I'm sure BigLizard's genuine about how he feels and I'm sure he's not entirely unjustified either, but the notion that this is a recent development or more specifically one to point the finger at CritRole for is not something I can agree with. I've seen "roleplayer vs rollplayer" (to be clear: not my personal choice of words, this is how I've seen it expressed since pretty much forever, but I think it conveys the opinion those who sided with the former had about the latter pretty well) arguments ever since being able to turn to the internet to discuss D&D. This non-inclusiveness has been present with parts of the player base for as long as I can remember. It cuts both ways too: there's been no shortage of players disparaging others for spending too much precious game time jabbering with NPCs and walking around acting in character rather than getting on with the adventure too.
As for leading the design methodology... Meh. One published campaign de-emphasizing combat doesn't mean much, and in mechanical terms the ruleset doesn't (and arguably can't) push for theatrical roleplaying antics any more than it's done since I started playing. In the meantime there have been tons of products across all editions that go into how characters should act rather than what they can do - if your character's from this region, they typically like this; if your character is race X, it probably doesn't get along with race Y; dwarves drink ale and elves drink wine (and gnomes invent stills for hard licquor, except they don't much care for safety so the things tend to go boom a lot); and so on. There has been support for the roleplay side of the game since forever.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Remember when the OP appreciated all the constructive feedback they were getting?
I fear this thread is, sadly and predictably, devolving from a constructive conversation about one DM's table and how they may or may not find inspiration in Critical Role, and going into another silly mire about some broader D&D "culture" (as if it was ever a mono culture) and the impact of CR on that "culture." Rather than anyone speak from essential "D&D is" or "D&D was" broadsides, let's be mindful that this is all supposed to be about one DM assessing or curious about the propriety of using Critical Role as a guidepost for their game. This is a practical question, about a specific game in practice, not a request for everyone's TTRPG idealogical inventory accompanied by requisite wagon circling.
So to get that, as I've said CR can be both inspirational and a source of frustration to a table. Personally, I feel it does give a very good model how a table could explore individual characters and interpersonal party dynamics for tables that want to feel out those dynamics (and the actual plays are supported by all those between the sheets videos that give the player/performer more space to dive into how they craft that). For players who find role playing that portends to tap into layers of human vulnerability within such performances so beyond their comfort zone they find it "cringe" (let's be clear "cringe' says as much about the audience as it does the performer and is not an objective concept), such techniques won't spark the imagination centers they seek to enliven in D&D. The OP, in a description of their play style seems to be in the former camp, in which case CR is probably a great resource for game inspiration/motivation. That said, the "ease" with which the camaraderie and esprit de corps or good old fashion bonding you see on the set has a heavy amount of trained artifice behind it (if you study performance, it becomes very apparent) so expecting the "ease" of gelling can be a source of frustration.
There's no need to invoke "what all these people are doing to the hobby" in this sort of thread. This is about what one person wants to do with their friends. I say go for it. For those who find CR style play incompatible with their play style "Yeah, that doesn't work for me because I play more like this [illustration]" is all you really need to say. No one is doing a spectacular job encapsulating all the dynamics of the entirety of the TTRPG space, or even Dungeons and Dragons here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
There's no need to invoke "what all these people are doing to the hobby" in this sort of thread. This is about what one person wants to do with their friends. I say go for it. For those who find CR style play incompatible with their play style "Yeah, that doesn't work for me because I play more like this [illustration]" is all you really need to say. No one is doing a spectacular job encapsulating all the dynamics of the entirety of the TTRPG space, or even Dungeons and Dragons here.
Threads go where they go, once sgtscott658 started to do a Twittersque salvo on old white men with bellies, it predictably went to hell.
The thread was started with a false premise that all these people dislike CR, but dozens of replies note that is far from their reality.
As an old white man with a belly, what Critical Role did for D&D is fantastic. Its not radically different from the games we played in concept, its just televised and done by professional actors whereas our roleplay sucked. Certainly we had more combat back in the day, but that was because puzzles and mystery's and good plots were hard to write.
