I really gotta say if you expect us to pay for this material then you should have professional actors who are also experienced at improv and gaming. The only thing that makes this worth watching is Brandon Lee Mulligan and I can watch him somewhere else. Other than that, it's not any better than my own table, which I can watch for free.
You don't have to pay you watch Battle for Beyond, it's available too watch for free on the D&D Beyond YouTube channel right now; https://youtu.be/KtLcWpD16Uo
You do have to pay for the Battle for Beyond dice set, but that's just a tie in set and isn't a required purchase to access the show
I really gotta say that if you think your table is better you can just keep with your table without crying out here.
Why? They have as much right to post here with their opinions as you do. I may not agree with their opinion, but I'm going to defend their right to have it. This is a public discussion forum where people can express their views and opinions about D&D topics, including D&D Beyond streams. It's fine if you don't like what they say but here you're basically telling them to not express themselves here and that's not OK.
And I'm also seing a very good cast, includin Aabria Iyengar, Josephine McAdam and Jasmine Bhullar those who I already watch rocking at this game before
And this is just your opinion. One I agree with, sure, but just an opinion. It is no more or less valid than Wren's opinion.
I'm curious what make's you think the only white+male member of the cast that has nothing more special than the others are the only one that worth it.
And you're making it about race/gender... Why?
First off, your rating about "specialness" is, again, your opinion. It is very possible for somebody to prefer one over the other without it involving race or gender. We shouldn't "have" to like a dark-skinned person just because of their skin. Or a woman just because they are one.
You see here's the thing. I hate discrimination with every fibre of my being, having been a victim of it before (to a point where I nearly died from it). But there's a fundamental difference between personal view and discrimination. Active discrimination by race/gender/etc is bad. Having a personal view, is not. So even if the reason Wren preferred "the white guy" for the race/gender (which I very strongly doubt) that is perfectly valid. They hold the rights to their opinion and preference on the matter, just as you hold to yours and I to mine. The line is the acting negativelyonit (actual discrimination)- which they didn't cross.
The focus of Wren's post was their views on the acting and improvisation of the cast and the one they do like can be watched elsewhere so there was little reason for them to continue watching. This is a valid, non-discriminative, opinion. Please don't make it into something it is not.
I really gotta say if you expect us to pay for this material then you should have professional actors who are also experienced at improv and gaming. The only thing that makes this worth watching is Brandon Lee Mulligan and I can watch him somewhere else. Other than that, it's not any better than my own table, which I can watch for free.
To each their own. Personally I did enjoy it but I kinda prefer them to have genuinely experienced DMs which these are. I already watch Critical Role for the players who are also actors, I don't need another. I like watching genuine DMs/Players and seeing the differences in their style built from gameplay rather than theatre. It's a bit more relatable, if that's even the right word.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I do not believe that this has enough analysis to qualify as a review. I also do not believe the aim of Battle for Beyond is to be better than your table.
I've got no objection if you wanna call it an opinion rather than a review.
I really gotta say that if you think your table is better you can just keep with your table without crying out here.
Why? They have as much right to post here with their opinions as you do.
Great, we have both opinions now. Even I deleted my own couse I feel held on shered it in a way that wasnt as clear as I wish.
So to clarefy that, I just have "the opinion" that the critiscism (or opinion if you want to call that) are a poor one, since it seems to diminish the other cast capabilities (comparing it to their own table - wich I assume that maybe is amateur based on the way it use it as an argument) more than make their preferences clear (that wasn't even mention wich would be).
What I am doing here is to debating that "opinion" (wich is inplied on public discussion) and I never tell them to not express themselve (That's a misreading of yours). The "you can" is preciselly a suggestion, and I make that becouse I think that their opinion without a fair argumentation don't have much to contribute to the public discussion as long is just personal (and it make it worse if its argumentation-proof).
I also choose the same language on them to do not seems disrespectfull ("I got to say...") but sure that wasn't the best choice and if I was more polite/autoritative maybe I wouldn't be misread on that.
I'm seing the Ep 1 for free on youtube so I wonder why you are so mad about paying for it.
They didn't know. Shit happens. They know now.
Great, I'm happy for that.
