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

[Mannahnin]

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.

Yeah. And I don't know if it's even a debate which can be resolved, unless maybe we were to poll the players and Matt.

But I think that's why the analogies got pushback. I don't think anyone's denying that playing to an audience changes the game, but I think folks are on opposite sides of the question "is it entertainment for the audience first and foremost, or entertainment for the group first and foremost?" Which is probably not something we can determine definitively.

If the game exists (at this point) primarily for the audience, it's more like a TV show or a Globetrotters game than it is like our games. Which is what I think Snarf was saying in his OP. But I'm not convinced that's true.

And I think the folks who have observed that we can indeed learn from and improve our games by imitating parts of it are correct.

 

[jgsugden]

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.

...
A. Fiction isn't reality.
When it comes to the world of fiction, there are a whole host of things that people don't usually understand. And the reason why is that ... it's fiction. More importantly, it's entertainment. I certainly hope that none of the following comes as a shock to any person reading this:
i. Reality television is not just heavily edited, but is structured - which is to say, will often have particular bits that are emphasized, drawn out by the production team, or even scripted.
ii. The vast majority of what you see in a CSI-style procedural (or any police show that utilizes "CSI" technology) is either misleading, false, or (at best) changed to make dramatic sense.
iii. Medical shows will often be completely incorrect; when they are correct, they will emphasize incredibly rare but interesting conditions as opposed to the incredibly common things that are usually dealt with. The common joke on the differential diagnosis show, House, that "It's never lupus," should have been a stand-in for the truth; compared to what they were diagnosing, it was always lupus.
iv. And the common trope of a legal show with a masterful two-minute closing argument or opening statement before a jury is pure fantasy.

I could keep going on, but you get the idea. Generally, the concept that we are watching a performance, a fiction, is sufficient to have people understand that there will be difference between the fiction presented and reality for purely dramatic effect, but on occasion people have trouble understanding that; for example, the individual on a reality TV show isn't the character they were edited to appear to be. Sometimes, these misconceptions can actually be damaging. The public's belief in how forensics works in a typical case, information that is incorrect and based on fiction and entertainment, has been called the CSI effect, and can have deleterious effects on juries and on how people assume the police and the criminal justice system approach cases.
... As far as I am concerned, Critical Role might as well be magic. It is amazing improv entertainment built off of D&D, but it is as similar to my home game as my making breakfast at home is to a dinner at Major Domo in Las Vegas.

Does he use the word fake? No. Fiction? Yes. In italics, nonetheless. Do you see that this entire discussion - comparing it to reality TV and CSI is inherently calling it fake? His only reason to state his 'point a' was to say that Critical Role isn't, first and foremost, a real D&D game. He clearly calls it something akin to magic - in that it can't really exist. As in it is fake.

His underlying statement is clearly that nobody could actually run a game like CR, which is countered by many DMs telling him, "Errrr... while not a carbon copy, a lot of us have experience with this depth of a game. We don't have all the bells and whistles, but for the most part, our games run like this game does."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If the game exists (at this point) primarily for the audience, it's more like a TV show or a Globetrotters game than it is like our games. Which is what I think Snarf was saying in his OP. But I'm not convinced that's true.

That's not quite accurate- look, let's set aside the fact that they are all amazingly talented performers, and that this is a job and business that they are compensated for.

Physics is not the only field in which observation can affect outcomes! You know this to be true.

If you know that you are being observed, then you behave differently. When you add in the fact that they are performing for an audience, then they will necessarily make choices that are different because they are aware of an audience, and that they are performing for that audience. Because they are no longer just making choice that enhance the fun for the table- they will also be making choice that, in their estimation, will be entertaining for the audience at home.

That it seems naturalistic and that you are unaware of this is a credit to the skill of the performers.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

His underlying statement is clearly that nobody could actually run a game like CR,

No. But I have no wish to engage further with you.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah. And I don't know if it's even a debate which can be resolved, unless maybe we were to poll the players and Matt.

Seems like a question that might have been asked in some interview at some point, but I have no idea.

If I really think about it, it probably varies from one cast member to the next, right? Like, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that, say, for Ashley Williams it’s more about enjoying herself but for Laura Bailey it’s more about putting on a good show for the viewers (just random examples). I’m sure for all of them it’s about both, but which takes priority in what contexts surely varies from person to person.

But I think that's why the analogies got pushback. I don't think anyone's denying that playing to an audience changes the game, but I think folks are on opposite sides of the question "is it entertainment for the audience first and foremost, or entertainment for the group first and foremost?" Which is probably not something we can determine definitively.

See, I definitely got the impression that some people were denying that playing for an audience changes the game. Like, I was literally talking to people saying that performing for an empty room and playing for a packed auditorium didn’t feel significantly different to them. And to be honest, as an actor, I find it a little insulting to extrapolate that personal experience to assume professional actors wouldn’t feel a difference between those things. We do, and that’s generally where our primary drive to perform comes from.

