WotC New D&D Stream Replaces Dice, Camera, Action!

The official D&D streaming campaign Dice, Camera, Action!, run by WotC's Chris Perkins, ended somewhat ignominiously earlier this year. WotC has just announced its replacement -- "DnDPresents", featuring some of the same cast.

​

According to the official Twitter account Chris Perkins returns as DM for a new show, DnD Presents, featuring. Anna Prosser, Nathan Sharp, Mica Burton, and ShadyPenguinn. More information will be revealed at PAX Unplugged next week.

WotC confirmed "We are excited for you to experience the new show, but that means [Dice, Camera, Action!] will not be returning. We congratulate the cast on 141 episodes of wonderful storytelling."

Chris Perkins added "I will have thoughts to share about DCA at some point, but for now I’ll just say how much I love the whole DCA cast, in particular Anna Prosser, Nathan Sharp, Jared Knabenbauer, and Holly Conrad. We are a family, and their happiness matters to me."

 

[robus]

But what streams do offer that is valuable to me is the ability to see where things go poorly - DM making a bad call, player engaging in problematic behavior, certain DMing techniques that are cringy or clunky. A Discord group I'm in will often watch a stream together and comment in chat about what we're seeing. It's very useful in recognizing problem areas to be avoided and getting the occasional neat idea.

I enjoy the critical role stream, but now I especially enjoy the times when the DM tries some new rules system, or runs an interesting monster. The shopping can get a bit dull, but their improv game is pretty sharp so there’s often some laughs to go along with it. One thing I can never understand is Matt’s method of establishing initiative order!

 

[iserith]

This is why I just haven't been able to watch any streamed D&D games: the "performing" is just annoying to me, and every stream I've ever tried to watch has seemed to be nothing but literally hours of drawn out character interactions with meaningless NPCs like cooks and janitors, pointless interactions with NPCs who have nothing to do with the plot and will never be seen again. And far too much of it mixed with a lot of derailing "funny" buffoonery from players who seem to treat the whole game as nothing but a big joke, giving their characters stupid names and annoying personalities... that kind of stuff would ruin a game for me and honestly drive me to quit, and I have no desire to watch someome else play it either. I love jokes and humor during a game, but treating the game itself as a joke makes me genuinely angry when I'm trying to play.

I agree except for the dislike of stupid names. What I've learned is that stupid - or, better, clever - names are memorable names. Players don't forget them as easily, even years later. That alone makes it worth it in my view. I think the trick is to make them punny in a way that sums up the NPC but also makes some sense in the context of the game world.

The only streamed D&D game I ever actually enjoyed watching was Stephen Colbert's charity game session; he was the only one I ever watched who treated the game like the actual D&D players I've ever played with. That one was a joy to watch, while all the others have been like watching someone scrape their fingernails across a chalkboard.

I also really enjoyed that, though being a performer it could have been a "performance." If it was a put-on, it was very well done.

 

[Aaron L]

I agree except for the dislike of stupid names. What I've learned is that stupid - or, better, clever - names are memorable names. Players don't forget them as easily, even years later. That alone makes it worth it in my view. I think the trick is to make them punny in a way that sums up the NPC but also makes some sense in the context of the game world.

Oh I wasn't talking about NPC names! Crafting humorous NPC names is an artform; I have NPCs like "Baron Schtankoff" or "the nameless Prince in the raspberry beret" all the time for the reason you said, to keep them memorable. I was talking about stupid, silly PC names. That just drives me nuts, since the names will be used so frequently they will ruin the tone of the entire game for me. PCs that either show an utter lack of interest in the world you have created like "Joe the Fighter," or PCs with intentionally silly names like "Stinkypants Fartbottom" who spend the whole game doing nothing but taking useless actions during combat and saying rude things to important NPCs the party is trying to negotiate with... that is the kind of thing that drives me nuts, prank characters from players who treat the game like just a big joke.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My issue with most streamed games is that they don't ever seem to DO anything of note. The picture of bold adventurers confronting deadly perils painted in the rules books somehow gets translated to running errands and chit chat on screen. It's very strange in my view. I've yet to see a stream where they're doing very many scenes with actual stakes in them. Tune into most streams on Twitch and you'll get shopping and tavern scenes. Not my bag.

