Critical Role EXU: Calamity Discussion (Spoilers)

[overgeeked]

Okay, a lot to unpack here. To start with your final statement, that feels an awful lot like one-true-wayism mixed with a dose of badwrongfun.

The more I see people throw this out the more I think they simply mean "this goes against my preferences". Both phrases seem to be utterly meaningless at this point. If you have a point to make, make it without throwing out phrases meant to evoke knee-jerk reactions.

But even that builds off some pretty big assumptions given that we've only seen the opening act of this story. I'll admit that not having seen the rest of the series, this could devolve into a highly railroaded adventure where there was ever only one set of events that happens, but my feeling from the first episode is that we are going to see a story of what a group of local heroes does when the crap hits the fan.

Right. And I get the feeling we're seeing a story unfold with a predetermined ending. Nothing the PCs do matters and whatever they do, the end will be the same. It's like Titanic. Sure, the movie is about the relationship between Jack and Rose, which is...interesting...I guess...but at no point does anyone think they have a chance of averting the sinking of the Titanic. At best Calamity will be the story of how these characters deal with the fallout. There's no chance they'll avert it as it's already started. There's no chance they'll win because it's already a historical footnote in the setting. So what meaningful choices to the players get? How they face death? Gee, awesome.

1. What is player agency other than players making choices about the words they say and the actions they take? There are plenty of real things that the PCs care about (their families for example) that they may have interest in trying to help. Why do they have to stop the calamity to have agency?

Player agency is having the freedom to choose and having those choices matter. If they can't choose, they have no agency. If they can choose, but their choices don't matter, they have no agency. Why do they have to even potentially be able to stop the Calamity? Because it's epic fantasy.

Can the players decide to go left when the DM wants them to go right (i.e. no bumpers) and that choice matters (i.e. no quantum ogres)? If not, then the players don't have agency. Can the players come up with a wild plan that short-circuits the DM's plans and the DM will roll with it? If not, then the players don't have agency.

The DM saying your characters go here and do these things and stay in this tiny box...oh, but I guess you get to say whatever you want and attack whoever you want during the combats...sorry, no. That's not agency. Not in any real or meaningful sense.

2, If I start an adventure with a zombie apocalypse or an ancient dragon killing the Queen and destroying the capital city of a realm, and the PCs have no way to stop it, is that a heavily railroaded adventure? Or just a call to adventure?

Can the players later kill the dragon, resurrect the queen, and restore the capital city? Can the players later stop new zombies from raising...undo the magic that's causing it? If not, then no, they don't have agency. That's the point about agency. If you can't do X, then X is the limit of your agency. You have agency...except X. The more things you pile into the "you can't" category, the less agency the players have. If everything is in the "you can't" category except "dialogue" and "picking targets"...that's not agency in any real or meaningful sense of the word. Can the characters build and destroy parts of the world? That's agency. Can the players kill the big bad before you want them to? That's agency. Can the players decide to leave the tiny box you have pre-determined will be where your story unfolds? That's agency. If the players can't go where they want and do what they want, they don't really have agency.

To me, the whole point of RPGs is player agency. Video games have better graphics and have infinitely better writing than modules and whatever improv dialogue the DM can get out. Film, TV, novels, and short stories have infinitely better writing and story than adventure modules or whatever the DM can cobble together. Trying to emulate those other art forms is a fool's errand. RPGs are not any of those, they are unique. They have strengths. Lean into those strengths. One of those strengths is the ability to go anywhere and do anything. To limit that, to tear that out so you can badly ape some other art form is certainly a choice a lot of people seem to make, but it's a tragically limiting one.

