaluable for our hobby.

[zinycor]

For a more interesting question; does anyone here like watching D&D streams, but not CR in particular?


I Watch rollplay and not watch CR, I find CR episodes too long, also I don't like how there are 6 to 8 players at any given moment.
Rollplay is very fun, Adam koebel is a fantastic GM, and most of the players are very fun to watch. I would recommend balance of power (dark side) to everyone interested on watching role-playing.

..............

1 thing that I often watch role-playing shows for is to understand how certain games work in practice. For example: I didn't really get how the system on Star wars: edge of the empire worked, but watching the actual show, cleared away most of my questions about it.

[NecroDancer]

I really enjoyed Critical Role but I stopped watching around the very end.

The episodes are just so long. I can't watch for 4 hours at a time no matter how entertaining. Heck the big finale was a total of 6 hours! How do you watch a 6 hour episode!

I've started watched the C-Team and so far and I'm enjoying it, the fact each episode is only 2-2.5 hours long is a big draw.

[jaappleton]

CR taught me how to role play a lot more, as opposed to roll play. Not that either is inherently 'correct', but I find its best not to go too much into either side, and find what works for your table.

I was into CR for quite awhile before the episode length just got too much.

I think its certainly good for the hobby, that's for sure.

These days, I find myself much preferring the 2 hour episode length of Dice, Camera, Action with Chris Perkins. Its a bit more... to the point, for my liking. But I also have 4 kids and have about as much free time as there are snowflakes in hell :smallbiggrin:

[GlenSmash!]

How do you watch a 6 hour episode!

I don't. I listen to it. Usually while doing something else that is mindless. Sometimes over more than one day. My doctor wants me to exercise 3 hours a week, which is a pretty typical episode of CR.

Also the Podcast cuts out the time spent when they take a break, so it's shorter than watching it.

[EvilAnagram]

How do you watch a 6 hour episode!

There is always one housekeeping day at work when I can listen to something while I perform tasks that take minimal brainpower.

Also, thanks to it being a podcast, it's perfect for travelling.

[NecroDancer]

The podcast is nice but then I'd miss the player's facial expressions and more importantly, the cool maps.

If I've learned anything from CR it's that cool maps are cool.

[sightlessrealit]

*That nervous feeling when you have time for 9 weekly campaigns, work, and watching CR without issues*

[GlenSmash!]

*That nervous feeling when you have time for 9 weekly campaigns, work, and watching CR without issues*

LOL.

I do remember those times. Cherish them.

[mephnick]

*That nervous feeling when you have time for 9 weekly campaigns, work, and watching CR without issues*

As someone with kids this seems impossible to me.

[jaappleton]

As someone with kids this seems impossible to me.

This person must teach us their sorcery! WE'VE FOUND A CHRONOMANCER!

[EvilAnagram]

As someone with kids this seems impossible to me.

Youth is a hell of a drug.

[Gwalchavad]

As to accusations of poor decision making, this isn't helped by it not being RAW, especially as much of the homebrew is very close to emulating novice mistakes and errors - changes to the Action Economy, insistence on using Hold My Turn instead of Ready Action, changes to how many spells can be cast, erratic (or changed) application of concentration. And by far the worst the constant inclusion of attacks outside of Initiative and assumption that there is some kind of Surprise Round in existence, aaargh!

I can buy into the argument that suboptimal tactics are deliberate and due to RP but I'd find it a whole lot more plausible as an argument if after literally hundreds of hours of gameplay Liam wasn't still asking what the differences between Sneak Attack and Assassination were, or if any of them could remember what got doubled when rolling a crit (I mean this really winds me up, its so common but 40-50 episodes in and they still have to ask!), or if Mat didn't have to calculate their Spell DC or Attack Modifier for them from scratch and memory faster than they can locate it on their character sheet. That sort of behaviour has me tearing my hair out, novices and newbies is one thing but nobody after 400+ hours of tabletime should be asking what gets doubled when rolling a Crit (Actually by RAW the answer is nothing - roll the dice twice, but Mercer insists that doubling the dice is faster . . .the evidence in front of our eyes is that clearly it isn't, it just causes confusion!).

Well, in the beginning a lot of those things were due to their having recently adopted 5e - as the show progressed, Matt became more of a stickler about Ready Action - the players might say "Hold" but after a few attempts to explain the difference, it just became easier to let them say whatever they wanted and just use the Ready mechanic. When adopting a new system, it's really easy to have ideas in your head from older editions (I still have players asking to make a reflex saving throw) - most of us don't have our games broadcast for all to see the mistakes we make.

And really, who doesn't forget Concentration now and then? I can mark a C next to a player on the initiative board, I can place a reminder on their mini, I could have Concentration Check tattooed on the back of my hand, and nothing has me always remember when they take damage or try to cast another Concentration spell.

Also in the beginning, Matt used a critical mechanic from an older edition (I can't recall if it was full damage plus damage dice or roll damage multiply result by 2 - and I'm not about to go back to those earlier episodes just to listen for clarification). Around 40-50 episodes in is when he started using more RAW crit rules (and incidentally, RAW also allows the option for rolling all the damage dice instead of rolling the dice twice - doubling the dice - because it might speed up the game).

As for people not being able to keep track so far in - they're all professionals with jobs who just so happen to get paid to stream their weekly game. It isn't that hard to forget the details of your character when you only play weekly - especially if like some of my players you have maybe given only a casual glance at the PHB. Add to that the fact that a good portion of the CR crew's brain space is taken up by memorizing scripts, and yeah, it's not so unbelievable or onerous. I still have to remind some of my players or give the correct interpretation on specifics of their abilities and we're about as far in as CR was in the 40-50 episode mark.

[Tanarii]

As someone with kids this seems impossible to me.kids make a big difference. Every time I take friends' kids of their hands to give them a break I'm exhausted after 3-4 hours and happy to give them back. Running a session for 5+ hyped up college kids, or spending half a day rock climbing, feels like a cakewalk in comparison.

[Akolyte01]

One thing I really appreciate about the Critical Role cast not being very "rules oriented" is that they use magic and abilities as more than just a set of system-rules and instead as abilities that their characters have. Like grasping vine and thorn whip means the character has the ability to magically control vines, so why shouldn't they be able to use them to, say, swing from a pillar, or help catch a fall etc. Sure it's not RAW at all, but they are using RAW to inform what their characters can do, not limit it.


I can see that. I draw a bit as well, and while it's fairly engrossing it's nice to look up once in a while.

But I can't imagine anyone wanting to play like that. And I stopped drinking coffee recently too, so I'm exactly not the caffeine-fueled ADD maniac I was a few weeks ago. I think.

Most of my players still are though. They drink so many Monsters I'm surprised their heart doesn't stop. (Mostly college age kids.)

Seems like a failure of imagination on your part then :tongue:
Like plenty of people prefer not to do the whole accents n' amateur acting thing because they find it awkward, but I simply don't believe that if you're interacting with any moderately sized circle of role players you're not runing into people who enjoy playing a role. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing)

[Tanarii]

Seems like a failure of imagination on your part then :tongue:
Like plenty of people prefer not to do the whole accents n' amateur acting thing because they find it awkward, but I simply don't believe that if you're interacting with any moderately sized circle of role players you're not runing into people who enjoy playing a role. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing)
Nah. On further reflection, I've realized what the real problem is. Matt Mercer just sucks at pacing. My inability to sit still for 5 seconds isn't the problem when the DM takes 30 seconds to describe how a single hit goes down. Combat is supposed to be exciting, not constant paragraphs of flowery pose detailing each attack in bullet time.

And he extends that to everything. Detailed descriptions and slower pace scenes have their place, but he runs his game like he's a voice actor running a game for a bunch of voice actors showing off what they can do and getting paid for it.

________

Speaking of which, it's also worth noting that claims that they're "a bunch of friends who are just streaming their games" are BS. They're paid and heavily sponsored for what they do, as well as enhancing their careers outside of this stream.

[GlenSmash!]

Nah. On further reflection, I've realized what the real problem is. Matt Mercer just sucks at pacing. My inability to sit still for 5 seconds isn't the problem when the DM takes 30 seconds to describe how a single hit goes down. Combat is supposed to be exciting, not constant paragraphs of flowery pose detailing each attack in bullet time.

And he extends that to everything. Detailed descriptions and slower pace scenes have their place, but he runs his game like he's a voice actor running a game for a bunch of voice actors showing off what they can do and getting paid for it.

________

Speaking of which, it's also worth noting that claims that they're "a bunch of friends who are just streaming their games" are BS. They're paid and heavily sponsored for what they do, as well as enhancing their careers outside of this stream.

I think this is all pretty true. There are some people tuning in to the show to hear voice actors talk. And would probably be dissatisfied if they didn't get it.

And while it started out as their plain old Pathfinder game, as soon as it was on screen the nature of the game changed without a doubt.

Still, they seem to be having fun (but that may just be acting) and fun is my goal at my table, so even if our games are quite different in some ways they are not that far off.

[EvilAnagram]

Nah. On further reflection, I've realized what the real problem is. Matt Mercer just sucks at pacing. My inability to sit still for 5 seconds isn't the problem when the DM takes 30 seconds to describe how a single hit goes down. Combat is supposed to be exciting, not constant paragraphs of flowery pose detailing each attack in bullet time.
Counterpoint: Saying, "You hit him and deal 5 points of damage. He dies." is less interesting for both an audience and many gamers than saying, "After landing recorder staff blow you whirl around with your elbow in crushes skull. He falls limp." In fact, I'm going to go ahead and say your argument is veering quite close to a badwrongfun argument. "He is descriptive, therefore he is a bad DM and this is boring."

Furthermore, I would submit that the enormous amount of fan art that gets made within a week of any battle demonstrates how effective the technique is at gripping the imagination.


Speaking of which, it's also worth noting that claims that they're "a bunch of friends who are just streaming their games" are BS. They're paid and heavily sponsored for what they do, as well as enhancing their careers outside of this stream.
Having fun with your friends and making money are not mutually exclusive activities. This show arose out of their home game, with prompting from Geek & Sundry. They did not begin their first campaign intending to turn it into a show, and most of the cast has expressed great surprise at the fact that their home game became a financial success. Streaming their games has definitely changed the campaign, but that does not mean that they are not just friends playing a game.

Edit: Again, watching a participatory activity is not for everyone, and I get not enjoying it, but you're reaching pretty far here. Descriptive language and success aren't evidence of a lack of quality.

[Akolyte01]

Nah. On further reflection, I've realized what the real problem is. Matt Mercer just sucks at pacing. My inability to sit still for 5 seconds isn't the problem when the DM takes 30 seconds to describe how a single hit goes down. Combat is supposed to be exciting, not constant paragraphs of flowery pose detailing each attack in bullet time.

And he extends that to everything. Detailed descriptions and slower pace scenes have their place, but he runs his game like he's a voice actor running a game for a bunch of voice actors showing off what they can do and getting paid for it.

________

Speaking of which, it's also worth noting that claims that they're "a bunch of friends who are just streaming their games" are BS. They're paid and heavily sponsored for what they do, as well as enhancing their careers outside of this stream.

You have a point in that between Mercer's very descriptive style and the number of players the combat does tend to drag on for a very long time. Which also leads to a problem where instead of stringing out smaller encounters, there's just one big one per long rest usually so players never have to be economical with their abilities or anything.

But saying Mercer's pacing "sucks" is just.... completely unfair. It's not paced for you, but a large number of people, myself included, like having a canonical image of what is happening during a battle, rather than just a a generic swirl of numbers being exchanged.


EDIT: Very well said EvilAnagram

[Tanarii]

Counterpoint: Saying, "You hit him and deal 5 points of damage. He dies." is less interesting for both an audience and many gamers than saying, "After landing recorder staff blow you whirl around with your elbow in crushes skull. He falls limp." In fact, I'm going to go ahead and say your argument is veering quite close to a badwrongfun argument. "He is descriptive, therefore he is a bad DM and this is boring."


But saying Mercer's pacing "sucks" is just.... completely unfair. It's not paced for you, but a large number of people, myself included, like having a canonical image of what is happening during a battle, rather than just a a generic swirl of numbers being exchanged.Yeah, it's an opinion. But it's one that my experience long ago taught me: the vast majority of players will get bored by overly descriptive and/or slow combat, and poor pacing skills in general.

But he's not running a game for the vast majority of players. He's running one for his players, and for entertainment of people watching the show.

[GlenSmash!]

Counterpoint: Saying, "You hit him and deal 5 points of damage. He dies."

This is pretty much how it goes on Harmonquest, though it also gets funny little animations.

[Akolyte01]

Also, on the topic of combat descriptions. Part of what makes Mercer such a great DM is that he tailors his descriptions of combat to match each players idea of their character, knowing what they want to make them feel like total badasses. You can see how he'll ramp up the gory detail when describing a big hit from Grog, as Travis grins like a lunatic and Laura pinches her face in disgust. Or he'll play up the slapstick humor when Scanlan pulls something off.

The man is a genius DM because of how well he caters to the desires of his players without simple appeasement, and wraps everything into a cohesive whole.

[Akolyte01]

Yeah, it's an opinion. But it's one that my experience long ago taught me: the vast majority of players will get bored by overly descriptive and/or slow combat, and poor pacing skills in general.

But he's not running a game for the vast majority of players. He's running one for his players, and for entertainment of people watching the show.


Have you considered that maybe you just aren't as good at description as Mercer? :confused:

Regardless of what your players want, you're also going to have more success when you play off your own strengths.

[EvilAnagram]

Is pretty much how it goes on Harmonquest, though it also gets funny little animations.

Harmonquest is not Dungeons & Dragons. At least, it's not an actual play. It's fun, but no one other than the GM rolls dice, it is heavily edited, the guest stars know the outline of the plot beforehand (at least well enough to know when to jump in and out), and there aren't consistent rules or abilities. Is good TV, largely thanks to the animations, but it isn't an actual game. Critical Role, lacking visuals aside from maps and minis, is a lot more akin to radio.

Edit: I'm not dumping on HQ, by the way. I enjoy it quite a bit. I'm just saying that different formats are different.

[GlenSmash!]

Harmonquest is not Dungeons & Dragons. At least, it's not an actual play. It's fun, but no one other than the GM rolls dice, it is heavily edited, the guest stars know the outline of the plot beforehand (at least well enough to know when to jump in and out), and there aren't consistent rules or abilities. Is good TV, largely thanks to the animations, but it isn't an actual game. Critical Role, lacking visuals aside from maps and minis, is a lot more akin to radio.