I would say that "in my opinion" they could make a quick (well damn quick) search on that to be sure that if it was really paid before make that critisism (or opinion if you wish) so that's why "I wonder why". Also, to clarefy, I said "you are so mad" just becouse it seems to me a poor argumentation that looks more like a diminishing of the cast than anything else.
And I'm also seing a very good cast, includin Aabria Iyengar, Josephine McAdam and Jasmine Bhullar those who I already watch rocking at this game before
And this is just your opinion. One I agree with, sure, but just an opinion. It is no more or less valid than Wren's opinion.
Yep, thats just an opinion, wich makes it open to critisism. Thats not like oposing to that opinion makes it invalid or something, just that there's others that oppose to it.
I'm curious what make's you think the only white+male member of the cast that has nothing more special than the others are the only one that worth it.
And you're making it about race/gender... Why?
I'm pretty sure I sais "I wonder" wich means I'm thinking about it. I'm not assuming that the person behind that profile are discriminating the other by choice, neither I can do since I don't know that person, but I can wonder what reasons take it to these preferences based on the usuall answers under social relations in our society and my personal opinion that, besides that, both the team are pretty much similar in capabilities as actors, players and/or DMs.
Our society are based on social discrimination, in multiple types and it is systematized on the way we build social relations, so yes: there's a brief possibility that our own personal "opinons" can be made by that systemic discrimination as result of we being rised in a society like that. There's a lot of discussion and books under this matter and studying it will make clear that even preferences are build over it and usually "white males" are privileged as preferable just for being white and male.
That preferences can be conscious or subconcious and are not exactely a personal moral issue. So, when I say "I wonder" I'm bringing it to a topic wich can be considered and well refuted by they if It wasn't the case.
You said that it can be just an opinion but well: opinions are built over the actual moral standards on our society and are influenced by the social relations as much as our own personal morality so I was "wondering" the possible influences of the society around them in building that preferences.
There's no personal agression or individuals morale judgement on that and when I call that topic to the table I meant to clear that topic and even make they reflect about it.
I'm sorry if I wasn't make myself clear before, but I insist that "wonder why" was never an accusation. You can say I should better chose my words as much as I can say you should better read the matter but I don't think it worth for the discussion we lose time on that.
Of coure discrimination is bad (as you said) and I assume you maybe saw that post of mine as a banalization of the topic but if you do I may insist that's not, since I never intent to make it a personal judgment over someone I don't even know and I just "wonder" (and bring to reflection) about it based on my knowledge (more then my opinion) on how systemic discrimination works on peoples preferences.
I really gotta say if you expect us to pay for this material then you should have professional actors who are also experienced at improv and gaming. The only thing that makes this worth watching is Brandon Lee Mulligan and I can watch him somewhere else. Other than that, it's not any better than my own table, which I can watch for free.
To each their own. Personally I did enjoy it but I kinda prefer them to have genuinely experienced DMs which these are. I already watch Critical Role for the players who are also actors, I don't need another. I like watching genuine DMs/Players and seeing the differences in their style built from gameplay rather than theatre. It's a bit more relatable, if that's even the right word.
Agreed.
And I usually tend to keep my opinions for my own, bringing it to discussion just if I bring it aside argumentations. I felt that they missed arguments to turn it in a actual opinion more than a poor criticism, but well: that's just my expectations.
Well, sorry for come back just now but I want to make that clear for my own reasons. I'm not judging nobody personally and if someone else came to that discrimination topics like I do think that it can be another thing than just a personal acusation, it makes the debate on that more easy (of course if it came clear thats an unfair acusation you can defend your self).
After all, thats my opinion and as you said we both can have ours and bring it to the public as free as we can. I never intend to harrass anybody bringing mine.
I really gotta say that if you think your table is better you can just keep with your table without crying out here.
Why? They have as much right to post here with their opinions as you do.
Great, we have both opinions now. Even I deleted my own couse I feel held on shered it in a way that wasnt as clear as I wish.
So to clarefy that, I just have "the opinion" that the critiscism (or opinion if you want to call that) are a poor one, since it seems to diminish the other cast capabilities (comparing it to their own table - wich I assume that maybe is amateur based on the way it use it as an argument) more than make their preferences clear (that wasn't even mention wich would be).