3. The Calamity is a decades long event that started when Vespin Chloris released the betrayer gods from their inprisionment. That appears to have already happened in this story (ie it's the triggering event for what we are seeing happen now). The other details we know about is that the betrayer gods attack Vaselheim, and fail, then establish a base of operations in Ghor Dranas, leading to a decades long war between the prime deities and betrayers that wrecks havoc on the land. Great champions are given vestiges of divergence to help battle the gods during this time, before the prime deities finally seal both the betrayers and themselves behind the divine gate, forever separating themselves from their creations. Seems to me like a prime setting for countless adventure of mighty heroes facing deadly perils.

Right. So we already know all the broad strokes of this story. The only thing we can possibly get from this show is 1) minor characters (the PC) RPing how they face the Calamity, or; 2) an alternate reality where the Calamity is averted.

To me, 1 is just about pointless while 2 is infinitely more interesting, though there's about a 0% chance that's where they'll go with it.

RPGs with pre-determined endings are boring. They're the DM reading a story to the players. That's a waste of everyone's time.

4. There is nothing in the lore about this floating city (that I'm aware of) giving ample opportunity for the specifics of this adventure to follow it's own path. Was the city destroyed in the initial release of the betrayers? Did the mages of this city screw up and destroy the city on it's own? Was this city around even when Aeor fell decades later? Is the city still in-tact? Joined with it's sister city and put into hiding because of the events? Could these heroes still be alive, in-stasis, waiting to reveal to the new age some piece of ancient history?

RPGs are not stories. They're not fiction. They're games. They're meant to be played as a collaborative effort. Input from everyone. And no, "pick your dialogue" and "pick your targets" is not sufficient input to waste everyone's time getting together to "play" a game. The stuff you're saying absolutely would be interesting...as a story to read. As a comic to read. Because they can make for good stories. RPGs are not stories. The DM is not a storyteller in the same sense that Stephen King is a storyteller. In an RPG the players have agency and self-determination they get to control something the DM does not, the PCs. If King wants a character to run into a burning house, he writes it that way. The DM cannot do the same for the PCs. Not without violating the social contract and the literal reason the players are there in the first place.

5. At the very most, I'd think this adventure may be set up like a Call of Cthulu type story, where it is highly likely that most if not all of the PCs will meet their demise, and the forces they fight against will end stronger at the end than the beginning. Those types of stories are specifically about what the characters say and do in the face of impending doom.

Then I'd suggest you play more Call of Cthulhu, then. Because that's not generally how those things go down. Your typical CoC adventure is some form of murder-mystery-horror thing where the PCs are sucked into events beyond their comprehension and they must quickly piece things together to survive...most often don't...and as they gain knowledge they lose sanity...and in the end they more than likely stop whatever small, local evil is going on...at great cost to themselves...or they die at the local evil's hands. It's rare to non-existant that the local Arkham, MA cult has already summoned all the Great Old Ones a few weeks back and now the PCs must deal with it.

Is that style not appropriate for a D&D adventure in your mind?

Is nihilistic horror not an appropriate style for epic fantasy? Kinda diametrically opposed genres. You'd be far better served playing Call of Cthulhu. D&D will fight you every step of the way...as will the majority of players who are specifically not playing CoC but instead playing D&D...you know, the epic fantasy game of heroes and superheroes saving the day and slaughtering their foes.

And we're back to the problem of using D&D for everything and thinking every problem is a nail because you refuse to use any tool other than a hammer.

 

[Mort]

The more I see people throw this out the more I think they simply mean "this goes against my preferences". Both phrases seem to be utterly meaningless at this point. If you have a point to make, make it without throwing out phrases meant to evoke knee-jerk reactions.

Right. And I get the feeling we're seeing a story unfold with a predetermined ending. Nothing the PCs do matters and whatever they do, the end will be the same. It's like Titanic. Sure, the movie is about the relationship between Jack and Rose, which is...interesting...I guess...but at no point does anyone think they have a chance of averting the sinking of the Titanic. At best Calamity will be the story of how these characters deal with the fallout. There's no chance they'll avert it as it's already started. There's no chance they'll win because it's already a historical footnote in the setting. So what meaningful choices to the players get? How they face death? Gee, awesome.