But what streams do offer that is valuable to me is the ability to see where things go poorly - DM making a bad call, player engaging in problematic behavior, certain DMing techniques that are cringy or clunky. A Discord group I'm in will often watch a stream together and comment in chat about what we're seeing. It's very useful in recognizing problem areas to be avoided and getting the occasional neat idea.

What streams could you possibly be watching to get this impression. I don’t watch a ton of them, but the handful I do watch are...absolutely the opposite of that.

Hell, even the ones I’ve tuned in to and found not to my taste haven’t ever been like that.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, for Critical Role, the group started out as a home campaign, not as something to be streamed. No clue how close it is to the game they played before they started broadcasting it but supposedly they didn't change much.

There area few clips out there of them playing before starting the broadcast, and they certainly seem far more casual. That said, I fully believe that particular group of people does tend to focus a lot on character interaction and the mundane stuff.

As far as combat to RP/exploration I think that varies a lot by group. With my current group, the time spent in combat is only slightly more than CR's time for most sessions. We regularly do 6 hour sessions with a break to eat and we maybe get in a couple of fights a lot of days.

The group enjoys it so I've just adjusted my expectations and plan accordingly.

Yeah, for sure.

 

[vpuigdoller]

Perkins is a fun DM, can't wait for the new show!

 

[Charlaquin]

This is why I just haven't been able to watch any streamed D&D games: the "performing" is just annoying to me, and every stream I've ever tried to watch has seemed to be nothing but literally hours of drawn out character interactions with meaningless NPCs like cooks and janitors, pointless interactions with NPCs who have nothing to do with the plot and will never be seen again. And far too much of it mixed with a lot of derailing "funny" buffoonery from players who seem to treat the whole game as nothing but a big joke, giving their characters stupid names and annoying personalities... that kind of stuff would ruin a game for me and honestly drive me to quit, and I have no desire to watch someome else play it either. I love jokes and humor during a game, but treating the game itself as a joke makes me genuinely angry when I'm trying to play.

The only streamed D&D game I ever actually enjoyed watching was Stephen Colbert's charity game session; he was the only one I ever watched who treated the game like the actual D&D players I've ever played with. That one was a joy to watch, while all the others have been like watching someone scrape their fingernails across a chalkboard.

I don’t mind the antics typical of such streamed games, but I understand why it doesn’t appeal to many. That Stephen Colbert game sounds awesome though, I should definitely give that a watch.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

One thing I can never understand is Matt’s method of establishing initiative order!

It’s the same method as the core rules. He just uses a particular method to find out what the players rolled. We have completely adopted that method in our games, because we hate every other method we’ve ever tried. I really really despise crosstalk, and I find that if I ask in descending number brackets (ie, who got higher than 20?), people don’t all yell their numbers at once until I stare at them blankly waiting for them to shut the hell up.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree except for the dislike of stupid names. What I've learned is that stupid - or, better, clever - names are memorable names. Players don't forget them as easily, even years later. That alone makes it worth it in my view. I think the trick is to make them punny in a way that sums up the NPC but also makes some sense in the context of the game world.

I’ll certainly never forget Shifty Sharpshank, though admittedly I did forget the details of his backstory, apart from the fact that it was basically a long-form joke, the punchline of which was something about “Sharpshank redemption.”

 

[iserith]

What streams could you possibly be watching to get this impression. I don’t watch a ton of them, but the handful I do watch are...absolutely the opposite of that.

Hell, even the ones I’ve tuned in to and found not to my taste haven’t ever been like that.

I check out Twitch when I'm engaged in other tasks and just pick one of the live games that have some viewers. I've also watched the AI streams (the old 4e ones were better than current in my opinion). I've listened to some of the bigger podcasts and watched some of the bigger streamers. I also observe/listen to live games being played on a Discord I'm in.

Over the years, one starts to see a lot of commonalities like I've described. So much shopping. So much posturing in taverns. So many interviews of quirky, cagey NPCs. So little actual adventuring. I'm actually surprised that others are seeing what I'm seeing. I worried I was being too picky.