Edit: I'm not dumping on HQ, by the way. I enjoy it quite a bit. I'm just saying that different formats are different.

Totally different, and much easier for my brain to digest. And yeah it's pretty far from D&D.

Still it's lead to quite a few jokes around my gaming table.

I love when my player describes their character doing something, and expects me to call for a roll, or otherwise provide some narration and I just say "You do that" in my best Spencer Crittenden voice. Then we laugh.

Which is why I'll watch any RPG gamestream or even read transcripts of Play by Post games. I could find some stuff that will make my game better and some stuff I should avoid.

[Tanarii]

Have you considered that maybe you just aren't as good at description as Mercer? :confused:What makes you think I'm talking about my DMing? :smalltongue:

[Kaibis]

I always been interested in DnD but never bothered to do it until I saw Critical Role. I love it and I think the key to DnD that Matt Mercer says all the time is for the group to know what to do. I began DMing almost a year ago and while I use a few things from the show I don't do everything. Also a main reason for the show's success is how talented these professional actors are and that cannot always be replicated by people.

+1 this. I have played MMORPGs, and even RPed on MMORPGs, had a single awful game of D&D that lasted about 30minutes. It wasn't until I watched Critical Role that I realised how much I want to play it.

People often warned me "Real games aren't like CR", I never knew what they meant, I still don't, the games are all just as awesome. I wish I had enough time in my day to watch more series (but CR produces over 100hrs of viewing per year, and that doesn't include Talks Machina).

I recently watched the one-shot Marisha's Honey Heist, and it opened my eyes to non-D&D RPGs.

[Tanarii]

Edit: Again, watching a participatory activity is not for everyone, and I get not enjoying it, but you're reaching pretty far here. Descriptive language and success aren't evidence of a lack of quality.Missed this part. I do think overly descriptive language & flowery prose is evidence of a lack of quality*. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

I do not think being voice actors doing what voice actors do is evidence of lower quality.
I do not think being paid is evidence of lower quality. I actually assume it is generally evidence of higher quality.
I do not think being streamed for entertainment is evidence of lower quality. I actually assume it is generally evidence of higher quality.

But I do think both of these things change the normal assumptions about (Thing). Like, say, their game being at all representative of what makes a fun and enjoyable game of D&D for the majority of D&D players.

(*Is quality an objective thing? Or subjective? I've always assumed it's subjective, at least for things like this.)

[EvilAnagram]

(*Is quality an objective thing? Or subjective? I've always assumed it's subjective, at least for things like this.)
I'd like to start with this, as someone who has studied writing, has taught writing, and gets paid to write professionally.

Quality is not necessarily subjective. On the far end of objective, you can make qualitative analyses of the methods of statistical data or measure the quality of an alloy. How well does that car withstand collisions? Let's conduct qualitative tests that include quantitative data!

On the other side of the scale, the fuzziest qualitative assessment would be just your opinion, man. Like whether pie is better than cake.

Critiques of art vary on this line graph. On the one hand, you can look at the structure of a piece and arrive at qualitative judgments. Example: I saw a teenager submit a poem in a sonnet category, and it completely failed to meet the basic criteria that define a sonnet. Or, when talking about Tremors, you can objectively say that it is masterfully paced because on a structural level, the actions of the protagonists consistently propel the plot forward, carrying the audience through logical steps. This is a fairly objective qualitative assessment of the film's structure, while a more subjective qualitative assessment is that it's a stupid movie about hicks fighting worms.

The problem is, you are not distinguishing between firmer and fuzzier assessments of quality. For example, you complain the pacing (a structural issue) is bad because Matt's descriptions are too long (a subjective preference).

And your assessments of him betray a lack of understanding of the words you use. You call his descriptions flowery when he tends to stick to physical descriptions that convey complicated ideas. You see, "flowery," does not mean "descriptive." It means "excessive description that calls attention to itself and does not advance the story." When Matt describes a creature or place, he conveys meaningful information to the players and audience.

Examples:
"The dragon is super big and kind of annoyed," is boring, but concise.
"The great creature slowly bends his neck to stare at you and blinks his eye, twice as wide as you are tall. 'Keep it,' he growls, letting out a puff of smoke that sends you coughing." That's longer, but it carries the action forward, conveying meaningful information.
"The shimmering creature stared imperiously at the wretched creature who had dared to offend him, his glittering scales glowing crimson with carefully controlled rage in the light of the fire." This is flowery language. I used three adjectives to tell you his scales are shiny, nothing happened, and nothing of the description lent itself to the emotional takeaways I suggested.


Even his description of the BBEG in the finale, the moment he chews the scenery the most, is purely physical and conveys specific pieces of information crucial to the fight. It's a minute and twenty seconds long, but every piece is informative and sets the scene. He's grown gigantic, he seems to be affecting the world around him, he's flying, he has his hand back, the eye is still gone, there's a little girl in his ribcage. Yeah, he chews it up a bit, but it conveys meaningful information and, most importantly, does not examine itself. Flowery language is self-examining, telling you what the descriptor implies.

When you use specific terminology improperly, you're attaching firmer qualifiers to your fuzzy opinions. He uses long descriptions of action, and you don't like that. That's fine, but it doesn't make his language flowery. It doesn't make his pacing bad. It doesn't make him a bad DM. Bad for you, maybe, but not bad at his job.

...did I mention I used to teach? Because this is how your brain works on teaching.


But I do think both of these things change the normal assumptions about (Thing). Like, say, their game being at all representative of what makes a fun and enjoyable game of D&D for the majority of D&D players.

I think making time to hang out with friends, be a little silly, and make an improvised story come to life using dice is fairly representative of what makes a fun and enjoyable game of D&D for the majority of players.

Don't start the storytelling debate, please.

[MadBear]

Speaking of which, it's also worth noting that claims that they're "a bunch of friends who are just streaming their games" are BS. They're paid and heavily sponsored for what they do, as well as enhancing their careers outside of this stream.

That's a pretty bold claim, that I'm fairly positive that you have no way of backing up at all. While, it's possible it's a "lie", there's a good bit of evidence to the contrary.

1. They started the game long before it was streamed
2. When it was first streamed they weren't making tons of money
3. Other youtubers that are lesser known (like Mathew Colville) talk about them as being friends and friendly on a regular basis
4. Orion, who was kicked out, talked about them as a group of friends before hand

Now, sure filming changes the nature of the game a bit. Then again, I run a game for high schoolers after school, which is different from "normal" D&D. My cousin plays over the internet because his friends live in Japan, and that's changes the game. People who play post by post, have to play very differently, which changes the game. Just because they get paid to stream, doesn't make it "not D&D" or fake. Especially considering there is not a single bit of evidence of that.

As too, Mercer being boring. I get it, you find it boring. I find it highly engaging, and work better descriptions into my games, because I feel like it makes the world feel more alive. Heck, even Rich Burlew has an article on adding in more texture to your games to make them better :http://www.giantitp.com/articles/YUMiX2JPVjHIJ6h5VlD.html

[Tanarii]

(snip stuff - which I read - on subjective vs objective quality)

...did I mention I used to teach? Because this is how your brain works on teaching
Clearly you used to teach, that was a good explanation.

I'm not sure I agree on extra description advancing the action, and thus not being flowery. But I'll take it under consideration, it's a well made point in the face of my rather contrariness.


I think making time to hang out with friends, be a little silly, and make an improvised story come to life using dice is fairly representative of what makes a fun and enjoyable game of D&D for the majority of players.Hard to argue with that.


Don't start the storytelling debate, please.
Hahaha for sure.


That's a pretty bold claim, that I'm fairly positive that you have no way of backing up at all. While, it's possible it's a "lie", there's a good bit of evidence to the contrary. I don't think it's a lie. I don't see that starting out as friends then switching to it being a source of income significantly changes that it's now an income stream. That affects things.

What probably affects things far more is being voice actors. Especially the DM.



As too, Mercer being boring. I get it, you find it boring. I find it highly engaging, and work better descriptions into my games, because I feel like it makes the world feel more alive. Heck, even Rich Burlew has an article on adding in more texture to your games to make them better :http://www.giantitp.com/articles/YUMiX2JPVjHIJ6h5VlD.html
I'll check it out in detail later. But I don't object to meaningful descriptions that carry information. Very old D&D modules had lots of those. Later TSR era ones went for paragraph after paragraph of detailed meaningless info to "set the scene". That's the kind of stuff I find getting in the way of things.

[MadBear]

I'll check it out in detail later. But I don't object to meaningful descriptions that carry information. Very old D&D modules had lots of those. Later TSR era ones went for paragraph after paragraph of detailed meaningless info to "set the scene". That's the kind of stuff I find getting in the way of things.

For sure, read more when you have time. But the gist was that if you only give detail to important items, then you lose the chance for players to meaningfully discover anything. In that example, if the DM only gave texture to the pen, that's all anyone would look at. So instead it's nice to give texture to everything.

Of course that's not everyone's cup of tea, but it's one that I think outs pretty common.

[Tanarii]

For sure, read more when you have time. But the gist was that if you only give detail to important items, then you lose the chance for players to meaningfully discover anything. In that example, if the DM only gave texture to the pen, that's all anyone would look at. So instead it's nice to give texture to everything.

Of course that's not everyone's cup of tea, but it's one that I think outs pretty common.
I agree more than just the one item that's needed in an environment is useful information, because players need to know what's in their environment. But overblown description of everything just washes it all out. IMX at that point is when DMs start losing players, and/or risking excessive pixel-bitching. I mean, any "realistic" environment risks that to a degree already, because complex. But it's more likely when you start describing everything in excessive detail, which makes it harder for them to retain all the information at once and ferret through it for the relevant stuff. Players already have information overload to deal with, because it's a vocal description instead of visual.

[Zippee]

Well, in the beginning a lot of those things were due to their having recently adopted 5e - as the show progressed, Matt became more of a stickler about Ready Action - the players might say "Hold" but after a few attempts to explain the difference, it just became easier to let them say whatever they wanted and just use the Ready mechanic. When adopting a new system, it's really easy to have ideas in your head from older editions (I still have players asking to make a reflex saving throw) - most of us don't have our games broadcast for all to see the mistakes we make.

Hmm, not sure I agree here, in S2 they're still using Hold, and Mercer regularly allows all sorts of strange actions, moves, multi-actions and bonus actions to take place. Often allowing entire turns to be taken on the reaction, the players hardly ever give a trigger or appear to understand the 5e mechanic. That's fine if it's a deliberate decision to keep Hold Turn in play but it comes across as confusion still. It's been a long time since they (and most of us) switched to 5e - the odd Reflex slip of the tongue is far different from gross changes to the Ready Action mechanic, especially when they look and sound not like homebrew but lack of understanding. I get they have a lot of rule angst thrown at them by Chat and I'd never be in that camp but I do think that if you hold yourself up for scrutiny in this way you should also be held to a slightly higher standard too.




And really, who doesn't forget Concentration now and then? I can mark a C next to a player on the initiative board, I can place a reminder on their mini, I could have Concentration Check tattooed on the back of my hand, and nothing has me always remember when they take damage or try to cast another Concentration spell.

I think forgetting CON checks from time to time is not uncommon (although I have no idea how true that is - its very subjective of me, buts lots pf people seem to admit to it). However forgetting that Concentration spells are a thing and you can't have more than one in play is not that common (it takes most players precisely once to learn that lesson, it's not a hard lesson - how many times did Tibs try to cast multiple Fly spells in the same episode?). Continuing to 'ignore' them this far into the edition is just sloppy.



Also in the beginning, Matt used a critical mechanic from an older edition (I can't recall if it was full damage plus damage dice or roll damage multiply result by 2 - and I'm not about to go back to those earlier episodes just to listen for clarification). Around 40-50 episodes in is when he started using more RAW crit rules (and incidentally, RAW also allows the option for rolling all the damage dice instead of rolling the dice twice - doubling the dice - because it might speed up the game).

Yeah I know the options to roll or double are technically both RAW, I was being imprecise, mea culpa. I see/hear no evidence of a different crit mechanic in play on the published episodes (and I recently started over at S1E1 on podcast on my commute). My point was that he uses double as he believes it is quicker. Clearly 50+ episodes in (by podcast) and also in S2 (by YouTube) his players are still asking "what do I double" - I think saying re-roll all dice is clearer because you can't re-roll modifiers. But hey-ho it's a minor point.

And remember I was stating all of this not to criticise them for not knowing the rules but because I think the argument that all their sub-optimal decision making is due to good RP would have a lot more credibility if we had more evidence that they had strong rules knowledge (or at least less evidence that they have weak rules knowledge)



As for people not being able to keep track so far in - they're all professionals with jobs who just so happen to get paid to stream their weekly game. It isn't that hard to forget the details of your character when you only play weekly - especially if like some of my players you have maybe given only a casual glance at the PHB. Add to that the fact that a good portion of the CR crew's brain space is taken up by memorizing scripts, and yeah, it's not so unbelievable or onerous. I still have to remind some of my players or give the correct interpretation on specifics of their abilities and we're about as far in as CR was in the 40-50 episode mark.

I'm a professional with a job, I make time to run and play weekly, I can remember the rules [mostly], the same is true of the majority of my players. The CR crew haven't been dragged off the street, paid and forced to play DnD - they chose to play because Liam wanted a birthday present game and continued to do so because it was fun. They then moved it to stream live for charity donations. It then became an internet thing and the live shows are subscription only, the podcasts and YouTube are still free to view/listen and the money raised still mostly goes to charity.

I've heard this BS about scripts before - if they're using scripts they're absolutely rubbish at remembering them or delivering them, especially for professional voice actors. There are no scripts that I'm aware of, and no appearance of scripts either. Do you have any evidence of this?

[Nettlekid]

Hmm, not sure I agree here, in S2 they're still using Hold, and Mercer regularly allows all sorts of strange actions, moves, multi-actions and bonus actions to take place. Often allowing entire turns to be taken on the reaction, the players hardly ever give a trigger or appear to understand the 5e mechanic.

