In my latest video, I talk about the so-called "Mercer Effect", a phenomenon causing problems for a lot of D&D DMs with newbie players joining their groups.
And Matthew Mercer, executive-producer of the "Critical Role" D&D-themed Reality Youtube Show, has expressed a lot of faux concern on twitter about DMs complaining about the Mercer Effect, but he won't admit the fundamental truth that is behind the effect. He could, but he just doesn't want to for selfish reasons.
Check out the video!
[video=youtube_share;59VEDTIDhNo]https://youtu.be/59VEDTIDhNo[/youtube]
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Neerup Hawkbill + Image Virginia
I agree with most of the video except with it not bringing in new players to the hobby. Yes some will want it to be like critical role. Some just want to play D&D and anything and everything that makes more people want to come into our hobby is a good thing. Stop being the old man shaking his fist at a cloud in the sky.
Your becoming the stereotype of the grognard afraid of change at this point. With a word of advice do not go too much on a mega rant in your videos it kills any interest to want to watch the whole thing.
IME Critical Role has attracted lots and lots of new players, of whom a tiny minority expect and demand something resembling the show. Of the few dozen new players I've GM over the past year I can recall one "snowflake" who resembled Pundit's characterisation. Overall the show's influence has been highly positive IME.
You know what boring in general, listening to other gamers talk about in detail about playing in a campaign.
What even more boring is watching a video of RPG hobbyists playing in a session.
Matt Mercer was one of the people to figure out how to make a video of hobbyists playing a session NOT boring.
Kudos for him. Not my cup of tea but I will give props to him for figuring it out and making it work enough to earn money from it.
And I agree with S'mon, Critical Role has been a benefit to the hobby. There is more than enough room on the ship to accommodate what he is doing.
If turns out in the long run to be something different enough to be own thing. Then the tabletop RPG hobby will continue chug along like when CRPGs turned out to be their own thing and one that grew to a far larger audience than the hobby that spawned them.
Quote from: estar;1070456You know what boring in general, listening to other gamers talk about in detail about playing in a campaign.
What even more boring is watching a video of RPG hobbyists playing in a session.
Matt Mercer was one of the people to figure out how to make a video of hobbyists playing a session NOT boring.
Kudos for him. Not my cup of tea but I will give props to him for figuring it out and making it work enough to earn money from it.
And I agree with S'mon, Critical Role has been a benefit to the hobby. There is more than enough room on the ship to accommodate what he is doing.
If turns out in the long run to be something different enough to be own thing. Then the tabletop RPG hobby will continue chug along like when CRPGs turned out to be their own thing and one that grew to a far larger audience than the hobby that spawned them.
That's a good take on it. Normally watching people play sucks. I bet everyone else wishes they got as much attention.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1070465I bet everyone else wishes they got as much attention.
I hope you're not suggesting Pundit has taken such an intense disliking to Mercer because the latter's success and online popularity dwarfs his own efforts at becoming an RPG social media star.
There will always be a market for fake drama shows.
[video=youtube_share;5RdU51fKc_4]https://youtu.be/5RdU51fKc_4[/youtube]
Pundit to me at least comes across as someone whosee hobby has passed him by. Yet refuses to gracefully accept it.
The hobby is no longer played in dark basements by dedicated gamers. Instead casual gamers and has become somewhat mainstream.
End of rpg gaming as we know it video
Narrartive rpgs are becoming more popular with more in the hobby.
Similar video.
Dms willing to engage in players and have them develop the world. It's not my dming style but others can and will play differently.
Similar video
Possibly a handful of players in the hobby thinking all rpg sessions of rpgs are like critical role. If a player thinks that it's on them not critical role or the hobby.
I used to look forward and recommend Pundit videos now it jyst serms to be turning into rants against a hobby and gamers that refuse to temain static and unchanging. Well change happens whether we like it or not.
Quote from: sureshot;1070471Pundit to me at least comes across as someone whosee hobby has passed him by. Yet refuses to gracefully accept it.
The hobby is no longer played in dark basements by dedicated gamers. Instead casual gamers and has become somewhat mainstream.
End of rpg gaming as we know it video
Narrartive rpgs are becoming more popular with more in the hobby.
Similar video.
Dms willing to engage in players and have them develop the world. It's not my dming style but others can and will play differently.
Similar video
Possibly a handful of players in the hobby thinking all rpg sessions of rpgs are like critical role. If a player thinks that it's on them not critical role or the hobby.
I used to look forward and recommend Pundit videos now it jyst serms to be turning into rants against a hobby and gamers that refuse to temain static and unchanging. Well change happens whether we like it or not.
Change is not always for the better.
I've never been entertained by watching people play RPGs, and I made it through about 5 minutes of a Critical Role episode before turning it off, so I suppose I don't understand any of this. Why would you want to WATCH someone do something you can do yourself? I watch a lot of sports, baseball in particular, and while I was a decent collegiate player there's no way in hell I could ever have played MLB. I can certainly run adventures for my friends, though. Watching the World Series gives me an appreciation for the highest level of achievement possible in the sport; things like Critical Role aren't the "highest level" because my character isn't involved at all. RPGs aren't a story, they're games. I suppose if you treat this sort of thing as a "fake drama show" per Ratman, they make sense, but then you get people wondering why whenever they play D&D you don't have nearly as much theatrics, nor funny voices or costumes (if any), which I suppose is Pundit's entire point.
I guess the solution is to just not GAF and, once again, get off the Internet. Does anyone read ANYTHING on Twitter and take it seriously? Every time I see links to a Tweet that "broke the Internet" it's always some whiny fucks bitching about the most inane minutiae possible.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1070472Change is not always for the better.
Which I did say in my above post. Sometimes you can't stop it no matter how hard you try. Progress and change will happen.
I don't think these shows are making watching RPG's "watchable". They're not playing a RPG. And it's not driving people into playing more narrative games. Note that Matt et al aren't playing Drama System or something like that. They're playing traditional games. The only positive effect is that it's kind of made RPG's less weird to the general public. I say kind of because many of these shows imply that you're supposed to dress up in costume. How would you play DCC (I assume you'd have 4 costumes that you rapidly change in and out of). I do agree that there's nothing that can be done - no matter what pundit or anyone says. Players have definitely become ever more entitled over time. You can say that's progress. Society has become more entitlement focused over time, so this is a general trend.
This seems to be a generational thing. I hear that a popular activity with The Kids These Days(TM) is watching youtube videos of other people playing computer games rather than actually playing the games themselves. I don't get it, but whatever. Role Critical seems to be an extension of this.
I suspect that the folks who make the leap to actually playing are probably more likely than the general population of watchers to be open to the idea that the experience of playing themselves is different from watching someone else do it..
Have any of ya'll read the article Pundit references in the video?
https://bleedingfool.com/rpg/remember-when-there-was-no-mercer-effect-to-worry-about/
Ultimately, is seems to me that the big concern here is that people are getting turned off from the hobby because they have this grand expectation (due Critical Role is misrepresenting D&D as some big almost-LARP nonsense), and the reality is so completely different, and they give up on the hobby because of that.
I think that concern is valid. Statistically, disappointed customers are more likely to trash product/retailer than satisfied customers. I can't expect that similar behavior doesn't happen in this context. I honestly don't believe these "shows" are good for the hobby, long-term.
Quote from: Brad;1070473I've never been entertained by watching people play RPGs, and I made it through about 5 minutes of a Critical Role episode before turning it off, so I suppose I don't understand any of this. Why would you want to WATCH someone do something you can do yourself?
I used to think that way, but then I got into X-Wing miniatures, and now the Transformers CCG, and I do enjoy watching youtube matches for those games. But I've become a fair bit competitive, and watch them for ideas and game play.
I wouldn't be interested to see some X-Wing match where the players were doing some goofy ass drama.
Quote from: Dimitrios;1070485This seems to be a generational thing. I hear that a popular activity with The Kids These Days(TM) is watching youtube videos of other people playing computer games rather than actually playing the games themselves. I don't get it, but whatever. Role Critical seems to be an extension of this.
I can see that. Even my 7 year old nephew is into it. How New World. Maybe the future is 99% of people watching 1% of people doing things, instead of doing things themselves.
But then, he plays as well, and runs around the house making noise. And my local gaming pub is usually packed every night.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1070472Change is not always for the better.
Unlike the past the ease of communication and collaboration enabled by digital technology means that today is played by different rules the most important of which is that popularity is even less of a zero sum game than it was.
Before the expense and logistic of distribution and communication meant that there came a point where something had to be dropped to make room for something else. Whether it is the evening half-hour news, a newspaper, or a warehouse full of books.