What I am doing here is to debating that "opinion" (wich is inplied on public discussion) and I never tell them to not express themselve (That's a misreading of yours). The "you can" is preciselly a suggestion, and I make that becouse I think that their opinion without a fair argumentation don't have much to contribute to the public discussion as long is just personal (and it make it worse if its argumentation-proof).
I also choose the same language on them to do not seems disrespectfull ("I got to say...") but sure that wasn't the best choice and if I was more polite/autoritative maybe I wouldn't be misread on that.
I'm seing the Ep 1 for free on youtube so I wonder why you are so mad about paying for it.
They didn't know. Shit happens. They know now.
Great, I'm happy for that.
I would say that "in my opinion" they could make a quick (well damn quick) search on that to be sure that if it was really paid before make that critisism (or opinion if you wish) so that's why "I wonder why". Also, to clarefy, I said "you are so mad" just becouse it seems to me a poor argumentation that looks more like a diminishing of the cast than anything else.
And I'm also seing a very good cast, includin Aabria Iyengar, Josephine McAdam and Jasmine Bhullar those who I already watch rocking at this game before
And this is just your opinion. One I agree with, sure, but just an opinion. It is no more or less valid than Wren's opinion.
Yep, thats just an opinion, wich makes it open to critisism. Thats not like oposing to that opinion makes it invalid or something, just that there's others that oppose to it.
I'm curious what make's you think the only white+male member of the cast that has nothing more special than the others are the only one that worth it.
And you're making it about race/gender... Why?
I'm pretty sure I sais "I wonder" wich means I'm thinking about it. I'm not assuming that the person behind that profile are discriminating the other by choice, neither I can do since I don't know that person, but I can wonder what reasons take it to these preferences based on the usuall answers under social relations in our society and my personal opinion that, besides that, both the team are pretty much similar in capabilities as actors, players and/or DMs.
Our society are based on social discrimination, in multiple types and it is systematized on the way we build social relations, so yes: there's a brief possibility that our own personal "opinons" can be made by that systemic discrimination as result of we being rised in a society like that. There's a lot of discussion and books under this matter and studying it will make clear that even preferences are build over it and usually "white males" are privileged as preferable just for being white and male.
That preferences can be conscious or subconcious and are not exactely a personal moral issue. So, when I say "I wonder" I'm bringing it to a topic wich can be considered and well refuted by they if It wasn't the case.
You said that it can be just an opinion but well: opinions are built over the actual moral standards on our society and are influenced by the social relations as much as our own personal morality so I was "wondering" the possible influences of the society around them in building that preferences.
There's no personal agression or individuals morale judgement on that and when I call that topic to the table I meant to clear that topic and even make they reflect about it.
I'm sorry if I wasn't make myself clear before, but I insist that "wonder why" was never an accusation. You can say I should better chose my words as much as I can say you should better read the matter but I don't think it worth for the discussion we lose time on that.
Of coure discrimination is bad (as you said) and I assume you maybe saw that post of mine as a banalization of the topic but if you do I may insist that's not, since I never intent to make it a personal judgment over someone I don't even know and I just "wonder" (and bring to reflection) about it based on my knowledge (more then my opinion) on how systemic discrimination works on peoples preferences.
I really gotta say if you expect us to pay for this material then you should have professional actors who are also experienced at improv and gaming. The only thing that makes this worth watching is Brandon Lee Mulligan and I can watch him somewhere else. Other than that, it's not any better than my own table, which I can watch for free.
To each their own. Personally I did enjoy it but I kinda prefer them to have genuinely experienced DMs which these are. I already watch Critical Role for the players who are also actors, I don't need another. I like watching genuine DMs/Players and seeing the differences in their style built from gameplay rather than theatre. It's a bit more relatable, if that's even the right word.
Agreed.
And I usually tend to keep my opinions for my own, bringing it to discussion just if I bring it aside argumentations. I felt that they missed arguments to turn it in a actual opinion more than a poor criticism, but well: that's just my expectations.
Well, sorry for come back just now but I want to make that clear for my own reasons. I'm not judging nobody personally and if someone else came to that discrimination topics like I do think that it can be another thing than just a personal acusation, it makes the debate on that more easy (of course if it came clear thats an unfair acusation you can defend your self).
After all, thats my opinion and as you said we both can have ours and bring it to the public as free as we can. I never intend to harrass anybody bringing mine.