I'd like you to cite a source on that, because in the gameplay I've been watching that seems very much not to be the case. Matt has explicitly disallowed the readying of a Bonus Action, he hasn't allowed movement coupled with a ready action, he has made people declare specifically what type of offensive action they're readying (weapon attack vs cantrip cast for example), and he has made sure that casters marked off a spell slot for a readied spell that wasn't used. He's been playing Ready very much by the book. You can see most of these in the episode from two weeks ago against the monster in the sewers, which necessitated a lot of Readying. The one exception I can think of is that in the last campaign he allowed a character who readied an attack to use all of their Extra Attacks with the readied action rather than a single attack which RAW you're supposed to get. I don't know if that was a deliberate choice made for balancing (with the rationale that if you're spending your action to attack you ought to get all your attacks) or if it was just a rules oversight (assuming that readying the Attack action gives you the Extra Attacks that you would get on your turn) but apart from that he's actually been playing by the rules quite precisely.

Also minor point but regarding Orion playing Tiberius and never using Concentration spells correctly, that's much more a matter of Orion being a lousy player and a cheater which contributed to him being kicked out of the game. He constantly tried to cast combat spells "before" combat had started, even after Matt called for an initiative roll, and often wasting the casting of a spell like Stoneskin when he immediately cast another Concentration spell a moment later. Not that it mattered since he didn't keep track of his spell slots used or expended material components.

[strangebloke]

I'd like you to cite a source on that, because in the gameplay I've been watching that seems very much not to be the case. Matt has explicitly disallowed the readying of a Bonus Action, he hasn't allowed movement coupled with a ready action, he has made people declare specifically what type of offensive action they're readying (weapon attack vs cantrip cast for example), and he has made sure that casters marked off a spell slot for a readied spell that wasn't used. He's been playing Ready very much by the book. You can see most of these in the episode from two weeks ago against the monster in the sewers, which necessitated a lot of Readying. The one exception I can think of is that in the last campaign he allowed a character who readied an attack to use all of their Extra Attacks with the readied action rather than a single attack which RAW you're supposed to get. I don't know if that was a deliberate choice made for balancing (with the rationale that if you're spending your action to attack you ought to get all your attacks) or if it was just a rules oversight (assuming that readying the Attack action gives you the Extra Attacks that you would get on your turn) but apart from that he's actually been playing by the rules quite precisely.

I agree, however, I will add that he does allow players to delay their whole turn at the start of combat, which is a house role, but very reasonable imo.

[Amdy_vill]

Its okay but mercer doesn't really understand the balance of 5e (just look at his homebrew)

I'd also agree that its too on the rails and they never have a 'real' combat encounter.

i disagree. he understands the balance very well. and thought that understanding he is able to superpower both his players and the enemies without problem. beside the usually the the game has anyway. this is something i see people talKing about all the time. X skill DM who knows the math well enough to change it and knows what to compensate for the changes. these people know how the game works so well they know how to change the game drastically and keep this balanced. now having said that he is human and does make mistake like all DM. i do agree with the point that his stories look a bit more on rails but my game looks like that from the outside as well but it is because my group talks with our DM often and generally my Dm is well informed of our motives and thing we want to do in the game so he can throw them at us more. not saying this is what it is but we don't see ever interaction between the DM and players.

[Gwalchavad]

Hmm, not sure I agree here, in S2 they're still using Hold, and Mercer regularly allows all sorts of strange actions, moves, multi-actions and bonus actions to take place. Often allowing entire turns to be taken on the reaction, the players hardly ever give a trigger or appear to understand the 5e mechanic. That's fine if it's a deliberate decision to keep Hold Turn in play but it comes across as confusion still. It's been a long time since they (and most of us) switched to 5e - the odd Reflex slip of the tongue is far different from gross changes to the Ready Action mechanic, especially when they look and sound not like homebrew but lack of understanding. I get they have a lot of rule angst thrown at them by Chat and I'd never be in that camp but I do think that if you hold yourself up for scrutiny in this way you should also be held to a slightly higher standard too.

In which case, it might be that he decided to houserule after all the confusion trying to force them into the Ready mechanic caused - I haven't payed too much attention to the mechanical decisions for this campaign.

For 5e, all I really have to go by are my RL and r20 games and I can say that I have to reexplain Ready action nearly every time someone tries to use it. If I were doing a show, I might just go "meh, whatever" and roll with it just to keep things flowing.



I think forgetting CON checks from time to time is not uncommon (although I have no idea how true that is - its very subjective of me, buts lots pf people seem to admit to it). However forgetting that Concentration spells are a thing and you can't have more than one in play is not that common (it takes most players precisely once to learn that lesson, it's not a hard lesson - how many times did Tibs try to cast multiple Fly spells in the same episode?). Continuing to 'ignore' them this far into the edition is just sloppy.

Well, Tibs is a bad example overall - according to Orion he was personally on some serious drugs at the time.

Again, I only have a few anecdotal evidences from my RL and r20 games. The RL game runs once a week, the r20 has several games (in different campaigns) a week. Even with people playing close to 10 hours a week, I'm always having to double check spells, or you get the occasional player who is like "Wait, I couldn't cast that spell LAST ROUND". It's not players trying to take advantage, it can just be really easy to overlook that "C" symbol next to your spell in the heat of battle when you think you found the perfect thing to pull off this round.


Yeah I know the options to roll or double are technically both RAW, I was being imprecise, mea culpa. I see/hear no evidence of a different crit mechanic in play on the published episodes (and I recently started over at S1E1 on podcast on my commute). My point was that he uses double as he believes it is quicker. Clearly 50+ episodes in (by podcast) and also in S2 (by YouTube) his players are still asking "what do I double" - I think saying re-roll all dice is clearer because you can't re-roll modifiers. But hey-ho it's a minor point.

And remember I was stating all of this not to criticise them for not knowing the rules but because I think the argument that all their sub-optimal decision making is due to good RP would have a lot more credibility if we had more evidence that they had strong rules knowledge (or at least less evidence that they have weak rules knowledge)

Fair enough. The "they make suboptimal decisions" criticism is the one I care least about, regardless of the reason. If it were Save or Dice, where everyone playing runs youtube channels instructing people on how to play D&D, I'd care more.




I'm a professional with a job, I make time to run and play weekly, I can remember the rules [mostly], the same is true of the majority of my players. The CR crew haven't been dragged off the street, paid and forced to play DnD - they chose to play because Liam wanted a birthday present game and continued to do so because it was fun. They then moved it to stream live for charity donations. It then became an internet thing and the live shows are subscription only, the podcasts and YouTube are still free to view/listen and the money raised still mostly goes to charity.

I've heard this BS about scripts before - if they're using scripts they're absolutely rubbish at remembering them or delivering them, especially for professional voice actors. There are no scripts that I'm aware of, and no appearance of scripts either. Do you have any evidence of this?

When I referred to memorizing scripts, I wasn't referring to scripts for CR. I was referring to the scripts for all the various shows, movies, and video games they are recording throughout the week. Voice actors are some of the hardest working folks in showbiz, often working on multiple projects at the same time. When your job is memorization and involves keeping separate "Well, these are the lines for Avengers, these are the lines for Shadows of Mordor, and these are the lines for - wait, what are these the lines for?" that can take up a *lot* of headspace. I can't blame them if, when Thursday night rolls around, they want to be able to forget some things and just relax and play - sure they might be broadcasting to everyone when they do it, but I really believe that for them it's about hanging out first and the show second.

And I ain't mad at them for that.

[Zippee]

Fair enough. The "they make suboptimal decisions" criticism is the one I care least about, regardless of the reason. If it were Save or Dice, where everyone playing runs youtube channels instructing people on how to play D&D, I'd care more.

I never said I cared about it, just that the counter-argument would have more merit if there was an appearance of better rules understanding. Between inconsistency, homebrew and inattention the overall impression [rightly or wrongly] is one of poor rules knowledge. And I appreciate it's not a 'how to play' guide but it is high profile and public. I would prefer it to be tighter and more RAW as there'd be less 'but Mercer does it this way' BS to deal with :smile:

There are just things about the playstyle that irk me - I'd put it on the same par as continuity errors in a film, not a hanging offence but irritating on a personal level.




When I referred to memorizing scripts, I wasn't referring to scripts for CR. I was referring to the scripts for all the various shows, movies, and video games they are recording throughout the week. Voice actors are some of the hardest working folks in showbiz, often working on multiple projects at the same time. When your job is memorization and involves keeping separate "Well, these are the lines for Avengers, these are the lines for Shadows of Mordor, and these are the lines for - wait, what are these the lines for?" that can take up a *lot* of headspace. I can't blame them if, when Thursday night rolls around, they want to be able to forget some things and just relax and play - sure they might be broadcasting to everyone when they do it, but I really believe that for them it's about hanging out first and the show second.

And I ain't mad at them for that.

Well, sorry for misreading that but in context it was very misleading. And sorry, but I can't buy that they have any more difficult a job/profession that many hundreds/thousands of other players /DMs. You're basically making the case that it's OK to forget stuff and relax and play for any/everyone. And of course at some level it is, and that's fine but if I and my circle of friends [which includes some people with much higher pressure professions] can manage the additional attention span to learn some fairly basic game rules then I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the same of others. Especially if those others then place themselves in the position of highly visible role models.

I've already said that I think CR is about friends playing a game - I don't buy the 'it's a TV show therefore it's fake' BS.

And for the record I ain't mad at them, in fact I really couldn't care less. It makes me grind my teeth in frustration at times but so do many things in life.

[Tanarii]

I would prefer it to be tighter and more RAW as there'd be less 'but Mercer does it this way' BS to deal with :smile:
Yeah, that's the basic problem. There's a fairly vocal contingent that like to treat Mercer or the Critical Role as the gold standard for D&D.

IMX his group is not playing anything like the "normal" way D&D is played and enjoyed.

OTOH my experience is heavy on game shops, college clubs, and/or official play email distros / meetups. And heavy on college age STEM students, or post-college IT people. And low on groups of long time friends playing home games, or voice actors / writers.

[Raif]

Yeah, that's the basic problem. There's a fairly vocal contingent that like to treat Mercer or the Critical Role as the gold standard for D&D.

IMX his group is not playing anything like the "normal" way D&D is played and enjoyed.

OTOH my experience is heavy on game shops, college clubs, and/or official play email distros / meetups. And heavy on college age STEM students, or post-college IT people. And low on groups of long time friends playing home games, or voice actors / writers.

It's a good thing you mentioned that it's your experience, as mine is completely different. In the last 4 years of me playing, almost all of my games have been similar to the "matt mercer" style than what you mention.

And my background is playing with my friends who I met while in university for physics and computer programming, but we're all round 30+ in age with me being the youngest at 29. no one is in writing, acting or of that persuasion (though we all read heavily and enjoy the arts). We're all in some form of technology job, save the 1 who owns a ranch.

[Tanarii]

And my background is playing with my friends who I met while in university for physics and computer programming, but we're all round 30+ in age with me being the youngest at 29. no one is in writing, acting or of that persuasion (though we all read heavily and enjoy the arts). We're all in some form of technology job, save the 1 who owns a ranch.
Must primarily be the game shop/club/distro thing vs the small group of personal friends.

I mean, I certainly have been at a few games, mostly back in the 2e days, similar to Mercer's. And all of them were when I was invited to join a table of long time friends in an ongoing campaign. They were so into their characters that the game didn't seem to have any purpose, except for them pretending to be their characters. And funny voices and inside jokes.

That's awesome if that's what you're there for. But I certainly see it as not the majority of D&D gaming. Not "normal".
(What's even more awesome to me is these groups of friends keeping home campaigns like that going forever!)

[Ganymede]

They were so into their characters that the game didn't seem to have any purpose, except for them pretending to be their characters. And funny voices and inside jokes.

I mean... that sounds a lot like D&D.

[Tanarii]

I mean... that sounds a lot like D&D.
I'm down with acting in character during RPGs. But when the only purpose of the game is to live the life of your alter ego, it's a bit much.

[Gwalchavad]

Yeah, that's the basic problem. There's a fairly vocal contingent that like to treat Mercer or the Critical Role as the gold standard for D&D.

IMX his group is not playing anything like the "normal" way D&D is played and enjoyed.

OTOH my experience is heavy on game shops, college clubs, and/or official play email distros / meetups. And heavy on college age STEM students, or post-college IT people. And low on groups of long time friends playing home games, or voice actors / writers.

Indeed. I can see holding up CR as a gold standard for a certain way of playing D&D - the rp heavy type of house game that I tend to run, while at the same time cautioning people who want to get into D&D that not every game is going to be like that - especially if you're doing a session at a game shop.

Your later statement about 2e players strikes me as funny. Back when I was heavy into RPGs (in my group I was the "other systems" GM) the stereotype amongst WoD and other "story gamers" was that D&D was a combat heavy murder hobo game with no rp possibilities (which was not my home game experience - we may have had a higher body count than in Vampire the Masquerade, but we got plenty of rp in).

As for RP with the game going nowhere, that type of thing would bore me, too. Play the campaign to a satisfying conclusion, tell a grand story, then roll up new characters.

[Tanarii]

Your later statement about 2e players strikes me as funny. Back when I was heavy into RPGs (in my group I was the "other systems" GM) the stereotype amongst WoD and other "story gamers" was that D&D was a combat heavy murder hobo game with no rp possibilities (which was not my home game experience - we may have had a higher body count than in Vampire the Masquerade, but we got plenty of rp in).
Oh, I didn't mean to imply at all that 2e was common to play as story game or deeply immersion D&D (which IMO are two different things). But TSR tried to market it as that anyway. Probably because of the competition.

Of course, the 5e designers do a lot of trying to market their stuff that way too. The PHB Intro rings a bit of elitist RPG designer. OTOH, Mearls is not Seimbeida or Wujcik or Crane. He know how to walk the line of creating a heroic adventure game, but with a nod to immersion and/or storytelling.

[Anonymouswizard]

And heavy on college age STEM students, or post-college IT people.

To go off topic for a bit I've been in groups heavy on STEM students or professionals, and ones where I was the only one. In fact I once played in an entirely STEM group run by somebody with a PhD in physics. I've found that STEM people have a very different perspective, where even if we don't try to dig into the mechanical parts of the game we tend to dig into the setting, finding descriptions of how it works to be more entertaining than descriptions of what it looks like. In my current group, where the players are half-STEM half-'creative' and the GM is a 'creative' (I hate that term) there is a serious divide where me and the other engineer will both build our characters (even though we are both intentionally suboptimal), plan, and build to try and bring advantages to the party's side, while the players will go with the flow. My previous group was the all-STEM one and put more points into being able to avoid combat than being able to win it, and then spent as much time as possible poking the setting with a stick.