The trend of technology was to make things more accessible but it never quite was in the reach of the individual until the dawn of the internet and the maturity of personal computes.
Now whole new hobbies and artforms can spawn out of old ones and the both have equal availability and both enjoy the same low barriers for content creation. The essential problem shifted from the channel being limited to the amount of time a individual hobbyist has.
However like the sentiment of your statement shows, the people who like the older content or form don't go away. Sure some may find newer things to their tastes and also there are still newcomers to the original hobby. But now there is other "thing" growing alongside.
This is probably uncharitable of me, but my opinion that when people bitch that their "thing" is no longer hot or the hobby is changing is that really the complaint is that they now have to actually
work at "selling" their "thing". I am not sympathetic due to the fact it is rare I ever used the popular RPG or game of the time. I was always in a position where I had to sell Sandbox campaigns, Fantasy Hero, GURPS, and OD&D as something fun and interesting to play. Due to living in a rural area where I was often the only referee doing what I was doing.
Pundit makes a valid point in his video:
Matt Mercer sets the bar high for the average DM, to be able to capture and maintain the interest of new players. That is a valid point. Experienced players have more realistic expectations.
I must be weird because what I saw of Mercer's GMing seemed pretty typical GMing to me. Whereas Chris Perkins was clearly "playing at playing".
Quote from: estar;1070492I was always in a position where I had to sell Sandbox campaigns, Fantasy Hero, GURPS, and OD&D as something fun and interesting to play. Due to living in a rural area where I was often the only referee doing what I was doing.
Gurps and Hero are a hard sell in an urban area.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1070489I used to think that way, but then I got into X-Wing miniatures, and now the Transformers CCG, and I do enjoy watching youtube matches for those games. But I've become a fair bit competitive, and watch them for ideas and game play.
I wouldn't be interested to see some X-Wing match where the players were doing some goofy ass drama.
The difference here is that X-Wing is competitive, so much like baseball, you can get vested in the outcome. Watching people play an RPG is like doing some sort of interactive fiction but you have no input at all. Like, what's the point?
Quote from: Dimitrios;1070485This seems to be a generational thing. I hear that a popular activity with The Kids These Days(TM) is watching youtube videos of other people playing computer games rather than actually playing the games themselves. I don't get it, but whatever. Role Critical seems to be an extension of this.
Youtube has basically replaced TV for kids, and the main thing they do on Youtube is watch other people do stuff - play videogames, draw comics, eat disgusting things, prank one another, do silly sports competition, etc. Watching people play RPGs is just another manifestation of the sea change in what people want out of digital media.
Quote from: kythri;1070487Have any of ya'll read the article Pundit references in the video?
https://bleedingfool.com/rpg/remember-when-there-was-no-mercer-effect-to-worry-about/
Ultimately, is seems to me that the big concern here is that people are getting turned off from the hobby because they have this grand expectation (due Critical Role is misrepresenting D&D as some big almost-LARP nonsense), and the reality is so completely different, and they give up on the hobby because of that.
I think that concern is valid. Statistically, disappointed customers are more likely to trash product/retailer than satisfied customers. I can't expect that similar behavior doesn't happen in this context. I honestly don't believe these "shows" are good for the hobby, long-term.
But live play on Youtube and Twitch are bringing in huge amounts of players, and most them are not stomping their feet and leaving disappointed. If 40k new players try D&D in 2019, and 10k are disappointed that it's not like Critical Role, that's still 30k new players.
Quote from: Razor 007;1070494Pundit makes a valid point in his video:
Matt Mercer sets the bar high for the average DM, to be able to capture and maintain the interest of new players. That is a valid point. Experienced players have more realistic expectations.
That is a valid point. I think showcasing 'elite' level DMing only increases the perceived barrier to entry for new DMs. Even though D&D has seen a massive increase in popularity in recent years, there's a dire shortage of DMs. And I think a big part of that is new players today think you need to be a rules master, a social coordinator, a voice actor, tremendously organized, and a masterful storyteller in order to DM the game.
I'm just thankful I learned the game when all you needed in order to DM was to sketch out a 20 room dungeon on a piece of graph paper, stock it with monsters and treasure, and be able to run the game system in a rudimentary way. A lot of us learned to DM at age 11-13. I doubt many kids that age today have the confidence to DM. Even the 30 year olds I've been playing with recently don't.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1070472Change is not always for the better.
Preach it!
I'm fairly leery of the influence streaming is having on the hobby. Yes, it has brought in tons of new players, and is one of the major reasons why 5E is doing so well. However the expectations these new players have is often very far off from the realities of playing D&D.
I've played one game so far under a new DM who watches Critical Role pretty religiously, and I have to admit, before I played in the first session, I was concerned that him coming from the "Mercer Zone" would be a problem, or at the very least would clash with my preferred style of play. It turned out that it was the best session I've had as a player in years. The DM was able to run a table with 6 players, many of them fairly new to D&D, that included tons of RP, exploration, and was actually light on the combat which worked out pretty well.
I guess my current concerns are now more about most of the party using phones/tablets for character sheets. I really dislike people not having a physical character sheet at the table, and I'm kinda bummed by D&D Beyond, using a character builder lacks context for where the material comes from. It was a downer that I was playing a Chain Pact Warlock, but the Wizard's familiar outshone my "upgraded" familiar because there are non-standard options floating around from random adventures. Fucking winged magical cats that can see the invisible, bullshit! (Tressym). What's the point of having a class that's supposed to be THE FAMILIAR build, when any old bastard with find familiar can have stuff just as good if not better...... sigh. (I don't mind calling people on shit (I'm usually the DM), so I did bring this up, and the Wizard's familiar was downgraded to a normal owl, but still, it sucked having to be the guy that screwed another player out of something, even though he needed DM permission for that familiar, and had just taken it).
Quote from: Brad;1070507The difference here is that X-Wing is competitive, so much like baseball, you can get vested in the outcome. Watching people play an RPG is like doing some sort of interactive fiction but you have no input at all. Like, what's the point?
True.
I had a GM try to emulate "Mercer". We had combats in between overly detailed narrative descriptions about an environment empty of anything except for monster encounters.
Quote from: Haffrung;1070510I'm just thankful I learned the game when all you needed in order to DM was to sketch out a 20 room dungeon on a piece of graph paper, stock it with monsters and treasure, and be able to run the game system in a rudimentary way. A lot of us learned to DM at age 11-13. I doubt many kids that age today have the confidence to DM. Even the 30 year olds I've been playing with recently don't.
Twenty rooms?! You guys were pretty demanding! :D
I have the same observation; people seem terrified by the high expectations they imagine for themselves as a DM, even when they have observed experienced DMs make glaring mistakes in games they're playing in, and even if they're playing modules/campaign books and not having to make much up on their own.
Quote from: Aglondir;1070501Gurps and Hero are a hard sell in an urban area.
Amen to that. I have trouble even understanding why, except misperception and bad "press" from people who are adverse even to the concept of math. Which kind of goes to one point which I do agree with Pundit on. The trend of watching shows of hobbies tends to often build expectations to an unrealistic point. As such those with those inflated expectations are quickly disillusioned and will often leave the hobby. This actually, to me, is a perk. I prefer those dedicated to the process rather than those expecting a particular experience. They can get that from the videos with little "risk" of an unfulfilling or unpleasant experience which is always possible in the wild west of real life. On the other hand, I wouldn't be playing at all these days if it weren't for Critical Role, as the group I am playing with now got turned on to 5E from watching it. So it's a mixed bag...
Quote from: S'mon;1070500I must be weird because what I saw of Mercer's GMing seemed pretty typical GMing to me. Whereas Chris Perkins was clearly "playing at playing".
Perkins always seemed legit to me.
Critical Role and the Adventurer's League are both just advertising for D&D 5E.
People are only now catching on that some of that may be false advertising.
Quote from: jeff37923;1070529Critical Role and the Adventurer's League are both just advertising for D&D 5E.
People are only now catching on that some of that may be false advertising.
To be honest though it's on the consumer not on either organization. I do not enjoy Critical role yet if I go to one bakery providing smoke meat baked into a loaf of bread. Then stupidly assume all bakeries provide that service the error is on me not the bakery. People need more common sense imo. It's like at my job where people get offended that I tell them they are responsible providing their apt number. Where some insist vehemently they need to be asked. As apparently being asked for their address mean giving their apt number is optional.
As for Hero and Gurps it's less the math I think and more the presentation. Hero Games did not do themselves any favors with releasing not one but two core books that look like they would not be out of place in a physics course. Gurps and Hero also suffer from having Savage Worlds and Fate being able to do the same with less complexity. I'm a fan of both yet realize they would be a tough sell. It's not for the player to bend over backwards to learn an rpg. It's a hobby for me not a damn job.