Player agency is having the freedom to choose and having those choices matter. If they can't choose, they have no agency. If they can choose, but their choices don't matter, they have no agency. Why do they have to even potentially be able to stop the Calamity? Because it's epic fantasy.

Can the players decide to go left when the DM wants them to go right (i.e. no bumpers) and that choice matters (i.e. no quantum ogres)? If not, then the players don't have agency. Can the players come up with a wild plan that short-circuits the DM's plans and the DM will roll with it? If not, then the players don't have agency.

The DM saying your characters go here and do these things and stay in this tiny box...oh, but I guess you get to say whatever you want and attack whoever you want during the combats...sorry, no. That's not agency. Not in any real or meaningful sense.

Can the players later kill the dragon, resurrect the queen, and restore the capital city? Can the players later stop new zombies from raising...undo the magic that's causing it? If not, then no, they don't have agency. That's the point about agency. If you can't do X, then X is the limit of your agency. You have agency...except X. The more things you pile into the "you can't" category, the less agency the players have. If everything is in the "you can't" category except "dialogue" and "picking targets"...that's not agency in any real or meaningful sense of the word. Can the characters build and destroy parts of the world? That's agency. Can the players kill the big bad before you want them to? That's agency. Can the players decide to leave the tiny box you have pre-determined will be where your story unfolds? That's agency. If the players can't go where they want and do what they want, they don't really have agency.

To me, the whole point of RPGs is player agency. Video games have better graphics and have infinitely better writing than modules and whatever improv dialogue the DM can get out. Film, TV, novels, and short stories have infinitely better writing and story than adventure modules or whatever the DM can cobble together. Trying to emulate those other art forms is a fool's errand. RPGs are not any of those, they are unique. They have strengths. Lean into those strengths. One of those strengths is the ability to go anywhere and do anything. To limit that, to tear that out so you can badly ape some other art form is certainly a choice a lot of people seem to make, but it's a tragically limiting one.

Right. So we already know all the broad strokes of this story. The only thing we can possibly get from this show is 1) minor characters (the PC) RPing how they face the Calamity, or; 2) an alternate reality where the Calamity is averted.

To me, 1 is just about pointless while 2 is infinitely more interesting, though there's about a 0% chance that's where they'll go with it.

RPGs with pre-determined endings are boring. They're the DM reading a story to the players. That's a waste of everyone's time.

RPGs are not stories. They're not fiction. They're games. They're meant to be played as a collaborative effort. Input from everyone. And no, "pick your dialogue" and "pick your targets" is not sufficient input to waste everyone's time getting together to "play" a game. The stuff you're saying absolutely would be interesting...as a story to read. As a comic to read. Because they can make for good stories. RPGs are not stories. The DM is not a storyteller in the same sense that Stephen King is a storyteller. In an RPG the players have agency and self-determination they get to control something the DM does not, the PCs. If King wants a character to run into a burning house, he writes it that way. The DM cannot do the same for the PCs. Not without violating the social contract and the literal reason the players are there in the first place.

Then I'd suggest you play more Call of Cthulhu, then. Because that's not generally how those things go down. Your typical CoC adventure is some form of murder-mystery-horror thing where the PCs are sucked into events beyond their comprehension and they must quickly piece things together to survive...most often don't...and as they gain knowledge they lose sanity...and in the end they more than likely stop whatever small, local evil is going on...at great cost to themselves...or they die at the local evil's hands. It's rare to non-existant that the local Arkham, MA cult has already summoned all the Great Old Ones a few weeks back and now the PCs must deal with it.

Is nihilistic horror not an appropriate style for epic fantasy? Kinda diametrically opposed genres. You'd be far better served playing Call of Cthulhu. D&D will fight you every step of the way...as will the majority of players who are specifically not playing CoC but instead playing D&D...you know, the epic fantasy game of heroes and superheroes saving the day and slaughtering their foes.

