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

[Charlaquin]

But that‘s the thing, fundamentally it is the same, it’s stuff beyond the fundamentals that sets it apart.

Eh, this strikes me as semantics. We can argue about what is or isn’t the fundamentals of a home D&D game vs. a streamed game, but the point is, they are both D&D, but the former is done solely for the entertainment of the players (and DM), whereas the other is done for the entertainment of an audience as well. And while it may look the same as the former, that’s because the people doing it are very, very good at it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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 suspect it's an issue of presentation. Acquisitions Inc. Is presented as and always intended to be satirical and irreverent. CR, on the other hand, has always seemed to be to be taking the game more seriously. Thus, mistakes are more obvious.

 

[J.Quondam]

So just to be perfectly clear: I will, in fact, NOT go blind if I, umm, watch too much CR, right?


* I only watch for the rulings. Really!

 

[BRayne]

You… you do know the actors in adult films are actually doing the act, right?

Implication of fakeness was the operative phrase there

 

[Charlaquin]

Though I think the "adult film" analogy is why this argument and thread exists in the first place. Had Snarf started with the NFL analogy (ie "higher level" but still same sport) I doubt people (at least the ones who did take issue, a different crowd might have instead) would have taken as much issue as opposed to the adult film version which carries an implication of "this is all being faked" that people found untrue

On a more serious note, this is exactly why I think adult films are a better analogue than professional sports. Pro sports are the same activity as amateur sports, done at a higher level, which is not the relationship streaming games have to home games - what would a “higher level” even mean in the context of playing D&D? The very idea smacks of elitism. On the other hand, adult film actors engage in the same activity that partners do at home, but they do it to entertain an audience, rather than only themselves and each other (though I imagine at least some, especially the good ones, do also enjoy themselves while doing so.) That is precisely the relationship streamed games have to home games.

 

[Charlaquin]

Implication of fakeness was the operative phrase there, but no need to let that get in the way of being snarky

Well, that’s the thing though. It’s a false inference, whether it’s being made about Critical Role or Debbie Does Dallas. If anything, the fact that this is a common misapprehension of both just further reinforces the analogy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm going to come to jgsugden's defense here, because I can relate and I don't think it's a complaint specific to this one post. It's a trait of many, many thread openings from Snarf. And it actually makes me less likely to take part in a discussion I would otherwise engage in. You know that feeling when you look at a thread with an interesting title, then realize it's already 20 pages long? You're left with the choice of spending way too long reading stuff you know is meaningless trying to catch up with where the thread has gone, or just jump in ignoring 95% of the thread? That's basically how I feel about one of Snarf's threads after the very first post. And the end result is that I'm less likely to join in because Snarf is essentially making the barrier to entry of the thread too high. I know it's not intended as such, but it sometimes comes across as a form of gatekeeping; if you want to discuss this topic, you must endure this meandering wall of text to get to it.

That being said, I have never once in the past confronted them about this for exactly the reason you mention. It's not my thread, and I have no business telling another poster to change their writing style around my preferences. But since we're already half a dozen posts into discussing the meta-issue at this point, I feel empowered enough to throw in my two cents. So, @Snarf Zagyg , keep doing what your doing, I don't expect the world to change around me, and some people like it. But it would definitely help if you could add some sort of a summary or a TL;DR at the end of your posts. Some of us (maybe just me?) are more likely to join in if you do.

I would love it if people stopped calling behavior/opinions they dont agree with gatekeeping.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Snarf Zagyg my apologies, sincerely. On the first read of your initial post in this thread, I misinterpreted it as a further justification of your original comment, rather than an explanation of what you actually meant. That's on me.

I'm still not sure I fully understand your position on the positives vs negatives of popular live-stream D&D for the hobby, and will commit to trying to better understand your POV if you would like to continue the discussion.

As briefly as I can, with the understanding that brevity is the antithesis of me:

1. I think that livestreams, in toto, are an unabashed positive for the hobby. They drive increased interest and keep the hobby relevant to a much wider swath of people.

2. I'm not a CR or livestream fan, and I don't watch them myself (other than sampling to try and understand what the fuss was about). Not because I'm not super-impressed by them, but simply because I lack the time and find that I have other uses. Mostly, reading and watching random low and high culture so I can make long incomprehensible posts that vaguely allude to those things. Wait until my magnum opus on how the Birthright is really just the Wacky WallWalker of D&D.

3. When I did sample CR, what came across to me was the sheer amount of talent at the table. I was shocked at how good they were able to make it for an audience! Not only did they make a product that entertained, they did so while making it look ... effortless. To me, that has always been the mark of extreme skill (and work).

4. I don't think that the debates over whether it is, or isn't "real D&D" or whatever that might mean are particularly productive- they are obviously playing the game with rules and dice and all of that. But having talented professional performers playing a game for an audience ... is so very different than what most people at home are doing. We can all imagine ourselves doing that, maybe, but we don't actually do this because we aren't playing for this external audience, and because we generally don't have decades of training at acting, improv, and years of credits as a professional.

5. I think it is helpful to remember that divide; to state the obvious, just because you're playing the same game, doesn't mean ... you're playing the same game. If you give Gordon Ramsay or Alain Ducasse the same ingredients and recipe as you, and everyone cooks ... then you're probably going to end up with different dishes. Here, when people have spent their lives (school, clubs, work, so much put into it) and are so good that they can make a living as performers, and you ask them to entertain an audience, they will necessarily end up with a product that is different than what we will end up with at home.

And that's not a bad thing! That's truly amazing. It is a massive tribute to the skill of Mercer & Co. that they are so skilled that they have taken something that most people would view as unwatchable (other people playing D&D) and imbued it with the drama and pathos that they've turned it into an empire.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

On a more serious note, this is exactly why I think adult films are a better analogue than professional sports. Pro sports are the same activity as amateur sports, done at a higher level, which is not the relationship streaming games have to home games - what would a “higher level” even mean in the context of playing D&D? The very idea smacks of elitism. On the other hand, adult film actors engage in the same activity that partners do at home, but they do it to entertain an audience, rather than only themselves and each other (though I imagine at least some, especially the good ones, do also enjoy themselves while doing so.) That is precisely the relationship streamed games have to home games.

At a certain point past the one-liner, I chose to ditch that analogy to make sure I stayed on the correct side of forum rules.

 

[Umbran]

You… you do know the actors in adult films are actually doing the act, right?

Mod Note:
If you are going to make it personal, this is going to go south really quickly.