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

[FrogReaver]

So to summarize a great mind - "It's basically the same but different."

 

[Shiroiken]

Critical Role is like home games the same way the Avengers is like your home movies. There's a gigantic difference between what can be done by professionals and by even talented amateurs. While I've never experienced it myself, the only real issue with CR is when a new player gets excited about playing, assuming it's going to be exactly like CR.

i. You complain about the person doing play-by-play during a sports game. That's easy! However, try turning the sound off for an entire game and record yourself doing that play-by-play. Listen for the mistakes you make, the pacing, the ums and the ahs. Not so easy, is it?

I just hate it when NFL announcers can't tell the difference between an end-around and a reverse. Oh, and the color commentator is there to fill in those "um" and "ah" spaces.

 

[Charlaquin]

But they started as a home campaign. No audience, just the group. Playing a game to presumably destress a bit and blow off some steam.

Ok? Whatever it may have started out as, it is now a performance, produced for a massive audience, which for people who enjoy performing for an audience, is different than a private game.

The earliest recordings show a game very similar to the current one.

I have seen these recordings and I disagree with your assessment of them.

So I'm with you on the first part. We don't know. They're taking advantage of it, but we don't know if they would have simply kept playing a home game or not.

It doesn’t matter what they might have done, what I care about is what they did do, which is that they made it into a performance for a massive audience, which for people who enjoy performing for an audience, is different than a private game.

I also fail to see why it matters. We get assertions, opinions stated as fact into their innermost thoughts and motivations. And it's all unfounded conjecture.

It’s not unfounded. It’s reasonable inference based on the knowledge that they are professional performers, and therefore likely enjoy performing for an audience (which would make it different than a private game).

In the end, why does it matter? Their motivation hasn't changed how they act significantly while playing.

Again, I disagree that it doesn’t change how they act. The earliest recordings are different than the show when it first started, is different from the show now, is different from their live shows. Because an audience changes a performer’s performance. Usually for the better.

It doesn't change my enjoyment of the stream.

Great! I don’t think it should change your enjoyment of the stream. If the impression you’re getting from people saying “it isn’t the same as a home game” is “you shouldn’t enjoy it as much,” you’ve got us all wrong.

I mean, of course they're more eloquent than most people. But either you enjoy it or you don't. Either you think overall it's good for the hobby even if nothing is perfect or you don't.

I do enjoy it, and I think it’s great for the hobby. That doesn’t mean it’s the same thing as a home game.

All this talk of performing for an audience changes you ... how does it matter?

It matters because, as Snarf’s thesis states, regarding it as “just like my home game, but with better acting and production values!” diminishes the work the actors and the off-camera crew are doing. And because it brushes over the fact that what works for a home game doesn’t necessarily work for a game-as-performance, and vice versa.

That doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t take away anything from the show. If Critical Role (or whatever D&D stream) inspires you to be a better DM or player, great! If you’ve learned valuable techniques from watching them, great! I’m just saying, it’s a different beast than a home game, and deserves to be recognized as such.

 

[Seramus]

I don’t think “they’re paid actors and your group can’t be as good” is even in the same galaxy as Snarf’s point.

Seems relevant to Part 3 of the original post. How do you figure?

 

[Ogre Mage]

My initial interest in Critical Role was watching professional actors play D&D, which was a novel idea I had never seen before. I never conceived of D&D as a performance piece. I am not a professional actor nor have I played with any. They have the craft to inhabit characters in ways most of us cannot. And because they know each other well, they have a good comfort level with how to play off one another. You're only as good as your scene partner. Seeing professional acting within a D&D game was a treat.

That said, I never got enough into it to become a regular watcher -- the episodes were too long. I never got interested in following the story arc as I would rather experience that first hand with my own games. Also, for all their superior characterization, I don't think the group is tactically strong. Sometimes their tactical blunders were the funniest part of the show. Actually it now occurs to me that watching them blunder is something I find sadistic humor in. Maybe that doesn't say something good about me as a person but I am being honest.

 

[Charlaquin]

Seems relevant to Part 3 of the original post. How do you figure?

You have to understand that the core thesis is that playing D&D at home and playing D&D for a streaming audience are different activities - they make look similar, but that’s because the actors are very good at making their performance look effortless. That’s their job. Point 3 isn’t saying “you and your players will never be as good at D&D as the Critical role cast because they’re paid actors and you aren’t.” It’s saying “what the critical role cast is doing requires a different skill set than what you and your players are doing.” The relationship is not like friends playing basketball compared to the LA Lakers. It’s friends playing Basketball compared to the Harlem Globetrotters.

 

[Burnside]

Anecdotally.

