Watch Chris Perkins' First Episode of DICE, CAMERA, ACTION

WotC has just launched an official Dungeons & Dragons web show called Dice, Camera, Action. It stars Chris Perkins running a game for Holly Conrad, Jared Knabenbauer, Anna Prosser Robinson, and Nathan Sharp. They are playing Curse of Strahd, so only watch it if you don't mind major spoilers. The video is nearly two-hours long. Enjoy!

[video=youtube;a1ZbgywIF6Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1ZbgywIF6Y[/video]​

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

The asking to make checks thing bugged me, too.

I'd prefer a "I want to investigate X" - "Looking for anything in particular?" - "Trying to see if the doodad shows any links to the hoodjamaflip that NPC Name mentioned" - "Ok, roll..."

... Than "I make an investigation check, I rolled a 19, what do I find?"

Personal tastes - maybe generational or the non-video gamer in me, but still, I found that lacked immersion. That kind of thing only gets worse when it's an NPC interaction - "(DM gives the NPC colour, personality and informs the party of stuff)" - "I insight check him, I rolled a 19, is he genuine?" Or "I want to get him to believe me, I roll a Persiasion check, 19, do I win?".

For filmed entertainment, not making the effort to at least try and RP a little is kinda weak. Sayeth the Grassy Grognard.

 

[robus]

I remember watching the official play through of the starter set adventure and being similarly disappointed though that time it was due to the DM being quite bland. Why are WotC having a hard time pulling this off?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I remember watching the official play through of the starter set adventure and being similarly disappointed though that time it was due to the DM being quite bland. Why are WotC having a hard time pulling this off?

Because you need actual improv actors to pull it off successfully.

There is a *huge* difference between sitting around a table playing and playing for an audience. When it's just you and your friends, the game is usually paused or interrupted for any myriad of things... someone makes a joke, someone gets drink of water, some is looking something up in the book, etc. etc. etc. But no one really notices because when you are at the table there are so many other things as a player you are concerned about that you miss a lot of the crap. Or the crap just gets washed over.

But when you are an audience member... we see all the crap. All the wasted time, all the pausing, all the times when players don't make choices or don't remain in character, all the disinterest. We are on the outside looking in, so it's all there for us to see and notice. We aren't immersed in the game or the situation the players themselves are in by actually being at the table. So the only way we as an audience can BE immersed is if the players and DM go the extra mile and make the game as much of an improvised play as possible. That means remaining in character or in narrator as much as possible, keeping OOG banter to a minimum, and always keep your intentions and desires moving forward so the show maintains momentum.

But most normal players can't readily do that. Not on that type of scale for that length of time. I mean, if I was to ask you "Hey, can you go onstage at the local improv theater right now and do a 120 minute 'Lord of the Rings' style longform improv show for an audience of 100... I'm pretty sure 80 to 90 percent of you would look at me like I was an idiot. But unfortunately, that's exactly the type of person you need for this kind of streaming show. Because you HAVE to be able to eliminate all the excess flabby baggage from your regular table game, because that junk just doesn't fly when someone's watching it online.

 

[Rhenny]

I agree with the actor/player issue, but I view the WoTC live streams differently than Critical Role and Th Acquisition Inc sessions. With those productions it is obvious that the goal is to entertain an audience while the goal of the live streams is to just play D&D. Sure, they could try to achieve both goals (and to me, Critical Role does seem to hit both goals) but I'm pretty sure they want to make sure that the live stream games are more representative of games that most folks play in their own living rooms.

I'm not sure why they decided to do that, but from my own experience, when I feel too much pressure to perform and create the perfect session (as DM mostly but also as a player) the planning and running of said session becomes more like a job and less like a fun experience. I think the live streams are more about just playing just for fun.

 

[robus]

I agree with the actor/player issue, but I view the WoTC live streams differently than Critical Role and Th Acquisition Inc sessions. With those productions it is obvious that the goal is to entertain an audience while the goal of the live streams is to just play D&D. Sure, they could try to achieve both goals (and to me, Critical Role does seem to hit both goals) but I'm pretty sure they want to make sure that the live stream games are more representative of games that most folks play in their own living rooms.

I'm not sure why they decided to do that, but from my own experience, when I feel too much pressure to perform and create the perfect session (as DM mostly but also as a player) the planning and running of said session becomes more like a job and less like a fun experience. I think the live streams are more about just playing just for fun.

You're probably right. But still, this is effectively an ad for the game so it would behoove them to make the best possible implementation. And TBH many people are wanting tabletop games as a way to get away from a computer so have it be done via computer seems a bit out of step. I know many people play that way but I think it's not the most common. I was really expecting something on the level of Titansgrave, high polish, engaging PCs and committed DM (but without the railroad )

 

[Tiles]

Titansgrave has a million dollar budget. Wotc has none that I'm aware of. That being said, if I was given the task of producing an actual play show, picking an enthusiastic experienced cast would be job one ( audio job two ). I'm not a fan of unfocused smart a**es at the table. Ever.

 

[robus]

Titansgrave has a million dollar budget. Wotc has none that I'm aware of. That being said, if I was given the task of producing an actual play show, picking an enthusiastic experienced cast would be job one ( audio job two ). I'm not a fan of unfocused smart a**es at the table. Ever.

Is that figure from an official source? But anyway, isn't this a companyt that's going to produce a D&D movie? I hope they budget better for that...!

 

[Tiles]

No, not even close to official number. Only what I recall from a very successful Kickstarter type promotion, 1.3 million for both tabletop and Titansgrave ($300 for top and million past to start Titansgrave ????)

 

[wedgeski]

I will be quite blunt and say that I hope Titansgrave isn't the model for anything WotC try and do. I thought it was pretty terrible (and this from the channel that produces Critical Role).

That said, I'm also finding D/C/A underwhelming. I don't mind Evelyn at all, and I like Strix a lot. The other two PC's are somewhat in their shadow, and need to step it up a little bit (their terrible dice aren't helping). We're only two episodes in, though, and plenty of time for things to get into a groove.

And as a final note, no-one should be surprised that the portrayal of a confident female PC by a confident female player brings out the trolls on YouTube. It's a red rag to those idiots.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

The problem I have with most streams of D&D is that 80% of the game is out of character/story yakking that I have no tolerance for. I'm there for the STORY. Keep that going, and deal with it in an interesting, not-stupid way and I'll stick around. You don't need to be great improv actors or even particularly effective role players; just know the rules, understand your character, have an inkling of intelligence and engage with the story.