Gotta say everyone, I'm super pleased at how positive and helpful this post has been for the question I asked!
I'm so used to seeing argument for the sake of argument on this site that its nice to see people actually offer me a viewpoint different from my own without being rude or condescending!
CR is a theatre show, which is not to say they don't play D&D, because they actually play pretty close to RAW but they are group of actors who put on a program for an audience, they are very conscious of the fact they are being watched and actively making decisions for the sole purpose of entertaining people.
This feels, with all due respect, like a bit of an exaggeration. Clearly it is a theatre show in the sense that it is a show being streamed so people can watch it, but to me they don't look like they're acting significantly differently from how they presumably did during their audienceless home games. Yes, they're (voice) actors and they could probably fake it better than most, but they're not doing anything really different - as far as playing the game is concerned - from the first sessions when they didn't think it was going to last and were amazed to even break quadruple-digit viewer numbers. Their game decisions also aren't any different from those I've seen in many regular groups. I get that their overall style is not for you, but it's not an uncommon° one.
°edit: and, to clarify, wasn't uncommon before the show started airing either
CR is a theatre show, which is not to say they don't play D&D, because they actually play pretty close to RAW but they are group of actors who put on a program for an audience, they are very conscious of the fact they are being watched and actively making decisions for the sole purpose of entertaining people.
This feels, with all due respect, like a bit of an exaggeration. Clearly it is a theatre show in the sense that it is a show being streamed so people can watch it, but to me they don't look like they're acting significantly differently from how they presumably did during their audienceless home games. Yes, they're (voice) actors and they could probably fake it better than most, but they're not doing anything really different - as far as playing the game is concerned - from the first sessions when they didn't think it was going to last and were amazed to even break quadruple-digit viewer numbers. Their game decisions also aren't any different from those I've seen in many regular groups. I get that their overall style is not for you, but it's not an uncommon° one.
°edit: and, to clarify, wasn't uncommon before the show started airing either
This is what I was thinking too. While my table doesn't have an "audience", we still play to entertain the "audience" of eachother. We make the same types of dramatic decisions that we see in CR to entertain EACHOTHER. For us, DnD is essentially a way to play out the fantasy media (movies/books/games) we all love but with our own personal touch. If we want a dramatic tragic romance, or a sudden betrayal, or a soap-opera-ish kind of plot twist, we do that because it adds to the story that's unfolding.
We do this ON TOP of the RPG aspects like combat, number crunching, questing etc. NOT instead of.
I truly don't think this is an uncommon way of playing either. In fact, I think its probably fairly common! Though my knowledge is limited since I've been with the same group since the beginning.
CR is a theatre show, which is not to say they don't play D&D, because they actually play pretty close to RAW but they are group of actors who put on a program for an audience, they are very conscious of the fact they are being watched and actively making decisions for the sole purpose of entertaining people.
This feels, with all due respect, like a bit of an exaggeration. Clearly it is a theatre show in the sense that it is a show being streamed so people can watch it, but to me they don't look like they're acting significantly differently from how they presumably did during their audienceless home games. Yes, they're (voice) actors and they could probably fake it better than most, but they're not doing anything really different - as far as playing the game is concerned - from the first sessions when they didn't think it was going to last and were amazed to even break quadruple-digit viewer numbers. Their game decisions also aren't any different from those I've seen in many regular groups. I get that their overall style is not for you, but it's not an uncommon° one.
°edit: and, to clarify, wasn't uncommon before the show started airing either
I know they get pretty serious at times and that is something that can be hard for a group to pull off. I know I have wanted dramatic elements in my games before but its fallen flat as we tend to lean towards comedy in our sessions.
Its about understanding your table and what they feel comfortable doing. Some people just can't handle the emotional stuff and it comes off as cringe to them.
Its not wrong to want a game like that but it does take a crew dedicated to that to make it happen. If anything this thread has reiterated to me the importance of a good session 0 with good expectations going into the game.
For me personally, I wouldn't want to play with a group like CR, there is waaaay too much fussing about with voices and nonsense, I want to play D&D, not do free form role-playing, I actually find the way they do it pretty cringy, almost to the point that its unwatchable. When I do watch it I find I fast forward through a lot of stuff.
I was RIGHT THERE with you until this! You were saying earlier in the post about "I don't want this, but its ok if you do" and I was like "Yes! I agree entirely! People have different preferences of how to play and thats fine! Awesome point!" and then you haaaad to go and add in the negativity.
it really feels like you essentially said "You're fine to play your way, but your way is cringy and bad" completely removing the point...
You ever see a thread that looks like hitting a bee's nest with a bat? Well I've got my bat and epi-pen at the ready so here we go!
One of the most common pieces of advice I see on these forums is "Don't try to be like CR." or "CR is just ACTING DnD, not playing REAL DnD". And I've never really understood what they're on about?
My table is a group of friends outside of DnD and we've been playing every week for about 5 years (ish) now. We all discovered CR shortly after we started and were IMEDIATELY inspired by how they played. We have 2 ongoing campaigns with 2 different DM's and EVERYONE takes inspiration from CR at least in SOME aspect. We all watched it and simultaneously thought "That's what we want to play".
Then later I discovered DnDbeyond's forums and had a HOST of people essentially shouting "DON'T DO THAT! THEY'LL RUIN DND FOR YOU! THEY'RE PROFESSIONAL ACTORS AND YOU'RE NOT!!!" So is THAT the reason? I shouldn't take inspiration and influence from CR because they're professionals and our table isn't? We're all adults, we KNOW we're not actors and none of us have never thought we were. To me that feels like saying "Don't Read LoTR before planning a campaign! Tolkien is a writer and you aren't so you'll have unrealistic expectations!"
Our games DO feel like CR. Obviously we don't have an audience (besides ourselves) and we're not professional actors, but that doesn't stop us from taking queues from them?
Can someone explain to me what people are suggesting against?