Quote from: sureshot;1070531To be honest though it's on the consumer not on either organization. I do not enjoy Critical role yet if I go to one bakery providing smoke meat baked into a loaf of bread. Then stupidly assume all bakeries provide that service the error is on me not the bakery. People need more common sense imo. It's like at my job where people get offended that I tell them they are responsible providing their apt number. Where some insist vehemently they need to be asked. As apparently being asked for their address mean giving their apt number is optional.
As for Hero and Gurps it's less the math I think and more the presentation. Hero Games did not do themselves any favors with releasing not one but two core books that look like they would not be out of place in a physics course. Gurps and Hero also suffer from having Savage Worlds and Fate being able to do the same with less complexity. I'm a fan of both yet realize they would be a tough sell. It's not for the player to bend over backwards to learn an rpg. It's a hobby for me not a damn job.
I disagree with the notion that either Savage Worlds or Fate can do the same thing. But, be that as it may, if you add up all the sourcebooks you need for most systems to accomplish what Hero can with those 2 books (I think Gurps has a bloat problem with supplements as well) then actually Hero will come in with a similar or smaller page count than the others. It is all about perception, and taste. As a GM, I love Hero for the ability to craft anything and everything, but not everyone likes that. The player is tasked with creating one character and the complexity is front loaded. I don't even need books to run a session. I mention the math because that is the complaint I have heard most often. As a player, I don't care what system it is, I leave that to the GM, but money wise Hero is the least expensive (of the major competitors) in terms of outlay of cash...but perhaps the highest expenditure of GM effort.
Quote from: shuddemell;1070532I disagree with the notion that either Savage Worlds or Fate can do the same thing. But, be that as it may, if you add up all the sourcebooks you need for most systems to accomplish what Hero can with those 2 books (I think Gurps has a bloat problem with supplements as well) then actually Hero will come in with a similar or smaller page count than the others. It is all about perception, and taste. As a GM, I love Hero for the ability to craft anything and everything, but not everyone likes that. The player is tasked with creating one character and the complexity is front loaded. I don't even need books to run a session. I mention the math because that is the complaint I have heard most often. As a player, I don't care what system it is, I leave that to the GM, but money wise Hero is the least expensive (of the major competitors) in terms of outlay of cash...but perhaps the highest expenditure of GM effort.
I'm a fan of GURPS 4e and Savage Worlds, Savage Worlds does action with less complexity and actually has vehicle rules that are easy to use. In some ways Savage Worlds is a GURPS build with a different die mechanic and 6 second combat rounds, but that build is action focused. While I like non-combat sessions in Savage Worlds, you wouldn't run a non-combat campaign in Savage Worlds. It would be like an action movie with no fight scenes. Even though GURPS has more combat crunch than it doesn't, but it has plenty of crunch for non-combat. Which is where I'd use it over Savage Worlds. People would use GURPS over Savage Worlds if they don't want pulpy action or do want Hit Points.
Idk nothing about HERO, but I suspect Savage Worlds Superpowers Companion is probably pulling from both Hero and M&M. PEG devs have this weird habit of regularly playing other games than their own and learning from them.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1070537I'm a fan of GURPS 4e and Savage Worlds, Savage Worlds does action with less complexity and actually has vehicle rules that are easy to use. In some ways Savage Worlds is a GURPS build with a different die mechanic and 6 second combat rounds, but that build is action focused. While I like non-combat sessions in Savage Worlds, you wouldn't run a non-combat campaign in Savage Worlds. It would be like an action movie with no fight scenes. Even though GURPS has more combat crunch than it doesn't, but it has plenty of crunch for non-combat. Which is where I'd use it over Savage Worlds. People would use GURPS over Savage Worlds if they don't want pulpy action or do want Hit Points.
Idk nothing about HERO, but I suspect Savage Worlds Superpowers Companion is probably pulling from both Hero and M&M. PEG devs have this weird habit of regularly playing other games than their own and learning from them.
Personally, I find SW overly abstract and lacking in certain tactical options (admittedly I last played it long ago, and it was 1st Ed). I overwhelmingly prefer Hero to any of those mentioned, and it is what I will GM.
I don't have any problem with Critical Role for what it is. It's the pro-wrestling of rpgs -- performers engaging in a mostly-arranged exhibition.
Quote from: estar;1070456You know what boring in general, listening to other gamers talk about in detail about playing in a campaign.
What even more boring is watching a video of RPG hobbyists playing in a session.
Matt Mercer was one of the people to figure out how to make a video of hobbyists playing a session NOT boring.
Kudos for him. Not my cup of tea but I will give props to him for figuring it out and making it work enough to earn money from it.
And I agree with S'mon, Critical Role has been a benefit to the hobby. There is more than enough room on the ship to accommodate what he is doing.
If turns out in the long run to be something different enough to be own thing. Then the tabletop RPG hobby will continue chug along like when CRPGs turned out to be their own thing and one that grew to a far larger audience than the hobby that spawned them.
I have to agree with Rob on this. It has been a net benefit to the hobby. If there is an effect, what I have seen is fairly mild (I have encountered some folks who want to emulate some of the ways things go on Critical Role, but not really that different from people who want their games to play like Dragonlance Saga or who come to the table with a very specific gaming ideology). My first exposure to D&D as a kid was the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon. When I did end up playing D&D I overcame any unrealistic expectations that show set for me. I do think it is helpful for people to be aware this is a show, with a production team, and actors. That is useful for people to point out to players whose only exposure comes from CR. But it isn't like Mercer and co are doing anything nefarious here. They've found a way to make D&D entertaining to each and helping stimulate its popularity in the process. If they've managed to make a good living in the process, more power to them.
In terms of how much the fact that it is a show shapes the result. Probably, but running a game at a public convention shapes the performance. Anytime you are aware people are watching and judging your session, it will have some influence. And a show that big, probably has to consider audience reaction to the things that arise. I don't think any of that is necessarily bad though. There are people putting up more typical sessions online. Having put up such session recordings myself, I can say it is a handy way to keep a campaign log, but doesn't make for the most interesting listening material.
I don't hate Hero. They did not do themselves any favors with how they presented the rules for 5E and 6E imo. They changes from 5E to 6E also were not significant enough to warrant switching over to 6E. Gurps the designers instead of releasing say Gurps Vehicles they focused on Mars Attacks and Discworld.
Both rules light and rules heavy have their place trying to br onjective the community serms more interested in the first and sales seem to reflect that. Hero is on life support. SJGames is putting Gurps production on hold. I'm not sure if the trend will reverse itself.
Quote from: sureshot;1070546I don't hate Hero. They did not do themselves any favors with how they presented the rules for 5E and 6E imo. They changes from 5E to 6E also were not significant enough to warrant switching over to 6E. Gurps the designers instead of releasing say Gurps Vehicles they focused on Mars Attacks and Discworld.
Both rules light and rules heavy have their place trying to br onjective the community serms more interested in the first and sales seem to reflect that. Hero is on life support. SJGames is putting Gurps production on hold. I'm not sure if the trend will reverse itself.
I like 6E, and I agree with the few salient changes made. FRED is overall, probably the most loved version of Hero, so I wouldn't go so far as to say they did themselves harm by releasing it. It is indeed on life support, and that probably will not change. It does have a core of adherents, myself included, but it certainly isn't greatly popular as a whole. That said, I don't choose my system based on overall popularity, but doing so does increase the number (if not the quality) of the people you have available to game with. If I were forced to run another system, it wouldn't be the most popular either. I would probably run AD&D 1E or Runequest, so I am not a good gauge of current trends in roleplaying, but I am a fan of utility and consistency more so than what is popular or trendy.
I am a fan of utility and consistency as well as popular and trendy. 5E to me at least is a good example of all four.
What I meant by Hero is the size of 5E core book as well as 6E core. Gurps 4E is to me a good format to present the rules. Hero is too intimating for many.
Yeah, that's why they released Champions Complete and Fantasy Hero Complete, to get away from the "textbook" perception. Not that it made much of a difference to most people.
I've liked playing 5E, and it does approach most of those pretty well. Still have no desire to run it, but will happily play.
I'm a too enjoy Hero 5E Revised. 6E was what Pathfinder is to 3.5 D&D. Without the larger fanbase. I aldo think the company overestimated how much the fans were willing to buy the same books for 5E in 6E. I was not expecting the wheel. Neither did I want a Pathfinder version. I could not find any reason to switch over.
