Critical Role Why Critical Role is so successful...

[Umbran]

The table at Crit Role just runs differently than any table I've played at. The DM is interested in fleshing out EVERYONE's backstories instead of just running his plot. Each player is deeply invested in the story of their character AND everyone else's, instead of just killing stuff.

So, when we talk about CR, we should remember what they are trying to do. When we talk about them being successful, we need to actually say, "They are successful at doing such-and-such."

Critical Role is a successful streaming show. They've tried to optimize D&D for that - they have professional actors as players, and so on.

Then you must ask, what does being "successful" mean at your particular table? Probably not - you are not optimizing for a viewer, you are optimizing for the players you have.

You have Steve, who's your big roleplayer - he loves the drama. Jane is good at and interested in the small-unit tactical wargame, but can't really act her way out of a paper bag. Kevin is not too shabby at either, but his goals are really just to be at the table, have a beer or two, and hang out with his friends. And so on.

There are definitely tricks you can pick up from CR, but your situation and goals are different than Mercer's, and so when doing analysis of what we can take, we must keep that in mind.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Wow, that surprises me. I find it a least as easy to wing encounters in 5e than 1e (I didn't play 2e) and probably easier. It was so easy to have a bod role or two complete change the complexion of a 1e encounter that I remember just giving up in trying to balance an encounter. Therefore, that has been my basic approach since 1e, just build the encounter that makes sense for the world and let the chips fall where they fall. I find I get a lot less PC deaths in 5e this way than I did in 1e. I spend about 0 prep on balancing encounters in 5e. Especially now that my PCs are 15th level, but it was true from at least 3rd level on.

Well, I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll just say this isn't as much an issue now as it was almost two years ago when we started.

I recall our very first encounter (5 1st-level PCs) was against 10 orcs. It was nearly a TPK. In 1E/2E 10 orcs would have been a moderate, maybe a hard encounter, but not as bad as it was in 5E. We had one PC die, and 2 others at 0 hp by the end of the battle.

Since then, I devised a spreadsheet that works well for balancing out encounters and both myself and our main DM use it. It works well so the time required isn't nearly what it was before. But compared to the time I invest in exploration and social prep (virtually none), combat is the big time factor.

 

[dave2008]

Well, I don't want to derail the thread,...

Agreed, so I will keep this brief and leave it at that.

...so I'll just say this isn't as much an issue now as it was almost two years ago when we started.

I recall our very first encounter (5 1st-level PCs) was against 10 orcs. It was nearly a TPK. In 1E/2E 10 orcs would have been a moderate, maybe a hard encounter, but not as bad as it was in 5E. We had one PC die, and 2 others at 0 hp by the end of the battle.

Since then, I devised a spreadsheet that works well for balancing out encounters and both myself and our main DM use it. It works well so the time required isn't nearly what it was before. But compared to the time I invest in exploration and social prep (virtually none), combat is the big time factor.

I will just say as of now I literally spend 0 time worrying about encounter balance. I still spend time making encounters, I just don't spend any time to check to see if the encounter is easy, hard, or balanced. It just is what it is and my players deal with it accordingly. It has worked for us the last 5 years playing 5e (the first year I did try to balance things).

 

[Umbran]

Not sure why you took this negative connotation, btw, we’re always discussing how to run games on this forum?

We are always discussing how to run games. We aren't always holding up a piece of media as a standard for comparison.

 

[robus]

But you did kinda make it an attack on DM's (covid or no covid), by saying it is a lack of inspiration not provide by DMs. I mean this sound a lot like you are saying the problem is bad / uncreative DMs: "...We really don’t need additional rules for exploration, we need more inspiration (not the mechanic, but actual, real inspiration). This is why the back of the DMs guide lists a library of reading to enhance a DMs ability to create interesting worlds. Rules or generators can’t do that, only a DMs mind, seeded with a fount of ideas."

To be honest, it may be true, but...

I really didn’t intend to be an attack on DMs but a push back on the idea that the exploration pillar sucked or that it needs more rules. But I guess everyone is on a short fuse these days.

 

[robus]

We are always discussing how to run games. We aren't always holding up a piece of media as a standard for comparison.

Actually it was an example of my point, but whatever.

 

[dave2008]

I really didn’t intend to be an attack on DMs but a push back on the idea that the exploration pillar sucked or that it needs more rules. But I guess everyone is on a short fuse these days.

Yes a lot of us are. I agree with the push back on the exploration pillar sucking, but I don't think your argument needs to be a push back on providing more rules / guidelines / structure for exploration.

Your example (CR) just proves how difficult it is to DM that way. DMs without those benefits still could use help to DM exploration better. You can have guidelines for those that need them and a reference library (?) for those that don't. Actually, what are you suggesting for those that don't need guidelines? Just watch CR?

 

[Wishbone]

I first started looking at trying D&D again because of Critical Role. It does a great job selling the experience of a TTRPG without attaching any social stigma to it, which many other forms of media that reference D&D often do. If people have unrealistic expectations for table play that may be due to CR being an entry point for a lot of new players who have yet to play themselves and don't realize that if they expect the DM to live up to Matt Mercer's example they should try to live up to the examples from the professional voice actor players as well. Improv 101 might be useful as a step for those players, but I don't think for veterans having things like quickly jotted down ideas that can be expanded on the fly if someone pokes at them is particularly revelatory.

As an aside, it always bothers me when Youtube personalities include images cycling in the video without attributing any credit to the artist or the original source that published them so I really appreciate that he does credit them. Some of the art from sources other than recognizable artists can be pretty cool and its great to be able to find the artist who did them!

 

[Charlaquin]

Actually it was an example of my point, but whatever.

Yeah, but you made the title about Critical Role, which primed everyone to be thinking about it and framed the conversation around it, instead of around the exploration pillar as you intended. If the thread title had been “Why Exploration is the most misunderstood pillar” or something, it would have been clearer that Critical Role was meant as an example of your point instead of the crux of your point.

 

[robus]

Your example (CR) just proves how difficult it is to DM that way. DMs without those benefits still could use help to DM exploration better. You can have guidelines for those that need them and a reference library (?) for those that don't. Actually, what are you suggesting for those that don't need guidelines? Just watch CR?

No, I’m using them as an example of forward placement of exploration. I don’t think the basics of what Matt does is exceptionally hard. He basically makes an effort to imbue his game with interesting and mysterious things for the players to interact with, in other words to explore.

In the final leg of my long running campaign I, subconsciously, put more into the exploration side after the players grew bored with the monotony of my high-level OotA reboot. So I blew it up and created a much more varied and mysterious setting. The players loved it. Did it take a lot of effort? I don’t think so, but perhaps because I was enjoying myself once more as a DM the effort didn’t weigh so heavily?

I think a lot of DMs rely on half-baked improvisation when responding to player actions because they’ve not spent time themselves imagining interesting aspects of their own setting (or WotCs) leading to a pillar that sucks at the table. For those running WotC adventures, I think Forgotten Realms feeds that ambivalence as the setting itself is worn out IMHO.

I know I can do a lot better in that department, and I think for me, it‘s simply a matter of paying more attention to that aspect when thinking about upcoming sessions. Easy to say at the moment, as I’m between campaigns