I tried watching Critical Role back when it first showed up on the internet, and I found myself bored out of my skull. That said, I'm currently working my way through both Brennan Lee Mulligan's and Viva La Dirt League's streamed campaigns, and I've seen some of Mercer's Celebrity D&D (in particular, his Terry Crews episode), so I'm familiar with the core concept. I've also never heard anyone specifically advise against trying to be like Critical Role. That said, I would certainly tell you not to mindlessly ape any streamed campaign, because all of them (including all of the Mercer content I've seen) cut out particularly boring footage doing things like looking up a rule or updating a character sheet or what-have-you, which means you may be missing pieces that are very important to real-world play. For example, no streamed campaign is going to show you how to handle it if and when a PC has a core rules disagreement with a DM, but as a real DM, you need to understand how to handle that dynamic. It's just like how you shouldn't play American Football based only on having seen it on tv - there are really important game elements that never see screentime, and you'll have a bad time if you neglect those elements.
You ever see a thread that looks like hitting a bee's nest with a bat? Well I've got my bat and epi-pen at the ready so here we go!
One of the most common pieces of advice I see on these forums is "Don't try to be like CR." or "CR is just ACTING DnD, not playing REAL DnD". And I've never really understood what they're on about?
My table is a group of friends outside of DnD and we've been playing every week for about 5 years (ish) now. We all discovered CR shortly after we started and were IMEDIATELY inspired by how they played. We have 2 ongoing campaigns with 2 different DM's and EVERYONE takes inspiration from CR at least in SOME aspect. We all watched it and simultaneously thought "That's what we want to play".
Then later I discovered DnDbeyond's forums and had a HOST of people essentially shouting "DON'T DO THAT! THEY'LL RUIN DND FOR YOU! THEY'RE PROFESSIONAL ACTORS AND YOU'RE NOT!!!" So is THAT the reason? I shouldn't take inspiration and influence from CR because they're professionals and our table isn't? We're all adults, we KNOW we're not actors and none of us have never thought we were. To me that feels like saying "Don't Read LoTR before planning a campaign! Tolkien is a writer and you aren't so you'll have unrealistic expectations!"
Our games DO feel like CR. Obviously we don't have an audience (besides ourselves) and we're not professional actors, but that doesn't stop us from taking queues from them?
Can someone explain to me what people are suggesting against?
I tried watching Critical Role back when it first showed up on the internet, and I found myself bored out of my skull. That said, I'm currently working my way through both Brennan Lee Mulligan's and Viva La Dirt League's streamed campaigns, and I've seen some of Mercer's Celebrity D&D (in particular, his Terry Crews episode), so I'm familiar with the core concept. I've also never heard anyone specifically advise against trying to be like Critical Role. That said, I would certainly tell you not to mindlessly ape any streamed campaign, because all of them (including all of the Mercer content I've seen) cut out particularly boring footage doing things like looking up a rule or updating a character sheet or what-have-you, which means you may be missing pieces that are very important to real-world play. For example, no streamed campaign is going to show you how to handle it if and when a PC has a core rules disagreement with a DM, but as a real DM, you need to understand how to handle that dynamic. It's just like how you shouldn't play American Football based only on having seen it on tv - there are really important game elements that never see screentime, and you'll have a bad time if you neglect those elements.
I may be wrong but I think CR is unedited for the most part? The only parts they tend to edit out is when they take breaks during the session.
You ever see a thread that looks like hitting a bee's nest with a bat? Well I've got my bat and epi-pen at the ready so here we go!
One of the most common pieces of advice I see on these forums is "Don't try to be like CR." or "CR is just ACTING DnD, not playing REAL DnD". And I've never really understood what they're on about?
My table is a group of friends outside of DnD and we've been playing every week for about 5 years (ish) now. We all discovered CR shortly after we started and were IMEDIATELY inspired by how they played. We have 2 ongoing campaigns with 2 different DM's and EVERYONE takes inspiration from CR at least in SOME aspect. We all watched it and simultaneously thought "That's what we want to play".
Then later I discovered DnDbeyond's forums and had a HOST of people essentially shouting "DON'T DO THAT! THEY'LL RUIN DND FOR YOU! THEY'RE PROFESSIONAL ACTORS AND YOU'RE NOT!!!" So is THAT the reason? I shouldn't take inspiration and influence from CR because they're professionals and our table isn't? We're all adults, we KNOW we're not actors and none of us have never thought we were. To me that feels like saying "Don't Read LoTR before planning a campaign! Tolkien is a writer and you aren't so you'll have unrealistic expectations!"
Our games DO feel like CR. Obviously we don't have an audience (besides ourselves) and we're not professional actors, but that doesn't stop us from taking queues from them?
Can someone explain to me what people are suggesting against?
I tried watching Critical Role back when it first showed up on the internet, and I found myself bored out of my skull. That said, I'm currently working my way through both Brennan Lee Mulligan's and Viva La Dirt League's streamed campaigns, and I've seen some of Mercer's Celebrity D&D (in particular, his Terry Crews episode), so I'm familiar with the core concept. I've also never heard anyone specifically advise against trying to be like Critical Role. That said, I would certainly tell you not to mindlessly ape any streamed campaign, because all of them (including all of the Mercer content I've seen) cut out particularly boring footage doing things like looking up a rule or updating a character sheet or what-have-you, which means you may be missing pieces that are very important to real-world play. For example, no streamed campaign is going to show you how to handle it if and when a PC has a core rules disagreement with a DM, but as a real DM, you need to understand how to handle that dynamic. It's just like how you shouldn't play American Football based only on having seen it on tv - there are really important game elements that never see screentime, and you'll have a bad time if you neglect those elements.
I may be wrong but I think CR is unedited for the most part? The only parts they tend to edit out is when they take breaks during the session.
They also had a few "rules confrontations" in the first campaign, especially in the first couple dozen episodes. At this point everyone has been playing under the same rule set for long enough that it isn't an issue anymore.