Actually, I think the decoupling of the stats was useful as it allowed more flexibility in character builds... and I did buy all of them, even when I didn't really need them, but I will still run in either FRED or 6E, they are so similar that conversion isn't really necessary. So yeah, I get that there would be little reason to change. Personally, I think they would have been better served by getting adventures and settings out there, but it's not really Steve Long's forte, in my opinion.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1070472Change is not always for the better.
No, but it's always the intention to BE better. Doesn't always succeed, but the INTENT is there.
But, hey, tell me again that gamers don't hate change?
Quote from: sureshot;1070453I agree with most of the video except with it not bringing in new players to the hobby. Yes some will want it to be like critical role. Some just want to play D&D and anything and everything that makes more people want to come into our hobby is a good thing. Stop being the old man shaking his fist at a cloud in the sky.
Your becoming the stereotype of the grognard afraid of change at this point. With a word of advice do not go too much on a mega rant in your videos it kills any interest to want to watch the whole thing.
In the video I explicitly state that Critical Role does bring some new players into the hobby.
Quote from: estar;1070456You know what boring in general, listening to other gamers talk about in detail about playing in a campaign.
What even more boring is watching a video of RPG hobbyists playing in a session.
Matt Mercer was one of the people to figure out how to make a video of hobbyists playing a session NOT boring.
Except he didn't. He figured out how to make a fashionable and feasible SIMULACRUM of hobbyists playing a sessions. They're actors, playing an improv theater act of hobbyists playing a session. And this causes the problem of the Mercer Effect. People think the Simulacrum is real and the actors are really feeling things they're acting.
Quote from: Haffrung;1070466I hope you're not suggesting Pundit has taken such an intense disliking to Mercer because the latter's success and online popularity dwarfs his own efforts at becoming an RPG social media star.
If you dislike the Kardashians or the Long Island Medium is the only possible reason that you're jealous?
Quote from: sureshot;1070471Pundit to me at least comes across as someone whosee hobby has passed him by. Yet refuses to gracefully accept it.
The hobby is no longer played in dark basements by dedicated gamers. Instead casual gamers and has become somewhat mainstream.
I helped create the game that made gaming casual and somewhat mainstream. I in fact was the one who RECOMMENDED, even before I was Consulting on 5e, that D&D needs to facilitate casual gaming.
I also haven't played D&D in a basement in at least 20 years.
Is he running a Mass Effect campaign that has the Kardashians in it?! Kiki and Asari bounce-bounce
Quote from: sureshot;1070453Your becoming the stereotype of the grognard afraid of change at this point. With a word of advice do not go too much on a mega rant in your videos it kills any interest to want to watch the whole thing.
Do you have a YouTube channel?
Quote from: sureshot;1070471Pundit to me at least comes across as someone whosee hobby has passed him by. Yet refuses to gracefully accept it.
Like most veteran players, I think he wants new players to the hobby to experience gaming the way we were lucky to. Before the general public ruined things.
Quote from: kythri;1070487Ultimately, is seems to me that the big concern here is that people are getting turned off from the hobby because they have this grand expectation (due Critical Role is misrepresenting D&D as some big almost-LARP nonsense), and the reality is so completely different, and they give up on the hobby because of that.
Most game sessions end up being a bunch of fat neckbeards playing Mother, May I together. New players then have to decide if it's something worth their time doing. The trick is finding a group of good players that know how to role-play their characters.
I was a ham long before YouTube. I enjoy playing with other hams too so if the amateur theater crew wants to make Ren Faire talk between dice rolls, I'm cool as long as they know there's no plot protection for their PCs.
I'm very upfront about how I run my games so new players either happily join or flee in horror. Both reactions are good by me.
Quote from: Almost_Useless;1070543I don't have any problem with Critical Role for what it is. It's the pro-wrestling of rpgs -- performers engaging in a mostly-arranged exhibition.
Exactly. And pro-wrestling got many kids interested in real wrestling.
I am unimpressed with Critical Role or Twitch, but I'd rather do stuff than watch stuff. However, I understand how YouTube has replaced TV for many people and "reality TV" style entertainment is popular.
I don't know how many viewers actually believe reality shows are real. Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect most people know its processed cheese spread and not raw truth. Maybe it's just my circle, but young people I know have been extremely critical of documentaries and "based on a true story" movies because the internet has given them instant access to critiques discussing the real facts.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070567I also haven't played D&D in a basement in at least 20 years.
Are basements popular in Uruguay?
In California, they are very rare. I rented a mountain cabin for a gaming weekend a decade ago and it had a small basement (so of course we gamed there), and my crew still talks about it like we found the Holy Grail.
I actually do do most of my gaming in a pub basement... I prefer daylight though!
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070564Except he didn't. He figured out how to make a fashionable and feasible SIMULACRUM of hobbyists playing a sessions. They're actors, playing an improv theater act of hobbyists playing a session. And this causes the problem of the Mercer Effect. People think the Simulacrum is real and the actors are really feeling things they're acting.
Of course this was actually a D&D Simulacrum thread. Really a spell they can't figure out how to get right.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070563In the video I explicitly state that Critical Role does bring some new players into the hobby.
It's all well and good but you kind of bury that point under pointless ranting about a seemingly horde of players expecting D&D tables to be like Critical Role. Sure one might the strange and weird person expecting such tables. Most new and old gamers are know that is just the set-up for Critical Role. Like it or not and it's not something I would do know yet if I were young I would be doing my research on D&D and rpgs in general probably watching videos. Especially given how much the books cost even if one goes on Amazon to buy them.
I appreciate the time and effort that went into the video. The constant end of the hobby as we know it vibe is starting to get too much.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070564Except he didn't. He figured out how to make a fashionable and feasible SIMULACRUM of hobbyists playing a sessions. They're actors, playing an improv theater act of hobbyists playing a session. And this causes the problem of the Mercer Effect. People think the Simulacrum is real and the actors are really feeling things they're acting.
Again I'm not a fan of Critical Role and I find Mercer annoying. Yet if fans think that it's on them. To use my above example if one bakery near my house offers to bake smoked meat in a loaf and for the time being they are the only ones who do it. It's on me for thinking that all bakeries do that not the bakery that puts smoked meat in the loaf. Same thing with Critical Role if gamers insist on showing a shocking lack of common sense it's on them and not critical role. They either accept that assumptions are wrong or they find another table.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070567I also haven't played D&D in a basement in at least 20 years.
Like it or not for many years the hobby and the gamers had the stigma of a bunch of socially retarded, unwashed bunch of guy (mostly ) playing D&D in one of the players parent usually assumed to be the mom basement. I hated and still hate that fucking stereotype. With hating those in the hobby who cling to that notion even more. If left to some gatekeepers D&D would be played by the privileged few. Anything and everything that changes that notion to me is a good thing imo.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1070570Do you have a YouTube channel?
No I don't. Your point? Or is that only does who have a Youtube channel can criticize Pundit. That is bullshit and you know it. Do you have a Youtube channel? Please kindly post the links.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1070571Like most veteran players, I think he wants new players to the hobby to experience gaming the way we were lucky to. Before the general public ruined things.
So D&D is more popular and more new players are entering the hobby because of both the 5E rules and people putting videos on Youtube and because it's the general public and not a privileged few it's being ruined. Sure if you say so. If some here want to be anti-tech luddites and refuse to accept the effect that Youtube can have on teaching plyaers a hobby. Adamantly refusing to accept that it's how younger people learn things that's on you. If you mean lucky by having to experience shitty and god complex, railroading DMs. With whiny players who would table flip at the earliest opportunity because the players could not get their way. I enjoyed the hobby then with all of it's failings. Yet the so called perfect days of yore that existed before the dreaded scourge of social media or worse players that actually have a different play style then my own did not exist. Take off the rose colored glasses sprayed painted black.
It was not a terrible time yet neither was it this seemingly perfect gaming utopia. The hobby has changed for better or worse. No hobby remains static not unless it's forced. Change by virtue of what is can lead to good or bad outcomes. Change is not good when the outcome benefits one self or suddenly bad because the outcome is one that does not benefit. If change we so easily to control people would be marketing it as a commodity at the store or on Amazon.
I reiterate I enjoy Pundit videos. I almost always give him a like even when I don't like the content of the video. I'm not here to engage in an echo chamber or give you an internet equivalent of a pat on the back or validation when I don't like the video or forum post.