And we're back to the problem of using D&D for everything and thinking every problem is a nail because you refuse to use any tool other than a hammer.

I think you're being a bit harsh.

First, Brenan has already said - this is the prelude to a tragedy - so you have to watch/play with that in mind. If that's not your thing, plenty of other choices out there.

Second, choices can be small. As long as the characters can affect SOMETHING and there are still win conditions - agency can be retained.

It's a prequel, so likely (or at least hopefully) the conversation went something like "look, you guys are NOT going to prevent the Calamity, but you can make lots of meaningful choices that will change things on the small scale. Your choices WILL matter...."

 

[Mort]

On a different note,

The first episode was quite the slow burn. But looks like things will escalate pretty quickly from here.

Though the group made Brennan's job annoying by splitting up in multiple different directions (as he commented)!

 

[OB1]

@overgeeked just want to say that I think we agree quite a bit on railroading in general, and the need for player agency in the game. Where I think we disagree is on what constitutes 'heavy-handed' railroading, and whether some players enjoy some amount of railroading in their game to help facilitate an epic story.

In the case of Calamity, I don't feel from what I've seen so far, that the DM is railroading the party (to my definition of it). They may, for example, attempt to try and stop what is happening, and discover that they are unable to do so given their current power level. If this were the start of a long running campaign, they should absolutely have the chance to stop or change what happens in the Calamity. But that's not the story here. This is a one-shot, where the PCs will have to decide on what's important to them and what they can do try and accomplish what is most important to them.

From the PHB introduction, "Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils." Exactly what is happening in Calamity.

 

[OB1]

On a different note,

The first episode was quite the slow burn. But looks like things will escalate pretty quickly from here.

Though the group made Brennan's job annoying by splitting up in multiple different directions (as he commented)!

Yeah, I felt the slow burn was necessary to help get the audience (and the players) invested in the personal stories so that the rest of the episodes have a real impact. I mean, I'm already worried about if Xerses will be able to save his son, or if Abria's character is going to be able to move the whole city to another plane to protect it. Can't wait to see how it all plays out.

 

[Mort]

@overgeeked just want to say that I think we agree quite a bit on railroading in general, and the need for player agency in the game. Where I think we disagree is on what constitutes 'heavy-handed' railroading, and whether some players enjoy some amount of railroading in their game to help facilitate an epic story.

In the case of Calamity, I don't feel from what I've seen so far, that the DM is railroading the party (to my definition of it). They may, for example, attempt to try and stop what is happening, and discover that they are unable to do so given their current power level. If this were the start of a long running campaign, they should absolutely have the chance to stop or change what happens in the Calamity. But that's not the story here. This is a one-shot, where the PCs will have to decide on what's important to them and what they can do try and accomplish what is most important to them.

From the PHB introduction, "Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils." Exactly what is happening in Calamity.

Also, it's best to keep in mind this is a stream meant for an audience.

The group is "gaming" but there are also performative elements that just don't fit for a home game, but work fine for a stream.

For example, the approx 20 minute intro for each character, while the others just sit around silently? Works here, but would be terrible for a home game (where such a thing should be handled in individual sessions or even over email).

The railroady elements? Again, this is gaming coupled with a performance - so I think that's a bit relaxed here (though hopefully not too much, it's not a play).

 

[overgeeked]

@overgeeked just want to say that I think we agree quite a bit on railroading in general, and the need for player agency in the game. Where I think we disagree is on what constitutes 'heavy-handed' railroading, and whether some players enjoy some amount of railroading in their game to help facilitate an epic story.

Yes, some players want to be spoon-fed a story rather than have agency and make choices. Why on Earth they would, I have no idea. That's what every other form of passive entertainment is for. RPGs are meant to be active. The players are meant to have agency. Agency and railroading are like matter and anti-matter.