I tried watching Critical Role back when it first showed up on the internet, and I found myself bored out of my skull. That said, I'm currently working my way through both Brennan Lee Mulligan's and Viva La Dirt League's streamed campaigns, and I've seen some of Mercer's Celebrity D&D (in particular, his Terry Crews episode), so I'm familiar with the core concept. I've also never heard anyone specifically advise against trying to be like Critical Role. That said, I would certainly tell you not to mindlessly ape any streamed campaign, because all of them (including all of the Mercer content I've seen) cut out particularly boring footage doing things like looking up a rule or updating a character sheet or what-have-you, which means you may be missing pieces that are very important to real-world play. For example, no streamed campaign is going to show you how to handle it if and when a PC has a core rules disagreement with a DM, but as a real DM, you need to understand how to handle that dynamic. It's just like how you shouldn't play American Football based only on having seen it on tv - there are really important game elements that never see screentime, and you'll have a bad time if you neglect those elements.
I've been watching VLDL's NPC D&D and O|X's Oxventure - two opposite ends of the rules spectrum but both played by performers who started unfamiliar with D&D.
For stuff that happens outside of the those two streams, you're looking for Rob's twitch channel (VLDL) and the Oxventure Podcast (audio only) which go into details about things that weren't included. On NPC D&D, the stuff that's cut out is mostly just breaks as explained on Rob's Behind the Screen stuff but there can be rare off-camera discussions that he'll explain.
All those shows tell me that one can go all books-on-hand rules-heavy or throw it all out the window being rules-lax. Nothing about them tells me people shouldn't try improvising characters during gameplay nor that people are required to improvise characters during gameplay.
The only thing I can see is that questions cropped up occasionally on what to do if players are doing all the in-character stuff and other players don't know how or don't feel comfortable to try and feel left out. That might lead to thoughts of "nobody should do it because I feel left out" which could be where the "don't emulate CR" sentiments originate, but I would think that's not the best way to handle the situation.
That stated, I haven't seen a "don't emulate CR" stuff, but I don't read every thread or forum here.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
There's a lot of ways Dungeons and Dragons (and more broadly, TTRPGs) works but not everything works for everyone; and good tables, I feel, find playstyle balance as important if not more important than published mechanical balance. I mean, the one thing necessary for a game to have the same sort of payout as some folks think CR has is the table keeps showing up to play. Don't they usually close episodes with "take care of each other"? That's how you keep the game going whatever mode your table settles on playing in.
I think "don't worry about Critical Role" is advised when new DMs post frustrations about "getting voices right" and juggling everyone's extensive (at level one, with exploits through which chronological accounting should make the PC more eligible for AARP than lvl 1 in a TTRPG) backstories; or where DMs and sometimes players complain that the aspects of the table aren't "getting into the voices" or really chewing the scenery of the painstakingly crafted world (see thread on how long one should really spend on world building before you expose it to actual play). The so-called Mercer Effect or what I think one could describe as a "critical role standard" of expectations in (often new) DMs and players is, in fact, a thing. I don't think anyone, or at least I don't think many, say, "if you're playing like Critical Role you're playing wrong. It's more, "you're not playing like Critical Role and that's ok, actually that's probably really great for your table." Critical Role styled playing is a way of playing, a not the. I feel "really capturing" playing in a CR experience (minus cameras, because every actor will say all the production disappears when they're in the zone, there's some truth in that but not total truth) would require more resources in theatrical background (like having actually read or workshopped through "Creating a Role" and "Building a Character" or some other performative methodology), dramatic and comedic timing, etc than most groups have, at least collectively. But if you're playing collectively "feels" like how you think the cast of CR are performatively emoting feeling, and that's the energy you're all there for, keep doing it.
Before I discovered TTRPGs, my friends and I got together and would play Star Wars or whatever published narrative out there that inspired our imaginations to recreate or push further, and we were having a good time even though none of us were Alec Guiness or Harrison Ford or Frank Oz. In the end, that's what we're always talking about with TTRPGs, just with mechanical oversight and someone in the dedicated role (in that session) to facilitate that oversight. This sort of analogy about the difference between ordinary imaginative child's play and TTRPGs used to exist in some form or another somewhere on pages 2-5 of most TTRPG manuals. It would be mixed in with a bunch of other proclamations who's core was really "this isn't hard, it's fun." For some CR can encourage that mindset, for others for a number of reasons, it discourages or intimidates it.
That given, some (usually new to TTRPG) folks do come into this and plenty of other forums seeming deflated by their perceived aptitude for TTRPGs, or their local TTRPG prospects because of elements not meeting "CR standards"; and for those who can't reconcile with the fact that there are many ways to play the game, here's hoping they'll be more Mercer tips in the forthcoming Exandria adventure. And then there are those who come to a table and are deflated because no dice were rolled and they felt they were caught in some sort of improv acting one upsmanship contest (which I know isn't CR but it's a playstyle oft associated with CR) ... These both happen. But there's a whole spread of ways gaming can frustrate new and even experienced players, but there's a whole community spectrum of good advice as well as intuitive tricks to remedy those moments into fun for all play again. CR can and is a reference point for both.
I mean, to stack more other examples with EricHVela's, I think more DMs with new players would get more out of watching B Dave Walters or Debra Ann Woll take a more mixed experienced group through a one shot to "get" how D&D is more often done, and can be done, or Matt Coleville not talk about "Running the Game" but actually watch him run the game, especially with a rule set where all the players may not be familiar ... like he's doing in this Dark series that's teaching a lot of the players 4e. But if Critical Role is your inspiration to start playing D&D, there's no reason to stop finding that inspiration, as long as it keeps inspiring and doesn't become a reference for frustration.
