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

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I'm deeply confused as to what the hell difference it makes that they're playing to entertain an audience or not. Why does this matter?
Giving due recognition and respect of the type and quality of work they are doing, as well as recognizing that some (though obviously not all) of the decisions they make are a result of a priority their game has and yours lacks.
If you want to imitate their style, you can, you just have to work at it like anything else. If you don't then why do you care?
Nobody is saying you can’t or shouldn’t imitate their style if you want to.
This is like complaining about the World Cup because you can't flip kick a soccer ball at a billion MPH and also that you don't like soccer and wish they were playing baseball.
How is it like that? Nobody is complaining about Critical Role being a performance. On the contrary, we are honoring their performance.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
CR is different from your home game. Every D&D table is different than your home game.

While watching CR and applying what you see there won't make your home game just like CR (because they are talented voice actors and Mercer has spent decades honing his DM skills), you can watch CR and apply some of the techniques and ideas from it that resonate with you to your own home game in a positive way.
Agreed!
 

Xetheral

Three-Headed Sirrush
How is it like that? Nobody is complaining about Critical Role being a performance. On the contrary, we are honoring their performance.
I believe the issue is that @Snarf Zagyg framed the discussion as whether Critical Role is "overrated, underrated, or goldilocks." After reading the OP and the follow-up explanations, I personally get the impression that Snarf's actual point is rather more nuanced than the categorization suggested by the title.

However, if one (reasonably) assumes that Snarf is arguing in support of one of the categories they presented, I can see how one might read Snarf as claiming that Critical Role is overrated (as D&D) because it is instead a performance, and making the further claim that those who think Critical Role isn't overrated (as D&D) are implicitly criticizing the worth of that performance. Thus, those who feel that Critical Role is underrated or goldilocks (as D&D) see the claim that Critical Role is a performance as an attack on Critical Role's worth as D&D (and as an attack on themselves for not appropriately honoring the cast's performance skills).

I'm not sure there is any actual disagreement among the posters on either side as to recognition and respect due to the Critical Role cast and crew. The dispute instead seems to be regarding what language gives effect to that recognition and respect and what language denigrates it. I don't personally have an opinion on Critical Role, but I am interested in finding language that everyone can agree gives recognition and respect to the skills and accomplishments of D&D streamers. What do you think of describing Critical Role as "performance-quality D&D"? I think that language might emphasize the impressive performance skills involved without implicitly questioning Critical Role's worth as D&D, but given how easily language can be interpreted in multiple ways I'm very interested in your opinion.
 

jgsugden

Legend
If your table looks a lot like CR great1 It must be a fun table to play in. I don't want to sound rude here, but when we say most tables aren't, and that CR is different from home games, we are talking about the majority of games. There will always be exceptions and outliers. We're not trying to prove you or your table wrong. We are not trying to throw shade at CR, in fact, most of us love CR (Snarf is an exception because they are a bard who hates bards). I just don't get why you feel like we are attacking you..
You hit the nail on the head without realizing it. Playing at a table where there is real, organic role playing is fun. That is why people should be trying to find ways to do it better.

These lengthy and repetitive threads, which are lengthy and repetitive in a lengthy and repetitive way, condemned the idea that looking at CR, other streaming games, or the games of other DMs as a way to improve your game. Snarf told them that these DMs do not know your players, so 'you do you' and ignore everyone else, and that Critical Role, essentially, is fake like porn.
B. Don't listen to other DMs. Not on the internet. Look, all of us that give advice, myself included ... we mean well! But we don't know your players. We don't know you.
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.
As my grandmother lovingly says, "You can learn something from anything, including porn." And she is right.

I absolutely stand by the statement I've repetitively made in these threads: Emulating Critical Role in a home game is going to be educational and improve your game. That is NOT saying that a game that does not fit into the model of Critical Role is a bad wrong heresy game. It is saying that by trying to play a game in a fashion that copies the core elements of the Critical Role experience, you're going to learn things. You can learn you like something more than you realized. You can learn that you didn't understand something as well as you thought you did. You can realize that the model of something you tried is not for you, but maybe you can tweak it into something great. You can learn that you were right and the idea is not for you and your players.

