Critical Role Is Critical Role Scripted

Well I don't know what you mean by "forcing". I'm really thinking more about processes of play, and the expectations that are part of them.

By "railroading" I mean the GM authoring the key events of play - the "story beats" or "plot points" - in advance. I mean the players following the GM's breadcrumbs.
That’s not railroading. That’s players collaborating in a shared story. Players aren’t random number generators, they have a sense of story and want to help craft it. You can’t know exactly where things will go but you can have a pretty good idea, especially in time for the next session. I seldom build a terrain set that doesn’t get used, though it does happen.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This comes across to me as a likely example of what I think the Forge crowd calls “participationism.” Whether or not the cast specifically knew that Ludinus would lead them to a memory machine to kick off the following mini-arc, they probably at least recognized that Ludinus showing up as an ally rather than an enemy was probably going somewhere and realized that, in that case, it would probably make for better content for them to go along with it. I think a lot of us can probably relate to the feeling of seeing that the DM is laying out an obvious hook and thinking, “maybe it’s a little contrived for my character to go along with this, but I want to see where it’s headed.” And I think actual plays by their nature tend to be high on this sort of participationism. We can argue about if it’s good DMing practice to lean into participation or not, but I certainly don’t think it harms the integrity of the show or equates to it being scripted.
Love this, and think you are spot on. Again, had the players had just another 15 minutes to talk through it a bit, it probably wouldn't have been as jarring. Worth noting that the PC (played by Laura Bailey) who jumped at the decision to go along with Ludinus is also one playing a new character in the mini-arc, and so probably had an even better base of knowledge for the participationism in this case.
 

The "forcing" part of railroading is typically that any any action the players take that attempt to deviate from the pre-determined plot will either fail or end up back on the rails through DM fiat.

Your definition of "railroading" is very different from the conventional one. You should stop using "railroading" in this way if you want to be understood.
Very much this. I’ve always understood it as a term that comes from CRPG design, referencing the degree to which it is possible for players to even slightly deviate from the predetermined story.
 

By "railroading" I mean the GM authoring the key events of play - the "story beats" or "plot points" - in advance. I mean the players following the GM's breadcrumbs.
Yeah, that's not the commonly-accepted definition of "railroading;" that's just preparing to run a game. And honestly, what would be the alternative? just using a bunch of random tables for everything, and roll out in the open?

"You walk into a..." (rolls dice) "...cavern, and it's..." (rolls) "...dimly lit by a small campfire. In the..." (rolls again) "...center of the room, you see a..." (rolls) "...group of..." (rolls) "...five troglodytes, armed with..." (rolls) "...buckets and..." (rolls) "...large rocks with runes written on them? I guess? Anyway, roll intitative."

My players would tune out before I could even mention those buckets. ;)
 
Last edited:

We tried, but somehow we ended up back in this thread anyway... ;)
Woops, sorry about that.

My point is: it would take far more work to "script" a single episode of Critical Role than people seem to think. Scriptwriting is extremely hard. Matt Mercer is a trained actor--he works with scripts all the time, so it's no wonder Matt Mercer takes it as a compliment when people say his show seems "scripted." It speaks to his ability to improvise a cohesive, polished story out of an outline and a sketched map. Making it look scripted is the goal, and it's harder than people give him credit for.
 

Love this, and think you are spot on. Again, had the players had just another 15 minutes to talk through it a bit, it probably wouldn't have been as jarring. Worth noting that the PC (played by Laura Bailey) who jumped at the decision to go along with Ludinus is also one playing a new character in the mini-arc, and so probably had an even better base of knowledge for the participationism in this case.
Well, they also know the time - 3.5 hours into their available time for the night and the likelihood of a long conflict ahead if they try to continue fighting Ludinus. And they know as well as Matt that they don't want to leave things mid-combat at a live show.
Plus, Matt strongly telegraphed a peaceful resolution of the combat was possible by having Ludinus say he wants to talk and pointedly refuse to take Orym down with his paltry 11 hit points remaining. It doesn't take a railroad to pick up on that cue - just trust in their DM. I'm convinced that missing similar, if not as strong, cues was ultimately the real cause of Molly's death in Campaign 2.
As far as Laura's participation in the Downfall arc, I'm not sure if anyone other than Matt and Marisha, who as Creative Director is involved in scheduling guest appearances, knew anything concrete about the timing. Though it's entirely possible she was also reading the cues that some exposition from Ludinus was on offer that might presage Downfall and she chose to follow that cue.
 

Yeah, that's not the commonly-accepted definition of "railroading;" that's just preparing to run a game. And honestly, what would be the alternative? just using a bunch of random tables for everything, and roll out in the open?

"You walk into a..." (rolls dice) "...cavern, and it's..." (rolls) "...dimly lit by a small campfire. In the..." (rolls again) "...center of the room, you see a..." (rolls) "...group of..." (rolls) "...five troglodytes, armed with..." (rolls) "...buckets and..." (rolls) "...large rocks with runes written on them? I guess? Anyway, roll intitative."

My players would tune out before I could even mention those buckets. ;)
1721841724365.jpeg
 

Yeah, that's not the commonly-accepted definition of "railroading;" that's just preparing to run a game. And honestly, what would be the alternative? just using a bunch of random tables for everything, and roll out in the open?

"You walk into a..." (rolls dice) "...cavern, and it's..." (rolls) "...dimly lit by a small campfire. In the..." (rolls again) "...center of the room, you see a..." (rolls) "...group of..." (rolls) "...five troglodytes, armed with..." (rolls) "...buckets and..." (rolls) "...large rocks with runes written on them? I guess? Anyway, roll intitative."

My players would tune out before I could even mention those buckets. ;)
I think you'd be surprised how well this can work. It does take practice and plenty of comfort with on the fly improv.
 

Which is exactly why the rest of us say that railroading isn't always a bad thing. Because YOUR definition of "railroading" is a perfectly normal and acceptable method of planning and being an intelligent and well-prepared Dungeon Master.

So if I'm a "railroading DM" from your point of view, I thank you for the compliment.
Railroading is pretty common, and widely accepted. I didn't say it's always (or ever) a bad thing.

I do have my own preferences, though.
 

Yeah, that's not the commonly-accepted definition of "railroading;" that's just preparing to run a game. And honestly, what would be the alternative? just using a bunch of random tables for everything, and roll out in the open?
The alternative would be to respond to what the players bring to the table, in terms of declared actions, PC goals and backstory, etc.

Perhaps also using something analogous to what Apocalypse World calls "fronts".
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top