I will say this though most will not care some of you are not doing this hobby and favors imo. It's either lashing out at the younger generation for daring to use social media to learn a hobby, when let's be honest many here if they were the same age would do the exact same thing. New generation of players which we need to keep this hobby to survive if they are not exact clone copies of yourselves seem only to exist to be mocked for daring to (gasp! ) like narrative and newer editions of rpgs. Heaven forbid new players and DMs think differently than us. Insist on drawing generational lines in the sand then wondering why the younger generation wants nothing to do with you. I'm 45 and I do not embrace every new thing or change in the hobby. Neither is every new thing or change the end of our hobby.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070564Except he didn't. He figured out how to make a fashionable and feasible SIMULACRUM of hobbyists playing a sessions. They're actors, playing an improv theater act of hobbyists playing a session. And this causes the problem of the Mercer Effect. People think the Simulacrum is real and the actors are really feeling things they're acting.
Then you are ignorant of range of playstyles hobbyists bring to tabletop roleplaying. There are two things that are outliers at Matt Mercer's table. That it is a group of people that are largely are professional voice actors helmed by a professional voice actor. Two in part they are playing to an audience.
The former is extremely unlikely within the hobby. But then again just about every group is unique, I can only imagine what a cyberpunk campaign where everybody is a Computer Science PHDs is like. Or a space campaign where everybody is an astronomer or astronaut. The uniqueness of this group is one that makes it likely to be something interesting to watch.
The latter point is undoubtedly a point of contention among many including yourself. However that too is within the range of play styles I have experienced. Although the typical case is an individual or a subset of the playing playing to the audience of the rest of the table. I seen it both done well, done badly and done "ok that nice, what in the next room?" In addition, it rare but I seen people sit on convention games that happened to be particularly entertaining to watch.
So I disagree that it is a simulacrum.
What also people fail to realize with Critical Role that people in this day and age of the internet care a lot about authenticity. That a person or group is genuinely enthusiastic about the topic they are showing, doing, or talking about. That authenticity comes through and when combined with the expertise shown running the campaign and creating the videos makes Critical Role as popular as it is.
If in the long run the technical demands of the format start swamping the nuts and bolts of running a tabletop roleplaying games then it will become it own thing. Just as the replacement of a human referee with a software algorithm caused CRPGs to become their own thing. So far I am not seeing that any more than what I see with long running campaing run using Roll20/Fantasy Grounds and Discord/Skype/Hangouts.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1070562No, but it's always the intention to BE better. Doesn't always succeed, but the INTENT is there.
The "Best of Intentions", I'm sure.
QuoteBut, hey, tell me again that gamers don't hate change?
Change is good. Stability is good. Wisdom is navigating between the two.
Quote from: kythri;1070487I think that concern is valid. Statistically, disappointed customers are more likely to trash product/retailer than satisfied customers. I can't expect that similar behavior doesn't happen in this context. I honestly don't believe these "shows" are good for the hobby, long-term.
I think only the overblown vids are a potential problem in that they present a false image of how the majority of sessions are run. But they have to be overblown to attract viewers. Or so some think and are doing in their vids.
I think some of these session vids really should have a sort of disclaimer at the beginning that this is a production and not necessarily representative of the norm.
That said. There are more normal vids out there that better represent a session.
Quote from: Brad;1070507The difference here is that X-Wing is competitive, so much like baseball, you can get vested in the outcome. Watching people play an RPG is like doing some sort of interactive fiction but you have no input at all. Like, what's the point?
Depending on the presentation it can be akin to a radio drama or modern equivalent. Fun to listen to the adventure.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070447"Critical Role" D&D-themed Reality Youtube Show
Never heard of it until now, but I also don't have time or interest in social media beyond browsing a few forums.
Quote from: estar;1070588So I disagree that it is a simulacrum.
Scripted (or at least, outlined) play and outcomes for dramatic effect, rather than letting the dice fall where they may, makes this a simulacrum.
They're not actually playing D&D. They're pretending to play D&D.
Quote from: kythri;1070597Scripted (or at least, outlined) play and outcomes for dramatic effect, rather than letting the dice fall where they may, makes this a simulacrum.
They're not actually playing D&D. They're pretending to play D&D.
LoL! Is that really what they are doing? Playing people playing an RPG?
Quote from: Omega;1070592Depending on the presentation it can be akin to a radio drama or modern equivalent. Fun to listen to the adventure.
I get that, but it's a game; the outcome isn't predetermined. Critical Role seems to pass itself off as a game, but really it's scripted theatre. That DOES give the wrong impression to people about RPGs, and tends to lead to all sorts of issues.
Quote from: Chainsaw;1070599LoL! Is that really what they are doing? Playing people playing an RPG?
Not exactly - they're not actors portraying characters playing an RPG, they're actors in a reality television show. The show is pre-scripted (or, at least, pre-outlined). Everyone knows what the general outcome will be, and acts surprised when it happens.
As someone earlier mentioned, it's basically pro-"wrestling" - what happens on their game table is NOT the result of the dice as they were rolled.
Quote from: sureshot;1070587No I don't. Your point?
So I could watch your points/comments on role-playing, and subscribe. My channel is https://www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG
Quote from: kythri;1070601Not exactly - they're not actors portraying characters playing an RPG, they're actors in a reality television show. The show is pre-scripted (or, at least, pre-outlined). Everyone knows what the general outcome will be, and acts surprised when it happens.
Is there a source for this? Did they admit this?
I am somewhat curious, as this simulacrum seems to be more and more common among many hobbies. Is this really a larger societal trend that people prefer to watch an experience rather than to live it? And if so, what does it say about the current state of our culture?
I must admit to curiosity about how badly this will offend the Pundit ...
[video=youtube;v5Ft_K492VI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Ft_K492VI[/youtube]
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1070624I must admit to curiosity about how badly this will offend the Pundit ...
[video=youtube;v5Ft_K492VI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Ft_K492VI[/youtube]
I was able to watch an entire 28 seconds before becoming disinterested. A new record.
Quote from: kythri;1070597They're not actually playing D&D. They're pretending to play D&D.
Quote from: Brad;1070600I get that, but it's a game; the outcome isn't predetermined. Critical Role seems to pass itself off as a game, but really it's scripted theatre. That DOES give the wrong impression to people about RPGs, and tends to lead to all sorts of issues.
Well, to put it another way, Critical Role is not depicting a role-playing games session and instead they are depicting a storygame session of a role-playing games session. Remember how we defined story as the description of what happened during the RPG session while the RPG session was where the action took place which was the foundation of the story?
Quote from: kythri;1070597Scripted (or at least, outlined) play and outcomes for dramatic effect, rather than letting the dice fall where they may, makes this a simulacrum.
Source?
Quote from: shuddemell;1070623I am somewhat curious, as this simulacrum seems to be more and more common among many hobbies. Is this really a larger societal trend that people prefer to watch an experience rather than to live it? And if so, what does it say about the current state of our culture?
It is just the modern equivalent of reading model train magazines and not building model train sets.
Quote from: Manic Modron;1070629It is just the modern equivalent of reading model train magazines and not building model train sets.
To some degree that is probably true, though when I was in my carefree youth and had time to indulge in multiple hobbies, most everyone I encountered actually pursued the hobby... Built Models, Played RPGs, Played Video Games, Raced Slot Cars, Built Trains, Collected Records, etc. So is the technology enabling this behavior that would happen naturally, or is it the cause of it?
Quote from: Manic Modron;1070629It is just the modern equivalent of reading model train magazines and not building model train sets.
Quote from: shuddemell;1070631To some degree that is probably true, though when I was in my carefree youth and had time to indulge in multiple hobbies, most everyone I encountered actually pursued the hobby... Built Models, Played RPGs, Played Video Games, Raced Slot Cars, Built Trains, Collected Records, etc. So is the technology enabling this behavior that would happen naturally, or is it the cause of it?
When I was in high school, I read computer magazines because I couldn't afford a hobby computer. I expect that's a factor with some hobbies; actually building model train sets is undoubtedly more expensive than reading model train magazines.
That doesn't explain RPGs; I suspect many of those who just read about them spend more on rulebooks than those who are playing. The prohibitive expense may be in time and finding players... or it could be an actual social trend. Or a more visible time for a trend that's long been there. Judging from anecdotes on a discussion site is not likely to produce an answer.
Quote from: S'mon;1070619Is there a source for this? Did they admit this?
Quote from: estar;1070628Source?
The source would be the videos they have published. Force yourself to watch, and it becomes eminently obvious. They're publishing narrative entertainment. They're not playing a legitimate game, and letting the dice decide.
Quote from: kythri;1070634The source would be the videos they have published. Force yourself to watch, and it becomes eminently obvious. They're publishing narrative entertainment. They're not playing a legitimate game, and letting the dice decide.
That what I thought. And I have watched several of their videos.