From my point of view as someone that doesn't watch them, CR has done more net-positive than bad. It is still thrilling to see just *how* many new faces and normalized D&D has gotten. We've certainly come a very long way. Honestly, I think you're very lucky to have a bunch of friends all into the same D&D show **and** group. That's really the spirit of the game: to come together, not just from CR. Something I wish I had more of frankly.
I think taking influences from CR such as more prolific backstory telling, weaving the stories together, and even being more descriptive are all wonderful, creative things to take away. The "advice" is just from understanding not every table is going to be like that. In both your expectations and tempering everyone else's around you(should you guys one day find other games to play.)
You ever see a thread that looks like hitting a bee's nest with a bat? Well I've got my bat and epi-pen at the ready so here we go!
One of the most common pieces of advice I see on these forums is "Don't try to be like CR." or "CR is just ACTING DnD, not playing REAL DnD". And I've never really understood what they're on about?
My table is a group of friends outside of DnD and we've been playing every week for about 5 years (ish) now. We all discovered CR shortly after we started and were IMEDIATELY inspired by how they played. We have 2 ongoing campaigns with 2 different DM's and EVERYONE takes inspiration from CR at least in SOME aspect. We all watched it and simultaneously thought "That's what we want to play".
Then later I discovered DnDbeyond's forums and had a HOST of people essentially shouting "DON'T DO THAT! THEY'LL RUIN DND FOR YOU! THEY'RE PROFESSIONAL ACTORS AND YOU'RE NOT!!!" So is THAT the reason? I shouldn't take inspiration and influence from CR because they're professionals and our table isn't? We're all adults, we KNOW we're not actors and none of us have never thought we were. To me that feels like saying "Don't Read LoTR before planning a campaign! Tolkien is a writer and you aren't so you'll have unrealistic expectations!"
Our games DO feel like CR. Obviously we don't have an audience (besides ourselves) and we're not professional actors, but that doesn't stop us from taking queues from them?
Can someone explain to me what people are suggesting against?
I tried watching Critical Role back when it first showed up on the internet, and I found myself bored out of my skull. That said, I'm currently working my way through both Brennan Lee Mulligan's and Viva La Dirt League's streamed campaigns, and I've seen some of Mercer's Celebrity D&D (in particular, his Terry Crews episode), so I'm familiar with the core concept. I've also never heard anyone specifically advise against trying to be like Critical Role. That said, I would certainly tell you not to mindlessly ape any streamed campaign, because all of them (including all of the Mercer content I've seen) cut out particularly boring footage doing things like looking up a rule or updating a character sheet or what-have-you, which means you may be missing pieces that are very important to real-world play. For example, no streamed campaign is going to show you how to handle it if and when a PC has a core rules disagreement with a DM, but as a real DM, you need to understand how to handle that dynamic. It's just like how you shouldn't play American Football based only on having seen it on tv - there are really important game elements that never see screentime, and you'll have a bad time if you neglect those elements.
I may be wrong but I think CR is unedited for the most part? The only parts they tend to edit out is when they take breaks during the session.
Up until the whole covid thing hit and the show went on hiatus to figure out a safe way to play together in front of cameras again every episode was livestreamed. No editing possible. As part of the C3 announcement they said they'll keep prerecording going forward and the VODs were edited somewhat before that, albeit minimally, but live streaming is exactly that - live. It shows everything that happens in front of a camera.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Speaking as an old timer ( yes I started with the red box and remember THACO) I enjoy Critical Role. It reminded me of the way my friends and I used to play. We might have been a bit of an aberration. We enjoyed the role play aspect way more than the combat. We were members of a high school sci-fy/fantasy club that briefly played D&D ( it was the 80s so we had to move the games to our homes because Santanic Panic). There were two tables. One table was more combat oriented and spent a lot to time doing things like measuring the angles for lightning bolt. Then there was our table which more or less went with the rule of cool before that was really a thing.
If Critical Role, Dimension 20 and other streaming shows bring more people into the hobby, great! I have players that don't know the history of the hobby. They got into it because of CR. They did not bring unrealistic expectations, they just desperately wanted to play. I find that new players understand that CR is just one of many ways to play because they usually consume other streaming shows and know that all DMs run their tables differently. I think that was brought into very clear focus when Mercer allowed another DM to run a game in his world with him as a a player. She was different from him(didn't try to be like him) but the game was still enjoyable to the shows many fans.
From my point of view as someone that doesn't watch them, CR has done more net-positive than bad. It is still thrilling to see just *how* many new faces and normalized D&D has gotten. We've certainly come a very long way. Honestly, I think you're very lucky to have a bunch of friends all into the same D&D show **and** group. That's really the spirit of the game: to come together, not just from CR. Something I wish I had more of frankly.
I think taking influences from CR such as more prolific backstory telling, weaving the stories together, and even being more descriptive are all wonderful, creative things to take away. The "advice" is just from understanding not every table is going to be like that. In both your expectations and tempering everyone else's around you(should you guys one day find other games to play.)
This....
Excellent post, I agree 100%, [REDACTED], we now have a rainbow of different people playing which is awesome.
There's this weird idea that just because not everyone has the skills of the CR players they shouldn't have even the slightest ambition to reach towards that. It's bad advice and should be ignored. There's nearly no way to play D&D wrong, and aiming for the portrayal and storytelling of CR is a perfectly good thing, as long as it's tempered by the understanding that not everyone's going to be there immediately. CR is fun. If that looks fun to you, play that way. It will be great and it will get better from there.
There's this weird idea that just because not everyone has the skills of the CR players they shouldn't have even the slightest ambition to reach towards that. It's bad advice and should be ignored. There's nearly no way to play D&D wrong, and aiming for the portrayal and storytelling of CR is a perfectly good thing, as long as it's tempered by the understanding that not everyone's going to be there immediately. CR is fun. If that looks fun to you, play that way. It will be great and it will get better from there.