I have been copying other DMs since the early 1980s. When I go to a convention, or game shop, or watch the internet, I do it with a pen and paper to take notes. I ask DMs about why they did something in the game. I provide a challenge when I see something that I thought did not work (yes - that is hit and miss and some DMs react poorly when you suggest something else could have been done - but some thank you for the suggestion with a smile on their face). Then, when I run my games, I look for opportunities top try the things I saw to see how they work.

And I am a muuuuuuuuuuuuuch better DM than I was in 1980, and I'll be a much better DM in 2060 if I keep it up.

I've learned 1.) better techniques to deal with problematic players, 2.) to use silence as a tool to unsettle players, 3.) to balance encounters through pacing of the encounter, 4.) to use terrain more effectively to make interesting encounters, 5.) to subvert expectations without deceiving, 6.) to anticipate magic as an intelligent NPC would and counter it without dues ex machina, 7.) to let it go when the PCs outsmart me, 8.) to then reward them for ruining all of my plans, 9.) to weave backstories into storylines over time effectively (there are so many tricks to this that I've picked up by watching other DMs.... they all work together beautifully to weave a story around what PCs do instead of weaving the PCs into the story), 10.) to create memorable NPCs, 11.) to make NPCs that are not memorable for specific purposes, 12.) to draw PCs to clues without being obvious, 13.) to be consistent with NPC characterizations and voices (even if it is months and years between when we see that minor NPC), 14.) to help players share spotlight, 15.) to accommodate power gamers and heavy role players in the same group, 16.) how to almost always say "yes", 17.) but when to say "absolutely not", 18.) how to make different monstrous humanoids feel different even if they don't use any mechanical differences, 19.) and how to keep monstrous humanoids from being offensive clichés (and yes - this is something I am putting a lot of effort to further improve), 20.) how to make the world feel real to the players so that they feel like the DM knows what is behind every door, 21.) how to remind players and PCs of pivotal facts at a timely time without making it blisteringly obvious that the BBEG is about to make a surprise return, 22.) how to merge homebrew spells, monsters, items, etc... with established materials, 23.) how to have PCs be given orders without taking player agency, 24.) how to paint better, 25.) how to stage hidden scenery that is meaningful, 26.) where to find great resources for digital tools and physical tools for the game, 27.) subtlety, 29.) misdirection, 28.) the importance of addressing expectations, 30.) how to create suspense through word selection, 31.) when to use the inevitable, 32.) when to toss the work I've done out the window because a PC brought me a better opportunity, 33.) how to use commercial adventures with players that think I don't know they're reading them without calling them out or making it awkward / making them feel punished, 34.) when you've reached the point that you need to ask a player to leave, 35.) when to let people make mistakes, 36.) how to get the PCs to come up with your idea themselves, 37.) how to make a PC feel like a Big Darn Hero, 38.) how to make an NPC twist the knife in a way that leaves players eager to get them, but not angry or sad in the real world, 39.) the characteristics of the game to focus on at each tier of play, 40.) the characteristics of the game to ignore at each level of play, 41.) the 2 magic items that make a game 1000% better, 42.) how to honor the past of a campaign world by allowing former players to have their retired PCs still influence it, 43.) when not to solve a mystery, 44.) how to add texture through simplification, 45.) how to make 'easy' encounters challenging, 46.) how to mix genres effectively, 47.) when to palette cleanse with a one shot side adventure, 48.) when to recommend to a player that a different PC might be more fun for them, 49.) how to make epic monster battles feel epic without just making them deadlier, 50.) to understand the costs of fudging a die roll, 51.) that mercy, as a DM on game day, is more problematic than mercy as a DM between sessions, 52.) how to guide players to the correct rule without telling them they're wrong, 53.) how to bolster confidence in a player, 54.) how to get people to put away their technology at the table (both virtual and in person) without asking, 55.) how to make platers feel good about themselves, 56.) how to crush a PC without crushing a player, 57.) how to celebrate the death/end of a PC, 58.) how to deal with a TPK without negating the significance of it or losing all progress in the story, 59.) how to let PCs fail with real consequences and make it fun, 60.) 20,000 great one liners, 61.) 10 tricks to make PCs want to protect an NPC, 62.) how to make a druid and a nature cleric feel different, 63.) how to make fighters, rogues and other non-magical PCs shine next to powerful spellcasters without making them cartoons, 64.) how to use sleight of hand at the game table to blow minds, 65.) how to deal with romance between PCs, 66.) hot to deal with romance or hatred between players, 67.) how to steal from books, movies, and tv without it being obvious, 68.) how to steal from books, movies and tv and only make it obvious after the PCs realize they're the villains, 69.) how to flip the players world upside down in a good way, etc....