They are roleplaying by acting as their character. It not common as most hobbyists are not interested in acting as a different personality and/or doing funny voices. But people do play this way and it how I play my characters as a player. I make up a character, think of a personality, and roleplay accordingly. Sometime the dice influences my roleplaying if say I failed a morale check but other than I am riffing off of what the referee and the other players are saying and doing the whole sessions. Even if they themselves are roleplaying different personalities.
One thing that makes Critical Role unusual is that the entire group is doing this, roleplaying by acting as their character. That is certainly atypical for tabletop roleplaying.
Other examples are the personality of the character is little more than the player's own personality with the character abilities tacked on and maybe a quirk or two. Or the player/referee describing everything a character does in third person.
In short is a different style one that is still tabletop roleplaying.
Now one thing that is scripted and done in the traditional way for film and video is the all the backstory material and other filler that surrounds the video of actual play. My view is that part of what makes is watchable for many in the first place. Certainly not something that is typical or even recommended for an tabletop roleplaying game.
I'm not commenting on their roleplaying prowess.
I'm flat accusing them of not actually playing the game, but instead, semi-scripted-improv-acting as if they're playing the game - as in, if a character dies in an episode, it was decided, well before turning on the camera, that the character would be dying in that episode.
Now for the flip side.
As stated I view what is depicted in Critical Role as tabletop roleplaying campaign. Granted one with atypical players. Matt Mercer like so many in the industry and hobby give good advice and bad advice about how one should run a tabletop campaign.
My playing style (as opposed to refereeing) is that I act as my character when roleplaying. I do the funny voices. I come up with alternate personalities and do funny voice. I have no doubt I am not at a level of being a voice actor but I had moments over the years where people enjoyed what I was doing and moments where it didn't work out so well.
In general if one does what I do, or what Matt Mercer's crew does, you need to keep in mind that a substantial number (but not a majority) will not get that you are just acting. They will view everything coming from you as being from you and take it personal particularly if it is something that sets both of your characters as antagonists. So you need to keep that in mind. Also you need to be aware when incorporating personality traits that you got to fine tune your acting in light of the group you are with. I am not talking obvious weird shit but a broad borderland of subjective opinion.
As a referee, you are not going to teaching anybody how to role-play, act as different personality, or do funny voices. I learned over the decades narrow my expectations to two things. One you speak in first person as your character. And what you do as your character is based on what you know as your character and the circumstances in-game. Other than that I am good with however you play tabletop roleplaying characters.
I don't know (or even care) whether Mercer and his group ever addressed what I said. However it is what I learned from playing and running campaigns for 40 years.
Quote from: kythri;1070638I'm not commenting on their roleplaying prowess.
I'm flat accusing them of not actually playing the game, but instead, semi-scripted-improv-acting as if they're playing the game - as in, if a character dies in an episode, it was decided, well before turning on the camera, that the character would be dying in that episode.
Again source? Watch the video and it obvious is not backing your assertion. I have watched the video and looks just like what I participated in and/or seen among players who are into acting as their character both in tabletop and LARPs. So on the basis of watching the video, your thesis is wrong.
And again, I must state, I'm not commenting on their roleplaying, or how "into it" they're getting in roleplaying/acting as their characters. I've witnessed and participated in very heavily roleplayed games/characters.
I'm not suggesting that such doesn't exist, and I'm not saying that's what makes their gaming sessions fake, so you can drop that particular angle at any time.
As far as it pertains to Critical Role, the rules and rulebooks exist to lend a veneer of authenticity to what they're doing, but what they're doing is most certainly not following the rules or playing the game. They're pretending to do so, so that they can tell the story they want to tell, and make it look legit. The only game being played is "fool the viewers".
Quote from: kythri;1070634The source would be the videos they have published. Force yourself to watch, and it becomes eminently obvious. They're publishing narrative entertainment. They're not playing a legitimate game, and letting the dice decide.
I did watch some - they were hamming it up but I didn't see that it was pre scripted or any more pre set than many published adventures.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1070527Perkins always seemed legit to me.
Perkins is a great! Best 4E game I ever played in he was the DM.
Quote from: SP23;1070645Perkins is a great! Best 4E game I ever played in he was the DM.
How did you manage to get into one of his games? What was it like?
Perkins is what inspired me to get into D&D. I watched his YouTube game played with the script writers of Robot Chicken and got hooked.
[video=youtube;-jAe42mv0h8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jAe42mv0h8[/youtube]
So I guess I'm an example of someone this kind of thing worked on.
Mercer and Perkins are both great DMs. Please move to my neighborhood!!!
They are teaching by example. We just need to learn....
I also think they set the bar high for the rest of us. One reason I have been writing my own simplified rule set numbers and mechanics (from my perspective); is so I can run things more quickly on the fly, and I have my rules jotted down in a journal, right in front on me, across less than 20 pages.
20 or so pages of rules, plus character sheets, a 5E DM Screen Reincarnated, a 5E PHB for DM Spell Access, a bunch of Dice, and Miniatures. I can run with just that.
Quote from: estar;1070588Then you are ignorant of range of playstyles hobbyists bring to tabletop roleplaying. There are two things that are outliers at Matt Mercer's table. That it is a group of people that are largely are professional voice actors helmed by a professional voice actor. Two in part they are playing to an audience.
The former is extremely unlikely within the hobby. But then again just about every group is unique, I can only imagine what a cyberpunk campaign where everybody is a Computer Science PHDs is like. Or a space campaign where everybody is an astronomer or astronaut. The uniqueness of this group is one that makes it likely to be something interesting to watch.
The latter point is undoubtedly a point of contention among many including yourself. However that too is within the range of play styles I have experienced. Although the typical case is an individual or a subset of the playing playing to the audience of the rest of the table. I seen it both done well, done badly and done "ok that nice, what in the next room?" In addition, it rare but I seen people sit on convention games that happened to be particularly entertaining to watch.
So I disagree that it is a simulacrum.
You know, I'm willing to concede that "simulacrum" is not the best term. Because of course there is actually D&D play going on in the show. Its just not the point of the show, at least not in the same way that it would be under normal circumstances.
As my new video today points out, the best comparison isn't with something like WWE wrestling vs. Olympic wrestling or something like that, it's between Pornography and normal Sex.
In Porn, obviously sexual intercourse is happening, but typical porn looks very little like normal sexual intercourse in real life, and people (virgins, I guess) who watch porn and think that the way a porn movie goes is what actual sexual encounters must be like and the performances like what they and their future partners should act, will end up having serious problems.
So Matt Mercer is like a porn star trying to pretend that their film about the Cheerleader and the Pizza Delivery Boy was actually something that really happened, that they weren't actors, and that this is what really good normal sex looks like, complete with the double-anal and the guy ending by jizzing all over her face.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1070624I must admit to curiosity about how badly this will offend the Pundit ...
[video=youtube;v5Ft_K492VI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Ft_K492VI[/youtube]
I have less problem with this than with CR, because this is so obviously actors acting, and I think it's unlikely to fool anyone. No one thinks they're real disney princesses. So the fact that it's obviously an act means people will expect that the actual playing (if there is any, I only watched until they rolled to see who the bard is, where it's obvious that it was scripted so the little mermaid would be the bard) is also fake.
Quote from: kythri;1070638I'm not commenting on their roleplaying prowess.
I'm flat accusing them of not actually playing the game, but instead, semi-scripted-improv-acting as if they're playing the game - as in, if a character dies in an episode, it was decided, well before turning on the camera, that the character would be dying in that episode.
Anyone who's ever done improv acting, which I have, can tell immediately that they're using all kinds of improv acting techniques. And yes, it's not 100% scripted, or even mostly scripted, but again it's probably scripted in similar ways to how a porn movie is often scripted: "OK, so you're the cheerleader and he's the pizza delivery man, and you make up some excuse for why he has to come into the house and then get your top off, after that it's blowjob, doggy style and then he cums on your tits. Go!"
So they know what the general plan of action is, in order to prepare their so so fake over-hyperbolized reactions.
The thing that bugs me is not that they're acting as their character. It's that they're
acting as players. That's the part that's insidious, they're downplaying any of the moments where they're bored or not into it (except if a pre-planned 'scene' involves them complaining that they're bored) and they're massive up-playing how excited or scared or amazed the players are at whatever b-grade drama Mercer presents them with.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1070648How did you manage to get into one of his games? What was it like?
Perkins is what inspired me to get into D&D. I watched his YouTube game played with the script writers of Robot Chicken and got hooked.
[video=youtube;-jAe42mv0h8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jAe42mv0h8[/youtube]
So I guess I'm an example of someone this kind of thing worked on.
