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

[prabe]

Entertaining passive viewers is a priority for the Critical Role cast. It is presumably not a priority for most home games.

I think this is getting to the point of the difference between Critical Role as it is now and pretty much any home game. It'd be like if the people in your home game were trying to entertain someone in the room but not playing--which, the occasional kibbutzer or other guest aside, I'm going to guess doesn't happen with any regularity.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think this is getting to the point of the difference between Critical Role as it is now and pretty much any home game. It'd be like if the people in your home game were trying to entertain someone in the room but not playing--which, the occasional kibbutzer or other guest aside, I'm going to guess doesn't happen with any regularity.

Exactly. And even when you do have folks there who just want to watch but don’t want to play, I think most groups don’t really treat entertaining that person as a priority.

 

[Bolares]

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

I'm not attempting to win. The whole concept of "winning" a ENwolrd discussion baffles me. I'm just trying to explain to you the context of the whole conversation. When Snarf called it fiction it was in the context of it being a fictional piece, not that it was fake.... I don't know why you're being so aggro here, but hey, we're just trying to have a fun conversation.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Nobody is saying you can’t or shouldn’t imitate their style if you want to.

How is it like that? Nobody is complaining about Critical Role being a performance. On the contrary, we are honoring their performance.

Basically, I feel like the hyperfocus of the argument on 'they are performing' thing is being used to set them out as outliers and invalidate their play style as not a 'real' playstyle.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm not attempting to win. The whole concept of "winning" a ENwolrd discussion baffles me.

Just say 'badwrongfun'. Works every time.

 

[Seramus]

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.

I'm genuinely confused. The second part of my post talks about how people want different things out of their games, and how important it is to be kind and empathetic towards people who want those other things. You don't think that resonates with what Snarf is saying?

 

[Oofta]

Exactly. And even when you do have folks there who just want to watch but don’t want to play, I think most groups don’t really treat entertaining that person as a priority.

Or maybe they just realize that the show comes across as more honest an relatable because they don't prioritize entertaining other people. We have no way of knowing, if they even know themselves.

I have no clue what their priorities are. Neither does anyone else that is not on the cast. I also don't see why it matters. When I play I usually try to make decisions more-or-less based on my PC, but sometimes I'm just motivated by saying something funny, or playing off of current events. I have many nebulous motivations for doing what I do, it's not like I have internal

I don't watch the "after shows" very often, but I did catch the one after Fjord threw his sword away because it was on auto play and I was busy. When talking about it, Travis said something along the lines of "I was kind of surprised by the decision, but it was what Fjord would do". Not "what was more entertaining", not "what the audience wanted" but what his PC would do. Is this the standard for how he decides what to say or do? Heck if I know. I just know that at one pivotal moment, unless he was lying, his motivation was what would Fjord do.

So unless there's actual quotes from the cast, I have no reason to believe (or care for that matter) their primary motivation isn't just to play a game while keeping in mind that it will be watched and we have no idea how much that affects them. I wouldn't be surprised if even they don't really know. But again, I don't see why it matters. Similar conversations, plots, character development happen in my home game.

Unlike (for example) the CSI TV show which only has the barest correlation to reality, to me, CR feels like a real game. People have many motivations for playing the game or many other things we do. I would assume that for most people the reason they play the game is a messy amalgam of reasons and there isn't a neat categorizations. I will say that they are either some of the most amazing actors ever or they truly enjoy each other's company and what they're doing. I don't think their priorities change that, or matter.

 

[Charlaquin]

How about a practical example? In Critical Role, the players will often have lengthy personal moments - monologues, one-on-one interactions with Matt or an NPC, digressions into personal quests, etc. These work fantastically for Critical Role as a performance for the benefit of a passive audience, especially because they tend to be very well-acted. Are there lessons we can learn from these moments and take to our home games? Sure! You might take note of how Matt weaves individual characters’ stories into the overarching plot, or how he manages the personal narratives of so many characters while still feeling like a true ensemble piece. But also, at your table, you will probably need to keep in mind that your entire audience consists of active participants in the game, which will put different demands on you in terms of managing spotlight time. You may want to keep these personal scenes more brief than Critical Role is able to get away with. You can learn from the show and improve your game that way, but keep the different context in mind while doing so. Adapt what you learn from it for the context you are playing in, rather than trying to emulate it exactly as you see it on the show. Does that help clarify where I’m coming from?

 

[Charlaquin]

Basically, I feel like the hyperfocus of the argument on 'they are performing' thing is being used to set them out as outliers and invalidate their play style as not a 'real' playstyle.

I don’t think that’s happening. I think the discussion has been focused on “they’re performing” because that’s the aspect of the discussion that’s getting the most pushback. Nobody is saying “they’re performing” to try and invalidate their play style. They’re saying “they’re performing” to hilight how excellent their performance is, and to caution against blindly emulating their behavior without considering how the fact that they’re performing may be affecting it.

 

[Bolares]

When talking about it, Travis said something along the lines of "I was kind of surprised by the decision, but it was what Fjord would do". Not "what was more entertaining", not "what the audience wanted" but what his PC would do.

Ah, I think I can see now where our disagreeing comes from (from now on I'm guessing, so if I miss the mark, I'm sorry, feel free to correct me). When we say they prioritize entertaining, you understend it being "prioritizing entertainment in detriment of personal fun and character choices. That makes sense to me now. That's not what I'm saying at least. When I say they are a show, or that their focus is entertaing people, I don't think they make in game choices for the audience first and character last (maybe Sam sometimes, but he does it for the table too). Their decisions are completely character based, and they are VERY good at that. But I believe they make those deep character choices (in character creation) and intricate backstories, because they have an audience. So to me all their great character choices and roleplaying are part of the entertainement, not at odds with it