On Critical Role, my problems are that the length makes it hard to commit to, and that they should probably edit it after the stream to remove the awkwarder pauses. But then again I watched Titansgrave first, which is heavily edited to make a more entertaining show, and is also very scripted (having read the published version of the adventure it's obvious that there's a lot cut because it's more fun to play than watch). It's also obvious that TG is written with the awareness that it is scripted and that the players are on board for following the hooks, which leads to a very different case than with Critical Role (where to me the linearity can switch between feeling natural and feeling forced).

[Raif]

But I certainly see it as not the majority of D&D gaming. Not "normal".


Anecdotal evidence and perspective bias is anecdotal evidence and perspective bias.

There are many tables, and many ways to play and no one is wrong or better. Just what fits your likes and your gaming desires.

Some like to live their alter ego, some just like to roleplay over mechanics, some like mechanics more and roleplay less. I've had games where it's just "I use eldritch blast, and hit him for 10 damage" and other games where it's "I conjure a spear of eldritch energy and fling it at the enemy for 10 damage". Both are their own kinds of fun.

I'm not sure I could confidently say which is more dominant in the game without proper information gathering, surveys of a few 10K+ people, and censuses. Anyone who would say so otherwise is, in my opinion, letting confirmation bias influence their statements.

[strangebloke]

Good grief.

The CR people, both actors and fans, have found a way to play the game that is fun for them and they aren't hurting anyone or breaking any kind of ethical code.

Yeah, they (both fans and actors) don't follow the rules exactly, and yeah they faff about in character a lot, but they clearly enjoy it or they wouldn't do it that way. Video evidence suggests that they've always played this way.

Thanks to CR, some minority of the player base (who otherwise might not have ever gotten into DND in the first place) have different expectations than you, just like 99% of all players already had.

There are still players who like your style, whatever it is. Find them, play on.

DND is inherently going to have these kinds of conflicts.

[Nettlekid]

I think the one thing I actively dislike about Critical Role, which I otherwise adore, is that because there is a significant portion of its fanbase who themselves don't play D&D or have D&D lore knowledge and are accumulating that lore by watching Critical Role there comes to be a vocal number of new players who treat Matt's worldbuilding tweaks or customizations as the default for all of D&D, to the point that they're surprised if someone suggests that shouldn't be the case. What's coming to mind right now is that in this new campaign there's a charming Firbolg enchanter, and Matt has occasionally described him as being vaguely bovine (first in description of the breadth of his nose, the second in mentioning that his breath was herbal.) These are just passing comments, and I don't think that "cow-like" is a bad way of describing how wide an average Firbolg's nose is. But now I'm seeing all sorts of fanart of this Firbolg as some kind of cow-man, with rising horns (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXs2H9oWAAAKaSc.jpg) and floppy ears (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXpFovhX4AABZhK.jpg) and a moist nose (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXk8_AMX4AAMhcn.jpg). Not only is it incorrect, but it erases the cool lore that exists about them as being small Giants who eschew the Ordning, something that these inexperienced fans will know nothing about.

Obviously if Matt were to actively choose to change the lore on them in his world then he can, but so far he hasn't made any suggestion that that's the case. Until then it's fair to assume that the canon details are what we're going with, and these other details are being overenthusiastically extrapolated and then ignorantly propagated.

[Anonymouswizard]

Good grief.

The CR people, both actors and fans, have found a way to play the game that is fun for them and they aren't hurting anyone or breaking any kind of ethical code.

Yeah, they (both fans and actors) don't follow the rules exactly, and yeah they faff about in character a lot, but they clearly enjoy it or they wouldn't do it that way. Video evidence suggests that they've always played this way.

Thanks to CR, some minority of the player base (who otherwise might not have ever gotten into DND in the first place) have different expectations than you, just like 99% of all players already had.

There are still players who like your style, whatever it is. Find them, play on.

DND is inherently going to have these kinds of conflicts.

There are cases where you don't really get the choice of who to play with. I mean, I do, and if I had the chance I'd still be playing with my university group (who never played D&D), but that's beside the point. Sometimes your only real option are CR fans, and the more zealous ones can complain when everything isn't exactly like CR.

The problem is where you don't have another option, and the group you're stuck with treats Mercer as the pinnacle of GMing, or CR as the pinnacle of roleplaying, and refuse to accept that other styles of game are valid or complain when you don't use Mercer's house rules. I have a couple I'll use if I ever run 5e (getting an item out of a belt pouch is a bonus action, you can use your action to take an additional bonus action, hit dice are replaced by Healing Surges), but I've encountered people who'll act insulted if you don't let them use a potion as a bonus action or cast a 2nd level spell as a BA (or make reloading a gun more than an attack, although if I'm using guns I'll tend to run something like Victoriana instead).

Thankfully the group I'm in prefers a 'more RAW but only when we're applying rules', so my Gnome Paladin ex-secret police officer has been allowed a German Shepherd as his mount, partially because I pointed out that a bulldog is technically RAW. We make extensive use of Homebrew or unofficial content (we have two pixies in the party, and I'm using an altered version of the UA Oath of Redemption), but such things as the Spelldriver rules or quick drinking potions would very much be ignored if a player tried to use them. But if a player wants a dramatic entrance it is always dramatic, and food and sometime ammunition (depending on the player) are handwaved. A player who insisted that we run as the CR crew would be told to find their own group, because we don't enjoy that.

EDIT: sorry, should point out that I don't give two ****s how other groups play, and will leave a group I don't like.

[Psikerlord]

I think it's an entertaining show - but clearly more show than game.

I think it's a poor example of actual play for that reason.

[strangebloke]

The problem is where you don't have another option, and the group you're stuck with treats Mercer as the pinnacle of GMing, or CR as the pinnacle of roleplaying, and refuse to accept that other styles of game are valid or complain when you don't use Mercer's house rules.


I know what you're talking about, I've played with these sorts. I kicked one of of my game, because he kept getting furious with me that my setting wasn't Tumblr-level-pc.

But Consider this: if these guys are the only people you can play with.... If CR didn't exist, those people might not be playing at all, and you would have no group to play with at all.

[quark12000]

I know what you're talking about, I've played with these sorts. I kicked one of of my game, because he kept getting furious with me that my setting wasn't Tumblr-level-pc.

But Consider this: if these guys are the only people you can play with.... If CR didn't exist, those people might not be playing at all, and you would have no group to play with at all.

What does "Tumblr-level-pc" mean?

[strangebloke]

What does "Tumblr-level-pc" mean?

Politically correct. Tal Dorei tends to be very modern in it's attitudes. My setting... It varies. My setting doesn't include things like psychiatrists, free health Care, etc. Some areas practice slavery. He would get mad at *me* when he learned about such things.

For instance, at one point he comes to a LN tyrant with 50-some orc kids. He rolls pretty well on persuasion to try and get the tyrant to care for the kids, and the tyrant's like... Fine they'll be servants of my house for life. The guy explodes at me. Unacceptable.

[Tanarii]

Anecdotal evidence and perspective bias is anecdotal evidence and perspective bias.I agree and have supplied the source of mine.

But when I've played at easily a hundred different tables of D&D in thirty plus years of playing, albeit primarily in public play, and only a handful of tables have played anything like Mercer's, I'm unsurprisingly fairly confident in the anecdotal evidence and perspective bias I have at hand. :smallamused:

If we were talking about different games, I'd have a different opinion due to different anecdotal evidence and perspective bias. I mean, 100% of my Call of Cthulu and warhammer games have been dying horrible deaths the hands of eldritch and chaos horrors (respectively). And they've almost all been run by DMs far more like Mercer's overly-descriptive set-the-scene DMing style, accompanied by high levels of immersion on the part of the players. Right up until we all died.

Similarly and based on hearsay, I'd expect the same if I sat down to a game of Apocalype World. Conversely, if I sat down to Paranoia I'd expect stupidity and hijinks and PCs inexplicably exploding to be the norm.

[Anonymouswizard]

I know what you're talking about, I've played with these sorts. I kicked one of of my game, because he kept getting furious with me that my setting wasn't Tumblr-level-pc.

But Consider this: if these guys are the only people you can play with.... If CR didn't exist, those people might not be playing at all, and you would have no group to play with at all.

Honestly, if these guys are the only people I can play with, what's the saying again? 'No gaming is better than bad gaming'. I'd leave the group and let them play how they want.

I honestly don't care about the people CR brings into the hobby, I care about the people I'm playing with. I was once in a situation where I should have booted a player from the table for various reasons (including insisting that if it was on his character sheet it's bad form for the police to raid his house for it) but didn't because he was a friend of half of the players, these days I give people a chance to change but am clear they aren't invited to any games I'm running, and I'll likely turn down invitations to games they're running (because I was once in a game I should have left because I disagreed with everything the GM did, from not reading the rules to their massive 'only I get special stuff' attitude).

My problem isn't with CR fans who create CR-esque groups, I can just not play in those groups. It's CR fans who insist on using CR as a model coming into other groups and trying to change them (or trying to force GMs to go along with MM's rulings because the GM is new).


Politically correct. Tal Dorei tends to be very modern in it's attitudes. My setting... It varies. My setting doesn't include things like psychiatrists, free health Care, etc. Some areas practice slavery. He would get mad at *me* when he learned about such things.

For instance, at one point he comes to a LN tyrant with 50-some orc kids. He rolls pretty well on persuasion to try and get the tyrant to care for the kids, and the tyrant's like... Fine they'll be servants of my house for life. The guy explodes at me. Unacceptable.

Oh, so much this. While my settings tend to be heavily LGBT friendly, there's nothing wrong with a setting that isn't politically correct. That's a setting I can fight against! What's wrong with one of those? Why does every setting have to be PC out of the gate?

[quark12000]

You think the Dwendalian Empire is PC?!

[Ganymede]

D&D follows the same ethical trope as any other sci-fi or fantasy property: it explores social issues through proxy.

The world of Tal Dorei is not PC just because GLBT people in it are treated with dignity. One of the campaign's larger plot arcs involved culture-wide racism and oppression directed toward a tail-less offshoot of dragonborn, so those tropes still exist in that world.

[Asmotherion]

Overall, having Famous People play the game we love, helps grow the comunity. This is especially true with the Vin Diesel cameo. It's publicity basically.

I literally know people who "always wanted to play a game like D&D but never knew one existed until they saw the video with Vin Diesel". I also know some peole are afraid to embrace such a hobby because of peer preasure, and because they fear of it not being socially acceptable; Things like that help them overcome this fear, and embrace that we live in 2018, were you can be a cool person who has a nerdy hobby, and that's totally ok, nobody can judge you for it.

Growing the comunity, means sales go up for WotC, and the project of 5e will be developed more, and more carefully, since it will be deemed a good investment.

Wile I personally am not a fan of Mercer's hombrew classes, I think he nails Narative in his own way, and his players are very good at what they do.

There is not only one way to play D&D, as many players may have noticed. From what I'm aware of, he never claimed that his way was "the right way", and since the group enjoyes it, that's fine.

Overall, what he does for the D&D community is productive.

What is counter-productive, and I belive has become an issue (from past posts I've read in the forum), is players expecting their DM to do as Mercer does. This is not a logical expectation. Players need to understand that each DM has his own rules, and allows his own things at his table, as well as writes his own story. If someone wants something specific, one should try to DM, and see how "easy" it is for himself. As I said before, each D&D is different, and practice with your group is what makes perfect. This is especially true outside the AL, where houserules come and go and one game experiance can be totally diferent than an other.

[BBQ Pork]

I have no complaints about Mercer or how he runs his games. DMs will have house rules, homebrew campaigns, etc. Good for him for fleshing it out.

Just don't expect to sit down with a table full of professional voice actors, with tablet devices, at a beautiful custom table, in a dedicated theme-decorated room.

[odigity]

I think Critical Role is great if you want to watch talented voice actors giving competent and interesting performances.

Unfortunately, that's not what I'm personally interested in.

The only shows I like are Acquisitions Incorporated (http://www.acq-inc.com/portfolio) and The "C" Team (http://www.acq-inc.com/cteam/video/1) spin-off, because those are the only two I've seen so far that have 4 people who both entertaining and actual real-life friends, actually sitting around a table.

(I love Chris Perkins, but the fact that Dice, Camera, Action (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfS8QgUdeGYo8F3RPUQ2Wsi2mZLPcaU6X) uses video conferencing ruins it for me.)

[strangebloke]

You think the Dwendalian Empire is PC?!
First of all, I said taldorei. Dwendel wasnt an area we knew too much about when my interaction occurred.

Secondly, perhaps PC wasn't the the right term. It might be better to say, that the player expected my setting to be very modern in it's attitudes.

Without digressing too much, dwendel is still a pretty modern kingdom. They have public schools, free health care, treat men and women equally, and while they're a little intolerant in some ways, they're not all that bad.

Yes, you can explore things though proxy, but my point is that it's a different approach from what I usually use, and people who get annoyed by that... I can't help 'em.

[quark12000]

I think Critical Role is great if you want to watch talented voice actors giving competent and interesting performances.

Unfortunately, that's not what I'm personally interested in.

The only shows I like are Acquisitions Incorporated (http://www.acq-inc.com/portfolio) and The "C" Team (http://www.acq-inc.com/cteam/video/1) spin-off, because those are the only two I've seen so far that have 4 people who both entertaining and actual real-life friends, actually sitting around a table.

(I love Chris Perkins, but the fact that Dice, Camera, Action (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfS8QgUdeGYo8F3RPUQ2Wsi2mZLPcaU6X) uses video conferencing ruins it for me.)

Err...on Critical Role they're entertaining and actual real-life friends, actually sitting around a table.

[Anonymouswizard]

Err...on Critical Role they're entertaining and actual real-life friends, actually sitting around a table.

Fixed it for you :smallwink:

Personal opinion? What's that? Ate you saying my views aren't objective?

[MadBear]

Fixed it for you :smallwink:

Personal opinion? What's that? Ate you saying my views aren't objective?

while I totally get your point that personal opinion can make something entertaining/not entertaining to individuals, I'd point out that their 20-30k live viewership points towards it being entertaining.

Kinda like how, despite how much I hate "Real Housewives of __________", I can't really deny that there's a ton of people who enjoy those shows.