Yes, ideally folks can do that. But as I tried to explain in my post, many try and instead encounter frustration, possibly because the CR company makes the fun look easy. That may be one of the things about CR that is either glossed over in the show itself (though I don't think so) or by the aspirant audience. To play at that level, so to speak, takes some work and practice with the system. Someone sitting with three of their friends around a table for the first time with an uneven read of the rules around them may have some friction when they're figuring out "how we're going to do this." I think the realization that CR, like anything held as an ideal, can be both inspirational and a source of frustration isn't so much weird as it is a broader, I'd even say healthier, perspective that acknowledges things that has happened in actual play seen here on this forum. Lots of things look fun. If they look fun to you and may make your game, "you can always try." The possibilities of success and failure are codified in the game, even Critical Role acknowledges that ... it's like in that life lessons area that I think draws some people into the game (the psych realism that would contest "you can do anything if you try" mantra you're trying to lay down here. Again, it's "You can always try" not "Have it your way" the latter only applies to Drow in another thread).
It's very easy to assume that, but I assure you that what you're suggesting is physically not possible to do. Go to your next D&D night, setup a camera and tell everyone that you are going to record your session and post it on Youtube. See if anyone acts differently. I assure you they will and this is even more true for professional people who make a living with their voice and acting talents, I mean these are people who are using this medium as a job interview for their next project.
I'm not suggesting that CR is not playing D&D but a camera changes who you're doing it for, it definitely alters your behavior and I find it very noticeable especially on CR. Like there are many RP streams out there and I find that most of them are way more natural than CR is. CR is "extra" intentional theatre and showmanship, it's actually what makes it a lot harder to watch for me than other streams, you can feel and see them very actively over-acting and intentionally trying to make it an improv show, rather than just playing D&D. Its what makes it so cringy to watch for me.
I guess I've gotten to play with a number of people that were a little "extra" over the years then. It's just not that unfamiliar to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Honestly, if more tables were like the CR table, the hobby would have exploded tenfold compared to the explosion that has already happened.
Their table is inclusive, and you can see they truly value each other as people and as friends. Not every table has this, and there are a lot of tables where this isn't close, and it's sad. D&D to me first is about friends, not slaying monsters and dungeon crawling. It's a group of people who genuinely enjoy people's time coming together to have a good time. Even the guy at the table you might make fun of, you still like the guy and value them.
Two, and I think this is more important than one, the group celebrates as a group. There was a point in Season 2(maybe 1? I think it was 2?) where Travis just kept rolling 1s. There's a youtube video over it, but what it doesn't showcase is that when other people roll a lot of 1s and they finally get out of it, he is the FIRST to celebrate and cheer that person on. There is never any dogpiling over bad rolls because that's just how the cookie crumbles. They embrace dice failure as storytelling, and they don't antagonize the player. That's the magic of their table. It's how invested they are as people in the people, and then people as the characters.
At this point, Critical Role is a production. It just is. With Season 3 no longer being live and 100% a produced show, it has slowly evolved beyond the group of friends playing D&D in an anything-goes environment to a truly produced show. Definitely think it's important to call this out, but when you look at what has happened so far, it's great. I also love the Exandria Unlimited series to show how different DM styles are OK as a produced show. Exandria Unlimited also showed off how new players would fit into a "Critical Role" styled game, and honestly, I loved it. I think being rules flexible to be story conscious is key with Critical Role but with new players, it's just so important to show you don't have to know all the rules to have fun as a player, and the other players NEVER get frustrated with it. They want to see that person buy-in and have fun, even if the rules don't support what they want to do. As they get more sessions under their belt and they understand the rules more, you will naturally see them fall into line a bit with what action economy is or what you can do with action vs bonus action, how interacting with objects work, etc.
The term Matt Mercer effect, sadly, is something I've seen a lot of older players use in a negative context. It has merit in the sense that if you are a new player jumping into random game 345 at your local hobby shop, or now in 2021 in a discord chat room with insert virtual tabletop software, you just aren't going to get that and curbing expectations IS the true intent behind explaining it. The way it comes off to a lot of people is "Critical Role just doesn't represent what I want out of the hobby", and to that I say, politely, go **** off and play the game how you want without ruining anyone else's fun. The whole point of the hobby is that everyone gets to experience it differently. Their way is just as valid as a lot of loud voices, or quiet tables who run some REALLY WILD rules variations. We're free to express our differences but when typically gets lost is the respect of those differences. I'll never play gritty realism D&D but it IS valid. I'll never play Anime D&D but it IS valid. I'll never play FFXIV D&D but it IS valid.
Crit Role, Dimension 20, Black Dice Society, Heroes of the Planes, Adventure Zone, etc. They all watch very different, and they all play different but the end result is the same. A group of people gets together who obviously enjoy each others company and want to just sit down and enjoy something they enjoy, with the people they enjoy. That's the secret to the Crit Role sauce. It's why ALL of the well-known live play broadcasts work.
OP, to answer your question at the end, "Can someone explain to me what people are suggesting against?", I would hope as previously mentioned it's just people trying to hopefully temper expectations. If their intent is coming off as don't emulate critical role since you can't get that, I wholeheartedly disagree. You can do voices, have fun, talk shit, celebrate, slay monsters, and strengthen friendships that will last a lifetime. That's what Critical Role tries to show us. I think some people just get lost in the production value of it.
They didn't call it 'nonsense' but merely stated larps and VTM were the only places that kind of playstyle was seen back then. Which I have no idea whether that's true or not, I didn't play D&D or any tabletop in the 90s. That statement doesn't seem to be deriding the playstyle but simply making the point that it wasn't always common.
The use of revolution was in the context of they feel it's everywhere now and they are derided for their old school preferences.
Reading that post I don't really see someone being scornful of new playstyles, but rather defensive of others coming along with the newer trend and scorning their oldschool appraoch.
Maybe one other aspect here is use of modern technology.
