D&D General Critical Role Ending

[Campbell]

I wonder why it is that some people, when presented with a perspective counter to their own, immediately conclude those other people must not know what they are talking about, rather than considering they might have had different experiences.

If your criticism would have been in anyway incisive (or even spoke to actual qualities of the games in question) I might be inclined to see otherwise. Instead you paint with a broad brush that lumps games that could not be more different as if they were fundamentally the same thing. It's drive by posting.

Dungeon World and Fate are more different from each other than they are to 5e. When you act like they are fundamentally similar you belie your lack of experience.

 

[SehanineMoonbow]

I became a critter when the pandemic started. I'm not a "hardcore" critter, but I do enjoy it.

But I have so many questions lol! Maybe some of them will be answered in the post-campaign Talks.

Here's the thing though--yes, it's a D&D game, yes, some loose threads are expected, and yes, ultimately, it's a game between friends, but, at least in my opinion, because they are (currently) so public, and CR is pretty much a franchise now, I hope their isn't too many loose threads. I feel like some arcs still need to be addressed. But, it's not quite over yet, so we'll see.

 

[Burnside]

You speak like they're not massively successful, or like people do not listen to the shopping/meditation/date night episodes.

Role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. Story is more than combat.

He didn't say "all I care about is combat."

There is a huge leap between saying, "As a show, I wish they would push the story along at a faster pace" and saying "GET TO THE FIGHT! ALL I CARE ABOUT IS FIGHTS!"

People can run their games exactly as they like. But this game also happens to be a performance, and, as such, subject to reasonable criticism. Not insults, but reasonable criticism.

"They're massively commercially successful" does not insulate them from criticism or mean they are flawless. Obviously. Or else Friends would be considered like one of the greatest pieces of art ever created by Western civilization. No one on Critical Role would assert that the show has no flaws.

In campaign 2 of Critical Role, part of the reason some storylines were never addressed is because the players chose to spend hours and hours and hours of the airtime chatting in character, shopping, describing their magic mansion, bullying monks at the library, doing guided meditation, and hanging out with blood-soaked mass-murderer Essek who they weirdly decided was a cute, funny pal. If those were your favorite parts, awesome.

If you would rather that the campaign had a bit more story momentum and better pacing, then I agree with that criticism.

 

[Campbell]

I think streamed games should be run first for the players. The audience is along for the ride, but the game should not be run for them.

 

[Iry]

I wonder why it is that some people, when presented with a perspective counter to their own, immediately conclude those other people must not know what they are talking about, rather than considering they might have had different experiences.

It's human nature. For better or worse, our default reaction is to assume someone disagreeing with us 1) Does not know as much as we know, 2) Does not have enough life experience, or 3) Is not as smart as us. We can rail against it, but it's so widespread it's easier to work around it. Like people being defensive. You can't force people to stop being defensive, you just have to work around it.

 

[Burnside]

I think streamed games should be run first for the players. The audience is along for the ride, but the game should not be run for them.

I fundamentally disagree. If you're streaming, it means you want an audience. If you want an audience, it's a performance. If you are performing, you should consider the experience of your audience.

Not saying the way CR runs is "wrong". But I think there is a huge difference between a private game of D&D and a public game in front of an audience.

I think the fact that a lot of people DON'T see this is why 99% of D&D streams are unwatchable.

 

[Campbell]

I fundamentally disagree. If you're streaming, it means you want an audience. If you want an audience, it's a performance. If you are performing, you should consider the experience of your audience.

Not saying the way CR runs is "wrong". But I think there is a huge difference between a private game of D&D and a public game in front of an audience.

I think the fact that a lot of people DON'T see this is why 99% of D&D streams are unwatchable.

Personally I think a big part of what makes streaming successful is its authenticity. I'm not looking for performative play when I sit down to watch a stream. I want something that feels like a real game.

 

[Parmandur]

I fundamentally disagree. If you're streaming, it means you want an audience. If you want an audience, it's a performance. If you are performing, you should consider the experience of your audience.

Not saying the way CR runs is "wrong". But I think there is a huge difference between a private game of D&D and a public game in front of an audience.

I think the fact that a lot of people DON'T see this is why 99% of D&D streams are unwatchable.

I would say the fact that they just play their game as if nobody is watching is a major component of their success.

 

[jgsugden]

@Burnside Your views are fine for you to own, but:

1.) Shopping episodes, date episodes, meditation episodes, bath episodes, etc... (with little to no adventuring in them) were not done as an alternative to more adventuring and more storytelling as they did not preclude those activities - they just delayed them. It wasn't like the decision was to either hunt down Trent Ikithon or go shopping...

2.) CR does do some things differently because they have an audience, but at the core, it is just a group of people playing D&D. They're charismatic people playing a story driven game with an exception DM. That is the formula. If they push aside character moments (including shopping, meditation, bathes, etc...) they'd be just another hack and slash game and would not be capitalizing upon the distinct advantages that have made CR successful - the charisma of the cast.

3.) Not everybody will like the approach CR uses. They do. And as they're the only ones that get a vote and so far have built a pretty hefty financial empire for themselves based upon that approach, I doubt they'll upset the boat.

 

[Oofta]

I fundamentally disagree. If you're streaming, it means you want an audience. If you want an audience, it's a performance. If you are performing, you should consider the experience of your audience.

Not saying the way CR runs is "wrong". But I think there is a huge difference between a private game of D&D and a public game in front of an audience.

I think the fact that a lot of people DON'T see this is why 99% of D&D streams are unwatchable.

I agree with @Campbell on this one. With CR specifically if I felt like they were acting for the viewers on a regular basis (something they do a bit of at conventions, which I think is perfectly normal) it would be less appealing. Is it exactly what they would be like in a home game? Who knows. But they did start as a home game and the whole streaming thing happened basically by accident.