I worked at WotC for 13+ years so it wasn't a big deal. One day, in I want to say 2010, but it could have been plus or minus a year, a Air Force Major, (or was it a Lt. Colonel, I can't recall, he was a Predator pilot), (total aside, but he would put a the D&D mini model that had a scythe into the Predator before he flew it off to kill Taliban), visited us, and really wanted to play D&D with the designers. Chris, I think, was volunteered, (kinda like he was for the PAX actual play stuff that he's know for), so he sent an email out looking for other employees to fill out the party. I don't remember everyone who participated, but I do remember Ian Richards of RPGA fame, myself, and 2 people from the sales department filled out the rest of the party for an after work session (well, maybe we started around 3 pm, so we got paid for playing ;) )
I've played D&D for 36 years, and have played with lots of famous designers like Jonathan Tweet, Sean K Reynolds, SRM, the list goes on and on..... but Perkins is the bees knees, he really made 4E flow just like any other edition of D&D, which I thought was impressive, as it's one of my least favorite version of the game. I only dislike OD&D, & Holmes more then 4E.
Quote from: SP23;1070661I worked at WotC for 13+ years so it wasn't a big deal. One day, in I want to say 2010, but it could have been plus or minus a year, a Air Force Major, (or was it a Lt. Colonel, I can't recall, he was a Predator pilot), (total aside, but he would put a the D&D mini model that had a scythe into the Predator before he flew it off to kill Taliban), visited us, and really wanted to play D&D with the designers. Chris, I think, was volunteered, (kinda like he was for the PAX actual play stuff that he's know for), so he sent an email out looking for other employees to fill out the party. I don't remember everyone who participated, but I do remember Ian Richards of RPGA fame, myself, and 2 people from the sales department filled out the rest of the party for an after work session (well, maybe we started around 3 pm, so we got paid for playing ;) )
I've played D&D for 36 years, and have played with lots of famous designers like Jonathan Tweet, Sean K Reynolds, SRM, the list goes on and on..... but Perkins is the bees knees, he really made 4E flow just like any other edition of D&D, which I thought was impressive, as it's one of my least favorite version of the game. I only dislike OD&D, & Holmes more then 4E.
I respect your opinion, assuming you are shooting it straight. Cool resume. Perkins makes it seem like he Never needs to look up rules. He passes it off so well, I'd never second guess him, unless character death was involved.
Quote from: estar;1070588Then you are ignorant of range of playstyles hobbyists bring to tabletop roleplaying.
Isn't that what some D&D players who claim to be OSR are, though? They claim that their own style is the ONLY way to play and how it's ALWAYS meant to be played.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070567I also haven't played D&D in a basement in at least 20 years.
Not since Demogorgon took you away to the Upside Down!
Have I got the argument correct?
1) People who don't play D&D/RPGs see the video and think, "cool, I'll try that".
2) They then try a game for themselves and it doesn't match up to the experience they saw people having on the vid.
3) They stop playing RPGs because they can't get what they saw on TV
What's the issue? Those were people who weren't playing D&D anyway. RPGs are not a mainstream hobby, what we do is not "fun" to the majority of people. People who were fooled into thinking RPGs are like what you see on the vids won't enjoy playing "real" RPGs. They were attracted by what they saw going on - the faux-LARP-soap-opera game that was on display. When they can't have that (because that's not what RPGs are), they stop playing. But they were never going to play "normal" RPGs. Those other people who play, are slightly disappointed but play more anyway and enjoy the RPGs for what they really are ... that's a plus! They are the new blood that we should be grateful for.
Just my 2p
I agree about the insidiousness of actors pretending to be RPG players. It's weird, but it does make for more engaging entertainment. Entertainment and profit-motive are the main factors of any "show." CR is not a game, it's a show. And I still find it boring to watch.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070654Anyone who's ever done improv acting, which I have, can tell immediately that they're using all kinds of improv acting techniques. And yes, it's not 100% scripted, or even mostly scripted, but again it's probably scripted in similar ways to how a porn movie is often scripted: "OK, so you're the cheerleader and he's the pizza delivery man, and you make up some excuse for why he has to come into the house and then get your top off, after that it's blowjob, doggy style and then he cums on your tits. Go!"
So they know what the general plan of action is, in order to prepare their so so fake over-hyperbolized reactions.
The thing that bugs me is not that they're acting as their character. It's that they're acting as players. That's the part that's insidious, they're downplaying any of the moments where they're bored or not into it (except if a pre-planned 'scene' involves them complaining that they're bored) and they're massive up-playing how excited or scared or amazed the players are at whatever b-grade drama Mercer presents them with.
Can you go into what some of the improv techniques these people are using? I don't see it when I watch so I'm curious.
Quote from: spon;1070668What's the issue? Those were people who weren't playing D&D anyway. RPGs are not a mainstream hobby, what we do is not "fun" to the majority of people. People who were fooled into thinking RPGs are like what you see on the vids won't enjoy playing "real" RPGs. They were attracted by what they saw going on - the faux-LARP-soap-opera game that was on display. When they can't have that (because that's not what RPGs are), they stop playing. But they were never going to play "normal" RPGs. Those other people who play, are slightly disappointed but play more anyway and enjoy the RPGs for what they really are ... that's a plus! They are the new blood that we should be grateful for.
Exactly this. There's no reason to believe a popular stream of actors playing D&D in a way most people don't actually play results in net fewer people playing and enjoying D&D.
# of people who have tried D&D and stuck with it after being exposed to it by Critical role > # of people who would have tried D&D and stuck to it without Critical Role but who were turned off by the difference between CR and how D&D typically plays at the table
So what's the problem?
Quote from: Brad;1070600I get that, but it's a game; the outcome isn't predetermined. Critical Role seems to pass itself off as a game, but really it's scripted theatre. That DOES give the wrong impression to people about RPGs, and tends to lead to all sorts of issues.
I was more referring to real gameplay vids rather than the more script leaning productions.
Quote from: spon;1070668Not since Demogorgon took you away to the Upside Down!
Have I got the argument correct?
1) People who don't play D&D/RPGs see the video and think, "cool, I'll try that".
2) They then try a game for themselves and it doesn't match up to the experience they saw people having on the vid.
3) They stop playing RPGs because they can't get what they saw on TV
What's the issue? Those were people who weren't playing D&D anyway. RPGs are not a mainstream hobby, what we do is not "fun" to the majority of people. People who were fooled into thinking RPGs are like what you see on the vids won't enjoy playing "real" RPGs. They were attracted by what they saw going on - the faux-LARP-soap-opera game that was on display. When they can't have that (because that's not what RPGs are), they stop playing. But they were never going to play "normal" RPGs. Those other people who play, are slightly disappointed but play more anyway and enjoy the RPGs for what they really are ... that's a plus! They are the new blood that we should be grateful for.
Just my 2p
Only potential downside is newbie GMs trying to herd cats and make players play like what they see in the videos rather than a normal RPG game, which poison the game for the players. I know my GMing was hurt by dumb Dragon Magazine articles in the 90's that kept me trying to do Frustrated Novelist GMing that didn't really work, while thinking that the problem was me not doing it hard enough rather than the style being shitty.
But if it's getting more players to GM who know what they're doing then it's all good. Also puts D&D on the map for people who don't watc CR role but have vaguely heard of it which gets D&D thought of as "something interesting that I've heard of" which can help.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1070624I must admit to curiosity about how badly this will offend the Pundit ...
[video=youtube;v5Ft_K492VI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Ft_K492VI[/youtube]
Well,
I am offended.
6:16
"Sometimes snacks are more important than people."They can't be real players - they don't even get Cheetoism right...
Quote from: jeff37923;1070627Well, to put it another way, Critical Role is not depicting a role-playing games session and instead they are depicting a storygame session of a role-playing games session.
So Pundit discussed a recorded Storygame session in the main forum? Now I am even more offended!
Quote from: spon;1070668Not since Demogorgon took you away to the Upside Down!
Have I got the argument correct?
1) People who don't play D&D/RPGs see the video and think, "cool, I'll try that".
2) They then try a game for themselves and it doesn't match up to the experience they saw people having on the vid.
3) They stop playing RPGs because they can't get what they saw on TV
What's the issue? Those were people who weren't playing D&D anyway. RPGs are not a mainstream hobby, what we do is not "fun" to the majority of people. People who were fooled into thinking RPGs are like what you see on the vids won't enjoy playing "real" RPGs. They were attracted by what they saw going on - the faux-LARP-soap-opera game that was on display. When they can't have that (because that's not what RPGs are), they stop playing. But they were never going to play "normal" RPGs. Those other people who play, are slightly disappointed but play more anyway and enjoy the RPGs for what they really are ... that's a plus! They are the new blood that we should be grateful for.