I’m a professional actor, director, and writer with 20+ years of experience. I also play D&D in both professional and casual play:
-Casually with friends
-As a pro DM
-As a performer on a podcast
-As a performer in front of live audiences

For me personally, these modes are all a bit different in terms of style of play. In terms of distance from playing casually with friends, playing in front of a live audience is the most different. The energy from a live crowd really changes the game.

Performing on the podcast isn’t as radically different as live shows, but I do play differently than I would in a casual game. Mainly, I am more focused, break character much less, and am conscious of trying to play in a smooth, clear style so as to minimize work for the editor. I’m also probably thinking a bit more about continuity and for the sake of the audience setting up a character arc in a way I wouldn’t focus on as much in a casual game.

Pro DMing is the least different from a casual game. Honestly the main difference is just that I do more prep work for the session.

I also think it’s worth pointing out that comparisons between professionally performed games vs home games and the “equivalent” in sports or entertainment is problematic because D&D as performance is very, very new. Less than 15 years old. We are seeing the very beginning of the form, and the lines between amateurs and professional players are still quite blurry. It’s in a nascent state. I think in 10-20 years professional D&D as a performance form will be much more clearly distinct from non-performance home games.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I like Critical Role overall, but I do kind of wish they'd make shorter episodes.

For the polar opposite of Critical Role, the podcast That Happens dedicates the last 20 minutes or so of each episode to the two hosts playing D&D, with one as the DM and the runner of an NPC ally (a warforged named the Big Copper who frequently punctuates his sentences with "baby") and the other being the player of the tabaxi rogue Fuzzyknuckles. Right now they're playing through a somewhat weirder version of Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh with bizarre NPC names like Hush Money and Beef Fungus Ned. Also there was a dwarf tax collector who summoned an earthen "tax shelter" to attack from the top of.

The rest of the podcast is mostly devoted to trying weird flavors of Mountain Dew.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

To answer the OP.

I like CR. It falls into the same category as other podcasts for me, in that it's rare that'll just sit down and watch it but it's something I'll have on while I'm doing something else, like work. I rate it as "Very Good Improv" which puts it below "Average Scripted Drama" but above "Bad Scripted Drama."

Now, as thread drift has already been alluded to I think I shall take this opportunity to start some.

More fully, I generally think it's possible to have nuanced and occasionally contradictory opinions and thoughts on subjects. Other than certain universal truths, such as the perfidy of Bards and the dead-eyed soullessness of Elves, we should be able to discuss things and have fun doing so. In the end, this thread will pass, and CR will continue on.

Let us sing of the glory and goodness that is Elves! They are just better than us at everything.
Smarter, faster, stronger, wiser, they live forever (or near enough) and are just so much prettier than we could ever hope to be. Animals love them. Plants grow better for them than for us. Plus, and this is the best bit, to Them everything is an opportunity to sing a song! A joyful song that tinkles like a brook in a sunny meadow or a deep and sorrowful song that tolls upon one's heart like... some other watery simile. The important thing is Elves are awesome and we aren't worthy to lick their elegant, pointed shoes. Elves are better than us and they know it, dog bless them.

<snip>

If you like the subject matter of the title, fire away! Given the propensity of thread drift, we will all be talking about orcs within 50 pages anyway.

So... how about that local orcish sports team? Did they have a good weekend or what?


In other news I am currently enjoying a sugar high.

 

[Oofta]

I watch CR and think: this is a lot like my home game. The same beats and rhythms, people playing their characters, lots of laughter mixed in with a bit of drama. The DM does their best job of creating an exciting campaign and does a variety of voices and mannerisms (well, I do, many do not and that's okay). A lot less shopping/exposition most of the time but that's something that varies from table to table.

Are they more "focused"? I don't know but maybe my games are unusual because we tend to stay in character just about as much on the show. Maybe it's because we get a bunch of chit-chat out of the way when we're first together and take a lunch break set aside to just hang out. Having structured breaks in game time means there's not a lot of out of game stuff at our table, about the same amount as I see on CR. Our actual play time is probably a bit longer than most CR episodes.

Are they aware that this will be watched? Obviously. I just don't see how that makes it "fundamentally different than a home game".

But this has now devolved into:

Me: "CR reminds me of my home game."​

Others: "It's a performance for an audience, it's not at all the same."​

Me: "Well, when I DM I am performing, to a certain degree when I'm not DMing I'm still acting the role of a PC".​

Others: "It's not the same. They get paid"​

Me: "Right, but how does that matter? We speak in person at our table. I do voices. Maybe not as eloquent..."​

Others: "It's not the same at all"​

Me: "Huh? How?"​

Others: "Because it's a performance for an audience"​

Put on spin cycle. I'm done having that argument, we might as well be cutting and pasting at this moment.