Game design has evolved, while it seemed normal at the time, I laugh that we used THAC0 in the early days. I honestly don't see much difference between 5e and 2e, except that 5e has more stuff to do in combat and lots of things were fixed or refined or improved.
The only thing that I feel sad about nowadays, is this trend of a young generation villainizing old white men who played D&D, we never villainized anyone and never ever cared who played using what rules or styles.
Okay people, this is devolving into too many personal attacks and has veered away from the topic at hand. If you can't post without attacking another user, do not post, it's that simple.
Another thing that helps me in my games is the common background knowledge my player have about Exandria. I run two campaigns atm one in Exandria and one in Eberron.
Most players in both campaigns watch CR and I real Feel the difference. I have a lot of world building to do in the Eberron game and player do not know too much about the greater theme of the world. Sometimes this is nice but more often it takes a lot of work on my part to get the player to understand what the world is about. Some player are into it and know more but most don’t.
In my Exandria game I just know that my players have a clear idea what the world, the politics and the dynamics are all about.
so the basics are there for me to spin my own story in world they feel familiar in and that’s a big plus for me.
I am a father of two and have a full time job so I don’t have too much time for world building my own setting. This way it is easy for everybody at the table to be on the same page.
Why not take inspiration from any source you want?
I learned from Critical Role to create subplots focusing on each character, and occasionally weave those into the main story.
Yeah that can be hard with a large group but if you do like I do where I do not have the end of the campaign really planned at the start its easier to implement as you go.
For a less serious-minded role-playing stream you could look at Questing Time on twitch. It shows 5 stand-up comedians trying their best to play D&D and not being particularly organised about it. Sometimes it feels far more like our group than CR could ever be.
Gotta say everyone, I'm super pleased at how positive and helpful this post has been for the question I asked!
Huh? Polite discourse on a forum? Have I strayed from The internet into some bizzarro alternate universe? Heh heh.
I've given the advice "Don't take advice from CR" a few times. Looking back I think I've crossed the line into bagging CR, so I apologise.
My take on web-based gaming groups is that (1) they focus on entertaining their audience as much as entertaining themselves, and (2) they set a really high bar (especially Critical Role). Someone new to the hobby who thinks every game of D&D is like that is going to have a (possibly nasty) reality check when they join a game.
I've been the victim of "you dress up in funny clothes and play in steam tunnels, right" stereotypes often, so I am particularly senstive to seeing performancers dress in costume to play D&D. Newcomers to the hobby need to know that they don't have to wear costumes to play the game.
Discussion's been pretty wide-ranging so far and up until this last page, civil and constructive.
LeBattery, I've almost always interpreted "Don't try to be CR" advice or comments to mean what others have said: "Don't pressure yourself or your players to be gaming at the same level as a group of professional actors with far more resources and experience than you do. Don't require your sessions to match or mirror what you see on the show in order to consider them fun or a success."
Mercer himself has said, on reddit, he never wants anyone to feel the "Mercer effect" in terms of expectations on the DM.
I've found, overall, far more positive things from CR than negative. I've learned and been inspired a LOT by Matt, and not because of his accents. His prep work, his love for creating a detailed, breathing world - and most importantly, his desire for the game to be FUN for the players: these are all good things to take inspiration from (but not to try and strictly emulate).
Frankly, what I'd like to see more of is players looking at the show and taking inspiration - but not in the ways that are always obvious. We don't see them arguing with Matt or attempting to overrule him. We don't see them complaining about the difficulty or unexpected abilities of monsters. And we see them actively engaging with the campaign world and, via their character's choices, giving the DM plenty of fodder to work with.
Since it came up in previous posts: while I do think they're all enjoying themselves and are definitely role-playing for their own and each other's enjoyment, they are most definitely cognizant of the audience and it seems very clear some content, dialogue, and plotlines are done primarily for the audience. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does seem naive to think that Mercer & Co. are making decisions about the game without any consideration of the audience reaction. CR is now their job - they're making money off it, and in the case of Matt & Marisha, at least, it's their primary source of income. That's NOT a criticism - we should all be so fortunate to do what we love for a paycheck, and I think it's fantastic Mercer & Co. were able to transform what they initially thought would be just a few YT videos into something this successful - but it's important to keep in mind that the audience reaction/interest is most definitely a driving factor.
