How far is too far when describing what a PC senses and feels?

[robus]

I don't think it's dismissive to call it what it is: A game for an audience broader than the table at which it is played. That absolutely necessitates that they do things that groups without the audience don't do because the priorities are different. Constraining choice in the manner he does definitely fits with the format.

I actually think their primary audience is each other as it should be in D&D. Those of us on the outside are gravy.

 

[iserith]

I dunno that seems a bit overboard, the DM has not imposed the frightened condition, they’ve simply informed the players that their characters are challenged by the scary circumstances. Bravery is continuing on despite being scared, so the players are under no obligation to run away or act frightened. They can simply describe their characters actions to overcome this mental obstacle.

“My PC thinks of the poor lost NPC that disappeared in these spooky woods and steels themself against what horrors lurk within.”

I dunno, it doesn’t seem over playing the DMs hand?

It's all in how you do it. "A terrifying monster..." is different than saying "You are terrified by the monster..." in my view. The latter is the DM overstepping his or her role, barring some kind of mechanical exception. Being terrified now effectively constrains the options to things you can do while terrified and agreeable players will tend to play into it. It's a sneaky (though sometimes unintentional) DM trick to make a reasonable offer in context in order to influence the outcome of the situation through the characters by setting up parameters in which the players will portray the characters.

DMs who often employ this sort of tactic will do so for a couple of reasons in my experience: (1) They are running an event-based adventure and they need to influence character behavior enough to make sure the appropriate plot points are hit; or (2) The players are quite passive and usually offer up very little in the way of describing what they want to do and so the DM feels the need to fill in the blanks.

 

[iserith]

I actually think their primary audience is each other as it should be in D&D. Those of us on the outside are gravy.

You can't say your primary audience is each other and run ads, sorry.

For the record, I don't care for Critical Role, but I'm just saying what I observe it to be, not attacking or criticizing it. Please don't feel the need to defend it on my account.

 

[robus]

It's all in how you do it. "A terrifying monster..." is different than saying "You are terrified by the monster..." in my view. The latter is the DM overstepping his or her role, barring some kind of mechanical exception. Being terrified now effectively constrains the options to things you can do while terrified and agreeable players will tend to play into it. It's a sneaky (though sometimes unintentional) DM trick to make a reasonable offer in context in order to influence the outcome of the situation through the characters by setting up parameters in which the players will portray the characters.

Of course, but I don’t anyone here has proposed telling players their characters are terrified? I, for one, am not interested in taking it that far.

 

[iserith]

Of course, but I don’t anyone here has proposed telling players their characters are terrified? I, for one, am not interested in taking it that far.

I don't recall every word that was said here, but certainly DMs have done that or things similar to it. Even the "autonomic response" line given by some in this thread reads like post-hoc justification to me. All this can just be avoided. There are other ways to set tone and mood without resorting to establishing or describing what the characters are doing, thinking, or saying.

 

[Charlaquin]

I often see this response to Critical Role and I think it’s mistaken. This group was playing for a couple of years before the stream began. It was absolutely not created with live streaming in mind.

Umm...

It also looks to me like a very well-run 3e or Pathfinder game, which the first campaign was at first. They changed systems when they decided to stream the game, but Matt retained the DMing style he had been employing the whole time.

I know, and I acknowledged that. There are also, buried somewhere on YouTube and Twitter, a few clips from the Critical Role crew's game before they made the switch to streaming it, and it looks very different. Far less polished, far less performative, far more like what private D&D games normally look like in my experience, albeit one with a fantastic DM and a set of players who are very skilled actors.

Do they emphasize their social interactions? Sure, but we do have to stop dismissing as some kind of performance art that occasionally rolls D&D dice. I think Matt is a masterful DM in his ongoing ability to excite and challenge this larger group of talented players. Do i disagree with some of his choices? Sure. But I would give my eyeteeth for chance to play at his table!

It is performance art, but that is not a dismissal. Quite the contrary, I greatly appreciate performance art as a professional performer myself. I'm not trying to diminish Critical role by calling it performance art, just too acknowledge that a streaming game has different concerns than a private game, and might demand a different approach. Or at least, it should. You can often tell when a streamed game is not taking its nature as performance into account, and it tends to result in a lesser-quality stream.

Also, in case it wasn't clear, I do think Matt Mercer is an excellent DM, even if I don't agree with all of his choices. He is also an excellent performer. Critical Role blends those skills beautifully.

