D&D General Critical Role: Overrated, Underrated, or Goldilocks?

[FrogReaver]

Man, you need to learn to be succinct. Seriously. These massive posts get in the way of your message. And this is me calling you out here on lengthy posts. You could cut that post down by 90% and get your message across more clearly.

Some of us enjoy his posts. I find them light and entertaining reading that bring up good points.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Love the show and the whole franchise.

I just hate how it's impossible to talk about these days without having someone turn it into a D&D culture war because they're not playing the game 'right'. Which is weird in and of itself because... they're not the first. Acquisitions Inc for example is way more satirical and fudges the rules way more blatantly and the characters are way less traditional (in some ways) and they don't get half the crap CR does. I guess if you have to lash out, you lash out at the king.

 

[Retreater]

I find more fun doing chores around my house than watching CR. I am glad people like it, but for me it's the most boring form of something produced for the purposes of entertainment I've ever encountered.

 

[payn]

Some of us enjoy his posts. I find them light and entertaining reading that bring up good points.

I do too, until I'm seven paragraphs deep and realize the correct answer to the query is, "who gives a sh@t." Doh, Snarf'd again. I still come back every time.

 

[Malmuria]

Love the show and the whole franchise.

I just hate how it's impossible to talk about these days without having someone turn it into a D&D culture war because they're not playing the game 'right'. Which is weird in and of itself because... they're not the first. Acquisitions Inc for example is way more satirical and fudges the rules way more blatantly and the characters are way less traditional (in some ways) and they don't get half the crap CR does. I guess if you have to lash out, you lash out at the king.

I feel like CR and Acq Inc are good comparisons for different styles of games. In the latter the players talk in character far less often and insert jokes as often as possible. It’s really meant to be a funny show it seems. In CR the players take their characters with their backstories much more seriously, and play out dramatic moments. I’ve never had a dnd group that was like that, so I don’t really relate to it. In both cases, everyone is aware of the pacing of the game, it being a show, so there’s a lot less of players spinning their wheels because they have limited time and want to get something done.

 

[Seramus]

My games are pretty close to Critical Role, so I never bought into the whole "They are paid actors, and your group can't be as good" part.

The two big differences from his games and mine are that I can't do voices like Matt, and my players remember the rules better than CR.

But in no way is this method the only way to play. Acknowledging that different people want different things out of games is the important thing.

Min/Max your kindness and empathy!

 

[CleverNickName]

Min/Max your kindness and empathy!

This is just good advice for life in general, not just D&D games.

 

[Maxperson]

Also, unlike most, I do play with other professional actors (though not the whole group), and I can confirm that the acting alone is not the only difference. Playing for an audience is just very different than playing for each other.

I have also played with many actors and other hollywood industry folks. And I agree with this.

 

[Maxperson]

Critical Role is to D&D what the Harlem Globetrotters are to basketball. Yes, both play their games, but watching either really isn't going to give you a true understanding of how their game is normally played.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

Anyway, at one point in a rather lengthy post, the following was stated by someone who most likely resembled me, or, at a minimum, some other crazed tea drinker:
You will learn as much about being a good DM for your home game from watching Critical Role as you would learn to be a considerate lover from watching adult film clips off the internet; it's just not in the same ballpark.

Critical Role is to D&D what the Harlem Globetrotters are to basketball. Yes, both play their games, but watching either really isn't going to give you a true understanding of how their game is normally played.

I'm a much better DM now than I was in 1980. The biggest leaps I took as a DM were after observing a great DM and stealing from them. Something it was a direct lift and shift into my game - and it was a hit. Other times I twisted what I saw. Other times I tried it out and learned it was not for me and my group.

Based.

Critical Role is a nice introduction to one style of GMing and a decent introduction to D&D; however, the show itself is imperfect (and frankly, I cannot understand fans who spend hours listening to a D&D podcast rather than playing D&D, or even those with the patience to listen to D&D's slow-moving combat) and new players attempting to ape Mercer will repeat his mistakes while falling short of his achievements.

No harsh criticism do I level at Critical Role that I would not level at myself, as I'm guilty of making gaffes and blunders in GMing outside of rules knowledge. The only way to improve is by learning from those mistakes.