You very definitely implied that I like Mulligan of all the cast because he's a white male.
Don't now try to claim that you weren't judging anybody personally.
Also, since its a public discussion, let's discuss that points here:
It is very possible for somebody to prefer one over the other without it involving race or gender.
Yes, thats very true!
We shouldn't "have" to like a dark-skinned person just because of their skin. Or a woman just because they are one.
That's exactelly the point on the issue (and what leds me to my "wondering why"). We sure shouldn't privilege people based on race or gender but white people and males are privileged becouse of being that so thats valid that I consider to make a relfection on that matter.
But there's a fundamental difference between personal view and discrimination. Active discrimination by race/gender/etc is bad. Having a personal view, is not.
That's no fundamental diference between personal view and discrimination becouse it not oppose one to another.
Discrimination can be within a personal view, becouse our personal views are based on morality and morality involves a social built that (in the case of modern society) include discrimination of multiple types.
You can say thats your personal opinion but that have no worth on the public discussion if you don't have fair arguments to hold on and what I'm saying is held on social sciences in many studies you can search easely around.
So even if the reason Wren preferred "the white guy" for the race/gender (which I very strongly doubt) that is perfectly valid.
Prefer someone for race/gender still a result on discriminative social system and, well, its valid only if you don't see a problem within gender/race is a criteria of choice.
I'm not saying that its active discrimination but when someone (and I'm not saying that was the case there) use that criteria over other criterias more relatabe as prefer a male player becouse it's male when it do not relate to the matter that still discrimination.
They hold the rights to their opinion and preference on the matter, just as you hold to yours and I to mine. The line is the acting negativelyonit (actual discrimination)- which they didn't cross.
Yes, very true that we all hold the rights to our own opinions in any matter.
But acting negatively (one of the multiple manifestations of discrimination) isn't a line between discrimination, its just a barrier between keep a discriminitative morality and project that discriminitative morality to another person actively.
Held preferences based on gender/race on matters that those criterias don't have a importance still discrimination no matter if you keep it quietly or not, either if its a conscious choice or not.
Again, I'm not saing thats the case and there's no personal agression neither a limitation on your opinions right, thats just a argumentation based on actual facts.
The focus of Wren's post was their views on the acting and improvisation of the cast and the one they do like can be watched elsewhere so there was little reason for them to continue watching. This is a valid, non-discriminative, opinion. Please don't make it into something it is not.
Again, I never make it something it wasan't. I call atention to a very important issue that is the way we build our preferences on a society struturized over discrimination. I want remember that "I wonder why" is pretty much what is says and if I was sure that was the case I would use other words.
You very definitely implied that I like Mulligan of all the cast because he's a white male.
Don't now try to claim that you weren't judging anybody personally.
I'm very definitely implied that I wonder if the choice of the only white+male choice has something to do with systematic discrimination.
I'm not claiming anything like that, I am claiming that even I agree that I could be misread in the first time becouse of the way I put the things, thats not what I intended to.
I have the fault on the choice of my words led your interpretation that it was acusing you as much you have the fault on the choice of words that led my interpretation that you were diminishing the other members of the cast as much we both own the fault on misread each other. Thats comunication.
So I'm sorry if I wasan't clear enough back there.
You can accept my explanation for do not be clear for the first time.
You can argument over your choice and what makes you think the rest of the cast capabilities on improving and gaming don't worth your time (because for me they all seems pretty much similar on that).
You can just say that I don't need to wonder anymore and that this is not a matter in your choice.
You can reflect over that matter and how it can be valid for your own personal.
You also can keep the "opinion" that I was bad intentioned in the first time if you wish, but thats pretty much the same your own judgement of my intentions behind my words even after I explain that it wasn't the case.
And to clarefy "you can" is not that you need to and I have no intention on make you do such things, just don't take it to the heart and call that my "opinion" if you wish.
Quote from HeltonMattei>You can just say that I don't need to wonder anymore and that this is not a matter in your choice.
You can reflect over that matter and how it can be valid for your own personal.
You also can keep the "opinion" that I was bad intentioned in the first time if you wish, but thats pretty much the same your own judgement of my intentions behind my words even after I explain that it wasn't the case.