I personally find some aspects of the show tedious and...well, a bit like wankery. The interparty romances, the attempts at pseudo-therapeutic storylines...I can handle them in very small doses, but they devote HOURS of show time to them. (I found all the interactions between Nott/Veth and her "husband" and "son" to be very, very eyeroll-y). Some of this I chalk up to these folks being actors, and it's THIS kind of stuff they really like (more than combat or magic); some of this I chalk up to them playing to fan expectations/wants. But to be clear: it's all D&D. It's not more or less D&D than what happens at my games; it's just different. I would LOVE for my players to be almost as deeply invested in their characters' psyches as the CR gang, not gonna lie: I also have no desire to sit and listen to two players pretending to fall in love with each other while their spouses are sitting right there (again, I know they're actors but that seems very, very weird to me).
When I first started running D&D games a few years ago and went online looking for advice, one of the very first things I saw oft repeated was "Don't try to be Matt Mercer."
I'm the kind of stubborn where my immediate thought was, "Screw that. I'm going to be a better DM than Matt Mercer. One day he'll beg me to get to play at my table."
A few weeks ago, Matt Mercer confirmed that I was a better DM than him on Twitter (I'm being 100% serious, I saved the screenshot and I'm getting it framed on my wall), so that first box is checked. I'll keep working on getting better until I accomplish the 2nd one.
I remind users to review the Site Rules & Guidelinesregarding acceptable post contributions to these forums. Replies that do not align with these rules & guidelines may be deleted with account infractions imposed.
Specific items to take note of:
Causing disturbances in forum threads, such as picking fights, making off-topic posts that ruin the thread, insulting other posters.
Making non-constructive posts to de-rail threads.
Replying to a thread simply to call the author a troll (regardless of whether the post is actually trolling -- if you feel it is, please use the report button and let a moderator handle it).
Flaming/insulting other users; Directing messages not deemed as courteous or respectful.
Hateful language about race, religion, gender, country (Example: US vs. EU threads), political beliefs, etc.
I will say, before the inevitable hammering, that one thing to take away from Critical Role that people rarely know about, let alone do, is their habit of checking in with each other frequently and consistently, away from the table. Not just a "hi, how are ya?" thing either. The cast has stated that the players are in constant communication about story points, asking each other "was this working for you? How did you feel about this scene? Are you okay with [X] story idea?" and similar pulse checks. I've seen many a game, and even played in a few, where the players are dead silent between sessions and never speak once about the game, where it's going, or how they feel about it. Those are the games that wobble and fall off course, end up in squabbling or sour-grapes territory.
One thing to take away from Critical Role and how they've managed to play over eight years of successful tabletop campaign with each other, both on and off the stream, is that maintaining the health of the game is everybody's job. Not just the DM's, and not just on game night either. Check in with your players. Ask how they feel about stuff, especially if something seemed to get their feathers rustled. Make sure everybody's still engaged and invested, and if they're not. Talk to them, see if there's something that could be done that would help. The cast of Critical Role speaks often to the friend-making power of a tabletop game, and I've seen it firsthand. But you still have to put in the effort and make sure your game goes well, because I've also seen what happens when cracks in the game are left untended and spread out into friendship-breaking fissures.
Don't let that happen to your game. Talk with your table about the game. Make sure it's still on course. Don't assume it is, make sure it is. "Session Zero" is not a once-before-campaign thing, I highly recommend taking time every couple months or so if you can't talk outside session time to run a Session Re:Zero and make sure everything's still on course.
I will say, before the inevitable hammering, that one thing to take away from Critical Role that people rarely know about, let alone do, is their habit of checking in with each other frequently and consistently, away from the table. Not just a "hi, how are ya?" thing either. The cast has stated that the players are in constant communication about story points, asking each other "was this working for you? How did you feel about this scene?