[Tanarii]

while I totally get your point that personal opinion can make something entertaining/not entertaining to individuals, I'd point out that their 20-30k live viewership points towards it being entertaining. That seems like a logical error or fallacy of some kind. All that shows is that it points toward it being entertaining for 20-30k people.

[Anonymouswizard]

while I totally get your point that personal opinion can make something entertaining/not entertaining to individuals, I'd point out that their 20-30k live viewership points towards it being entertaining.

Kinda like how, despite how much I hate "Real Housewives of __________", I can't really deny that there's a ton of people who enjoy those shows.

Bit of a misunderstanding there. I was pointing out that it's not entertaining is my personal opinion, and mocking the fact I was presenting it as objective truth.

Honestly, in terms of many forms of media Critical Role would probably be ranked as unpopular. But meh, different forms of media have different measures of success, and I have no idea what an average 'successful' livestream pulls in, so maybe for a livestream CR is the most successful thing ever (I suspect it's middling in the 'popular' range). I don't really care, I was just trying to point out that blanketly labelling these shows as 'entertaining' or 'not entertaining' is missing the fact that those things are entirely subjective.

[2D8HP]

Inspired by this thread a watched a little of, and listened (a bit more) to these videos with Matt Mercer as a DM:


The Journey from Waterdeep Begins! Ep. 1 (Force Grey: Giant Hunters w/ Chris Hardwick) (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PayUbNeSHbU28:30)



Giants, Ogres, and Goblins, Oh My! Ep. 2 (Force Grey: Giant Hunters) (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XHDQte2ISFo)



Frost Giants in the Swamp! Ep. 3 (Force Grey: Giant Hunters) (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zjxodzByidY&itct=CBgQpDAYACITCMqs_JKBnNoCFRzCAwodauYGFTIHYXV0b 25hdkjakKHs3pa0uFw%3D)


Unfortunately my employer will likely get upset at my data use if I try many more soon, so that's that with that, but here's my impressions:


Watching is entertaining, but they don't work for me as radio (too hard to follow, and they're just not loud enough on my phone when my car is at freeway speed limits).

There's a DMPC with a firearm, Matt pulls it off pretty well, but as a player I'd regard that as lame.

Lots of INT checks to see if the PC's know something, which I really haven't seen at my tables...

....I'm not really sure how I feel about that, but interesting.

[EvilAnagram]

There's a DMPC with a firearm, Matt pulls it off pretty well, but as a player I'd regard that as lame.


...are you talking about Percy? Because he is not a DMPC.

[Tanarii]

Lots of INT checks to see if the PC's know something, which I really haven't seen at my tables...This is pretty common IMX. But DMs and Players tend to refer to them as 'Knowledge' checks. And frequently try to cram them under a Skill so they can apply a proficiency bonus to the check.

[GlenSmash!]

Inspired by this thread a watched a little of, and listened (a bit more) to these videos with Matt Mercer as a DM:


The Journey from Waterdeep Begins! Ep. 1 (Force Grey: Giant Hunters w/ Chris Hardwick) (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PayUbNeSHbU28:30)



Giants, Ogres, and Goblins, Oh My! Ep. 2 (Force Grey: Giant Hunters) (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XHDQte2ISFo)



Frost Giants in the Swamp! Ep. 3 (Force Grey: Giant Hunters) (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zjxodzByidY&itct=CBgQpDAYACITCMqs_JKBnNoCFRzCAwodauYGFTIHYXV0b 25hdkjakKHs3pa0uFw%3D)


Unfortunately my employer will likely get upset at my data use if I try many more soon, so that's that with that, but here's my impressions:


Watching is entertaining, but they don't work for me as radio (too hard to follow, and they're just not loud enough on my phone when my car is at freeway speed limits).

There's a DMPC with a firearm, Matt pulls it off pretty well, but as a player I'd regard that as lame.

Lots of INT checks to see if the PC's know something, which I really haven't seen at my tables...

....I'm not really sure how I feel about that, but interesting.


Yeah, Listening gets easier when you've built up a familiarity with who's voice and Character Name belongs to which person.

I think I like the int check thing. It certainly encourages players not to dump Int.


...are you talking about Percy? Because he is not a DMPC.

I don't think he is. Percy isn't on Force Grey.

[EvilAnagram]

Yeah, Listening gets easier when you've built up a familiarity with who's voice and Character Name belongs to which person.

I think I like the int check thing. It certainly encourages players not to dump Int.



I don't think he is. Percy isn't on Force Grey.

Yup. I was being dumb

[quark12000]

Bit of a misunderstanding there. I was pointing out that it's not entertaining is my personal opinion, and mocking the fact I was presenting it as objective truth.


And I was pointing out that what the poster said about AI was also true of Critical Role. No need to jump all over my post. I didn't go after you, or anyone else for that matter.

[quinron]

You think the Dwendalian Empire is PC?!

In the mini-arc with the gnolls, the major NPC contact is described as "gender-fluid" and is consistently referred to with "they" pronouns. In the most recent episodes, the leaders of the crappy underground resistance are a gay couple who seem to be legally coupled (please excuse the clunkiness of that phrasing) based on the fact that they share a surname and refer to each other as "partners."

It might not be San Francisco, but beyond the general autocratic vibe the Dwendalian Empire seems to be pretty tolerant in the ways that matter to Tumblr.

EDIT: I didn't give my actual opinion on the series! I enjoy watching it most of the time, as I think the actors have good chemistry most of the time and are aware enough of it to lean into this to make fun character interactions, but it's not the game I want to play with my own group. In my experience the focus on acting/performing that CR tends to arouse in players can lead to the bigger personalities stealing "screen time" from the dryer players and those that are more descriptive than performative.

[quark12000]

In the mini-arc with the gnolls, the major NPC contact is described as "gender-fluid" and is consistently referred to with "they" pronouns. In the most recent episodes, the leaders of the crappy underground resistance are a gay couple who seem to be legally coupled (please excuse the clunkiness of that phrasing) based on the fact that they share a surname and refer to each other as "partners."

It might not be San Francisco, but beyond the general autocratic vibe the Dwendalian Empire seems to be pretty tolerant in the ways that matter to Tumblr.


I don't know what Tumblr is, or why you folks keep bringing it up, but this show treating certain sections of the population with respect and empathy, especially when nowadays they seem to be under attack from many quarters, including the government, doesn't strike me as "PC". It strikes me as decency.

[Fishybugs]

I think it's an entertaining show - but clearly more show than game.

I think it's a poor example of actual play for that reason.

You mean it's a poor example of the way you play. My games are quite similar. We role play, we have fun, and we make things up as we go along. As long as everyone is having fun, it's good D&D.

[MadBear]

That seems like a logical error or fallacy of some kind. All that shows is that it points toward it being entertaining for 20-30k people.

Not really a logical fallacy. Something being entertaining for 20k-30k people (live not total) shows that it is in fact entertaining. That alone is all that really matters. Now, I would be committing a fallacy if I said, because 20k-30k people watch it live, you must also find it entertaining.

Now, something being entertaining doesn't mean it has to be universally entertaining. Hence the Real Housewives example. Because if we're honest no one sets the bar for entertaining to mean entertaining for everyone, because in that case practically nothing would be entertaining


Bit of a misunderstanding there. I was pointing out that it's not entertaining is my personal opinion, and mocking the fact I was presenting it as objective truth.

Honestly, in terms of many forms of media Critical Role would probably be ranked as unpopular. But meh, different forms of media have different measures of success, and I have no idea what an average 'successful' livestream pulls in, so maybe for a livestream CR is the most successful thing ever (I suspect it's middling in the 'popular' range). I don't really care, I was just trying to point out that blanketly labelling these shows as 'entertaining' or 'not entertaining' is missing the fact that those things are entirely subjective.

Oh, as I pointed out, I get the point you were making (hence why I agreed that something that is fairly entertaining to a certain crowd, can be unpopular to another).

I was just also pointing out that getting a consistent 20-30k watching live is no small feat. Having 1.7 million subscribers on youtube is no small feat (it puts them in the top 1% for sure among YouTubers). Getting booked for main stage events at comicons is no small feat.

So, at this point Critical Role is objectively entertaining (in the sense that a large amount of people find it entertaining). I'm not saying that you must find it entertaining (but denying that a large amount of others due would be silly).

[Tanarii]

Okay so you are making a logical fallacy. Some number of people watchin something does not make it in fact entertaining, nor objectively entertaining. Because those are universal statements. As well as misunderstanding what the word objective means.

[MadBear]

Okay so you are making a logical fallacy. Some number of people watchin something does not make it in fact entertaining. Bevause that is a universal statement.

I feel like the issue here is that were equivocating definitions. So in that case, what do you think entertaining means?

Edit: Let me just throw up the first definition I saw:

entertaining: providing amusement or enjoyment.

20-30k thousand people watching something proves that it is providing amusement and/or enjoyment. So it is a fact that it is entertaining. However, that doesn't mean that you must be amused or enjoy the show, so it might not be entertaining for you.

[Ganymede]

I don't know what Tumblr is, or why you folks keep bringing it up, but this show treating certain sections of the population with respect and empathy, especially when nowadays they seem to be under attack from many quarters, including the government, doesn't strike me as "PC". It strikes me as decency.

Yeah, it is weird that this whole argument keeps being brought up: that a D&D world is inauthentic or PC if its inhabitants don't hate/oppress gay people, women, or people of color.

Fantasy and sci fi don't just copy-paste actual issues from the real world, they put them through a fantastical lens. That's why the world of Exandria has enslaved aasimar populations, subjugated groups of tailless dragonborn, and persecuted arcane magic users.

[BRC]

Okay so you are making a logical fallacy. Some number of people watchin something does not make it in fact entertaining, nor objectively entertaining. Because those are universal statements.

Only if you assume that "X thing is Entertaining" is a universal statement.


Consider the statement "Peanuts are Edible". Many people can safely eat peanuts, other people have severe nut allergies, and will die if they eat a peanut. Peanuts are edible, but some people should not eat peanuts. This does not make the statement "Peanuts are Edible" false.

Similarly, the Dread Pirate Roberts might be immune to Iocane powder, but that would not make the statement "Iocane powder is Edible" true in any reasonable sense.


Going back to the initial statement, Odigity said they prefered AI because the players are "both entertaining and actual real-life friends".

Are the cast of Critical Role actual real-life friends? Yes, by any reasonable standard. The game grew out of a regular home game.

Are they Entertaining? Impossible to answer objectively, because there is no such thing. The fact that a large number of people regularly tune in to watch them seems to indicate that they're Entertaining.

[EvilAnagram]

Okay, I think it's time to avoid a Playground tradition and not get into a stupid spat. Let's just agree that it is entertaining in this sense that at any given point it is entertaining one of its thousands of fans. There, we have an objective definition that is accurate and valid.

[Tanarii]

Totally. I agree it's clearly entertaining to the people that watch it. It just seems bizarre to try and take something that is inherently subjective, and must inherently have a clause of whom it applies to, and then turn around and say it's somehow objective and phrase it in universal language. If you leave out the to whom clause it's not an accurate statement.

[MadBear]

If you leave out the to whom clause it's not an accurate statement.

false.

The definition I provided clearly shows that you can use the phrase without a "to whom" clause and it'll still be a true statement. Hence why I pointed out we're both probably using different definitions.

[GlenSmash!]

Okay, I think it's time to avoid a Playground tradition and not get into a stupid spat. Let's just agree that it is entertaining in this sense that at any given point it is entertaining one of its thousands of fans. There, we have an objective definition that is accurate and valid.

Don't you want this thread to have 10+ more pointless pages?

[Tanarii]

entertaining: providing amusement or enjoyment.


The definition I provided clearly shows that you can use the phrase without a "to whom" clause and it'll still be a true statement. Hence why I pointed out we're both probably using different definitions.This one? The one that is itself a subjective definition, contingent itself on a "to whom", which is implied but not explicitly stated?

Because if you're trying to use this definition without that implied clause, your definition itself is wrong. Or at least incomplete.


Don't you want this thread to have 10+ more pointless pages?
Once they've gone past 10 pages they're just here for our entertainment. Subjectively of course. :smallbiggrin:

[quinron]

I don't know what Tumblr is, or why you folks keep bringing it up, but this show treating certain sections of the population with respect and empathy, especially when nowadays they seem to be under attack from many quarters, including the government, doesn't strike me as "PC". It strikes me as decency.

Tumblr is a blogging website that developed a large LGBTQ community, to the point that that's one of its major defining traits nowadays. It's also gotten a reputation for being overwhelmingly hostile (to the point of death threats) toward anyone or anything that doesn't meet its (admittedly pretty darn high) standards of political correctness. Hence its use as a byword for glaringly obvious representation, especially when said representation feels somewhat pandering.


Yeah, it is weird that this whole argument keeps being brought up: that a D&D world is inauthentic or PC if its inhabitants don't hate/oppress gay people, women, or people of color.

Fantasy and sci fi don't just copy-paste actual issues from the real world, they put them through a fantastical lens. That's why the world of Exandria has enslaved aasimar populations, subjugated groups of tailless dragonborn, and persecuted arcane magic users.

I tend to think the same way - why would a world that doesn't have our history have the same prejudices that have been created through events in our world's history? But as I implied above, it can feel pandering, especially considering the entire core group are straight, white, and upper-middle-class. The first example I pointed out, the half-elf, felt a bit weird just because Mercer makes a point of describing the character as gender-fluid and uses "they" pronouns, but the characters don't interact enough or in a way that this NPC's gender is relevant; it's not a defining element of the character because there just isn't that much to the character in the first place, which tends to be the case for a lot of non-straight/white/middle class characters in fiction created by straight, white, middle class people.

All that to say: I didn't intend to be hostile or disparaging toward groups that, as quark pointed out, already get more than their share of disparagement. It's just that stuff like this kind of sticks out, whereas the non-heteronormative relationships of the past campaign were just that: relationships, between three-dimensional characters (inasmuch as an NPC can be given dimensions).

[EvilAnagram]

Tumblr is a blogging website that developed a large LGBTQ community, to the point that that's one of its major defining traits nowadays. It's also gotten a reputation for being overwhelmingly hostile (to the point of death threats) toward anyone or anything that doesn't meet its (admittedly pretty darn high) standards of political correctness. Hence its use as a byword for glaringly obvious representation, especially when said representation feels somewhat pandering.
I see that idea passed around 4chan and other cess pools filled with misogynistic circle jerks and blatant racism, but nowhere else.


