Critical Role Slate feature on Matt Mercer

[Reynard]

Have you watched the show...? I am guessing, "no."

I have. It's a good time. It's also a show.

 

[Reynard]

Because they've stated repeatedly that the show is not scripted, they don't have pre-planned beats, the players don't know what's coming, that they're just playing D&D and trying to entertain each other, that the game itself is a continuation of their home game.

Saying they aren't doing that is calling them liars.

I'll say it again: just because something isn't "fake" doesn't mean it is "real."

Critical Role is fine. it's fun. it is well put together. The cast is (mostly) entertaining. it's too long, and the way it is monetized is weirdly anti-East Coast. But I don't think it is an insult to anyone making it to acknowledge that it is a professional product.

 

[Parmandur]

Because they've stated repeatedly that the show is not scripted, they don't have pre-planned beats, the players don't know what's coming, that they're just playing D&D and trying to entertain each other, that the game itself is a continuation of their home game.

Saying they aren't doing that is calling them liars.

Also, they aren't qctually very good at D&D (except for Mercer). Like, theybare entertaining, and Mercer is great at tailoring the challenge for his players...but they aren't really optimized in build or play.

 

[Oofta]

"Never" is an absolute. Like "always," "everyone," and "impossible." It just seemed to come out of nowhere, that's all.

When I wrote that line about theater background, I wasn't trying to target you or anyone else. I was just making the observation that some people in this thread clearly have a theater background, and some clearly don't. I think it's interesting, that's all. I think a theater background is just as likely to affect someone's appreciation for Critical Role as their D&D background is.

Let's try this. I think different people play with different goals and get different rewards from the game. For some people it's all about tactics and what their PC can accomplish. For some it's working as part of a team. For some it's about entertaining other people at the table and making them laugh and have fun. For, I assume, most people it's some mix of all of those.

They're all in the entertainment industry so they're all highly motivated by role playing off each other. When I watch the show, it's pretty obvious that Sam is just doing most of what he does to play off the others. Liam seems to be more into strategy, and so on.

It's a mix, just like most games I've played.

 

[Reynard]

On the subject of Mercer as a GM: I think he is brilliant. He is obviously skilled at the character stuff, but he also understands his specific play group ina way that I think a lot of GMs should pay more attention to. Not to GM like Mercer, because your players probably aren't like his players, but to understand your players and know how to build your game to suit who is actually sitting at the table. Lots of GMs fail at that, even after many years.

 

[Oofta]

Also, they aren't qctually very good at D&D (except for Mercer). Like, theybare entertaining, and Mercer is great at tailoring the challenge for his players...but they aren't really optimized in build or play.

Yeah, there are times when Matt obviously gets a bit frustrated because they don't know how to play their characters. He's a lot more patient than I would likely be.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

"Never" is an absolute. Like "always," "everyone," and "impossible." It just seemed to come out of nowhere, that's all.

When I wrote that line about theater background, I wasn't trying to target you or anyone else. I was just making the observation that some people in this thread clearly have a theater background, and some clearly don't. I think it's interesting, that's all. I think a theater background is just as likely to affect someone's appreciation for Critical Role as their D&D background is.

I think it's because some people get really hung up on the whole, "But it isn't scripted. THEY'VE SAID THAT!"

Whereas if you have familiarity with the process, you know that there are, in fact, a lot of variations on the "isn't scripted" product. For example, Nathan Fiedler is famous for relying heavily on "unscripted" elements in his shows (Nathan For You, The Rehearsal). But to say something isn't scripted doesn't mean something isn't prepared. Or that it didn't require thought, or improvisational talent. Or thinking about how something will "play" to the audience- that same audience that is responsible for making the show (it is a show, after all) a hit. Heck, even a garden-variety dinner theater hosted by trained performers (which, again, isn't scripted) requires preparation and the performers ensuring that they hit certain marks, knowing about the effect on the audience.

All of which is to say is that, for me, it's actually an insult to the hard work and talent of the people involved when you get the constant refrain that it's just a home game.

In a somewhat similar vein, I am reminded of people who watch sports broadcasts and complain about the play-by-play. For those who think the job is easy, do the following: Just put on a game without sound, and record yourself doing play-by-play. Try it.

In a similar vein, if you think this is just a home game, just like yours, try this- record your home game. And then play it back. Or watch one of the many not-successful attempts people have put up.

Seriously- these guys are in the Biz. They are professionals. to think that they're not putting in thought and effort into this is ... well, never let them see you sweat, right?

 

[DEFCON 1]

There is an entire gamut that runs between 'completely scripted' and 'completed unscripted', with regards to pretty much all entertainment (improvisation included). And even on the 'unscripted' side of the ledger (what we normally consider to be 'improvisation') there are all matter of steps along the line of known and unknown. And everybody here is correct in their various declarations, depending on how down deep they are digging, and how trained the cast is in improv technique.

