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

[KahlessNestor]

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.

But they ARE outliers. Does your home game have 300,000 live passive viewers (number from last episode of Campaign 1) and however many later viewers on YouTube and Twitch VOD? Do they pick over every ruling or character or plot decision? Tearing into you because of your characterization, like Marisa dealt with in Campaign 1? Do you have the entire internet speculating on why you parted ways with a player?

The performance aspect of the show has always been there from the beginning. Does it make it a "not real" playstyle? Not really, but it does make it very different from a home game.

And the cast have admitted as much. They actually CHANGED GAME SYSTEMS to make it easier. It also made it more popular and profitable. They meet weekly for 4 hours instead of every couple of months for 8 hours. People complain about watching a 4 hour episode. Imagine sitting for an 8 hour one. In the home game, they lounged around in PJs and munched on brunch. They got up freely from a cramped kitchen table to get mimosas. The cast have all commented on this, and you can see some of the pre-steam home video of this.

Some of the home game carried over to the stream. Early on, they ordered pizza and ate on camera. They were still a bit cramped, though they did have more tablespace. But that all soon went away when they got out of the Geek and Sundry "playroom" set to a real, dedicated D&D set. They have a SET. This is more than just mood lighting and music. Maybe the closest comparable would be Joe Mangienello's personal D&D basement. So none of that stuff happens now. They don't really eat on set anymore. They are obscenely careful with disguising the fact they are drinking Starbucks or a Coke. They can't just go and sing a song from the radio because it fits in the moment. No one is in pajamas, sans makeup. They often wear licensed apparel. Sam runs his t-shirt and flask gags.

And while I still think the primary focus of the cast is their own fun and enjoyment of the game, the fact they are performers means that a lot of their fun comes from the performance for the audience, and not just their fellow players. They have admitted as such about the live shows. If you watch their live shows, you can viscerally feel that the energy level of the players is like 150%. It's definitely ratcheted way up.

So yes, it's an outlier. It isn't like other home games. But it is D&D. Learn from it. But no one should be setting their bar to it.

 

[Seramus]

Hilariously, I think the biggest impact of performing in front of an audience is... they don't grump at each other much.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I'm unsure if we're still talking about how much you can learn from Critical Role as a DM or something else, but that's the part of the discussion that I participated in in the other threads.

1. I saw Lewis Hamilton win an F1 Championship. I drive a Toyota Camry at home. Therefore, I do the exact same thing as Lewis Hamilton, because the fundamental nature of the Camry and the F1 car is the same.

That analogy does not represent how I perceive it. Everything you highlighted in your original post was right. They are professional performers, they do play in a different context (better equipment, studio, etc), they do play to create entertainment, they absolutely are more disciplined than most home players. That's all true. And that's why it would be foolish to expect a group to behave or work in the same way that Critical Role does.

But, in one of the previous thread, I argued that I learned a ton from watching Matt Mercer. My analogy would be closer to: I saw a professional painter paint something on YouTube, I don't have the same equipment, I'm not as good as him, I'm not painting for an audience on YouTube, but I saw him do this interesting flick with his brush, or mix two colors I didn't think would do well together. I try that on my own, and sometimes it doesn't really work, but sometimes it does and I learned something!

The comparison that I used was there, for me, learning from Critical Role was the same as when I can observe another "amateur" DM run his game, or on the few occasions I was a player and not the DM. The way Dungeon Masters run their games is scarily different from table to table, and every time I watch one, no matter the differences (different demographic, different type of player, different edition, group that's been playing together for 30 years), I learn something.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That analogy does not represent how I perceive it.

"People seem much more interested in taking analogies apart, identifying what doesn’t work, and discarding them rather than — more generously and constructively IMO — using them as the author intended to better understand the subject matter. The perfect metaphor doesn’t exist because then it wouldn’t be a metaphor."

To the extent people keep ascribing positions to me that I do not hold, such as "You are forever barred from learning anything from Critical Role," I will simply point out that this is both annoying and frustrating.

