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

[OB1]

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.

Why is making different choices because they are aware of an audience any different than making different choices because of a book you read or a film you watched or a video game you played? They all change the game, and as long as your table enjoys it, does it matter?

Also, and I'm really asking the question here, not trying to put words into your mouth, is it your belief that the players of CritRole aren't having a good time playing D&D with each other, and that it's their skill in acting that just makes it seem that way to the audience? 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?

 

[Charlaquin]

Or maybe they just realize that the show comes across as more honest an relatable because they don't prioritize entertaining other people.

See, I disagree. I think the show comes across as honest and relatable because the cast are all excellent performers. Coming across as honest and relatable is something they probably all went to grad school specifically to learn to be really good at, and dismissing that as “not prioritizing entertaining people” as opposed to “being incredibly good at entertaining people” does them a disservice.

We have no way of knowing, if they even know themselves.

But we do have means of making reasonable inferences.

I have no clue what their priorities are. Neither does anyone else that is not on the cast.

I do know that entertaining an audience is a priority of theirs. I don’t know how highly they prioritize that compared to their other priorities. I assume it varies from person to person and moment to moment. But entertaining the audience is pretty much undeniably a priority for them, which matters because it means their game has different concerns to juggle than yours does, which is both worthy of recognition and respect, and also merits consideration when looking to learn from what they do.

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.

I’m quite sure that their character decisions are motivated primarily by what they imagine their characters would do. That’s, like, a huge part of acting - you need to understand your character’s internal world and emotional state so you can make choices from a place of genuine experience. Doing so is also motivated in part by a desire to make the performance cathartic and enjoyable for your audience to watch.

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.

Of course they truly enjoy each other’s company and enjoy what they’re doing. Absolutely no one is claiming otherwise. That doesn’t mean they don’t care about entertaining their audience.

You know how I can tell entertaining their audience is a priority for them? Because it’s an entertaining show. Performances where the performers don’t care about the audience’s experience are generally terrible.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why is making different choices because they are aware of an audience any different than making different choices because of a book you read or a film you watched or a video game you played?

Because people don’t go to college to learn to make choices because of a book they read or a film the watched or a video game they played. Because people don’t make a career out of that. And because making different choices because of a book or movie or video game is something they have in common with your game whereas making different choices because you’re entertaining an audience is something that’s different about it from your game.

They all change the game, and as long as your table enjoys it, does it matter?

If your table enjoys it great! The point is, when adapting what you see on CR to your table, keep in mind that they have different needs affecting them than you and your players do, and adapt accordingly.

Also, and I'm really asking the question here, not trying to put words into your mouth, is it your belief that the players of CritRole aren't having a good time playing D&D with each other, and that it's their skill in acting that just makes it seem that way to the audience? 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?

No, and no, and also a good actor does genuinely feel the emotions their character is supposed to be feeling.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Why is making different choices because they are aware of an audience any different than making different choices because of a book you read or a film you watched or a video game you played? They all change the game, and as long as your table enjoys it, does it matter?

Does anything matter? I am not being facetious here.

I don't want to continue harping on this too much; to me, as someone who has to be aware (in their day-to-day life) of basic rhetoric, this point is so banal and also so obvious that it is difficult to continue articulating it.

Rhetoric- the study of the construction and analysis of arguments, understanding that arguments are implicit in all forms of communication.

Once you get to that point, you have to understand the nature of an "argument," which is simply a "speaker" attempting to communicate something to an "audience." It can be oratory (a speech) or a performance (such as a play) or music or a work of art. Guernica has an argument as does Rothko's Seagram Murals, as does Bob Marley's Burning and Looting as does Nixon's Checkers speech.

So, in order to communicate effectively, we are always aware of certain audiences. Another easy example- what many people refer to (informally) as code-switching; when you change up the way you speak as you go from one setting to another; in effect, you are trying to make your communication more effective for your audience. Do you use the exact same speech patterns for your best friend, as you would if you selected to give a presentation for on live television? Or as the invited speaker at a graduation? Why or why not? Is it because you change depending on your audience?

Now, I already quoted some of the cast in 2016 explaining how they were approaching their performances; that they were used to making characters come alive for the unseen audience; this is the hallmark of effective communication- of effective performance. In other words, for them not to change how they approach decisions based upon their knowledge of the audience would not only be profoundly weird, it would also be antithetical to the very nature of their profession. That is not mutually exclusive with "playing the game," but I keep coming back to the same point- it is profoundly bizarre to me that people seem to think that talented performers wouldn't take into account that there is an audience. Not just bizarre, I am literally beyond understanding why people seem to insist this?

I can't imagine a greater insult to the people that make CR. It's not even a back-handed compliment; it's derogatory. I truly believe it's a great talent to make things look easy, to make the cast seem familiar and just like "people you're hanging out with," but that's exactly what it is- talent (and work).