 

[Unwise]

Firstly, I think tables need to remember that we are all in this together. I always find it odd when people try to protect their patch of turf to this extent.

As both a player and GM I think it is fine to say what involuntary emotions or even thoughts they have. E.g. "The smell of the lovely pine forest conjures up images of home" or "You feel utter despair as the Witch King's visage drains you of the last announce of hope". Invasive thoughts, they are just part of a vivid description.

I don't think that many GMs would present PCs with non-invasive thoughts e.g. "you really like Bob and want to protect him", but I would think it is OK to say "despite your best efforts, when Bob flashes you that scoundel's smile, it is hard to say mad at him". Once again, that is an invasive thought that they are free to ignore as they choose. The point of it is not to limit their actions, but to give a vivid description.

 

[Harzel]

Umm...

Not entirely sure what you intended here. It is obviously true that their original game was not conceived with live streaming in mind. OTOH, is the cast somehow unaware that they are now doing a live stream? I think not. I also doubt that [MENTION=6801558]robus[/MENTION] was confused about either of these.

I know, and I acknowledged that. There are also, buried somewhere on YouTube and Twitter, a few clips from the Critical Role crew's game before they made the switch to streaming it, and it looks very different. Far less polished, far less performative, far more like what private D&D games normally look like in my experience, albeit one with a fantastic DM and a set of players who are very skilled actors.

It is performance art, but that is not a dismissal. Quite the contrary, I greatly appreciate performance art as a professional performer myself. I'm not trying to diminish Critical role by calling it performance art,

Yes, clearly different - the question is to what the various differences are attributable. The problem that I have with many comments made about CR is the frequent certainty expressed about the performative (and other) aspects of their game being solely or mainly due to the fact that they are live streaming it, as opposed to them being a bunch of actors entertaining themselves while becoming more familiar with the game and more engaged in a very regular playing schedule.

I think in order to judge this reasonably one really has to have watched most or all of the series, at least Campaign 1, to see the evolution - their game certainly did not take its current form in the first streamed episode. Also, there are additional sources that may (or, depending on one's evaluation, may not) be revelatory of the cast's attitude and approach. These include Talks Machina and the panels that the cast does at cons. And if one wants to dig further, there are Between the Sheets, the Fireside Chats, the Critmas videos (including one featuring Matt and Marisha shuffling around at home in pajamas), and a few soliloquies by Matt, Taliesin, and maybe Liam, also. It could be claimed that all those are simply extensions of their performance, and I can't disprove that, but it does not seem like the simplest or most likely description.

Anyway, there are clearly things that have to do with the stream - production values have become much better and they wouldn't be doing general announcements or sponsor bits in a home game. The central question of the extent to which having an external audience causes them to play differently than they would in a home game with similar experience and a similar schedule is IMO a bit murkier. The fact that they are actors is often cited as an argument that it is inevitable that they would play to the audience, and it seems likely that there is some of that effect. However, as actors I would think that they would also have a greater facility at putting aside the existence of the audience if they wished to, and my fairly strong impression, on the basis of having seen a fair number of the sources mentioned above, is that they do, in some sense, want to.

More precisely, it seems to me that they conceive of the audience in a different way than one would the audience for a play, or a comedy routine, or some other kind of produced show. It's much more personal, sort of as if they had invited a (now rather large) number of acquaintances into their living room to enjoy whatever shenanigans happened to transpire. The cast is just as likely to fawn over fans as the other way around (at least until it exhausts them), and on the other side of the coin they react with some indignation to critiques of their game from fans. They (Matt usually more diplomatically, and Liam less so) have made it clear on a number of occasions that they have zero interest in altering their game to suit audience tastes. In short, there's certainly the occasional flourish directed at the stream audience, but only as it strikes their fancy, not as an obligation.

just too acknowledge that a streaming game has different concerns than a private game, and might demand a different approach. Or at least, it should. You can often tell when a streamed game is not taking its nature as performance into account, and it tends to result in a lesser-quality stream.

Indeed, and if polished-performance-for-audience were really at the top of their priority list, there would be a lot less cross-talk and fewer one-on-one conversations in parallel with Matt's narration or interaction with another player.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not entirely sure what you intended here. It is obviously true that their original game was not conceived with live streaming in mind. OTOH, is the cast somehow unaware that they are now doing a live stream? I think not. I also doubt that [MENTION=6801558]robus[/MENTION] was confused about either of these.