A few posts before this, @OB1 did the same thing by demanding that I answer a whole bunch of leading questions (and I wish I was making this up) and ended by asking:
And even if that is what you believe, if you enjoy something that you see done on CritRole and bring that to your game, is that somehow wrong?

To which I have already responded:
Of course not. That's a profoundly weird thing to ask.

This whole experience has taught me one valuable lesson- I might have the utmost respect for the amazing talents of the people who make Critical Role, but ... boy, fans suck. So hard. So very very hard.

I would have been better off discussing Last Jedi or the relative merits of Pokemon or maybe just have a reasonable discussion about whether or not Teslas are good.

 

[Oofta]

...
I would have been better off discussing Last Jedi or the relative merits of Pokemon or maybe just have a reasonable discussion about whether or not Teslas are good.

It should be taken as it's own movie, not the fanflick movie imagined in your head. Why would anyone have an issue with forced servitude? No.

You're welcome.

 

[Oofta]

But they ARE outliers. Does your home game have 300,000 live passive viewers (number from last episode of Campaign 1) and however many later viewers on YouTube and Twitch VOD? Do they pick over every ruling or character or plot decision? Tearing into you because of your characterization, like Marisa dealt with in Campaign 1? Do you have the entire internet speculating on why you parted ways with a player?

The performance aspect of the show has always been there from the beginning. Does it make it a "not real" playstyle? Not really, but it does make it very different from a home game.

And the cast have admitted as much. They actually CHANGED GAME SYSTEMS to make it easier. It also made it more popular and profitable. They meet weekly for 4 hours instead of every couple of months for 8 hours. People complain about watching a 4 hour episode. Imagine sitting for an 8 hour one. In the home game, they lounged around in PJs and munched on brunch. They got up freely from a cramped kitchen table to get mimosas. The cast have all commented on this, and you can see some of the pre-steam home video of this.

Some of the home game carried over to the stream. Early on, they ordered pizza and ate on camera. They were still a bit cramped, though they did have more tablespace. But that all soon went away when they got out of the Geek and Sundry "playroom" set to a real, dedicated D&D set. They have a SET. This is more than just mood lighting and music. Maybe the closest comparable would be Joe Mangienello's personal D&D basement. So none of that stuff happens now. They don't really eat on set anymore. They are obscenely careful with disguising the fact they are drinking Starbucks or a Coke. They can't just go and sing a song from the radio because it fits in the moment. No one is in pajamas, sans makeup. They often wear licensed apparel. Sam runs his t-shirt and flask gags.

And while I still think the primary focus of the cast is their own fun and enjoyment of the game, the fact they are performers means that a lot of their fun comes from the performance for the audience, and not just their fellow players. They have admitted as such about the live shows. If you watch their live shows, you can viscerally feel that the energy level of the players is like 150%. It's definitely ratcheted way up.

So yes, it's an outlier. It isn't like other home games. But it is D&D. Learn from it. But no one should be setting their bar to it.

No one should be judging their game based on anyone else's game period. Different groups will have different play styles and capabilities, embrace your own.

Other than that, I don't think anyone is saying that they haven't made some modifications due to streaming, it's a matter of scale. For example they may not eat meals during game, but they still snack. It's more that if you say that it's primarily a performance piece it feels like you're saying it's somehow phony whether that is the intention or not. Making concessions to having an audience (why does having a nice set matter again?) does not necessarily change the very nature of their game.

Take wrestling as an analogy. We all presumably know that professional wrestling is different from what you'll see at the Olympics. The WWE is all about entertainment. You can counter that by saying that they really are still doing dangerous moves, live action stunts, but we all know that the motivations and goal is entertainment and that everything is just a choreographed show with predetermined results.

On the other hand, I can say that Olympic level wrestling is different from high school wrestling, or the wrestling kids sometimes do. Which is true. But while that Olympic level wrestling may look different from that high school gymnasium or mom's basement may well be very different, it is still all wrestling.

They hyperfocus on performance, to me, feels like comparing the wrestling matches we had in gym class* to WWE wrestling. I understand that is probably not the intent or meaning, but it is the message perceived.

P.S. I feel sorry for anyone in the public eye that actually cares what anonymous randos have to say about them. Especially for a stream that goes out of it's way to feel inclusive.