I tend to think the same way - why would a world that doesn't have our history have the same prejudices that have been created through events in our world's history? But as I implied above, it can feel pandering, especially considering the entire core group are straight, white, and upper-middle-class. The first example I pointed out, the half-elf, felt a bit weird just because Mercer makes a point of describing the character as gender-fluid and uses "they" pronouns, but the characters don't interact enough or in a way that this NPC's gender is relevant; it's not a defining element of the character because there just isn't that much to the character in the first place, which tends to be the case for a lot of non-straight/white/middle class characters in fiction created by straight, white, middle class people.

All that to say: I didn't intend to be hostile or disparaging toward groups that, as quark pointed out, already get more than their share of disparagement. It's just that stuff like this kind of sticks out, whereas the non-heteronormative relationships of the past campaign were just that: relationships, between three-dimensional characters (inasmuch as an NPC can be given dimensions).

Meh. He described a character's physical appearance as androgynous. It's a notable physical trait you would catch at first glance. It doesn't seem particularly noteworthy to me.

[Ganymede]

it can feel pandering

It feels so aberrant to see someone describe treating GLBT people with respect as "it can feel pandering."

Is that what you truly feel? That portraying a GLBT D&D character with a measure of respect, as anything other than sub-human, is pandering? I don't even know how to respond to that.

I have never once considered it pandering to treat my GLBT friends and family like regular people, and it boggles the mind how doing the same to GLBT characters in a fantasy game is any different.

[strangebloke]

Yeah, it is weird that this whole argument keeps being brought up: that a D&D world is inauthentic or PC if its inhabitants don't hate/oppress gay people, women, or people of color.

Fantasy and sci fi don't just copy-paste actual issues from the real world, they put them through a fantastical lens. That's why the world of Exandria has enslaved aasimar populations, subjugated groups of tailless dragonborn, and persecuted arcane magic users.

Nobody has said that at any point. Quit straw-manning.

What I did say is that Taldorei had certain inborn assumptions. Some of those inborn assumptions were not valid in my campaign setting, and this annoyed one of my players. I cited this as an example of how CR fans can be annoying. They assume that every GM is going to be Matt Mercer for them, with super-great voices, ridiculous campaign prep, and a certain style and form of game.

Because this is Giantitp and I used the words 'tumblr' and 'politically correct' I of course stated a flame war, and I apologize for that.

I quite like the show, as it happens.

[strangebloke]

I see that idea passed around 4chan and other cess pools filled with misogynistic circle jerks and blatant racism, but nowhere else.

I'm not going to touch jinjutsu's posts with a 11-foot pole, but, uh... have you been on the tumblr?

Forget talking about political correctness, or whatever issue you care about, there's a hateful, death-threat-spewing blog on that site for any cause you can throw a shoe at. There's folks rage about how people who steal go to jail, blogs that violently deny the holocaust, blogs that make rush limbaugh look like bernie sanders... The format encourages extremism, and it really shows.

There's some good blogs as well. I'm an active blogger there. But it's reputation as a site where hateful people can jump upon you at moment for no reason is completely justified.

EX: John Green, well-established author of YA novels, deleted his blog (which had something like a 100,000 followers at the time) after getting death threats and thousands of hateful messages accusing him of pedophilia. The reason? One of his books mentions an off-screen encounter between two consenting teenagers.

[Ganymede]

Nobody has said that at any point. Quit straw-manning.

What I did say is that Taldorei had certain inborn assumptions. Some of those inborn assumptions were not valid in my campaign setting, and this annoyed one of my players. I cited this as an example of how CR fans can be annoying. They assume that every GM is going to be Matt Mercer for them, with super-great voices, ridiculous campaign prep, and a certain style and form of game.

Because this is Giantitp and I used the words 'tumblr' and 'politically correct' I of course stated a flame war, and I apologize for that.

I quite like the show, as it happens.

I was not talking to you. I was talking to someone else.

[Arkhios]

20k-30k something viewers doesn't exactly say whatever you are watching is entertaining. One can watch a show out of curiosity and come to a conclusion that it was not entertaining.

If I hate the idea of watching CR but for whatever reason end up watching it, thus becoming one of those 20k-30k viewers, does it suddenly mean that I like what I see? No.

If someone put a live stream camera to shoot while people relieve themselves, and someone ends up checking what that's about, it's likewise not entertaining based purely on the number of viewers.

[strangebloke]

I was not talking to you. I was talking to someone else.

You were assenting with the opinion that my usage of 'politically correct' was out of line. (I was the guy who first used that term in relation to CR in this thread.)

Now, humorously, saying that someone's terminology is out of line is the definition of political correctness, but... whatever. Matt Mercer's setting is very modern in some respects, and a bit more than modern in others. That's fine. Really. But some CR fans make an idol out of that aspect of his setting, and tolerate no setting that doesn't conform to Exandria's levels of modernity and enlightenment. Political Correctness is not a pejorative, or shouldn't be. But I was speaking to an extreme, goalpost-shifting form of political correctness that I've seen in CR fans.

And yes, Exandria isn't a land of sunshine and smiles, and several hard-hitting issues were explored through proxy. Whatever. that isn't relevant to the discussion.

[Ganymede]

You were assenting with the opinion that my usage of 'politically correct' was out of line. (I was the guy who first used that term in relation to CR in this thread.)


Dude, I was referring to Jinjitsu. I haven't read any of your posts.

[MadBear]

20k-30k something viewers doesn't exactly say whatever you are watching is entertaining. One can watch a show out of curiosity and come to a conclusion that it was not entertaining.

If I hate the idea of watching CR but for whatever reason end up watching it, thus becoming one of those 20k-30k viewers, does it suddenly mean that I like what I see? No.

If someone put a live stream camera to shoot while people relieve themselves, and someone ends up checking what that's about, it's likewise not entertaining based purely on the number of viewers.

I'm sorry but the point your making is pretty poor. Are you seriously suggesting that every week CR get's 20-30k people tuning in by accident/whatever vague non-reasons you outlined? Come on.

At best, you can point out that not all 20-30 thousand people were entertained. To which I point out while true, is irrelevant.

Also, while I'm not too interested in going through the trouble of looking up stats, I'd wager a fair bit of that 20-30k is people who watch regularly.

I mean.... what even was your point? That a few of the viewers shouldn't count? Ok then, how many do you want to throw out to account for this margin of error? Does it seriously even matter?

[Arkhios]

I'm sorry but the point your making is pretty poor. Are you seriously suggesting that every week CR get's 20-30k people tuning in by accident/whatever vague non-reasons you outlined? Come on.

At best, you can point out that not all 20-30 thousand people were entertained. To which I point out while true, is irrelevant.

Also, while I'm not too interested in going through the trouble of looking up stats, I'd wager a fair bit of that 20-30k is people who watch regularly.

I mean.... what even was your point? That a few of the viewers shouldn't count? Ok then, how many do you want to throw out to account for this margin of error? Does it seriously even matter?

No, I'm not asserting that those 20k-30k viewers didn't like the show, I'm just saying that claiming something as entertaining based purely on a number of viewers is not entirely accurate statement, because the number of viewers can vary for any number of reasons. It only shows how many have viewed it. It doesn't say explicitly how many have liked or hated it, does it?

It's basically same as clickbaits.

A tempting topic leading to a website that gathers data on number of viewers, no matter how many or how long they were there watching/reading, and then use that number to claim that all these people liked what they saw, which may or may not have malicious intent.

Note: I'm not saying that the number of viewers on CR or that CR itself was related to malicious activity, I'm just saying that statistics on viewers without any indication did those viewers actually like or hate what they saw has "empty" value. Now, it would be different if that number was "thumbs up" given. That would directly indicate that these people did, in fact, like what they saw.

From a producer's point of view, they care mostly (only?) about the number of viewers because one thing it shows undeniably is interest. If enough people continue to be interested, it's worthwhile to continue production. But if the number of viewers drops below a certain threshold (whatever that may be), they might decide it's not worth it anymore and discontinue the show.

[Knaight]

No, I'm not asserting that those 20k-30k viewers didn't like the show, I'm just saying that claiming something as entertaining based purely on a number of viewers is not entirely accurate statement, because the number of viewers can vary for any number of reasons. It only shows how many have viewed it. It doesn't say explicitly how many have liked or hated it, does it?

It's basically same as clickbaits.

That would apply more to an individual article or similar - in the context of consistent viewership for a long running series that 20k-30k is much more reliable as an indicator of people who like or at least monitor a show.

[Jerrykhor]

I cited this as an example of how CR fans can be annoying. They assume that every GM is going to be Matt Mercer for them, with super-great voices, ridiculous campaign prep, and a certain style and form of game.


Stupid people will always exist, but they are no fault of Matt Mercer or his players.

[Anonymouswizard]

EX: John Green, well-established author of YA novels, deleted his blog (which had something like a 100,000 followers at the time) after getting death threats and thousands of hateful messages accusing him of pedophilia. The reason? One of his books mentions an off-screen encounter between two consenting teenagers.

EDIT: the original text was a long way of saying WHAT!?

On CR, we can probably say it's objectively successful, in that they manage to make enough money to keep it going and that the episode I'm currently listening to, C2E5, has nearly 800,000 views on YouTube. We can say that the better part of a million people probably find it entertaining, because that's extrapolating from the number of views and that most people don't watch what they don't find entertaining. We can also say 'many people find it enjoyable and entertaining', because we're applying looser language to the previous statement. We can say 'I find it entertaining', because that's stating our personal opinions. We cannot say 'it is entertaining' because we're stating that something objective is universally accepted as one way. Or well we can, using informal language, but I'm of the opinion that if a word has a formal and informal use the first is the one that should be used when nonverbal communication is impossible.

EDIT: I have no problem with CR or it's success, it really doesn't affect me. Partially because I don't run D&D anymore (and if I do I use a B/X retroclone of some form) and partially because I suffer from enough 'roleplaying games and science fiction are just kid's stuff' in real life that I can't really be bothered insulting somebody's choice of entertainment. If somebody's a problem player because they want it to be more like CR, then they're still a problem player and can solve it like any other problem player. I mean, I even listen to CR, but that's more because it's noise that won't distract me from work.

[2D8HP]

upper-middle-class.


I'm not going to address the rest of the post (which others have done well first), but I find the use of the term "upper-middle-class" annoying, as it largely seems to be used to just mean "Rich but they know some people who are richer", or "People who shop at Whole Foods".

Bah!

And frankly "middle-class" seems effectively meaningless as well, as the goalposts that define the term keep changing.

It's just simpler to divide the population into an "Upper" and "Lower" classes, so which half are you?

And by that standard, I was lower class for 4/5th's of my life.

Boom done.

Unless you have a working definition of "UMC"?

[Dumbledorff]

Its okay but mercer doesn't really understand the balance of 5e (just look at his homebrew)

I'd also agree that its too on the rails and they never have a 'real' combat encounter.

what do you mean by "real combat" im a noob dm so curious what that means and if its something i may want to know

[Dumbledorff]

Its okay but mercer doesn't really understand the balance of 5e (just look at his homebrew)

I'd also agree that its too on the rails and they never have a 'real' combat encounter.

i would say that about a lot of homebrew and quite a bit of the UA

[Dumbledorff]

I don't watch Critical Role, Rollplay, Missclicks, Harmontown or any of the other various celebrity D and D shows or podcasts. I'm leery of idiosyncratic rules interpretations getting widespread traction, and I'm doubly nervous about appeals to authority based on some people who make money from streaming D and D as spectator entertainment.

As a fan of CritRoll and a few other streams as well id have to agree If i have to hear one more time well well Matt Mercer does this or Well they let them do this im gonna go to jail for beating someone to death with a PHB

[GlenSmash!]

As a fan of CritRoll and a few other streams as well id have to agree If i have to hear one more time well well Matt Mercer does this or Well they let them do this im gonna go to jail for beating someone to death with a PHB

Ironically, Mercer is super open about the many houserules used in his games, and very much a proponent of doing what works for your table.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm not going to address the rest of the post (which others have done well first), but I find the use of the term "upper-middle-class" annoying, as it largely seems to be used to just mean "Rich but they know some people who are richer", or "People who shop at Whole Foods".

Bah!

And frankly "middle-class" seems effectively meaningless as well, as the goalposts that define the term keep changing.

It's just simpler to divide the population into an "Upper" and "Lower" classes, so which half are you?

And by that standard, I was lower class for 4/5th's of my life.

Boom done.

Unless you have a working definition of "UMC"?


Alright, it's the English definitions, not American ones, but...

Working class: you strand up to work, with some exceptions. Includes professional footballers.

Lower middle class: most tradespeople, call centre workers and low level clerical staff. Or a self employed WC jobs.

Middle middle class: clerical workers, teachers, middle managers, small business owners.

Upper middle class: doctors, lawyers, rich people without titles and who don't have to stand up top work.

Upper class: aristocracy. You're not really upper class here unless your family has a title.

To my understanding the American system is based more on income and earnings than what sort of job you're expected to get. Technically what job your parents have is more important, somebody who grew up Middle Middle Class working a Lower Class job would generally be considered to be MMC (because the classes very much have their own cultures).

While the aristocracy do have a traditional place in the Church of England, a proper vicar is expected to be Middle Class (any variation) in an Upper Class house on a Lower Class salary.

[2D8HP]

Alright, it's the English definitions, not American ones, but...

Working class: you strand up to work, with some exceptions. Includes professional footballers.

Lower middle class: most tradespeople, call centre workers and low level clerical staff. Or a self employed WC jobs.

Middle middle class: clerical workers, teachers, middle managers, small business owners.

Upper middle class: doctors, lawyers, rich people without titles and who don't have to stand up top work.

Upper class: aristocracy. You're not really upper class here unless your family has a title.

To my understanding the American system is based more on income and earnings than what sort of job you're expected to get. Technically what job your parents have is more important, somebody who grew up Middle Middle Class working a Lower Class job would generally be considered to be MMC (because the classes very much have their own cultures).

While the aristocracy do have a traditional place in the Church of England, a proper vicar is expected to be Middle Class (any variation) in an Upper Class house on a Lower Class salary.


That's pretty interesting, thanks!

[strangebloke]

Stupid people will always exist, but they are no fault of Matt Mercer or his players.

...You know what? Screw clarification. I was perfectly clear about this. Read my posts.