These are all things I remember stealing from other DMs, from Critical Role, or from watching game masters in other ways. And I could go on and on (into the thousands of things I stole), and each of the items above I could talk on for an hour or much, much more.

And just watching it gives you some insight, but trying it out gives you more. Did I mention lengthy and repetitive yet?
 

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
These things do not contradict each other. Adult film actors are actually doing the nasty, they’re just also making a performance of doing the nasty. The Harlem Globetrotters are actually playing basketball, they’re just also making a performance of playing basketball. The Critical Role cast is actually playing D&D they’re just also making a performance of playing D&D. That’s one of the levels the analogy does work on. Are there levels the analogy doesn’t work on? Of course. But the point being made by this analogy is that, like those forms of performance, Critical Role is also a form of performance in which the performers are legitimately engaged in the activity being performed - this as opposed to, say, a Hollywoos movie, where the actors are not really doing the nasty or playing sports.
I think there's at least an implied difference of kind here.

Adult film performers are (most commonly) doing a job for pay, where their priority is entertaining an audience. Their enjoyment is (normally) secondary, and must be set aside when the director wants to shoot a different angle, activity, etc. (There are exceptions, to be sure, both specific performers and productions, but they are exceptions to the rule).

The Harlem Globetrotters don't seem to be playing a game of competitive basketball at all. They and their "opponents" are putting on an improvisational show in the format of a basketball game. Similar to a staged basketball game scene in a movie. There is no actual "game" there, but instead a pretense of a game. (Yes, the Globetrotters official FAQ says they are real games which both teams try to win, with the Globetrotters mixing in showy moves, but with a win percentage of 98.7%, I think we have to take that claim with a huge dash of salt).

In both cases their primary activity and emphasis is entertaining an audience.

I don't think we can all agree that that's true of CR. No doubt there are days when it's more like a job, and there may be a range of feelings among the group. But it appears to me that it is indeed still their hobby that they've monetized, and that while the size of the stream and audience no doubt alters the character of the game a bit, it's still their game.
 

Bolares

Hero
and that Critical Role, essentially, is fake like porn.
are we really still on this? The thing about complaining about lenghty and repetitive threads is that, sometimes, if you don't read them, you loose the parts qhen the person explains the analogy was mostly a joke, and apecified what they ment by it. Not one... absolutelly no one, is calling CR fake here.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I believe the issue is that @Snarf Zagyg framed the discussion as whether Critical Role is "overrated, underrated, or goldilocks." After reading the OP and the follow-up explanations, I personally get the impression that Snarf's actual point is rather more nuanced than the categorization suggested by the title.