Yes, clearly different - the question is to what the various differences are attributable. The problem that I have with many comments made about CR is the frequent certainty expressed about the performative (and other) aspects of their game being solely or mainly due to the fact that they are live streaming it, as opposed to them being a bunch of actors entertaining themselves while becoming more familiar with the game and more engaged in a very regular playing schedule.

I think in order to judge this reasonably one really has to have watched most or all of the series, at least Campaign 1, to see the evolution - their game certainly did not take its current form in the first streamed episode. Also, there are additional sources that may (or, depending on one's evaluation, may not) be revelatory of the cast's attitude and approach. These include Talks Machina and the panels that the cast does at cons. And if one wants to dig further, there are Between the Sheets, the Fireside Chats, the Critmas videos (including one featuring Matt and Marisha shuffling around at home in pajamas), and a few soliloquies by Matt, Taliesin, and maybe Liam, also. It could be claimed that all those are simply extensions of their performance, and I can't disprove that, but it does not seem like the simplest or most likely description.

Anyway, there are clearly things that have to do with the stream - production values have become much better and they wouldn't be doing general announcements or sponsor bits in a home game. The central question of the extent to which having an external audience causes them to play differently than they would in a home game with similar experience and a similar schedule is IMO a bit murkier. The fact that they are actors is often cited as an argument that it is inevitable that they would play to the audience, and it seems likely that there is some of that effect. However, as actors I would think that they would also have a greater facility at putting aside the existence of the audience if they wished to, and my fairly strong impression, on the basis of having seen a fair number of the sources mentioned above, is that they do, in some sense, want to.

More precisely, it seems to me that they conceive of the audience in a different way than one would the audience for a play, or a comedy routine, or some other kind of produced show. It's much more personal, sort of as if they had invited a (now rather large) number of acquaintances into their living room to enjoy whatever shenanigans happened to transpire. The cast is just as likely to fawn over fans as the other way around (at least until it exhausts them), and on the other side of the coin they react with some indignation to critiques of their game from fans. They (Matt usually more diplomatically, and Liam less so) have made it clear on a number of occasions that they have zero interest in altering their game to suit audience tastes. In short, there's certainly the occasional flourish directed at the stream audience, but only as it strikes their fancy, not as an obligation.



Indeed, and if polished-performance-for-audience were really at the top of their priority list, there would be a lot less cross-talk and fewer one-on-one conversations in parallel with Matt's narration or interaction with another player.

I don’t know what point you think I’m making that any of this is supposed to refute. I don’t think they alter their play style to suit the audience’s tastes. I certainly don’t think the fact that they do the game for an audience makes it in any way less authentic. All I’m saying is, some of Matt’s DMing choices that I would not care for in a private game work very well in the context of a streamed game. Whether he would make those same choices in a private game or not is completely incidental to my point.

 

[Hussar]

Firstly, I think tables need to remember that we are all in this together. I always find it odd when people try to protect their patch of turf to this extent.

As both a player and GM I think it is fine to say what involuntary emotions or even thoughts they have. E.g. "The smell of the lovely pine forest conjures up images of home" or "You feel utter despair as the Witch King's visage drains you of the last announce of hope". Invasive thoughts, they are just part of a vivid description.

I don't think that many GMs would present PCs with non-invasive thoughts e.g. "you really like Bob and want to protect him", but I would think it is OK to say "despite your best efforts, when Bob flashes you that scoundel's smile, it is hard to say mad at him". Once again, that is an invasive thought that they are free to ignore as they choose. The point of it is not to limit their actions, but to give a vivid description.

This and similar posts are full of win AFAIC.

Yes, I understand that there is a breed of player who are so distrustful of their DM that any, even appearance of, attempt by the DM to impart any sort of narrative control over the PC is seen as a very bad thing.

I don't distrust my DM that much and I hope that my players don't distrust me that much. When I say, "You are terrified by that horrible monster from beyond the depths" they know that this has no mechanical implication and that I'm simply setting the mood. They can then respond with "Yup, that's a really scary critter, I'm going to do X" or "I steel myself against the fear and push on, like the hero I am."

IOW, the performance of the game is equally important to me as the game itself. So, adding in these sorts of improv theater basics are just part and parcel of the performance.

I do think that this issue gets blown way, WAY out of proportion on the forums and that if we were to actually take audio recordings of everyone's games, you'd find examples of the DM intruding upon the PC at nearly all tables. But, hey, maybe I'm wrong. I do know that at my table, no one is going to object this this level of fairly non-intrusive narration by the DM.