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

[Oofta]

The Critical Role cast isn’t just leveraging acting chops to maintain better pacing. They are putting on a performance. It’s just not the same activity as playing D&D casually, the same as dancing at the club is a different activity than doing an improvised dance performance for an audience. The point of making this distinction, as stated in the opening post and reiterated many times in this thread, is to recognize the incredible skill that goes into making their performance look as natural as if it were a home game, and to emphasize that if you want to emulate them, you should keep in mind that their performance has different needs and concerns than your home game, so you might need to make some changes to adapt to the needs of your game.

What does it mean to you to say "they are putting on a performance"? You keep saying that like it has some bigger meaning than how I, or my players, put on a performance when we get into role playing. Are you saying they're performing when they're engaged in chit-chat, making references to pop songs or movies? To me putting on a performance means pre-planning, discussing story arcs that will be entertaining and so on. Not scripted per se but definitely planned out ahead of time.

No one is denying that they are very charismatic, something that is enhanced by their acting skills. I don't know what anyone else thinks, but I make no claims that I or my group is as charismatic and polished as they are. No one is denying that they've done tremendous work promoting and building a small business empire.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

Sounds like we're still hitting this same difference of opinion.

Are they primarily performing for the home audience, or primarily playing a game with each other?

Obviously their performance skills enhance the experience and make it much more appealing to the passive, non-participatory audience than any of our home games would be. But some folks think it's still functionally a D&D game more than it is a TV show. Some others the reverse.

For my part I think it's more of a game. More like the NBA than like the Globetrotters.

 

[BRayne]

Similar to =/= the same as. And, again, these are people who went to grad school to learn to put on an entertaining performance while making it look natural. Saying what they do while performing is significantly similar to what you do while not performing is... Well it's a bit like believing the stage magician actually just pulled a rabbit out of his hat. It sure does look like he did.

Forgive my pedantry but I don't think any of them went to Grad school specifically

 

[Charlaquin]

What does it mean to you to say "they are putting on a performance"? You keep saying that like it has some bigger meaning than how I, or my players, put on a performance when we get into role playing.

I’ve explained this many times. A performance is meant to entertain a passive audience. What you and your players are doing is meant to entertain yourselves and each other, all of whom are active participants. I’ve tried analogy after analogy. Sex vs porn. Casual sports vs televised sports. Improv games with friends vs. Who’s Line is it Anyway. Trivial Pursuit vs. Jeopardy. Playing video games alone vs. streaming on Twitch or doing a Let’s Play. The difference is “for who’s entertainment is this being done?”

Are you saying they're performing when they're engaged in chit-chat, making references to pop songs or movies?

Yes.

To me putting on a performance means pre-planning, discussing story arcs that will be entertaining and so on. Not scripted per se but definitely planned out ahead of time.

Well that isn’t what it means. Performances can be entirely improvisational.

No one is denying that they are very charismatic, something that is enhanced by their acting skills.

Nor is anyone saying their charisma is what makes a categorical difference between their game and a home game.

I don't know what anyone else thinks, but I make no claims that I or my group is as charismatic and polished as they are. No one is denying that they've done tremendous work promoting and building a small business empire.

Their charisma and polish aren’t what’s being discussed here.

 

[Charlaquin]

Forgive my pedantry but I don't think any of them went to Grad school specifically

I don’t know the specifics of their education or training. My point was that they’ve dedicated their lives to perfecting their craft.

 

[Oofta]

I’ve explained this many times. A performance is meant to entertain a passive audience. What you and your players are doing is meant to entertain yourselves and each other, all of whom are active participants. I’ve tried analogy after analogy. Sex vs porn. Casual sports vs televised sports. Improv games with friends vs. Who’s Line is it Anyway. Trivial Pursuit vs. Jeopardy. Playing video games alone vs. streaming on Twitch or doing a Let’s Play. The difference is “for who’s entertainment is this being done?”

Yes.

Well that isn’t what it means. Performances can be entirely improvisational.

Nor is anyone saying their charisma is what makes a categorical difference between their game and a home game.

Their charisma and polish aren’t what’s being discussed here.

All I can say is that I disagree with your conclusion. It's not an either/or situation and we don't know what the balance is, if it's even the same for each member of the group. I simply see no reason to believe that it's primarily a performance for the anonymous audience.

Ooh, I know! How about next thread we talk about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! That will be just about as productive as this has been.

 

[Mannahnin]

If it's annoying you and you don't think it's productive you can also just... stop participating in it.

I often bail out on longer threads once I've said my peace and I'm not enjoying the marrow-chewing that the most persistent interlocutors are down to.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Watching Critical Role has been quite useful to me in one way - rewatching (Campaign 1 Spoilers)

Spoiler

Scanlan leaving and Tary showing up

has made me recognise how I made many critical mistakes when I had a character die and then had to introduce my new one, related to my previous character. It just triggered that self-reflection in me and made me realise how I should have approached the situation, and how I approached it probably introduced a shitton of pressure onto my GM and onto the other party members.

I have some apologies to do at some point.

 

[Charlaquin]

All I can say is that I disagree with your conclusion. It's not an either/or situation and we don't know what the balance is, if it's even the same for each member of the group. I simply see no reason to believe that it's primarily a performance for the anonymous audience.

I didn’t say primarily.

Ooh, I know! How about next thread we talk about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! That will be just about as productive as this has been.

Only one Angel knows how to dance

 

[Oofta]

Only one Angel knows how to dance

I didn't say they had to be good dancers ...