The basic assumption that I even need to rise to your litmus test for virtue purity, let alone make _any_ effort to pass it is deeply offensive and arrogant. You have no moral authority over me and it is presumptuous for you to act as if you do.
Quote from HeltonMattei>You can just say that I don't need to wonder anymore and that this is not a matter in your choice.
You can reflect over that matter and how it can be valid for your own personal.
You also can keep the "opinion" that I was bad intentioned in the first time if you wish, but thats pretty much the same your own judgement of my intentions behind my words even after I explain that it wasn't the case.
The basic assumption that I even need to rise to your litmus test for virtue purity...
There's no assumption on mine here. Sorry if it wasn't clear.
What I'm saying is that you can (as free as you wish) do it, not that I am assuming that you need to. Also there's no "to rise to a limitus test for virtue purity". I never mention a "virtue purity scale" and there's no implied assumption. I'm being honest on that.
Any reflection could be made without need of feel personally adderessed on any matter WITHOUT being an acertainment of a fault or lack of virtue in any kind. I do reflect constantly on how my choices are influenced by social relations and what i'm traying to say there is that: since I bring that topic to light, it may have call your attention to the matter and you can (as much as you wish) reflect over the matter even if you don't need to.
let alone make _any_ effort to pass it is deeply offensive and arrogant.
That wasn't let alone for a reason.
It was put aside other suggestion of things you can do whit what was said over this all discussion. That's a pretty harmless suggestion that do not carry any judgement from my side (honestly). On the contrary, I already apologize before if I feel like I was acusing you on something.
There's no assumption on mine here. Sorry if it wasn't clear.
You just want to poison the well by suggesting that I might be a racist, sexist bigot.
And then claim that you meant no insult.
What I want is an admission from you that what you did was wrong, low, and deliberate.
And then I want a proper apology.
I did not meant to be low and deliberate so I can appologize for not being clear on my intentions there. Thats the much that I can.
Want me to lie to you that I mean it? I don't.
I already appologize for not being clear. I still have explained my intentions. If you are assuming that I am lying about it or mocking you on that thats on you: I am being honest to you on that.
Now, you can keep choosing a lose sentence to try reinforce the assumption that you are making on it. I do appologize to make a poor choice on the words that led to that interpretation and I assume the fault on that. But beyond that I can't do much.
I still wonder what criteria led you to think the entire cast but Muligan don't worth your time more than your table: becouse it seem odd to me and there's (trully) no judgement behind it. You can say thats your opinion, well still seems a odd opinion for me. You can say you don't need to justify it: true. Still odd for me.
Quote from HeltonMattei>>I still wonder what criteria led you to think the entire cast but Muligan don't worth your time more than your table: becouse it seem odd to me and there's (trully) no judgement behind it. You can say thats your opinion, well still seems a odd opinion for me. You can say you don't need to justify it: true. Still odd for me.
that's a fair question.
The answer is that as a non-thespian, I really don't have the vocabulary to describe why I preferLucille BallorRichard PryortoPaulReiserorNormMacDonald.
Chris Pratt and the more recent work of Keanu Reevesappeals to me more than Tom Cruise or Jason Momoa.
The same is the case here.
Mulligan is justdamned entertaining. The others aren't.
Quote from HeltonMattei>>I still wonder what criteria led you to think the entire cast but Muligan don't worth your time more than your table: becouse it seem odd to me and there's (trully) no judgement behind it. You can say thats your opinion, well still seems a odd opinion for me. You can say you don't need to justify it: true. Still odd for me.
that's a fair question.
The answer is that as a non-thespian, I really don't have the vocabulary to describe why I preferLucille BallorRichard PryortoPaulReiserorNormMacDonald.
Chris Pratt and the more recent work of Keanu Reevesappeals to me more than Tom Cruise or Jason Momoa.
The same is the case here.
Mulligan is justdamned entertaining. The others aren't.
Thats a fair answer.
And it still odd for me. Not that I don't think you shouldn't have it. But I see them both equally capable that I can't visualize outright what make our views on that different.
I mean, the other are entertaining as much as Mulligan for my point of view. And we can say thats just our different opinions you know. But beyond that I can't say what make that difference? So I wonder why, and I'm sorry if I make my words felt offensive back there but that wasn't intentional. I trully don't get where within your mind that click on "this is more entertaining than this" happens.
