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

[Bolares]

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!

Well... how far from the screen are you when watching? (Brazillian mom mode ACTIVATE!)

 

[Umbran]

Eh, this strikes me as semantics.

Pleasing one's partner in an activity, and pleasing a viewing audience probably isn't a semantic difference.

Folks who do not believe this is true might want to ask their partners in various activities whether they think it is merely a semantic difference.

 

[Burnside]

What I find amazing about Critical Role is how watchable it is despite the fact that it is unedited. This is something I'm not able to say about pretty much any other live-streamed actual play D&D game I've tried to watch with the exception of a few isolated one-shots.

I have enjoyed episodes of D&D shows and podcasts that do some editing in post-production, such as Adventure Zone, Relics & Rarities, or Godsfall. But Critical Role is the only live show that I've been able to stick with. That's a testament to their charisma, chemistry, instincts, and storytelling ability.

That said, I also think the show has plenty of flaws and, in particular, my feelings about the second half of Campaign 2 are more negative than positive. Long story short, I think Mercer empowered his players to drive the story forward and, more often than not, they refused to do so; in particular I think Travis Willingham kind of dropped the ball on the basic D&D social contract of "be willing to go on the adventure" and just rejected what Mercer was offering him. The seven-hour finale, which was great in so many ways, also bugged me for this reason. They rapid-fire addressed all the plotlines that had been left languishing for months; it bothered me because the players were willing to FINALLY do stuff in that final episode because the campaign was over anyway and there was effectively no risk for their characters.

But I'm obviously in the minority there and the show is hugely beneficial to the game in general. I just personally would prefer that the show be a little more about going on adventures than it is. Not that I want all the character building/interpersonal stuff gone, but I just wish it more of it could happen during adventures and not between them.

 

[Bolares]

As briefly as I can,

... goes on to write 8 Paragraphs

 

[robus]

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.

This is a point I don't understand and yet it gets made over and over. Any performer will tell you that performing without an audience is really, really hard. The late night hosts playing to a camera and no audience during Covid have repeatedly stated how weird it is to not be able to react to a live audience. To think that CR are able to somehow transcend that issue and actually play to the virtual audience seems like a reach to me.

There is an audience, to be sure, and that audience is the other players in the room, just like in any home game. They go the extra mile to entertain each other and that is the root of their chemistry IMHO.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

... goes on to write 8 Paragraphs

I am painfully aware of my logorrhea.

It's my life's greatest tragedy; the inability to read combined with a concomitant inability to stop writing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Pleasing one's partner in an activity, and pleasing a viewing audience probably isn't a semantic difference.

Folks who do not believe this is true might want to ask their partners in various activities whether they think it is merely a semantic difference.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I agree that there is a meaningful difference between engaging in an activity for one’s own enjoyment and the enjoyment of one’s partner(s) versus engaging in the same activity for the enjoyment of an audience. That is, in fact, my position. Whether or not you call that meaningful difference “fundamental,” as @robus argued we should not, is semantic.

 

[Maialideth]

I enjoy watching CR. It makes me happy to watch other people enjoy the hobby that I've loved for nearly 30 years. CR, and Matt Mercer particularly, inspires me to be a better DM and person just generally. I don't get why people get so worked up about being able to do the same as CR or not... Be your own person, play your own game, enjoy CR and appreciate what they give us (or don't and don't watch it, that is entirely up to each person).
As other people have said here, CR are professional voice actors and very good entertainers and improv. They also have a production team and budget and sponsors. They play D&D, which is what most of us here do as well, I assume, and their game mostly plays the same as for the rest of us. They have shopping sessions and side quests and random stuff happening, but they don't have the same interruptions as the rest of us. How many here have a planned bathroom break half-way through the session? Or sponsor ads and announcements?
I really wish people would just enjoy it for what it is and not compare it to other games or DMs. Love it or don't, that's every person's choice, just don't blame them, they allow us to watch, appreciate that.

 

[robus]

I think you may have misunderstood me. I agree that there is a meaningful difference between engaging in an activity for one’s own enjoyment and the enjoyment of one’s partner(s) versus engaging in the same activity for the enjoyment of an audience. That is, in fact, my position. Whether or not you call that meaningful difference “fundamental,” as @robus argued we should not, is semantic.

So you think CR is purely mercenary then? I would argue that they are absolutely playing for their own enjoyment, the rest is just gravy.

Hey, folks have fun playing D&D regularly! News at 11!

 

[Charlaquin]

This is a point I don't understand and yet it gets made over and over. Any performer will tell you that performing without an audience is really, really hard. The late night hosts playing to a camera and no audience during Covid have repeatedly stated how weird it is to not be able to react to a live audience. To think that CR are able to somehow transcend that issue and actually play to the virtual audience seems like a reach to me.

There is an audience, to be sure, and that audience is the other players in the room, just like in any home game. They go the extra mile to entertain each other and that is the root of their chemistry IMHO.

Performer here: performing without an audience is hard, yes, but it’s a skill. A skill that actors who work in film and voiceover must hone, whereas performers who work in live media such as theater have less need to hone. I don’t doubt for a moment that the Critical Role cast is capable of playing to a virtual audience, because every single one of them does exactly that every time they step into a recording booth.