As in many of our hobbies be it roleplaying or gaming the internet and streaming has change how things are presented. My kids watch a lot of youtubers, tiktoks and whatnot. That just wasn't around some years before. So maybe it is modern technology more than the CR stream? I don't know.
WotC said that they would go towards are more streamer friendly way of presenting their adventures in the future. Clearly catering to streamers and their audience. How that will really look like nobody knows right now.
I would say that CR is even more oldschool than some other streams that really go for a "show" type of presentation. CR's 4-5 hour streams seem more like my own games that also tend to last way longer than some the shows out there.
How they play is of course only one way of doing it which I personally like and also follow along. I also watched eXu but didn't like the more open and rule of cool way she used. Matt seems to be way more focused on the rules which I like a lot more.
One of my biggest personal reason to watch CR is their interaction as friends and also incharacter and how seriously they take the game. I like that at the table as a player and as GM.
I find them inspiring.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Gotta say everyone, I'm super pleased at how positive and helpful this post has been for the question I asked!
I'm so used to seeing argument for the sake of argument on this site that its nice to see people actually offer me a viewpoint different from my own without being rude or condescending!
Good job y'all lol
This feels, with all due respect, like a bit of an exaggeration. Clearly it is a theatre show in the sense that it is a show being streamed so people can watch it, but to me they don't look like they're acting significantly differently from how they presumably did during their audienceless home games. Yes, they're (voice) actors and they could probably fake it better than most, but they're not doing anything really different - as far as playing the game is concerned - from the first sessions when they didn't think it was going to last and were amazed to even break quadruple-digit viewer numbers. Their game decisions also aren't any different from those I've seen in many regular groups. I get that their overall style is not for you, but it's not an uncommon° one.
°edit: and, to clarify, wasn't uncommon before the show started airing either
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is what I was thinking too. While my table doesn't have an "audience", we still play to entertain the "audience" of eachother. We make the same types of dramatic decisions that we see in CR to entertain EACHOTHER. For us, DnD is essentially a way to play out the fantasy media (movies/books/games) we all love but with our own personal touch. If we want a dramatic tragic romance, or a sudden betrayal, or a soap-opera-ish kind of plot twist, we do that because it adds to the story that's unfolding.
We do this ON TOP of the RPG aspects like combat, number crunching, questing etc. NOT instead of.
I truly don't think this is an uncommon way of playing either. In fact, I think its probably fairly common! Though my knowledge is limited since I've been with the same group since the beginning.
I know they get pretty serious at times and that is something that can be hard for a group to pull off. I know I have wanted dramatic elements in my games before but its fallen flat as we tend to lean towards comedy in our sessions.
Its about understanding your table and what they feel comfortable doing. Some people just can't handle the emotional stuff and it comes off as cringe to them.
Its not wrong to want a game like that but it does take a crew dedicated to that to make it happen. If anything this thread has reiterated to me the importance of a good session 0 with good expectations going into the game.
I was RIGHT THERE with you until this! You were saying earlier in the post about "I don't want this, but its ok if you do" and I was like "Yes! I agree entirely! People have different preferences of how to play and thats fine! Awesome point!" and then you haaaad to go and add in the negativity.
it really feels like you essentially said "You're fine to play your way, but your way is cringy and bad" completely removing the point...
I tried watching Critical Role back when it first showed up on the internet, and I found myself bored out of my skull. That said, I'm currently working my way through both Brennan Lee Mulligan's and Viva La Dirt League's streamed campaigns, and I've seen some of Mercer's Celebrity D&D (in particular, his Terry Crews episode), so I'm familiar with the core concept. I've also never heard anyone specifically advise against trying to be like Critical Role. That said, I would certainly tell you not to mindlessly ape any streamed campaign, because all of them (including all of the Mercer content I've seen) cut out particularly boring footage doing things like looking up a rule or updating a character sheet or what-have-you, which means you may be missing pieces that are very important to real-world play. For example, no streamed campaign is going to show you how to handle it if and when a PC has a core rules disagreement with a DM, but as a real DM, you need to understand how to handle that dynamic. It's just like how you shouldn't play American Football based only on having seen it on tv - there are really important game elements that never see screentime, and you'll have a bad time if you neglect those elements.
I may be wrong but I think CR is unedited for the most part? The only parts they tend to edit out is when they take breaks during the session.
They also had a few "rules confrontations" in the first campaign, especially in the first couple dozen episodes. At this point everyone has been playing under the same rule set for long enough that it isn't an issue anymore.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I've been watching VLDL's NPC D&D and O|X's Oxventure - two opposite ends of the rules spectrum but both played by performers who started unfamiliar with D&D.
For stuff that happens outside of the those two streams, you're looking for Rob's twitch channel (VLDL) and the Oxventure Podcast (audio only) which go into details about things that weren't included. On NPC D&D, the stuff that's cut out is mostly just breaks as explained on Rob's Behind the Screen stuff but there can be rare off-camera discussions that he'll explain.
All those shows tell me that one can go all books-on-hand rules-heavy or throw it all out the window being rules-lax. Nothing about them tells me people shouldn't try improvising characters during gameplay nor that people are required to improvise characters during gameplay.
The only thing I can see is that questions cropped up occasionally on what to do if players are doing all the in-character stuff and other players don't know how or don't feel comfortable to try and feel left out. That might lead to thoughts of "nobody should do it because I feel left out" which could be where the "don't emulate CR" sentiments originate, but I would think that's not the best way to handle the situation.
That stated, I haven't seen a "don't emulate CR" stuff, but I don't read every thread or forum here.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
There's a lot of ways Dungeons and Dragons (and more broadly, TTRPGs) works but not everything works for everyone; and good tables, I feel, find playstyle balance as important if not more important than published mechanical balance. I mean, the one thing necessary for a game to have the same sort of payout as some folks think CR has is the table keeps showing up to play. Don't they usually close episodes with "take care of each other"? That's how you keep the game going whatever mode your table settles on playing in.