Never saw that once on Critical Role. It would be very immersion breaking to describe a scene and then stop to ask each person in turn how they felt about the scene.
Them discussing how effective $$$ their show was being amongst themselves is something else entirely.
I guess I never played D&D with strangers, I could see how you would want to ask questions during Session 0 and get some feedback at the end of the night, but in the middle of a fight?" nah.
That's not what I meant at all. Obviously they don't stop the game mid-session for pulse checks. They pulse check after a session, during the weeklong break between games, and make sure the game is still on course. Which is exactly what someone should do, if they're invested in the health of their game.
That's not what I meant at all. Obviously they don't stop the game mid-session for pulse checks. They pulse check after a session, during the weeklong break between games, and make sure the game is still on course. Which is exactly what someone should do, if they're invested in the health of their game.
They have a separate show for this called Talks Machina
I will say, before the inevitable hammering, that one thing to take away from Critical Role that people rarely know about, let alone do, is their habit of checking in with each other frequently and consistently, away from the table. Not just a "hi, how are ya?" thing either. The cast has stated that the players are in constant communication about story points, asking each other "was this working for you? How did you feel about this scene?
Never saw that once on Critical Role. It would be very immersion breaking to describe a scene and then stop to ask each person in turn how they felt about the scene.
Them discussing how effective $$$ their show was being amongst themselves is something else entirely.
I guess I never played D&D with strangers, I could see how you would want to ask questions during Session 0 and get some feedback at the end of the night, but in the middle of a fight?" nah.
I play with a group of friends. It can be very easy to take it for granted that the way things have been going is how they should keep going because no one's raised a fuss. But things in life change. We have different stresses at different times. Sometimes people just suppress things instead of speaking up. Sometimes people's feelings of obligation toward the group comes at the expense of looking after their own needs. It's not always something major or dramatic, and it's not always about feedback on the game. It's just the ability to be human as a player in the game, as a person with a life outside of it, and in all the spaces where one bleeds into the other, especially in those campaigns that go on for years, or tables that hope to stick together until you all keel over dead into a faceful of nachos and D4s. Checking in and having conversations on the regular (generally between sessions, as has been clarified) is a means of creating space for that.
That's not what I meant at all. Obviously they don't stop the game mid-session for pulse checks. They pulse check after a session, during the weeklong break between games, and make sure the game is still on course. Which is exactly what someone should do, if they're invested in the health of their game.
They have a separate show for this called Talks Machina
cha ching $$$
It makes little money... especially compared to the actual stream.
Also it's just so you don't have to sit there with them talking about how the session went during the actual gameplay which was the claim. They just don't do that.
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 think people are more suggesting that there are extraordinary circumstances that were needed for CR to work. Taking things piecemeal from them can be fine, but things can get awkward mechanically or put too much pressure on the group\DM for a casual game if it isn't done with appropriate consideration.
That's not what I meant at all. Obviously they don't stop the game mid-session for pulse checks. They pulse check after a session, during the weeklong break between games, and make sure the game is still on course. Which is exactly what someone should do, if they're invested in the health of their game.
They have a separate show for this called Talks Machina
Talks Machina is for 90% two players getting asked questions the audience sent in. The checking in with each other happens mostly off screen. We may hear about it during TM, but that's not what that show is about.
On topic, pretty much every month there's at least one topic popping up about players not getting along, a DM feeling misunderstood, someone feeling uncomfortable with a direction the game has taken, etc, and almost invariably it turns out that creating that topic here is the first and only action the person involved has taken. Talking about issues doesn't happen as often as it should. Not that I think that's normally a problem for groups that have been playing together as long and as often as CritRole, but that's the point Yurei1453 was making in the first place.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm sure BigLizard's genuine about how he feels and I'm sure he's not entirely unjustified either, but the notion that this is a recent development or more specifically one to point the finger at CritRole for is not something I can agree with. I've seen "roleplayer vs rollplayer" (to be clear: not my personal choice of words, this is how I've seen it expressed since pretty much forever, but I think it conveys the opinion those who sided with the former had about the latter pretty well) arguments ever since being able to turn to the internet to discuss D&D. This non-inclusiveness has been present with parts of the player base for as long as I can remember. It cuts both ways too: there's been no shortage of players disparaging others for spending too much precious game time jabbering with NPCs and walking around acting in character rather than getting on with the adventure too.