Also, and I'm really asking the question here, not trying to put words into your mouth, is it your belief that the players of CritRole aren't having a good time playing D&D with each other, and that it's their skill in acting that just makes it seem that way to the audience?

I can't speak for them. I will say this- it's a truism that people in the Business will project to others that everything is fine, even when it isn't. This has been true for so long that it's constantly lampooned; the concept of the Children's Television Star that was actually a jerk as soon as the camera stopped rolling was so ingrained that it was already tired before the Simpsons had Krusty.

I hope that they are all great friends and will always remain so; I am also sure that if they do have some disagreements, they won't be shown during the four hours of the livestream.

And I think that's something to think about as well; I have good friends. I play with good friends. Somehow, we can't seem to project that level of bonhomie every week for four hours.

That doesn't mean that they aren't friends, or it is fake; but I am sure they are cognizant of what is occurring, and chose to table disagreements until later.

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?

Of course not. That's a profoundly weird thing to ask.

 

[Oofta]

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

Well, when I'm playing, I'm also playing to my audience. Admittedly it's an audience of around 6 people, but it's still an audience. Also, if it's not clear, I'm not saying your wrong. I agree, the group has an amazing group dynamic and chemistry that even for professional movie level actors would be hard to fake week in and week out. To me it feels genuine, the way they play D&D and play off of the others feels genuine.

I admit, I'd love to do an interview with the cast and get their ideas on this. I've sometimes wondered if in part they regret losing their home game. Not that they'd change anything, I can't imagine anyone would. About the only other interview I ever happened to watch (autoplay while my hands were full again) was with Marisha and how she was a street performer for a while. They've had an incredible rags-to-riches story and it sounds like they've worked incredibly hard to get there.

As far as assertions as to their priorities, unless you are a member of the cast or have discussed it with them you do not know.

In any case this is going back to what I can only summarize as me saying "we don't know, it feels natural and like a D&D game which is all that matters to me" versus "We know because [reasons]". I don't pretend to know the internal thought processes of other people unless I know them intimately, if then.

 

[OB1]

And because making different choices because of a book or movie or video game is something they have in common with your game whereas making different choices because you’re entertaining an audience is something that’s different about it from your game.

This is where we keep getting off track, I think. Books, movies and video games also all make choices in their narrative based on an audience. And yet no one bats an eye when you adapt things for your home game for that. Why is adapting from a live-play game any different?

If your table enjoys it great! The point is, when adapting what you see on CR to your table, keep in mind that they have different needs affecting them than you and your players do, and adapt accordingly.

Agreed! And the same goes for adapting from books, movies or video games.

No, and no, and also a good actor does genuinely feel the emotions their character is supposed to be feeling.

Agreed!

And I think that's something to think about as well; I have good friends. I play with good friends. Somehow, we can't seem to project that level of bonhomie every week for four hours.

After watching 1,000 hours of the show, I can promise you that it isn't a complete love fest all the time. You can see when people are bored, annoyed, thinking about something else going on in their life, disagree with a DM ruling, disagree with another player's choice, etc. That they treat each other with respect and don't derail the session is great behavior modeling for players new and old.

 

[jgsugden]

...
I admit, I'd love to do an interview with the cast and get their ideas on this. I've sometimes wondered if in part they regret losing their home game...

They have spoken on this publicly, especially Matt, and the answer is that they do miss and look forward to having a private game out of the spotlight. They have huge targets on their back. There is a lot of great things that they have as a result of Critical Role, but they also have been put through a lot. Exandria Unlimited is the first step in a long process that will allow Critical Role to continue without them on camera someday.

 

[Oofta]

They have spoken on this publicly, especially Matt, and the answer is that they do miss and look forward to having a private game out of the spotlight. They have huge targets on their back. There is a lot of great things that they have as a result of Critical Role, but they also have been put through a lot. Exandria Unlimited is the first step in a long process that will allow Critical Role to continue without them on camera someday.

I remember reading once that the worst thing that can happen to some people is that their hobby becomes their profession. I wish them luck and hope someday they can be just a group playing together for fun; I have a thick skin and generally don't care what people say about me but I can't imagine the intensity of scrutiny they get.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, when I'm playing, I'm also playing to my audience. Admittedly it's an audience of around 6 people, but it's still an audience.

But your audience are also all active participants in the game. The vast majority of Critical Role’s audience is not.

 

[Oofta]

But your audience are also all active participants in the game. The vast majority of Critical Role’s audience is not.

I don't think it would change much for me. Then again, I'm not in their shoes and I don't know what they think. Unless you have some source of information I'm not aware of, you don't know what they think either, you can only guess.