I think "don't worry about Critical Role" is advised when new DMs post frustrations about "getting voices right" and juggling everyone's extensive (at level one, with exploits through which chronological accounting should make the PC more eligible for AARP than lvl 1 in a TTRPG) backstories; or where DMs and sometimes players complain that the aspects of the table aren't "getting into the voices" or really chewing the scenery of the painstakingly crafted world (see thread on how long one should really spend on world building before you expose it to actual play). The so-called Mercer Effect or what I think one could describe as a "critical role standard" of expectations in (often new) DMs and players is, in fact, a thing. I don't think anyone, or at least I don't think many, say, "if you're playing like Critical Role you're playing wrong. It's more, "you're not playing like Critical Role and that's ok, actually that's probably really great for your table." Critical Role styled playing is a way of playing, a not the. I feel "really capturing" playing in a CR experience (minus cameras, because every actor will say all the production disappears when they're in the zone, there's some truth in that but not total truth) would require more resources in theatrical background (like having actually read or workshopped through "Creating a Role" and "Building a Character" or some other performative methodology), dramatic and comedic timing, etc than most groups have, at least collectively. But if you're playing collectively "feels" like how you think the cast of CR are
performatively emotingfeeling, and that's the energy you're all there for, keep doing it.Before I discovered TTRPGs, my friends and I got together and would play Star Wars or whatever published narrative out there that inspired our imaginations to recreate or push further, and we were having a good time even though none of us were Alec Guiness or Harrison Ford or Frank Oz. In the end, that's what we're always talking about with TTRPGs, just with mechanical oversight and someone in the dedicated role (in that session) to facilitate that oversight. This sort of analogy about the difference between ordinary imaginative child's play and TTRPGs used to exist in some form or another somewhere on pages 2-5 of most TTRPG manuals. It would be mixed in with a bunch of other proclamations who's core was really "this isn't hard, it's fun." For some CR can encourage that mindset, for others for a number of reasons, it discourages or intimidates it.
That given, some (usually new to TTRPG) folks do come into this and plenty of other forums seeming deflated by their perceived aptitude for TTRPGs, or their local TTRPG prospects because of elements not meeting "CR standards"; and for those who can't reconcile with the fact that there are many ways to play the game, here's hoping they'll be more Mercer tips in the forthcoming Exandria adventure. And then there are those who come to a table and are deflated because no dice were rolled and they felt they were caught in some sort of improv acting one upsmanship contest (which I know isn't CR but it's a playstyle oft associated with CR) ... These both happen. But there's a whole spread of ways gaming can frustrate new and even experienced players, but there's a whole community spectrum of good advice as well as intuitive tricks to remedy those moments into fun for all play again. CR can and is a reference point for both.
I mean, to stack more other examples with EricHVela's, I think more DMs with new players would get more out of watching B Dave Walters or Debra Ann Woll take a more mixed experienced group through a one shot to "get" how D&D is more often done, and can be done, or Matt Coleville not talk about "Running the Game" but actually watch him run the game, especially with a rule set where all the players may not be familiar ... like he's doing in this Dark series that's teaching a lot of the players 4e. But if Critical Role is your inspiration to start playing D&D, there's no reason to stop finding that inspiration, as long as it keeps inspiring and doesn't become a reference for frustration.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
From my point of view as someone that doesn't watch them, CR has done more net-positive than bad. It is still thrilling to see just *how* many new faces and normalized D&D has gotten. We've certainly come a very long way. Honestly, I think you're very lucky to have a bunch of friends all into the same D&D show **and** group. That's really the spirit of the game: to come together, not just from CR. Something I wish I had more of frankly.
I think taking influences from CR such as more prolific backstory telling, weaving the stories together, and even being more descriptive are all wonderful, creative things to take away. The "advice" is just from understanding not every table is going to be like that. In both your expectations and tempering everyone else's around you(should you guys one day find other games to play.)
Up until the whole covid thing hit and the show went on hiatus to figure out a safe way to play together in front of cameras again every episode was livestreamed. No editing possible. As part of the C3 announcement they said they'll keep prerecording going forward and the VODs were edited somewhat before that, albeit minimally, but live streaming is exactly that - live. It shows everything that happens in front of a camera.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Speaking as an old timer ( yes I started with the red box and remember THACO) I enjoy Critical Role. It reminded me of the way my friends and I used to play. We might have been a bit of an aberration. We enjoyed the role play aspect way more than the combat. We were members of a high school sci-fy/fantasy club that briefly played D&D ( it was the 80s so we had to move the games to our homes because Santanic Panic). There were two tables. One table was more combat oriented and spent a lot to time doing things like measuring the angles for lightning bolt. Then there was our table which more or less went with the rule of cool before that was really a thing.
If Critical Role, Dimension 20 and other streaming shows bring more people into the hobby, great! I have players that don't know the history of the hobby. They got into it because of CR. They did not bring unrealistic expectations, they just desperately wanted to play. I find that new players understand that CR is just one of many ways to play because they usually consume other streaming shows and know that all DMs run their tables differently. I think that was brought into very clear focus when Mercer allowed another DM to run a game in his world with him as a a player. She was different from him(didn't try to be like him) but the game was still enjoyable to the shows many fans.
This....
Excellent post, I agree 100%, [REDACTED], we now have a rainbow of different people playing which is awesome.
There's this weird idea that just because not everyone has the skills of the CR players they shouldn't have even the slightest ambition to reach towards that. It's bad advice and should be ignored. There's nearly no way to play D&D wrong, and aiming for the portrayal and storytelling of CR is a perfectly good thing, as long as it's tempered by the understanding that not everyone's going to be there immediately. CR is fun. If that looks fun to you, play that way. It will be great and it will get better from there.