As for leading the design methodology... Meh. One published campaign de-emphasizing combat doesn't mean much, and in mechanical terms the ruleset doesn't (and arguably can't) push for theatrical roleplaying antics any more than it's done since I started playing. In the meantime there have been tons of products across all editions that go into how characters should act rather than what they can do - if your character's from this region, they typically like this; if your character is race X, it probably doesn't get along with race Y; dwarves drink ale and elves drink wine (and gnomes invent stills for hard licquor, except they don't much care for safety so the things tend to go boom a lot); and so on. There has been support for the roleplay side of the game since forever.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Remember when the OP appreciated all the constructive feedback they were getting?
I fear this thread is, sadly and predictably, devolving from a constructive conversation about one DM's table and how they may or may not find inspiration in Critical Role, and going into another silly mire about some broader D&D "culture" (as if it was ever a mono culture) and the impact of CR on that "culture." Rather than anyone speak from essential "D&D is" or "D&D was" broadsides, let's be mindful that this is all supposed to be about one DM assessing or curious about the propriety of using Critical Role as a guidepost for their game. This is a practical question, about a specific game in practice, not a request for everyone's TTRPG idealogical inventory accompanied by requisite wagon circling.
So to get that, as I've said CR can be both inspirational and a source of frustration to a table. Personally, I feel it does give a very good model how a table could explore individual characters and interpersonal party dynamics for tables that want to feel out those dynamics (and the actual plays are supported by all those between the sheets videos that give the player/performer more space to dive into how they craft that). For players who find role playing that portends to tap into layers of human vulnerability within such performances so beyond their comfort zone they find it "cringe" (let's be clear "cringe' says as much about the audience as it does the performer and is not an objective concept), such techniques won't spark the imagination centers they seek to enliven in D&D. The OP, in a description of their play style seems to be in the former camp, in which case CR is probably a great resource for game inspiration/motivation. That said, the "ease" with which the camaraderie and esprit de corps or good old fashion bonding you see on the set has a heavy amount of trained artifice behind it (if you study performance, it becomes very apparent) so expecting the "ease" of gelling can be a source of frustration.
There's no need to invoke "what all these people are doing to the hobby" in this sort of thread. This is about what one person wants to do with their friends. I say go for it. For those who find CR style play incompatible with their play style "Yeah, that doesn't work for me because I play more like this [illustration]" is all you really need to say. No one is doing a spectacular job encapsulating all the dynamics of the entirety of the TTRPG space, or even Dungeons and Dragons here.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Threads go where they go, once sgtscott658 started to do a Twittersque salvo on old white men with bellies, it predictably went to hell.
The thread was started with a false premise that all these people dislike CR, but dozens of replies note that is far from their reality.
As an old white man with a belly, what Critical Role did for D&D is fantastic. Its not radically different from the games we played in concept, its just televised and done by professional actors whereas our roleplay sucked. Certainly we had more combat back in the day, but that was because puzzles and mystery's and good plots were hard to write.
Game design has evolved, while it seemed normal at the time, I laugh that we used THAC0 in the early days. I honestly don't see much difference between 5e and 2e, except that 5e has more stuff to do in combat and lots of things were fixed or refined or improved.
The only thing that I feel sad about nowadays, is this trend of a young generation villainizing old white men who played D&D, we never villainized anyone and never ever cared who played using what rules or styles.
Okay people, this is devolving into too many personal attacks and has veered away from the topic at hand. If you can't post without attacking another user, do not post, it's that simple.
Let's get back on topic please
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Another thing that helps me in my games is the common background knowledge my player have about Exandria. I run two campaigns atm one in Exandria and one in Eberron.
Most players in both campaigns watch CR and I real Feel the difference. I have a lot of world building to do in the Eberron game and player do not know too much about the greater theme of the world. Sometimes this is nice but more often it takes a lot of work on my part to get the player to understand what the world is about. Some player are into it and know more but most don’t.