[Hastati]

I personally don't like watching other people play D&D (or any other RPG to be honest), I'd rather play myself. I tried watching CR, but it just didn't do anything for me. I did watch some Acquisitions Incorporated and enjoyed that, but I don't really have any desire to watch more. Having said that, I totally respect CR and all the other people who put actual play videos out there. Anything that gets people interested in D&D is a really good thing, so more power to them all. I think they have been an absolute boon for D&D and RPGs in general. I've been playing these silly make believe games for 40 years this year (don't tell my kids I have no intention of ever growing up) and there have never been more people talking about them than now. More importantly, the people who play them, and how they play and enjoy them, is becoming more diverse every day. How great is that?

[DracoKnight]

...You know what? Screw clarification. I was perfectly clear about this. Read my posts.

I don't think that Jerrykhor was attacking you, Strange. So let's calm down before a flamewar starts and this thread gets shut down.
...
...
...
...

As for ME and my opinion of Critical Role, I quite enjoy Campaign 2 and Thursday is one of the highlights of my week. (Despite playing in 4 campaigns weekly.) Campaign 1 doesn't do as much for me, but I've only ever managed to get to episode 5 there. I did watch the finale of Campaign 1, and holy f*cking balls it was great. There's a moment in there that absolutely breaks me.

Maybe it's just because we're getting to know these characters along with the players, or maybe it's because I'm watching it live...I dunno, Campaign 2 just seems to tickle my fancy.

THAT SAID: I disagree with Mercer on a couple of his rulings, and I don't think that players should expect their DM to rule everything the same way he does. Every DM is different, and players need to accept that. By trying to force your DM to run his game like Matt Mercer, you're ignoring a lot of the cool things your DM does do.

[Zippee]

Ironically, Mercer is super open about the many houserules used in his games, and very much a proponent of doing what works for your table.

He may well be but not on the show or in a Session Zero equivalent episode (heck we didn't even see the level one intro games for S2). From a show viewer perspective what he says on reddit or at cons or in other media is practically irrelevant. So if you drop in to view, you're just faced with a very homebrew interpretation of D&D with no heads up that it is very homebrew, let alone what the homebrew is. Added to which is the fact that much of the homebrew seems to centre on areas of the rules that are (if forum questions are anything to go by) often misunderstood, misapplied or ignored/forgotten.

Guess that's not so much a criticism of Mat so much as it is of G&S. And I'm speaking as a drive-by viewer on YouTube (and now podcast for S1), no idea if there is more info available on the subscription or live channels but if there is then that's a clique based info trough and that doesn't help - in fact IMO it makes it worse!



BTW I've seen several posters comment on the large size of the group. That strikes me as odd, given that before 3ed hardwired in an expectation of the 4 PC team, our expectation was a minimum PC group of 6. Of course prior to late 1ed the inclusion (of occasionally large groups) of henchmen and hirelings made number of PCs debateable but the number of players was always 6+. I currently still play with 6 players as the norm. It surprised me that the group size was seen as an issue. Not a thing that bothered me at all.

[DracoKnight]

BTW I've seen several posters comment on the large size of the group. That strikes me as odd...

Me too, but I realize I'm an outlier. Our group is 11 players + the DM. I've taken a couple turns DMing for the group, and so 7 seems like a mercifully small number of players. I'd only have to double the encounter size instead of triple or quadruple it.

[mephnick]

Me too, but I realize I'm an outlier. Our group is 11 players + the DM. I've taken a couple turns DMing for the group, and so 7 seems like a mercifully small number of players. I'd only have to double the encounter size instead of triple or quadruple it.

Man I'm sorry but that sounds so boring as a player even with a tightly run ship. How do you even get a word in with 10 other players at the table?

[napoleon_in_rag]

Me too, but I realize I'm an outlier. Our group is 11 players + the DM. I've taken a couple turns DMing for the group, and so 7 seems like a mercifully small number of players. I'd only have to double the encounter size instead of triple or quadruple it.

How long does a single round of combat take? An hour?

[Arkhios]

Man I'm sorry but that sounds so boring as a player even with a tightly run ship. How do you even get a word in with 10 other players at the table?


How long does a single round of combat take? An hour?

I dunno, if everyone is an adult/mature enough, doesn't goof around and talk out of turn, and pays attention 100% of the time, it could work.

Gygax himself ran D&D for 20? 30 people at a time?

[ChainsawFlwrcld]

I personally don't like watching other people play D&D (or any other RPG to be honest), I'd rather play myself. I tried watching CR, but it just didn't do anything for me. I did watch some Acquisitions Incorporated and enjoyed that, but I don't really have any desire to watch more. Having said that, I totally respect CR and all the other people who put actual play videos out there. Anything that gets people interested in D&D is a really good thing, so more power to them all. I think they have been an absolute boon for D&D and RPGs in general. I've been playing these silly make believe games for 40 years this year (don't tell my kids I have no intention of ever growing up) and there have never been more people talking about them than now. More importantly, the people who play them, and how they play and enjoy them, is becoming more diverse every day. How great is that?

Hey there fellow old timer! I got my red box for Christmas 1978.

I love the rise of the Twitch role playing streams because it brought a new generation's attention to my preferred hobby. I had a 4-5 year drought in playing because all my gamer friends were busy adulting. Critical Role pops into existence and suddenly non gamer friends are talking about D&D and now I've got 2 weekly groups and a monthly all with new people and new GM's.

I've read several people mention that CR fans tend to expect things to be overly dramatic. Just suck it up and play. D&D made it through the World of Darkness era where an awful lot of the D&D games switched over to Vampire or Werewolf. The World of Darkness fascination gave role playing a boost in general and introduced a lot of females to gaming. Who know what this fad may introduce to our hobby.

[Beelzebubba]

He may well be but not on the show or in a Session Zero equivalent episode (heck we didn't even see the level one intro games for S2). From a show viewer perspective what he says on reddit or at cons or in other media is practically irrelevant.

You're wrong. having watched it all, he's said it often, starting with the few episodes. It's especially true after an episode's dramatic resolution hinges on a ruling or house rule that generated a lot of friction online from people from people like you. The entire cast has all cracked some kind of joke about 'chat is telling us it's wrong', 'the internet is yelling at me', etcetera. It isn't every episode, but it's often enough that anyone who regularly watches absolutely knows they have a house-ruled home brew game.

Also, you also are ignoring how online fandom works. Look at the YouTube views of their convention appearances, look at the discussions in all sorts of other places - there is a hugely vibrant community that's distributed over many, many different communities online. And things like 'why did Tiberius cast 2 second level spells in his action' come up, and 'that's a house rule' is always one of the first responses.

Critical Role did not happen in a vacuum. The Alpha, Twitch and YouTube broadcasts don't either, and it's disingenuous to force them to hew to some standard that assume they do - or have to.


So if you drop in to view, you're just faced with a very homebrew interpretation of D&D with no heads up that it is very homebrew, let alone what the homebrew is. Added to which is the fact that much of the homebrew seems to centre on areas of the rules that are (if forum questions are anything to go by) often misunderstood, misapplied or ignored/forgotten.

Running a game with a lot of individual house rules and 'rulings not rules' is exactly the same as any table in any game in the world. And, people 'hacking the game' to make it their own is an explicit design goal of this edition, told far and wide by Mearls, Crawford and the other designers. It even says as much on the literal second page of both the PHB and DMG. So I don't see why he has to be 100% by the book on his own game, or have elaborate disclaimers. That's what D&D is supposed to be. (BTW, when he does games that are officially sanctioned by D&D - say, the Vin Diesel one-shot - he is explicitly by the book.)

If you have ever seen the 'what Critical Role means to me' video, there are people balling their eyes out in happiness about what they've brought to the community and the game. So, you can disapprove all you want, but they're doing far more to make more people happy than anyone I've seen who complain about it here.

Ultimately, people who come to the game that are the type to learn RAW will do so, people who don't won't, and when they meet, people with social skills will figure it all out. Stop thinking you need to save anyone from themselves.

[Tanarii]

I dunno, if everyone is an adult/mature enough, doesn't goof around and talk out of turn, and pays attention 100% of the time, it could work.

Gygax himself ran D&D for 20? 30 people at a time?
Gygax used party callers, sometimes multiple when the PCs were running several simultaneous groups. Effectively co-DMs with a PC, that had the area of responsibility for organizing the party's group actions and responses, and then communicating them to the DM.

I've done that before (both as a player and as a DM) and it's a whole different ballgame and style of play.


Ultimately, people who come to the game that are the type to learn RAW will do so, people who don't won't, and when they meet, people with social skills will figure it all out. Stop thinking you need to save anyone from themselves.
Generally those of us who don't like Mercer's niche way of running games are more concerned with saving ourselves from those who have been trained to think it's the way things ought to be.

[Anonymouswizard]

BTW I've seen several posters comment on the large size of the group. That strikes me as odd, given that before 3ed hardwired in an expectation of the 4 PC team, our expectation was a minimum PC group of 6. Of course prior to late 1ed the inclusion (of occasionally large groups) of henchmen and hirelings made number of PCs debateable but the number of players was always 6+. I currently still play with 6 players as the norm. It surprised me that the group size was seen as an issue. Not a thing that bothered me at all.

I've very rarely been in such a large group. 4-5 is normal for me, I was once in a twelve player group but that ended up with nobody getting focus (causing players to leave after a few months until we were down to about seven people, the group is now four+GM). I think this comes from a mixture of more complex characters and most other games working under the assumption of 3-5 PCs, as well as most 3.X modules either being for 4 PCs (including the Paizo adventure paths unless I'm very much mistaken).


Me too, but I realize I'm an outlier. Our group is 11 players + the DM. I've taken a couple turns DMing for the group, and so 7 seems like a mercifully small number of players. I'd only have to double the encounter size instead of triple or quadruple it.

I've been in groups of such size, and it can be really boring. Even in a game with fast turn resolutions and one opponent it can still take half an hour to resolve a round of combat, fifteen minutes if everybody is quick and you don't use tactical movement.

[Beelzebubba]

Generally those of us who don't like Mercer's niche way of running games are more concerned with saving ourselves from those who have been trained to think it's the way things ought to be.

Calling him 'niche' is incredibly disingenuous. Every single game I have ever played in has been as house-ruled as his game. You can literally say the same thing about anyone who's played at another table before yours.

Again, there is absolutely nothing new going on here, and it's 90% graybeard grousing.

File off the serial numbers and I've read your complaint, word-for-word, in 80's Dragon Magazine.

[Tanarii]

Calling him 'niche' is incredibly disingenuous. Every single game I have ever played in has been as house-ruled as his game. You can literally say the same thing about anyone who's played at another table before yours.
I wasn't talking about house ruling. I was talking about running a game for and by voice actors, and the deep character immersion and hugely over-descriptive everything that results. Edit: and in many RPGs other than D&D it wouldn't be that niche. Many have specifically been designed to enhance that style of play. But it's not the standard for D&D games, so new players walking in to one expecting can be problematic.

The slow speed is IMO unfortunately somewhat normal in gaming.

Customizing and house rules are very normal in any non-official play game. (Or in grey beard times, conventions and tourneys)

[Zippee]

You're wrong. having watched it all, he's said it often, starting with the few episodes. It's especially true after an episode's dramatic resolution hinges on a ruling or house rule that generated a lot of friction online from people from people like you. The entire cast has all cracked some kind of joke about 'chat is telling us it's wrong', 'the internet is yelling at me', etcetera. It isn't every episode, but it's often enough that anyone who regularly watches absolutely knows they have a house-ruled home brew game.

Whoa, there fella, chill. I have never generated friction online at CR so you can keep your accusations to yourself - you have absolutely no idea what type of people I am.

You are misreading me. I didn't say it wasn't clearly homebrewed, I said it wasn't clear what the homebrew rules were/are by viewing. I did say that if the viewer didn't know D&D at all then s/he'd have no idea that homebrew was a thing, so s/he'd naturally assume the game was RAW - actually they wouldn't because the concept would likely never come to mind.

Having watched and listened to both series, I know that the homebrew is not detailed as part of the broadcast (at least not in any meaningful sense, the odd random comment doesn't qualify as explanation). It doesn't matter to me if its done elsewhere, nor should it have to. I have no interest in and do not engage in the chat, comments or other CR media - I'm viewing a tube and/or listening to a podcast, so all I have is what is in the stream/broadcast. I agree he does occasionally comment [presumably in reaction to chat] on rulings such as to mention he uses flanking, I think the quote was "yes it's in the rules, check out the DMG" - that was back in S1, haven't checked the dates but probably when the DMG was new. But this is random commentary not explanation.




Also, you also are ignoring how online fandom works. Look at the YouTube views of their convention appearances, look at the discussions in all sorts of other places - there is a hugely vibrant community that's distributed over many, many different communities online. And things like 'why did Tiberius cast 2 second level spells in his action' come up, and 'that's a house rule' is always one of the first responses.

What's fandom got to do with it? Why should I need to be a fanboy to understand how the game is being played? Why on earth would I want to view such things? A first response on a tube that isn't even part of the playlist, let alone accessible as a podcast is never going to inform me or any number of other people of anything. I have no interest in what chat is saying or what tube comments are being frothed over.

The tube/cast is of the game, it's clearly homebrewed (which is fine) but the details are not transparent. If I have an interest in how the game is being homebrewed why should I have to engage with several other forms of media let alone be required to immerse myself in the mire of fandom to find out?



Critical Role did not happen in a vacuum. The Alpha, Twitch and YouTube broadcasts don't either, and it's disingenuous to force them to hew to some standard that assume they do - or have to.

It's not about fandom - if you're a fan and absorb everything broadcast then fine you probably know far more than me or any number of other people. Most people are not fanboys.

Who's forcing anyone to any standard except you; who seem to be trying to force anyone who comments to conform with your version of acceptable CR viewer, as if not being immersed in fandom means someone has no right to an opinion on CR. Your comments seem to be directly reinforcing why I said that if the details are only available on the subscription alpha or live feeds (or whatever other platform 'fandom' permeates) then it's a clique and IMO cliques are never a good thing.

Disingenuous? Really how's that then. Suggesting a Session Zero equivalent episode would be beneficial isn't disingenuous it's no more than a suggestion.




Running a game with a lot of individual house rules and 'rulings not rules' is exactly the same as any table in any game in the world. And, people 'hacking the game' to make it their own is an explicit design goal of this edition, told far and wide by Mearls, Crawford and the other designers. It even says as much on the literal second page of both the PHB and DMG. So I don't see why he has to be 100% by the book on his own game, or have elaborate disclaimers. That's what D&D is supposed to be. (BTW, when he does games that are officially sanctioned by D&D - say, the Vin Diesel one-shot - he is explicitly by the book.)