Yes, ideally folks can do that. But as I tried to explain in my post, many try and instead encounter frustration, possibly because the CR company makes the fun look easy. That may be one of the things about CR that is either glossed over in the show itself (though I don't think so) or by the aspirant audience. To play at that level, so to speak, takes some work and practice with the system. Someone sitting with three of their friends around a table for the first time with an uneven read of the rules around them may have some friction when they're figuring out "how we're going to do this." I think the realization that CR, like anything held as an ideal, can be both inspirational and a source of frustration isn't so much weird as it is a broader, I'd even say healthier, perspective that acknowledges things that has happened in actual play seen here on this forum. Lots of things look fun. If they look fun to you and may make your game, "you can always try." The possibilities of success and failure are codified in the game, even Critical Role acknowledges that ... it's like in that life lessons area that I think draws some people into the game (the psych realism that would contest "you can do anything if you try" mantra you're trying to lay down here. Again, it's "You can always try" not "Have it your way" the latter only applies to Drow in another thread).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I guess I've gotten to play with a number of people that were a little "extra" over the years then. It's just not that unfamiliar to me.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Honestly, if more tables were like the CR table, the hobby would have exploded tenfold compared to the explosion that has already happened.
Their table is inclusive, and you can see they truly value each other as people and as friends. Not every table has this, and there are a lot of tables where this isn't close, and it's sad. D&D to me first is about friends, not slaying monsters and dungeon crawling. It's a group of people who genuinely enjoy people's time coming together to have a good time. Even the guy at the table you might make fun of, you still like the guy and value them.
Two, and I think this is more important than one, the group celebrates as a group. There was a point in Season 2(maybe 1? I think it was 2?) where Travis just kept rolling 1s. There's a youtube video over it, but what it doesn't showcase is that when other people roll a lot of 1s and they finally get out of it, he is the FIRST to celebrate and cheer that person on. There is never any dogpiling over bad rolls because that's just how the cookie crumbles. They embrace dice failure as storytelling, and they don't antagonize the player. That's the magic of their table. It's how invested they are as people in the people, and then people as the characters.
At this point, Critical Role is a production. It just is. With Season 3 no longer being live and 100% a produced show, it has slowly evolved beyond the group of friends playing D&D in an anything-goes environment to a truly produced show. Definitely think it's important to call this out, but when you look at what has happened so far, it's great. I also love the Exandria Unlimited series to show how different DM styles are OK as a produced show. Exandria Unlimited also showed off how new players would fit into a "Critical Role" styled game, and honestly, I loved it. I think being rules flexible to be story conscious is key with Critical Role but with new players, it's just so important to show you don't have to know all the rules to have fun as a player, and the other players NEVER get frustrated with it. They want to see that person buy-in and have fun, even if the rules don't support what they want to do. As they get more sessions under their belt and they understand the rules more, you will naturally see them fall into line a bit with what action economy is or what you can do with action vs bonus action, how interacting with objects work, etc.
The term Matt Mercer effect, sadly, is something I've seen a lot of older players use in a negative context. It has merit in the sense that if you are a new player jumping into random game 345 at your local hobby shop, or now in 2021 in a discord chat room with insert virtual tabletop software, you just aren't going to get that and curbing expectations IS the true intent behind explaining it. The way it comes off to a lot of people is "Critical Role just doesn't represent what I want out of the hobby", and to that I say, politely, go **** off and play the game how you want without ruining anyone else's fun. The whole point of the hobby is that everyone gets to experience it differently. Their way is just as valid as a lot of loud voices, or quiet tables who run some REALLY WILD rules variations. We're free to express our differences but when typically gets lost is the respect of those differences. I'll never play gritty realism D&D but it IS valid. I'll never play Anime D&D but it IS valid. I'll never play FFXIV D&D but it IS valid.
Crit Role, Dimension 20, Black Dice Society, Heroes of the Planes, Adventure Zone, etc. They all watch very different, and they all play different but the end result is the same. A group of people gets together who obviously enjoy each others company and want to just sit down and enjoy something they enjoy, with the people they enjoy. That's the secret to the Crit Role sauce. It's why ALL of the well-known live play broadcasts work.
OP, to answer your question at the end, "Can someone explain to me what people are suggesting against?", I would hope as previously mentioned it's just people trying to hopefully temper expectations. If their intent is coming off as don't emulate critical role since you can't get that, I wholeheartedly disagree. You can do voices, have fun, talk shit, celebrate, slay monsters, and strengthen friendships that will last a lifetime. That's what Critical Role tries to show us. I think some people just get lost in the production value of it.
They didn't call it 'nonsense' but merely stated larps and VTM were the only places that kind of playstyle was seen back then. Which I have no idea whether that's true or not, I didn't play D&D or any tabletop in the 90s. That statement doesn't seem to be deriding the playstyle but simply making the point that it wasn't always common.
The use of revolution was in the context of they feel it's everywhere now and they are derided for their old school preferences.
Reading that post I don't really see someone being scornful of new playstyles, but rather defensive of others coming along with the newer trend and scorning their oldschool appraoch.
Maybe one other aspect here is use of modern technology.
As in many of our hobbies be it roleplaying or gaming the internet and streaming has change how things are presented. My kids watch a lot of youtubers, tiktoks and whatnot. That just wasn't around some years before. So maybe it is modern technology more than the CR stream? I don't know.
WotC said that they would go towards are more streamer friendly way of presenting their adventures in the future. Clearly catering to streamers and their audience. How that will really look like nobody knows right now.
I would say that CR is even more oldschool than some other streams that really go for a "show" type of presentation. CR's 4-5 hour streams seem more like my own games that also tend to last way longer than some the shows out there.
How they play is of course only one way of doing it which I personally like and also follow along. I also watched eXu but didn't like the more open and rule of cool way she used. Matt seems to be way more focused on the rules which I like a lot more.
One of my biggest personal reason to watch CR is their interaction as friends and also incharacter and how seriously they take the game. I like that at the table as a player and as GM.
I find them inspiring.