In my Exandria game I just know that my players have a clear idea what the world, the politics and the dynamics are all about.
so the basics are there for me to spin my own story in world they feel familiar in and that’s a big plus for me.
I am a father of two and have a full time job so I don’t have too much time for world building my own setting. This way it is easy for everybody at the table to be on the same page.
Why not take inspiration from any source you want?
I learned from Critical Role to create subplots focusing on each character, and occasionally weave those into the main story.
Yeah that can be hard with a large group but if you do like I do where I do not have the end of the campaign really planned at the start its easier to implement as you go.
For a less serious-minded role-playing stream you could look at Questing Time on twitch. It shows 5 stand-up comedians trying their best to play D&D and not being particularly organised about it. Sometimes it feels far more like our group than CR could ever be.
Huh? Polite discourse on a forum? Have I strayed from The internet into some bizzarro alternate universe? Heh heh.
I've given the advice "Don't take advice from CR" a few times. Looking back I think I've crossed the line into bagging CR, so I apologise.
My take on web-based gaming groups is that (1) they focus on entertaining their audience as much as entertaining themselves, and (2) they set a really high bar (especially Critical Role). Someone new to the hobby who thinks every game of D&D is like that is going to have a (possibly nasty) reality check when they join a game.
I've been the victim of "you dress up in funny clothes and play in steam tunnels, right" stereotypes often, so I am particularly senstive to seeing performancers dress in costume to play D&D. Newcomers to the hobby need to know that they don't have to wear costumes to play the game.
Discussion's been pretty wide-ranging so far and up until this last page, civil and constructive.
LeBattery, I've almost always interpreted "Don't try to be CR" advice or comments to mean what others have said: "Don't pressure yourself or your players to be gaming at the same level as a group of professional actors with far more resources and experience than you do. Don't require your sessions to match or mirror what you see on the show in order to consider them fun or a success."
Mercer himself has said, on reddit, he never wants anyone to feel the "Mercer effect" in terms of expectations on the DM.
I've found, overall, far more positive things from CR than negative. I've learned and been inspired a LOT by Matt, and not because of his accents. His prep work, his love for creating a detailed, breathing world - and most importantly, his desire for the game to be FUN for the players: these are all good things to take inspiration from (but not to try and strictly emulate).
Frankly, what I'd like to see more of is players looking at the show and taking inspiration - but not in the ways that are always obvious. We don't see them arguing with Matt or attempting to overrule him. We don't see them complaining about the difficulty or unexpected abilities of monsters. And we see them actively engaging with the campaign world and, via their character's choices, giving the DM plenty of fodder to work with.
Since it came up in previous posts: while I do think they're all enjoying themselves and are definitely role-playing for their own and each other's enjoyment, they are most definitely cognizant of the audience and it seems very clear some content, dialogue, and plotlines are done primarily for the audience. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does seem naive to think that Mercer & Co. are making decisions about the game without any consideration of the audience reaction. CR is now their job - they're making money off it, and in the case of Matt & Marisha, at least, it's their primary source of income. That's NOT a criticism - we should all be so fortunate to do what we love for a paycheck, and I think it's fantastic Mercer & Co. were able to transform what they initially thought would be just a few YT videos into something this successful - but it's important to keep in mind that the audience reaction/interest is most definitely a driving factor.
I personally find some aspects of the show tedious and...well, a bit like wankery. The interparty romances, the attempts at pseudo-therapeutic storylines...I can handle them in very small doses, but they devote HOURS of show time to them. (I found all the interactions between Nott/Veth and her "husband" and "son" to be very, very eyeroll-y). Some of this I chalk up to these folks being actors, and it's THIS kind of stuff they really like (more than combat or magic); some of this I chalk up to them playing to fan expectations/wants. But to be clear: it's all D&D. It's not more or less D&D than what happens at my games; it's just different. I would LOVE for my players to be almost as deeply invested in their characters' psyches as the CR gang, not gonna lie: I also have no desire to sit and listen to two players pretending to fall in love with each other while their spouses are sitting right there (again, I know they're actors but that seems very, very weird to me).