In the case of Calamity, I don't feel from what I've seen so far, that the DM is railroading the party (to my definition of it). They may, for example, attempt to try and stop what is happening, and discover that they are unable to do so given their current power level. If this were the start of a long running campaign, they should absolutely have the chance to stop or change what happens in the Calamity.

Right. But again, either they have that chance...which would result in an alternate reality, or they don't have that chance, and it's a railroad. The end is predetermined and nothing the players do will effect the outcome in any way. I can't think of a more explicit definition of a railroad than that.

But that's not the story here.

The "story" should be whatever the PCs do. Not what's predetermined by the DM. By definition we're dealing with events that are predetermined...by a different DM...years and years ago.

From the PHB introduction, "Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils." Exactly what is happening in Calamity.

There's no "together" if the players don't have agency. It's the DM spoon-feeding the players a pre-written story where the players have no meaningful choices to make.

 

[OB1]

Also, it's best to keep in mind this is a stream meant for an audience.

The group is "gaming" but there are also performative elements that just don't fit for a home game, but work fine for a stream.

For example, the approx 20 minute intro for each character, while the others just sit around silently? Works here, but would be terrible for a home game (where such a thing should be handled in individual sessions or even over email).

The railroady elements? Again, this is gaming coupled with a performance - so I think that's a bit relaxed here (though hopefully not too much, it's not a play).

I think an interesting analogy here is a metal band that starts out in their garage and then starts playing for a larger and larger audience. The best ones keep playing for themselves as well as the audience after that transition and then inspire others to start up their own band in their own garages. Sure, you're never going to emulate what Metalica does on stage, but there are still things you can gain from emulating them and then figuring out your own path from there, focusing on what you love about playing.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

There's always the chance that whatever the characters do in EXU: Calamity, even if they can't actually stop the Calamity itself, could have repercussions that might show up somewhere. So far particularly major events of Critical Role's campaigns have been noted in sourcebooks published afterwards (Explorer's Guide to Wildemount mentions an island called Rumblecusp, and Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn makes brief mention of an event late in campaign 2 of Critical Role that occurred at Rumblecusp). Regarding EXU itself, the DM for the first mini-series created an entirely new civilization hidden in the jungles of southern Tal'Dorei which was then incorporated into Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn.

Besides, D&D itself has the adventure "The Apocalypse Stone" wherein the PCs unknowingly trigger an unstoppable end to their world.

 

[jgsugden]

I think it will be interesting to contrast this 4 part series, when it is done, with VECNA LIVES (at least the early part)! So far, I think we're on a track of the 'inevitable' to be handled better here, but I think that will be an interesting evaluation.

One thing I have considered is that there is a chance that the PCs might save Avalir from the Calamity. They might be destined for a tragedy - but they may end up with a choice of tragedies.

There were attempts to save the people of Aeor that failed. What if they succeed here? What if they send Avalir to another plane using Threshold Stones, move it forward in time with Dunamancy, or otherwise keep it intact so that the city, in all of its glory, can return to the modern Exandria?

The thing that had me start thinking in this direction was the name of the city: Avalir. Does it remind you of anything? It reminds me of Avalon, from Arthurian Mythos. If that was an inspiration for the name, it could have huge significance. Some of those Arthurian legends feature a wounded King Arthur being taken to Avalon to recover ... and waiting there to return to save Britain in the future.

The modern days of Critical Role have featured a world approaching the greatness of the Age of Arcanum. Draconia had flying cities. The secrets of Aeor, and other ruins of the Age of Arcanum, are being mined for knowledge. We've see a part of that age nearly return at the end of Campaign 2. Would it be that much of a stretch to see one of the Age of Arcnum cities return as a result of this storytelling? If so, could it be the first step in bringing the setting to ... a Second Calamity? I think Matt is aware of the 'Marvel Storytelling' that features decades of storylines and he may just be thinking of a long game here. I'm not saying this is it, but it could be.