Is the show 'scripted'? No, it is not. With the exception of the occasional monologue Matt Mercer has written out beforehand (usually campaign openings or very specific bits for specific characters)... no one is reciting lines of dialogue they have created or memorized prior to the show.

Is the show 'pre-planned'? To a certain extent , yes it is, as much as most DMs "pre-plan" their games. To plan for the upcoming session many DMs will write down in their notes several of the likely directions they suspect the players will go, and then create encounters, NPCs, and scene seeds that they can use should the players go that way. If the players go elsewhere? That's fine... the DM can just completely make stuff up as necessary... but more often than not when they know the kinds of leads their players tend to take, they can prepare those directions in advance. Matt Mercer I expect knows pretty well the kinds of threads his players tend to follow, and thus can "pre-plan" things ahead of time.

Do the players have "pre-planned bits"? Yes, and no. In improvisation there are all manner of ways to indeed have 'pre-planned bits' depending on the style of improv and the show type itself. The old Italian Commedia dell'Arte was improvised in that no dialogue was memorized or recited... but every character had comedic bits (called "lazzi") that were standard gags or jokes that they could and would insert into their dialogue and scenes whenever they wanted or needed to. And shows that are running shows (such as Curb Your Enthusiasm or indeed Critical Role) will have character bits that either were created beforehand by the actors and dropped into the shows when they fit... or were jokes/gags that might've been made up on the spot in one particular show, but were then brought back later in follow-up shows. "Lazzi" to use the old term... "running gags" as we call them now. They become part and parcel to who the characters were themselves. And we "normal folks" do this all the time at our D&D tables as well, oftentimes without even realizing it. Any time were create a character and develop their backstory or personality traits, those are the formulations of "pre-planned bits". Maybe not the actual gag itself, but how a gag may manifest is pre-planned. If someone decides to play a greedy character that can't help pickpocketing everyone... that pickpocketing becomes a "lazzi". And it becomes a bit that will be used over and over again.

And finally, there's the question about improv training itself. When you train in improvisation for the stage, you learn all about how to create characters, how to create a scene idea out of nothing, how to acknowledge another player's scene idea and build upon it so that the scene continues, and all the standard "theatrical techniques" that all actor learn about-- presenting out for the audience, diction, voice, timing, staying within a scene, not breaking the 4th wall, not breaking character, reacting to what you receive from your scene partners, etc. Anyone who is theatrically trained (and/or improvisationally trained) knows all of these things and has had them become an intrinsic part of themselves. They are in fact "bits" per se... we all do the "bit" where we just happen to turn three-quarters out to the audience so we can half-see our scene partner and half-present our faces to the audience... but these bits are not intentionally done, they are just instinctual in us. So other folks may not call them "bits" by the standard everyday sense of what we mean by "bit" nowadays. But both sides could technically claim themselves as correct by stating whether or not that was a bit. And the Critical Role cast have all kinds of these "bits" that they know to do intrinsically for "performing for the camera" to the point where they also don't seem like "bits" as most of us usually use the term. So what they are doing "isn't real" in that they are performing in ways that are meant to help create a filmed presentation, but are also "real" because they aren't making any conscious effort to do them-- they are acting exactly how they would at home. Which for those of us who act or do improv, these techniques are so ingrained that we do them in our everyday lives without even realizing. So we are being "real" and "fake" at the same time.

Critical Role is no different. They're just really, really good.

 

[CleverNickName]

Critical Role is no different. They're just really, really good.

Agreed! They are truly a joy to watch--but that's to be expected, because they are professional entertainers AND skilled players. I worry that someone might read this last part though, and immediately respond with "Wait, so you're saying my game is actually bad, then?!" And that's absurd! Someone else being really good at something doesn't make everyone else bad at it.

Unless it's some kind of organized competition...in which case, I'd wonder why you decided to put your gaming skills in direct competition with the cast of Critical Role. Because hoo boy, you picked a tough opponent.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I worry that someone might read this last part though, and immediately respond with "Wait, so you're saying my game is actually bad, then?!" And that's absurd! Someone else being really good at something doesn't make everyone else bad at it.

No no. Let them cook.

Yes, our games as actually probably really bad as entertainment for people on the outside watching. Stale injokes, preschool play level acting, melodrama, fights over the rules, down time as the DM fumbles with the minis. Your game, my game--they would all suck as a show.

But that's not the point of our games.

Relating to each other with injokes, hamming it up, side chatter -- that's all part of the experience. We're all silly dorks playing pretend. And we shouldn't be running from that.