Quote from HeltonMattei>>I still wonder what criteria led you to think the entire cast but Muligan don't worth your time more than your table: becouse it seem odd to me and there's (trully) no judgement behind it. You can say thats your opinion, well still seems a odd opinion for me. You can say you don't need to justify it: true. Still odd for me.
that's a fair question.
The answer is that as a non-thespian, I really don't have the vocabulary to describe why I preferLucille BallorRichard PryortoPaulReiserorNormMacDonald.
Chris Pratt and the more recent work of Keanu Reevesappeals to me more than Tom Cruise or Jason Momoa.
The same is the case here.
Mulligan is justdamned entertaining. The others aren't.
Thats a fair answer.
And it still odd for me. Not that I don't think you shouldn't have it. But I see them both equally capable that I can't visualize outright what make our views on that different.
I mean, the other are entertaining as much as Mulligan for my point of view. And we can say thats just our different opinions you know. But beyond that I can't say what make that difference? So I wonder why, and I'm sorry if I make my words felt offensive back there but that wasn't intentional. I trully don't get where within your mind that click on "this is more entertaining than this" happens.
how about you show me a video of one of these people being as entertaining as Mulligan?
both videos show Mulligan make silly jokes (thats pretty valid and I also have fun with those) and seems to me that defines your preference on him beyond any other thing. My preference on others are based on a dramatic storytelling, as Aabria does on the entire EXU or even in Dimension20 as a player or the DMing Silver and Steel for DDB or Jasmin MacAdam in LA by Night. The rest of the cast I can just say that I love the work of Ify in the first episode of BFB, the irony of him were very entertaining for me. Both of than for me are pretty entertaining that I prefer a dramatic narrative than a comic one as a tony the tiger imitation, thou thats my preferences.
Well, I think now its not any odd for me your preference on him and seems to me a pretty fair preference and I respect it.
both videos show Mulligan make silly jokes (thats pretty valid and I also have fun with those) and seems to me that defines your preference on him beyond any other thing. My preference on others are based on a dramatic storytelling, as Aabria does on the entire EXU or even in Dimension20 as a player or the DMing Silver and Steel for DDB or Jasmin MacAdam in LA by Night. The rest of the cast I can just say that I love the work of Ify in the first episode of BFB, the irony of him were very entertaining for me. Both of than for me are pretty entertaining that I prefer a dramatic narrative than a comic one as a tony the tiger imitation, thou thats my preferences.
Well, I think now its not any odd for me your preference on him and seems to me a pretty fair preference and I respect it.
Can you point to something specific where you feel that she really demonstrates her mettle? I really don’t want to go searching for a needle in a haystack. Or, do you believe that any random moment of her matches in entertainment value the two clips I pointed to?
By the way, I don’t think the second clip I provided is Mulligan making stupid jokes. He is role playing and doing a damn fine job of it. You are laughing because it is entertaining, not because he’s making silly jokes. That profound emotion that you are feeling which makes you want to laugh, it is what being entertained means. Whenever you don’t feel that, it is because you aren’t being entertained. In this case, it just happens to express itself in happy laughter because the character expressing it has lived a shitty life and it is good, no, great to see him empowered / vindicated.
But, if you can’t show me another RPG celebrity able to create a profound emotional response, then I’m unable to identify another RPG celebrity who actually deserves to be watched.
I think if you want to talk about what you perceive as the quality of a show thats completely fine....and Mulligan sets a high bar to leap over as I think he is one of the best DMs out there right now period.
Not everyone is going to be up to his standard for sure....I do think that they try to mix in inexperienced players in real plays like this to be relatable to those just starting out. Its fair as they want 5e to be for everyone.
I would LOVE to see an actual lets play that is people who actually understand the game, have a lot of experience, and play in a more "optimal" way....I think that would be interesting to me personally. I would love to see a group that is all in on tactics and power who can also RP when needed....that is a much higher bar though I realize.
CR does not count for me as although they play competently they are far from "optimal" 90% of the time and play for entertainment which is what they should be doing for sure.