*I really hope they don't do that any more, or that at the least it's not compulsory.

 

[CleverNickName]

I would have been better off discussing Last Jedi or the relative merits of Pokemon or maybe just have a reasonable discussion about whether or not Teslas are good.

If you steal a Tesla, does it become an Edison?

 

[TheAlkaizer]

This whole experience has taught me one valuable lesson- I might have the utmost respect for the amazing talents of the people who make Critical Role, but ... boy, fans suck. So hard. So very very hard.

I don't consider myself a fan.

"People seem much more interested in taking analogies apart, identifying what doesn’t work, and discarding them rather than — more generously and constructively IMO — using them as the author intended to better understand the subject matter. The perfect metaphor doesn’t exist because then it wouldn’t be a metaphor."

To the extent people keep ascribing positions to me that I do not hold, such as "You are forever barred from learning anything from Critical Role," I will simply point out that this is both annoying and frustrating.

You seem to be taking my post much more negatively than it is. I said that I agreed with most of what you've written.

You've used an analogy, which is not wrong, but it doesn't describe my experience. I did not take your analogy apart, I simply stated it doesn't reflect my experience. I'm offering you one in return to help you understand where I'm coming from.

And I never said that you said that someone couldn't learn anything. But it seems obvious that we have different views when it comes to the degree or type of learning that one can experience while watching it. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm telling you how my experience was different.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And I never said that you said that someone couldn't learn anything. But it seems obvious that we have different views when it comes to the degree or type of learning that one can experience while watching it. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm telling you how my experience was different.

That's not quite it, either. Let me quote the end of my OP, and elaborate given the direction of the thread-

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I will say this- I am not Matt Mercer. I cannot do what he does. I could not run this game; I do not have the time, and I do not have the group. 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.

First, the reference to "might as well be magic" is a specific allusion to a Mithcell & Webb skit previously discussed. But to unpack this-

Imagine you're eating at Majordomo (either LA or Las Vegas- but we'll David Chang's take on a modern steak house in Vegas). There are a lot of things you could learn there-
Maybe you try a wine that you like.
Or you never had chili with crab, and you'd like to make that at home.
Or perhaps, for whatever reason, you've never had gochuang, and after tasting it on rice, you go and buy some to make your dishes, well, palatable.

In other words, you can enjoy the experience and you can also learn! Maybe you even get some of his recipes and cookbooks and try making some stuff at home.

...and yet, you will be unlikely to recreate that full experience. Because it is an experience. You likely don't have the cooking chops of the amazing people working in the kitchen (sorry, it's not David Chang). You likely don't have a full team to prepare the meal. You likely don't have all the bells and whistles to increase the ambiance. Heck, you might not even have the necessary things in your kitchen. It's not that you can't pick up tips and things to try, but it's a much healthier attitude to remember that ... there's a lot going on.

Same here. That's all. There is a lot of work that goes into making things look effortless. And not everything you see could, or should, be used in your homegame.

All of that said, I think it might be an interesting discussion to determine the ways in which streaming D&D as entertainment would cause certain playstyles and aspects to be emphasized over others simply because they are more entertaining to audiences ...

But after all of this? I have approximately the same desire to approach that topic as I would an Elon Musk fan website. I wouldn't touch that with someone else's 10' pole.

 

[Deset Gled]

If we're still doing analogies...

I think CR (or video streams of gaming in general) is kinda the fashion magazine of D&D. For people who don't know much about fashion, picking up a few issues and reading the articles is a good introduction to learn more about it. For people who are into fashion, reading magazines occasionally is a good way to keep up to date with current trends in the industry. And there's nothing wrong with picking up a few ideas, brand recommendations, or style tips from a fashion magazine. But it's dangerous to pick up a fashion magazine and start trying to look exactly like the models inside. That starts off with drastically overspending on accessories, and in extreme cases can culminate in body dysmorphia (aka The Real Life Mercer Effect). Read/watch responsibly.

And on a personal note, while I understand the appeal of fashion magazines and will occasionally flip through one when they're available, I just can't find it in myself to read a whole one cover to cover.