If the game exists (at this point) primarily for the audience, it's more like a TV show or a Globetrotters game than it is like our games. Which is what I think Snarf was saying in his OP. But I'm not convinced that's true.

I do think it’s inarguable that Critical Role is like a TV show or a Globetrotters game in a way that our home games are not. Whether it’s more like one or the other I think is secondary to the broader point that it is definitely not just like our games apart from the acting talent and production value. It is different from our games in that it has different priorities, which I think is important to keep in mind when looking to emulate in your own games elements of their game that you like.

And I think the folks who have observed that we can indeed learn from and improve our games by imitating parts of it are correct.

I think they’re absolutely correct! I also think that some of what is done on Critical Role is influenced by the fact that it’s at least in part for the entertainment of a passive audience, and this should be kept in mind when learning from what they do. Some of what they do may work better than them than it will for you, because of the different concerns of D&D-as-performance-art. That doesn’t mean don’t look to learn anything from it, it just means keep it in context when looking to learn from it.

 

[Bolares]

Does he use the word fake? No. Fiction? Yes. In italics, nonetheless. Do you see that this entire discussion - comparing it to reality TV and CSI is inherently calling it fake? His only reason to state his 'point a' was to say that Critical Role isn't, first and foremost, a real D&D game. He clearly calls it something akin to magic - in that it can't really exist. As in it is fake.

His underlying statement is clearly that nobody could actually run a game like CR, which is countered by many DMs telling him, "Errrr... while not a carbon copy, a lot of us have experience with this depth of a game. We don't have all the bells and whistles, but for the most part, our games run like this game does."

You know every D&D game is fiction right?

Merriam-Webster defines fiction as:

Definition of fiction​

1a: something invented by the imagination or feignedspecifically : an invented story… I'd found out that the story of the ailing son was pure fiction.— Andrew A. Rooney
b: fictitious literature (such as novels or short stories)was renowned as a writer of fiction
c: a work of fictionespecially : NOVELHer latest work is a fiction set during the Civil War.
2a: an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its trutha legal fiction
b: a useful illusion or pretenseit was only a fiction of independence his mother gave him; he was almost totally under her power— G. A. Wagner
3: the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination

soo, saying CR is fiction maybe isn't the same as calling it fake?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Our table consists of several voice actors, an adult film star, and a professional basketball player (well, Washington Generals, but we don't hold that against them). We don’t have time for engaging with streaming D&D “actual” plays. When we do get together for D&D, we pretty much are in someone's basement grunting at the dice. It's a very serious game, so laughing and joking around and any kind of funny voices are saved for catch-up time before or after the session lest verisimilitude be broken. Is this ok and/or a popular playstyle? Asking for a friend.

 

[Xetheral]

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.

That's a very fair point. I considered "performance-oriented D&D" instead, but I fear the reduced emphasis on quality will be less palatable for those who want to emphasize Critical Role's worth as performance, and simultaneously less palatable for those who don't want it's worth as performance to be seen as implicitly questioning its worth as D&D.

Maybe the best approach would be to go with the "performance-quality D&D" label, but include a specific note that the term is being used specifically to refer to a D&D game that has the quality of making for a great performance, and not to imply that games without that trait are of lower quality.

 

[Oofta]

Our table consists of several voice actors, an adult film star, and a professional basketball player (well, Washington Generals, but we don't hold that against them). We don’t have time for engaging with streaming D&D “actual” plays. When we do get together for D&D, we pretty much are in someone's basement grunting at the dice. It's a very serious game, so laughing and joking around and any kind of funny voices are saved for catch-up time before or after the session lest verisimilitude be broken. Is this ok and/or a popular playstyle? Asking for a friend.

Are you having a rewarding experience? Do you find it a worthwhile use of your time? Then you're doing it right because nobody else's opinion of what a "good" game is matters.

 

[jgsugden]

You know every D&D game is fiction right?

Merriam-Webster defines fiction as:

Definition of fiction​

1a: something invented by the imagination or feignedspecifically : an invented story… I'd found out that the story of the ailing son was pure fiction.— Andrew A. Rooney
b: fictitious literature (such as novels or short stories)was renowned as a writer of fiction
c: a work of fictionespecially : NOVELHer latest work is a fiction set during the Civil War.
2a: an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its trutha legal fiction
b: a useful illusion or pretenseit was only a fiction of independence his mother gave him; he was almost totally under her power— G. A. Wagner
3: the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination

soo, saying CR is fiction maybe isn't the same as calling it fake?

You're reaching. Absolutely reaching here. Put his comments in context. Don't strip away the context in an attempt to "win".