NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 8633015" data-attributes="member: 16586">I can only speak for myself, but I am generally loathe to acknowledge similarities because the framing of those similarities often feels deceptive to me. Not just in the degree of similarity implied, but also in how it positions the sort of play typified by something like Critical Role. The basic framing of this is basically a heliocentric model of RPG play. It holds up Critical Role as the generalized form of RPG play with others sorts of play basically rotating around it as more specialized or narrow forms of play. This fails to account for two things :<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The degree of similarity that Critical Role D&D shares with other forms of play typified by games like Apocalypse World, RuneQuest and B/X D&D.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">How specialized the High Concept play it promotes/typifies really is. The degree to which fidelity to narrative expectations, genre tropes, and especially preconception of character and setting elements are considered valuable represents what I consider to be an extremely specialized form of play. An extremely popular form, but one no less specialized than Apocalypse World, RuneQuest or B/X in my book.</li> </ol>I should clarify that I do not think the argument is made deceptively. It merely feels deceptive because the degree to which genre tropes, narrative expectations and preconception of character/setting are valued is considered a baseline part of RPG play (within the scope of the argument) when those things are not valued nearly to that extent in other forms of play.</blockquote>

Verification