And this is relevant to my post how? Of course he's empowered to run the game anyway he and his players like, just as you are. But if you broadcast your game, it would be very helpful to the viewer to know what the premise and homebrew is. This is no different to having a session zero at your table - it's good manners, good planning and just plain sensible to ensure everyone is on the same page from the get go. And stop with the straw men "100% RAW" - "elaborate disclaimers" these are your terms not mine, I haven't suggested such (although I'm happy to admit I'd prefer a game closer to RAW and like you, I'm entitled to my opinion).



If you have ever seen the 'what Critical Role means to me' video, there are people balling their eyes out in happiness about what they've brought to the community and the game. So, you can disapprove all you want, but they're doing far more to make more people happy than anyone I've seen who complain about it here.

Nope never seen such a thing, not interested in seeing such and would consider such things to be heavily fanboy orientated and of no interest to me. Personally I can't imagine why anyone would want to view such a thing but if that's your thing, go right ahead.

And I'm not disapproving of anything - that's your opinion that you are imposing on me. Please stop doing that. I have, to the contrary, said several times that I think CR is very beneficial and overall a good thing for the hobby. Nor am I complaining, I'm commentating - there is a very significant difference. You seem to be on a very high horse, you want to be careful you don't fall off.



Stop thinking you need to save anyone from themselves.

Stop presuming you know what my intent or goals are - you clearly don't. And you clearly can't read a post without internalising it into your own knee-jerk reaction defensiveness. That IMO is a sure sign of frothing fandom - if you think CR is the bees knees and can do no wrong, is absolutely perfect and couldn't be better than whoopee for you. I tend to disagree, I think it could be improved - mostly by better editing and better direction. And as I already said, I think that lays at the feet of G&S not Mercer.

[Beelzebubba]

I wasn't talking about house ruling. I was talking about running a game for and by voice actors, and the deep character immersion and hugely over-descriptive everything that results. Edit: and in many RPGs other than D&D it wouldn't be that niche. Many have specifically been designed to enhance that style of play. But it's not the standard for D&D games, so new players walking in to one expecting can be problematic.

The thing I want to know is: of the new players that are playing that way, how many are darkening the door of your 20-years running group?

From everything I can see, the new generation are playing their games with each other, so they're living their lives in parallel. Are you getting multiple people coming to your D&D game who are incredibly put out that your game is different?

Let's say it's attracting a different style of player, one that - as an aggregate of gaming groups - loves the florid role playing. If enough of them come, then by definition, aren't they now 'the standard'? And we, the decaying elders with their well-thumbed Moldvay Basic on the shelf, are no longer the ones setting the tone of the 'right' way to play?

Look - I've met a bunch of people who watch Critical Role. None of them take the damn thing as seriously as your hand-wringing supposes. Most of them laugh at the antics, admire the role playing, and get floored by how many voices Matt seems to have mastered, but they know they're not capable of that stuff themselves, and they just play they way that's comfortable to them.

It's like saying 'oh god, Zlatan is so damn good at football (note: the version actually played with feet), I hope the kids don't learn from his example and try all those things that won't work for them' and getting worried. Meanwhile, everyone goes out there, finds out after a few minutes that they're never ever going to be that 'good', and then settles in to the rhythm and style of the game that they can physically and mentally accomplish.

Besides, of the DMs I know, all of the ones who watch Critical Role also watch Matt Colville, who does a damn good job of representing the Old School, and repeatedly says that CR is not how most play the game. So, it's not like CR is in a vacuum there either.

I think most people are smarter than you're giving them credit for. Either that, or where I live has an incredibly high ratio of 'people who can discern the difference between entertainment and a game they'd play'. You tell me.

[Arkhios]

Gygax used party callers, sometimes multiple when the PCs were running several simultaneous groups. Effectively co-DMs with a PC, that had the area of responsibility for organizing the party's group actions and responses, and then communicating them to the DM.

I've done that before (both as a player and as a DM) and it's a whole different ballgame and style of play.


Really? Honestly, I didn't know that many details about how he was doing it. In that case, so have I. I mean, I've been a player on multiple occasions in a multi-DM event where one "Grand" DM (I'm guessing this is what Gygax did?) is telling story as a framework where multiple smaller groups are doing their part to advance a story towards a common goal, led through the game by co-DM's for each individual table.
(Pathfinder Society has special "Convention-only" scenarios (scenarios mean about 4 to 6 -hour long adventures) that are run this way).

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

I'm just curious how many people on this forum watch Critical Role? Is there anyone who was brought into the D&D fold here because of it? What are your thoughts on Matt Mercer's campaigns so far?


I've watched about half the total episodes so far.

I hadn't even considered playing D&D until I watched an episode out of sheer boredom. Since then I've started playing a SKT campaign. I'm having session zero for another campaign next week, and I'm slowly getting my friends to be willing to play. Hopefully by Christmas I'll have a seven person campaign that I'm running.

I really enjoy the campaigns so far. There have been some boring spots but that's to be expected with any show/ form of entertainment. I personally have been using it to think about what I would do in certain situations, rules adjudication and stuff like that then comparing it to what Matt actually does and how it turns out.

[Knaight]

What's fandom got to do with it? Why should I need to be a fanboy to understand how the game is being played? Why on earth would I want to view such things? A first response on a tube that isn't even part of the playlist, let alone accessible as a podcast is never going to inform me or any number of other people of anything. I have no interest in what chat is saying or what tube comments are being frothed over.

The tube/cast is of the game, it's clearly homebrewed (which is fine) but the details are not transparent. If I have an interest in how the game is being homebrewed why should I have to engage with several other forms of media let alone be required to immerse myself in the mire of fandom to find out?
If we're talking about being immersed in fandom to figure out how the game is being played trying to figure out D&D not by using actual D&D books but instead by going to a web podcast and watching that seems like it probably qualifies.

As for the details being transparent, it's one D&D campaign. If people decide to take a sample size of one as representative, that's on them, and said sample members have no need to exhaustively delineate exactly how they're non-standard every session, recorded or no.

[Tanarii]

The thing I want to know is: of the new players that are playing that way, how many are darkening the door of your 20-years running group?
Almost all of my 20+ most regular players (at least once a month) are college age.

[Drascin]

I have never watched any of these podcasts, because I'm bad at watching any sort of spectator sport, and that includes D&D, but honestly reading the replies here I am all for these Critical Role guys already and I wish them a hundred more episodes of success.

[Beelzebubba]

Almost all of my 20+ most regular players (at least once a month) are college age.

Since you're not engaging with anything else I wrote, I feel safe chalking it up to 'grumpy grognard whining about generational change' and feel fine.

[Tanarii]

Since you're not engaging with anything else I wrote, I feel safe chalking it up to 'grumpy grognard whining about generational change' and feel fine.Do whatever makes you feel good about yourself toots.

[Anonymouswizard]

As for the details being transparent, it's one D&D campaign. If people decide to take a sample size of one as representative, that's on them, and said sample members have no need to exhaustively delineate exactly how they're non-standard every session, recorded or no.

Okay, this is probably the thing that's most important. The two potential problems with people who got into roleplaying via Critical role are that they expect all games to be like CR, or they think that CR is the best way to run a game.

I don't have a problem with the first as long as they're willing to give another style a try, although I'm not going to change to run more like MM. It's the second that's the problem, although they are thankfully rarer.

[Raif]

I think it could be improved - mostly by better editing and better direction. And as I already said, I think that lays at the feet of G&S not Mercer.

Just curious about this bit, what editing and direction? Do you mean angles and camera stuff? Or the writing? Since, it's not a written show, it's Mercer preparing a session just as any DM does.

There's no script if that's what you're getting at on CR.

[DracoKnight]

Man I'm sorry but that sounds so boring as a player even with a tightly run ship. How do you even get a word in with 10 other players at the table?

It can be, some nights are better than others. I play with a group that size because we're all close friends.


How long does a single round of combat take? An hour?

Nah, we usually have a round of combat done in under 10 minutes.

[Tanarii]

Nah, we usually have a round of combat done in under 10 minutes.Most of that's gotta be the DM?

[Beelzebubba]

You are misreading me. I didn't say it wasn't clearly homebrewed, I said it wasn't clear what the homebrew rules were/are by viewing. I did say that if the viewer didn't know D&D at all then s/he'd have no idea that homebrew was a thing, so s/he'd naturally assume the game was RAW - actually they wouldn't because the concept would likely never come to mind.

(Sigh) ok, if I MUST repeat myself.

Over the course of the show, Mercer repeatedly says he adds his own rules, and it's not strict 5E. And he does so when it matters most - right after one of them is important in a game.

For example, with Tiberius, that came up frequently. 'We allow up to 2nd level spells with Quickened metamagic for Sorcerers' came up enough that I still remember it even though I saw those episodes over a year ago. And that wasn't from other sources, it was in the show.

So, again, you're imagining flaws that are not true for regular, consistent viewers of the show.



The tube/cast is of the game, it's clearly homebrewed (which is fine) but the details are not transparent. If I have an interest in how the game is being homebrewed why should I have to engage with several other forms of media let alone be required to immerse myself in the mire of fandom to find out?

This is a different argument. My response: so what?

Why should he go out of his way to service someone who refuses to engage in every single form of communication that was literally designed to solve the problems you currently have? Those things that solve them well enough for the fans of the show? You know, the people that pay his bills, and give him hugs at conventions?

He responds to Tweets, he discusses his rules and rulings on Reddit, he published his classes on DM's Guild (until he learned that the licensing prevented him from including them in his own IPs), and plenty of articles and wikis have their house rule mechanics and are just a Google search away. It's all there already. You just don't like the packaging.

Why should he waste a single second catering to someone like you?

[DracoKnight]

Most of that's gotta be the DM?

Yeah. We usually finish out turns in 30-45 seconds. DM takes a bit longer. So maybe we take more like 12-14 minutes to finish a round of combat.

[Arkhios]

Yeah. We usually finish out turns in 30-45 seconds. DM takes a bit longer. So maybe we take more like 12-14 minutes to finish a round of combat.

How long do your sessions typically last, if you ignore the chatter before and after everyone settles down to focus their attention to the game?

[DracoKnight]

How long do your sessions typically last, if you ignore the chatter before and after everyone settles down to focus their attention to the game?

Anywhere from 3-6 hours.

[white lancer]

We've had sessions with 7-8 players before, and they run far worse than CR's does. The players on CR are really good about paying attention to the DM/the other players and not being distractions when it's not their "turn" for the spotlight, which hasn't been the case for my groups. I can't imagine playing with 11--anything more than 4-5 requires that everyone is capable of paying full attention in order for the game to run smoothly at all, and that gets harder and harder the more people you add.

[KillingTime]

Our Saturday afternoon game is 8 players + DM.
It's definitely been through phases of slow play, where an individual combat round took anything up to an hour. But after we'd identified this as a problem (mostly a factor of everyone wanting to squeeze every drop of tactical benefit out of every round), we simply made a solid rule that once initiative kicks in no-one gets to say anything in-character to another player taking their turn.
Now it runs like clockwork.
The big party hardly needs the extra tactical advantage anyway, and everyone is one point with a decission about what they want to do as soon as it's their turn.
The roleplaying is the better for it, and we get plenty done in any given session.
And we get hilarious non-optimial plays that are much more fun than everyone spending hours debating what the perfectly optimised sequence of actions should be.

[DeadMech]

I've been enjoying season 2. Haven't had the time to really scratch more than an episode of season 1 (which is admittedly a bit rough but what can you expect from a new production) or any of the other stuff. My current group recommended it to me though I've watched some of ItMeJP's RollPlay stuff before.

Seeing the set pieces really makes me want to exercise my creative muscles and do some arts and crafts though I shudder to think what I could do for storage. And I'm a bit jealous of the area they currently have set up to play in. My friends basement where we play is no where as spacious and nowhere as clean. Makes me think a priority when I go house shopping in the hopefully near future will be a space I can turn into a game room. everyone seems to have a good chemistry and a solid grasp of who their character is as a person. 4 hour weekly episodes I can see some people having issue with but I'm not sure I'd prefer cutting it up into daily half hour or so chunks. Sitting down and seeing the entire session playing out without breaks is fine by me and if I don't have time to finish an episode in one sitting there isn't anything stopping me from pausing it and coming back later. There might be some concessions made translating it to a broadcast format but nothing that's terribly offensive to me or that I can think of at the moment.

[2D8HP]

...Besides, of the DMs I know, all of the ones who watch Critical Role also watch Matt Colville, who does a damn good job of representing the Old School, and repeatedly says that CR is not how most play the game...


Well just as this thread got me to watch Mercer & company for the first time, this week I watched me (a little) and listened to (more) a few Colville videos this week (I'll have to cool it for a while now, I don't want to lose my job because of data use).

Here's one (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8).

I could see how the Mercer would be more entertaining if you were to actually sit at home and watch if like a television show (and if I'm ever at home alone long enough without chores I may do that), but Colville is much easier to follow as radio while I drive (even if it cuts out at Treasure Island, and then again at Ashby).

The advice seemed mostly good to me so far.

[Trask]

The main thing I dislike about Critical Role is how many people watch the show, want to play D&D and want it to be like that. Most ways of playing the game are not the kind of way Mercer does it, which is extremely linear, encounter focused and narratively driven.

That makes for a fine spectacle to watch, but rarely a good game. Especially if the person running it isnt a full time entertainer.

His show has fed the idea that playing D&D is all about some epic "story" and needs to be narrative, it cant just be some monsters in a hole. Which is VERY daunting for new dms. New dms need to know that its ok for a beginner game to just be a small sketched labyrinth with bandits, gold, and traps involved. That style of play which is the perfect springboard for personal creative development and learning the ropes is already discouraged enough on the corporate level by WOTC through its massive adventure tomes without any bite size drag and drop 1-3 session adventures. Critical Role is far more influential than WOTC is and it even further reinforces it because it is often the gateway for noobs.

On a subjective note, im not a fan of Mercer's fantasy world with its tiefling shopkeepers and magic marts. He does have some fairly creative scenarios though and i must give him credit for disencouraging a hack and slash kill em all playstyle and rewarding his players outside the box problem solving and diplomatic attempts. Thats a good example to set.