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

[Bolares]

They had their backstories from the beginning. Look at the comic books that chronicle their Vox Machina origins. The early story was built out of their backstories.

This is how Matt operates now, and historically. It is how a good number of DMs operate. You get back story, Then you weave it into your stories as you go forward. This allows you to tell a long story that unfolds over several chapters. The backstory of each character folds into those early stories.

If you read carefully what I’ve wrote, it’s right there… they didn’t have so elaborate backstories… and that is public information, shared by the CR cast themselves

 

[Oofta]

When you're a paid performer, that's exactly what you do. Even if you sometimes love your job, it's still a job.
How many times have I had to pretend to be happy onstage while I was in physical pain?
Anyone who gets paid to play D&D has made it a job, and is (at least at times) faking it.

So when I show up to DM a game and I'm in a bad mood but set that aside because I want to run a good game for my players, I'm acting? Because trust me, there are times when I'm faking it and putting on a good front even though I don't feel like it. Am I somehow not playing D&D if I get into and speak in character? Carefully set aside the stress I'm feeling from work so I don't ruin the game for everyone?

These are the things ... I just don't see that much of a difference. I would assume we all pretend at times. Funny thing is, sometimes when I'm in a stressful situation I find myself assuming the personality of one of my PCs; how would Sven the paladin who could face down a dragon feel in this job interview? I mean, I have to remember to not do my Minnesotan Norwegian accent don't ya know, but for me sometimes acting and putting on a front is just how I deal.

 

[CleverNickName]

I suppose I'm asking for of a spectrum here, whereas gatekeeping as a buzzword has a very negative connotation attached to it. There's nothing with having an opinion about something and wanting to Express it regardless of your knowledge or investment, but those things do make a big difference in how your opinion can be weighed and responded to by others. As soon as you call that "gatekeeping" the conversation becomes about that person being a jerk.

Opinions aren't the problem. The attitudes that form them, and the actions they promote, are the issue.

Take black licorice, for example. People don't hate black licorice without reason, they hate it because it tastes bad, or because they want it to taste like something else, or they had a particularly bad childhood experience with it, or their gross uncle loved the stuff and they want nothing to do with him, or they heard that lots of other people hate it and they want to fit in. The point is, people who like or dislike black licorice have a reason for that opinion, and that's fine. "I don't like black licorice, I think it tastes nasty. I once ate so much of it I made myself sick and now I can never even look at the stuff."

But if that reason is paired with disdain for people who feel differently, or if it's paired with the desire to have black licorice removed from all candy stores and limit the number of people who are allowed to enjoy it, they are no longer expressing an opinion. That person is engaging in a form of gatekeeping. "I don't like black licorice, people who like it obviously don't know what's good. I think stores should stop selling it so that everyone else will finally stop eating it."

 

[Burnside]

Because some people equate CR to porn? Then call it "semantics"? I mean, having real relations with someone is fundamentally different from doing it solely to get paid.

Saying that CR is like porn is saying that they are acting like they enjoy playing D&D. All the jokes, the laughs, the comradery is "acting". I see no reason to believe they are not just extremely talented people who enjoy playing and happen to stream their show.

This really has nothing to do with my post.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

How is it used incorrectly here? Snarf has already said they "don't take kindly" when people make judging comments but don't read the OP. And I agree with them on this point. I voted "yes" in this poll. The net effect is that if you want to participate in the conversation (especially early on), you're expected to perform a task (lots of reading) before doing so. Isn't that the basic definition of gatekeeping? How is this different from telling someone that can't comment on a book trilogy before reading the last book, except the book is a 2000 word, 4x 8.5x11" page manifesto?

So that particular thing was slightly different- it was more about pulling a quote from a different thread, which I didn't think was representative, when this entire thread was created to explore the specific subject and had a more full articulation of the issue. I try to be fair to others, sometimes succeed, and hope that others do the same for me.

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.

For the most part, I work under the assumption that some people like reading my long posts, and some don't. But people can write about whatever they want in the comments!