When I first started running D&D games a few years ago and went online looking for advice, one of the very first things I saw oft repeated was "Don't try to be Matt Mercer."
I'm the kind of stubborn where my immediate thought was, "Screw that. I'm going to be a better DM than Matt Mercer. One day he'll beg me to get to play at my table."
A few weeks ago, Matt Mercer confirmed that I was a better DM than him on Twitter (I'm being 100% serious, I saved the screenshot and I'm getting it framed on my wall), so that first box is checked. I'll keep working on getting better until I accomplish the 2nd one.
I remind users to review the Site Rules & Guidelines regarding acceptable post contributions to these forums. Replies that do not align with these rules & guidelines may be deleted with account infractions imposed.
Specific items to take note of:
I will say, before the inevitable hammering, that one thing to take away from Critical Role that people rarely know about, let alone do, is their habit of checking in with each other frequently and consistently, away from the table. Not just a "hi, how are ya?" thing either. The cast has stated that the players are in constant communication about story points, asking each other "was this working for you? How did you feel about this scene? Are you okay with [X] story idea?" and similar pulse checks. I've seen many a game, and even played in a few, where the players are dead silent between sessions and never speak once about the game, where it's going, or how they feel about it. Those are the games that wobble and fall off course, end up in squabbling or sour-grapes territory.
One thing to take away from Critical Role and how they've managed to play over eight years of successful tabletop campaign with each other, both on and off the stream, is that maintaining the health of the game is everybody's job. Not just the DM's, and not just on game night either. Check in with your players. Ask how they feel about stuff, especially if something seemed to get their feathers rustled. Make sure everybody's still engaged and invested, and if they're not. Talk to them, see if there's something that could be done that would help. The cast of Critical Role speaks often to the friend-making power of a tabletop game, and I've seen it firsthand. But you still have to put in the effort and make sure your game goes well, because I've also seen what happens when cracks in the game are left untended and spread out into friendship-breaking fissures.
Don't let that happen to your game. Talk with your table about the game. Make sure it's still on course. Don't assume it is, make sure it is. "Session Zero" is not a once-before-campaign thing, I highly recommend taking time every couple months or so if you can't talk outside session time to run a Session Re:Zero and make sure everything's still on course.
Please do not contact or message me.
Never saw that once on Critical Role. It would be very immersion breaking to describe a scene and then stop to ask each person in turn how they felt about the scene.
Them discussing how effective $$$ their show was being amongst themselves is something else entirely.
I guess I never played D&D with strangers, I could see how you would want to ask questions during Session 0 and get some feedback at the end of the night, but in the middle of a fight?" nah.
That's not what I meant at all. Obviously they don't stop the game mid-session for pulse checks. They pulse check after a session, during the weeklong break between games, and make sure the game is still on course. Which is exactly what someone should do, if they're invested in the health of their game.
Please do not contact or message me.
They have a separate show for this called Talks Machina
That just called being a friend.
It makes little money... especially compared to the actual stream.
Also it's just so you don't have to sit there with them talking about how the session went during the actual gameplay which was the claim. They just don't do that.
I think people are more suggesting that there are extraordinary circumstances that were needed for CR to work. Taking things piecemeal from them can be fine, but things can get awkward mechanically or put too much pressure on the group\DM for a casual game if it isn't done with appropriate consideration.
Talks Machina is for 90% two players getting asked questions the audience sent in. The checking in with each other happens mostly off screen. We may hear about it during TM, but that's not what that show is about.
On topic, pretty much every month there's at least one topic popping up about players not getting along, a DM feeling misunderstood, someone feeling uncomfortable with a direction the game has taken, etc, and almost invariably it turns out that creating that topic here is the first and only action the person involved has taken. Talking about issues doesn't happen as often as it should. Not that I think that's normally a problem for groups that have been playing together as long and as often as CritRole, but that's the point Yurei1453 was making in the first place.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].