I just want to see someone punch a hole in Mars....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I really gotta say if you expect us to pay for this material then you should have professional actors who are also experienced at improv and gaming. The only thing that makes this worth watching is Brandon Lee Mulligan and I can watch him somewhere else. Other than that, it's not any better than my own table, which I can watch for free.
You don't have to pay you watch Battle for Beyond, it's available too watch for free on the D&D Beyond YouTube channel right now; https://youtu.be/KtLcWpD16Uo
You do have to pay for the Battle for Beyond dice set, but that's just a tie in set and isn't a required purchase to access the show
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Why? They have as much right to post here with their opinions as you do. I may not agree with their opinion, but I'm going to defend their right to have it. This is a public discussion forum where people can express their views and opinions about D&D topics, including D&D Beyond streams. It's fine if you don't like what they say but here you're basically telling them to not express themselves here and that's not OK.
They didn't know. Shit happens. They know now.
And this is just your opinion. One I agree with, sure, but just an opinion. It is no more or less valid than Wren's opinion.
And you're making it about race/gender... Why?
First off, your rating about "specialness" is, again, your opinion. It is very possible for somebody to prefer one over the other without it involving race or gender. We shouldn't "have" to like a dark-skinned person just because of their skin. Or a woman just because they are one.
You see here's the thing. I hate discrimination with every fibre of my being, having been a victim of it before (to a point where I nearly died from it). But there's a fundamental difference between personal view and discrimination. Active discrimination by race/gender/etc is bad. Having a personal view, is not. So even if the reason Wren preferred "the white guy" for the race/gender (which I very strongly doubt) that is perfectly valid. They hold the rights to their opinion and preference on the matter, just as you hold to yours and I to mine. The line is the acting negatively on it (actual discrimination)- which they didn't cross.
The focus of Wren's post was their views on the acting and improvisation of the cast and the one they do like can be watched elsewhere so there was little reason for them to continue watching. This is a valid, non-discriminative, opinion. Please don't make it into something it is not.
--
To each their own. Personally I did enjoy it but I kinda prefer them to have genuinely experienced DMs which these are. I already watch Critical Role for the players who are also actors, I don't need another. I like watching genuine DMs/Players and seeing the differences in their style built from gameplay rather than theatre. It's a bit more relatable, if that's even the right word.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
yep. Thanks
As a free product, my evaluation of it changes.
It is perhaps worth what I pay for it (what I pay for it is the time spent watching it, the time I'm just trying to kill).
I've got no objection if you wanna call it an opinion rather than a review.
Well, sorry for come back just now but I want to make that clear for my own reasons. I'm not judging nobody personally and if someone else came to that discrimination topics like I do think that it can be another thing than just a personal acusation, it makes the debate on that more easy (of course if it came clear thats an unfair acusation you can defend your self).
After all, thats my opinion and as you said we both can have ours and bring it to the public as free as we can. I never intend to harrass anybody bringing mine.
You very definitely implied that I like Mulligan of all the cast because he's a white male.
Don't now try to claim that you weren't judging anybody personally.
I'm very definitely implied that I wonder if the choice of the only white+male choice has something to do with systematic discrimination.
I'm not claiming anything like that, I am claiming that even I agree that I could be misread in the first time becouse of the way I put the things, thats not what I intended to.
I have the fault on the choice of my words led your interpretation that it was acusing you as much you have the fault on the choice of words that led my interpretation that you were diminishing the other members of the cast as much we both own the fault on misread each other. Thats comunication.
So I'm sorry if I wasan't clear enough back there.
You can accept my explanation for do not be clear for the first time.
You can argument over your choice and what makes you think the rest of the cast capabilities on improving and gaming don't worth your time (because for me they all seems pretty much similar on that).
You can just say that I don't need to wonder anymore and that this is not a matter in your choice.
You can reflect over that matter and how it can be valid for your own personal.
You also can keep the "opinion" that I was bad intentioned in the first time if you wish, but thats pretty much the same your own judgement of my intentions behind my words even after I explain that it wasn't the case.
And to clarefy "you can" is not that you need to and I have no intention on make you do such things, just don't take it to the heart and call that my "opinion" if you wish.
The basic assumption that I even need to rise to your litmus test for virtue purity, let alone make _any_ effort to pass it is deeply offensive and arrogant. You have no moral authority over me and it is presumptuous for you to act as if you do.