Alternatively, if you don't like the word "gatekeeping" here, what word should I use instead? This is a case where I would value advice over snide comments.

I don't think that there is any gatekeeping. Because I'm not excluding anyone- I write for myself. That some people don't like it (or choose not read it) simply means that not everyone enjoys it.

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.

But if you need a term for an intimidating amount of verbiage that puts you off of reading something, how about... Prousting? As in, "I was going to read Snarf's latest 20,000 word digression into why the smell of a cannoli sent him into a reverie about the relationship between early 'Skilled Play' D&D and the oeuvre of Tarantino, but c'mon, that's some serious Prousting."

 

[Charlaquin]

Critical Role started out as a home game that they played simply for their own personal enjoyment.

Yes, and now it’s a streamed actual play watched by millions.

Porn is not about the personal enjoyment of the actors.

Not primarily, no, though I don’t don’t some of the actors do enjoy it. Likewise, Critical Role is not primarily for the enjoyment of the actors, but I don’t doubt that they enjoy it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because some people equate CR to porn? Then call it "semantics"?

That’s not what I called semantics.

I mean, having real relations with someone is fundamentally different from doing it solely to get paid.

Why is “doing it solely to get paid” the only alternative? Can’t they love doing it and do it to get paid? Can’t they do it for the love of performing, rather than - or even in addition to - enjoying the activity itself (be that D&D or sex)? This is a pretty extreme dichotomy you’re presenting.

Saying that CR is like porn is saying that they are acting like they enjoy playing D&D. All the jokes, the laughs, the comradery is "acting". I see no reason to believe they are not just extremely talented people who enjoy playing and happen to stream their show.

Saying if they’re acting they are only pretending to enjoy playing is like saying actors don’t enjoy acting. It’s actually really insulting to actors, because, as I said before, we dedicate our lives to perfecting the art of having genuine emotional reactions to artificial circumstances. I don’t doubt for one second that the Critical Role cast loves playing D&D or that they’re all having a lot of fun when they’re recording. However, I also recognize that having fun for an audience is different than having fun by yourself. It’s still fun, but it’s different - in fact, for someone who goes into acting, it’s probably much more fun to do in front of an audience. It has to be, otherwise there’s no way they would put up with all the crap of the industry.

 

[Charlaquin]

When you're a paid performer, that's exactly what you do. Even if you sometimes love your job, it's still a job.
How many times have I had to pretend to be happy onstage while I was in physical pain?
Anyone who gets paid to play D&D has made it a job, and is (at least at times) faking it.

This is also true. As much as I don’t doubt the CR cast loves what they do, I also don’t doubt they sometimes have days where they would rather not, but they do it anyway because that’s show business.

 

[Charlaquin]

So when I show up to DM a game and I'm in a bad mood but set that aside because I want to run a good game for my players, I'm acting? Because trust me, there are times when I'm faking it and putting on a good front even though I don't feel like it. Am I somehow not playing D&D if I get into and speak in character?

Let me stop you right there. It seems like you are equating “acting” to “not playing D&D.” Let me assure you, this is not something the folks saying CR is different from home games are doing. Both are absolutely 100% D&D. It’s D&D for yourself and your friends vs. D&D for an audience (and also for yourself and your friends), not real D&D vs. pretend D&D.

These are the things ... I just don't see that much of a difference. I would assume we all pretend at times.

Yes, everyone pretends sometimes. That’s not the same thing as acting, and a lot of actors take great offense to their craft being called “pretending.”

 

[Deset Gled]

But if you need a term for an intimidating amount of verbiage that puts you off of reading something, how about... Prousting? As in, "I was going to read Snarf's latest 20,000 word digression into why the smell of a cannoli sent him into a reverie about the relationship between early 'Skilled Play' D&D and the oeuvre of Tarantino, but c'mon, that's some serious Prousting."

Wouldn't creating new little known new words and references to old white men be a classic example of linguistic gatekeeping?