However, if one (reasonably) assumes that Snarf is arguing in support of one of the categories they presented, I can see how one might read Snarf as claiming that Critical Role is overrated (as D&D) because it is instead a performance, and making the further claim that those who think Critical Role isn't overrated (as D&D) are implicitly criticizing the worth of that performance. Thus, those who feel that Critical Role is underrated or goldilocks (as D&D) see the claim that Critical Role is a performance as an attack on Critical Role's worth as D&D (and as an attack on themselves for not appropriately honoring the cast's performance skills).
Yeah, I definitely think that’s causing confusion. The title is a little clickbaity, aiming to drive people to check out the discussion. Unfortunately not everyone who is brought in by the enticing title is reading and digesting the mini-essay in the OP or the discussion it spawned. And understandably, since there is a lot to read and digest. But yeah, it is what it is.
I'm not sure there is any actual disagreement among the posters on either side as to recognition and respect due to the Critical Role cast and crew. The dispute instead seems to be regarding what language gives effect to that recognition and respect and what language denigrates it. I don't personally have an opinion on Critical Role, but I am interested in finding language that everyone can agree gives recognition and respect to the skills and accomplishments of D&D streamers. What do you think of describing Critical Role as "performance-quality D&D"? I think that language might emphasize the impressive performance skills involved without implicitly questioning Critical Role's worth as D&D, but given how easily language can be interpreted in multiple ways I'm very interested in your opinion.
I think that mostly works. The only quibble I have with it is that it seems to imply that the ability for D&D to make a good performance is a question primarily of quality, and that the difference between a home game and a performance like Critical Role is quality. Rather, I think the difference is one of priorities. Entertaining passive viewers is a priority for the Critical Role cast. It is presumably not a priority for most home games.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Yeah, I definitely think that’s causing confusion. The title is a little clickbaity, aiming to drive people to check out the discussion. Unfortunately not everyone who is brought in by the enticing title is reading and digesting the mini-essay in the OP or the discussion it spawned. And understandably, since there is a lot to read and digest. But yeah, it is what it is.

Clickbait-y? CLICKBAIT-Y??????

It's a good thing I didn't go with my initial title-

14 Things Critical Role is Doing Wrong (YOU WON'T BELIEVE THE LAST ONE!)
 


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I think there's at least an implied difference of kind here.

Adult film performers are (most commonly) doing a job for pay, where their priority is entertaining an audience. Their enjoyment is (normally) secondary, and must be set aside when the director wants to shoot a different angle, activity, etc. (There are exceptions, to be sure, both specific performers and productions, but they are exceptions to the rule).
Sure. And I personally think that’s something I believe Critical Role has in common with adult cinema - that it is primarily being produced for the audience’s entertainment, and secondarily may be enjoyable for the cast as well, but if it comes down to it, the audience’s enjoyment takes priority. I may be wrong about that. The audience’s enjoyment may actually be a secondary priority, with the cast’s enjoyment being the primary one. That’s something we can only really speculate about. Regardless of the order of priorities though, the fact that entertaining a passive audience is a priority at all sets it apart from most home D&D games in a way that I believe is significant.
The Harlem Globetrotters don't seem to be playing a game of competitive basketball at all. They and their "opponents" are putting on an improvisational show in the format of a basketball game. Similar to a staged basketball game scene in a movie. There is no actual "game" there, but instead a pretense of a game. (Yes, the Globetrotters official FAQ says they are real games which both teams try to win, with the Globetrotters mixing in showy moves, but with a win percentage of 98.7%, I think we have to take that claim with a huge dash of salt).
Yeah, the Harlem Globetrotters are… a much weaker analogy. I only used it because it’s less fraught with baggage than adult cinema.
In both cases their primary activity and emphasis is entertaining an audience.

I don't think we can all agree that that's true of CR. No doubt there are days when it's more like a job, and there may be a range of feelings among the group. But it appears to me that it is indeed still their hobby that they've monetized, and that while the size of the stream and audience no doubt alters the character of the game a bit, it's still their game.
Yeah, I do think whether entertaining the audience or enjoying themselves rakes precedent is a matter open for debate. While I suspect the former is the priority, I could absolutely be wrong about that. But again, the fact that entertaining the audience is a priority at all, I think, makes a significant difference compared to home games.
 

Remove ads

Top