You just want to poison the well by suggesting that I might be a racist, sexist bigot.
And then claim that you meant no insult.
What I want is an admission from you that what you did was wrong, low, and deliberate.
And then I want a proper apology.
I did not meant to be low and deliberate so I can appologize for not being clear on my intentions there. Thats the much that I can.
Want me to lie to you that I mean it? I don't.
I already appologize for not being clear. I still have explained my intentions. If you are assuming that I am lying about it or mocking you on that thats on you: I am being honest to you on that.
Now, you can keep choosing a lose sentence to try reinforce the assumption that you are making on it. I do appologize to make a poor choice on the words that led to that interpretation and I assume the fault on that. But beyond that I can't do much.
I still wonder what criteria led you to think the entire cast but Muligan don't worth your time more than your table: becouse it seem odd to me and there's (trully) no judgement behind it. You can say thats your opinion, well still seems a odd opinion for me. You can say you don't need to justify it: true. Still odd for me.
that's a fair question.
The answer is that as a non-thespian, I really don't have the vocabulary to describe why I preferLucille BallorRichard PryortoPaulReiserorNormMacDonald.
Chris Pratt and the more recent work of Keanu Reevesappeals to me more than Tom Cruise or Jason Momoa.
The same is the case here.
Mulligan is justdamned entertaining. The others aren't.
Thats a fair answer.
And it still odd for me. Not that I don't think you shouldn't have it. But I see them both equally capable that I can't visualize outright what make our views on that different.
I mean, the other are entertaining as much as Mulligan for my point of view. And we can say thats just our different opinions you know. But beyond that I can't say what make that difference? So I wonder why, and I'm sorry if I make my words felt offensive back there but that wasn't intentional. I trully don't get where within your mind that click on "this is more entertaining than this" happens.
how about you show me a video of one of these people being as entertaining as Mulligan?
And here's the baseline
Brennan Lee Mulligan as Tony the Tiger - Bing video
Evan Ruins A Kid's Whole Career- Misfits and Magic - Bing video
Oh, Now I got your point! Thanks
both videos show Mulligan make silly jokes (thats pretty valid and I also have fun with those) and seems to me that defines your preference on him beyond any other thing. My preference on others are based on a dramatic storytelling, as Aabria does on the entire EXU or even in Dimension20 as a player or the DMing Silver and Steel for DDB or Jasmin MacAdam in LA by Night. The rest of the cast I can just say that I love the work of Ify in the first episode of BFB, the irony of him were very entertaining for me. Both of than for me are pretty entertaining that I prefer a dramatic narrative than a comic one as a tony the tiger imitation, thou thats my preferences.
Well, I think now its not any odd for me your preference on him and seems to me a pretty fair preference and I respect it.
Can you point to something specific where you feel that she really demonstrates her mettle? I really don’t want to go searching for a needle in a haystack. Or, do you believe that any random moment of her matches in entertainment value the two clips I pointed to?
By the way, I don’t think the second clip I provided is Mulligan making stupid jokes. He is role playing and doing a damn fine job of it. You are laughing because it is entertaining, not because he’s making silly jokes. That profound emotion that you are feeling which makes you want to laugh, it is what being entertained means. Whenever you don’t feel that, it is because you aren’t being entertained. In this case, it just happens to express itself in happy laughter because the character expressing it has lived a shitty life and it is good, no, great to see him empowered / vindicated.
But, if you can’t show me another RPG celebrity able to create a profound emotional response, then I’m unable to identify another RPG celebrity who actually deserves to be watched.
I think if you want to talk about what you perceive as the quality of a show thats completely fine....and Mulligan sets a high bar to leap over as I think he is one of the best DMs out there right now period.
Not everyone is going to be up to his standard for sure....I do think that they try to mix in inexperienced players in real plays like this to be relatable to those just starting out. Its fair as they want 5e to be for everyone.
I would LOVE to see an actual lets play that is people who actually understand the game, have a lot of experience, and play in a more "optimal" way....I think that would be interesting to me personally. I would love to see a group that is all in on tactics and power who can also RP when needed....that is a much higher bar though I realize.
CR does not count for me as although they play competently they are far from "optimal" 90% of the time and play for entertainment which is what they should be doing for sure.
I just want to see someone punch a hole in Mars....