Just my 2p
The issue is that if Mercer & Co would admit it's a SHOW, and NOT just "one way to run the game" but rather something different from how normal D&D is supposed to go, then people wouldn't come in with those fake expectations, and then the two possible newbs you're describing wouldn't have the dilemma in the first place: The ones who only want "Critical Role or nothing" won't ever bother playing D&D, and the ones who would be open to playing normal D&D will go into it in the first place knowing that it's going to be different from CR.
But that doesn't happen because Mercer wants to keep pretending that his pre-fabricated high-production show full of paid improv-actors and pandering to the camera and hyperbolized emotional responses is just a really great normal campaign. That's like saying "Debbie XXX does double penetration" is just 'really good normal sex'.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070757But that doesn't happen because Mercer wants to keep pretending that his pre-fabricated high-production show full of paid improv-actors and pandering to the camera and hyperbolized emotional responses is just a really great normal campaign.
I think the vast majority of viewers can tell that stuff is hyped up for the cameras and is not an exact reflection of a typical game.
I do think CR influences players to want more of a high-drama and speak-in-character 'actorly' type game, which fits with the thrust of 5e away from 4e's emphasis on the battlegrid & complex combat scenarios. That's not a bad thing. In terms of the Three Pillars it probably emphasises Social most, then Combat, then Exploration least, which contrasts with Old School/OSR play's frequent emphasis on the Exploration component. But I have several players who came into the hobby via watching CR who seem to enjoy my Stonehell Dungeon 5e game, with its strong exploration emphasis, well enough. Even the voice actor dude!
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070757The issue is that if Mercer & Co would admit it's a SHOW, and NOT just "one way to run the game" but rather something different from how normal D&D is supposed to go, then people wouldn't come in with those fake expectations, and then the two possible newbs you're describing wouldn't have the dilemma in the first place: The ones who only want "Critical Role or nothing" won't ever bother playing D&D, and the ones who would be open to playing normal D&D will go into it in the first place knowing that it's going to be different from CR.
He has to admit nothing of the sort. Is it just one way to run a game though. Nor is it Mercer issue to worry about nor minee or any other DMs/Players issue. If players new to the hobby as I cannot see older players making the sort of mistake or assumption on it being Critical role is the responsibility of the individual. If one bakery likes to bake smoked meat into a loaf of bread and one assumes every other bakery will do it. It's not Bakery XYZ fault for baking bread into loaves of bread. Or to put it another way it's not Mercer, mine or anyone else fault if new members to the hobby are both ignorant o f CR being a show and/or come with into the hobby with too high an expectation.
Or to use your example about porn it's the person who was stupid not to research the movie he was buying and not the porn industry fault that he bought vanilla porn instead of anal porn.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070652In Porn, obviously sexual intercourse is happening, but typical porn looks very little like normal sexual intercourse in real life...
You're doing it wrong... and I'm out.
;)
Quote from: S'mon;1070760I think the vast majority of viewers can tell that stuff is hyped up for the cameras and is not an exact reflection of a typical game.
Just as they can tell pretty much every activity they see on Youtube is not an exact reflection of that activity in real life. The audience for the 'watching people do stuff on Youtube' genre of entertainment are far more savvy about this stuff than Pundit wants to acknowledge.
Quote from: Haffrung;1070809Just as they can tell pretty much every activity they see on Youtube is not an exact reflection of that activity in real life. The audience for the 'watching people do stuff on Youtube' genre of entertainment are far more savvy about this stuff than Pundit wants to acknowledge.
I wish you were right. But over in the LARPing realm theres still people that think ALL US based LARPs are dirt basic duct-tape foam boffers and street clothes.
Wait... they're not?
So that was just the Milwaukee By Night club?
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1070855Wait... they're not?
So that was just the Milwaukee By Night club?
Tuesday.
Quote from: S'mon;1070760I think the vast majority of viewers can tell that stuff is hyped up for the cameras and is not an exact reflection of a typical game.
You wouldn't know it based on my interactions with literally hundreds of "critters" on Twitter, all of which think I'm Voldemort for daring to even suggest there's acting or pandering to the cameras going on.
Quote from: sureshot;1070763He has to admit nothing of the sort. Is it just one way to run a game though. Nor is it Mercer issue to worry about nor minee or any other DMs/Players issue. If players new to the hobby as I cannot see older players making the sort of mistake or assumption on it being Critical role is the responsibility of the individual. If one bakery likes to bake smoked meat into a loaf of bread and one assumes every other bakery will do it. It's not Bakery XYZ fault for baking bread into loaves of bread. Or to put it another way it's not Mercer, mine or anyone else fault if new members to the hobby are both ignorant o f CR being a show and/or come with into the hobby with too high an expectation.
Or to use your example about porn it's the person who was stupid not to research the movie he was buying and not the porn industry fault that he bought vanilla porn instead of anal porn.
You know, I'll give you partial credit: it is NOT Mercer's responsibility to worry about the state of anyone else's game. So if people are complaining about the "Mercer Effect", he had the right to keep quiet.
But where you fail is that he didn't keep quiet, he answered in a way that was essentially a LIE.
So, to use your example, let's say a bakery puts bacon grease into their bread.
Someone else can complain about the fact that its hard to get people to like their normal bread when that bakery put bacon grease into their bread.
The baker in question could say "yeah, it's not normal bread", or he could just not give a shit and shut up, and either way he's in his rights.
But if he says "Oh our bread doesn't use bacon grease, it's just like any other bread", then he's being a fraudulent piece of crap.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070925You wouldn't know it based on my interactions with literally hundreds of "critters" on Twitter, all of which think I'm Voldemort for daring to even suggest there's acting or pandering to the cameras going on.
Why are you on Twitter? That's the first question. The second is: Why do you believe that those idiots whose sole existence is to spend their time watching Twitter for updates, take time to play video games on their phones, much less put their phones down and think for themselves??
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1070940Why are you on Twitter? That's the first question.
It's the best online game I've found.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070925You wouldn't know it based on my interactions with literally hundreds of "critters" on Twitter, all of which think I'm Voldemort for daring to even suggest there's acting or pandering to the cameras going on.
Maybe they like trolling you, or maybe they have bad reading comprehension and think you're saying the whole thing is pre-scripted.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070927You know, I'll give you partial credit: it is NOT Mercer's responsibility to worry about the state of anyone else's game. So if people are complaining about the "Mercer Effect", he had the right to keep quiet.
I will give you no credit if you base your videos on what you read and see on Twitter. Thant and trying to compare Critical Role to porn in the first place. If people are too stupid and ignorant to understand that other playstyles exist besides what they see on CR it's on them. I'm not a fan of Mercer yet people need to stop blaming themselves for their personal failing and take responsibility. I don' t assume that because someone gets shot on TV and goes "tis but a flesh wound" and assume that it will be the same for me.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070927So, to use your example, let's say a bakery puts bacon grease into their bread.
Someone else can complain about the fact that its hard to get people to like their normal bread when that bakery put bacon grease into their bread.
Well as a business owner it's one responsibility to be ready for the market to change at any time. If all it took in this case was baking white bread as a baker to be successful then everyone would be doing it. Bakeries had to expand to carry whole wheat bread. Then Gluten Free and so on. If one wants to remain competetive one apadts. .
Then if it's the new tho
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070927But if he says "Oh our bread doesn't use bacon grease, it's just like any other bread", then he's being a fraudulent piece of crap.
Unlike your imaginary scenario where no one notices and gives a crap. In the real world that baker pre-internet days would be steadily losing business as word of mouth between customers would slowly eat up his market share. If he is lucky and people love the taste than sure he probably will not say anything. People can and do notice when food taste differently and if it adds nothing to the taste or makes it taste worse. They lose their clients and possibly their business with people blogging about the baker putting bacon grease and lying about it. How you ask with social media you seem to hate when you it does not benefit you and love when it comes to pushing your product.
I saw a bakery that had been in the area for at least 20 years slowly go under because they went from making frsh bread to making it fresh say Monday. Then freezing it overnight and trying to sell the same day bread as "fresh". As a kid I bought a loaf and I was wondering why it felt so cold in my hands as freshly baker bread is supposed to be room temperature. Being a kid I totally forgot about that two seconds later and went to play soccer with my friends. I get back home my mom makes me a sandwich and I notice both slices had a cold spot in the middle of both. I told my mom and she told her friends and so on and the baker tried to lie about it and he never recovered and lasted surviving for another ten years.
I will always blame viewers for being ignorant and lazy if they can't tell the difference between CR and that other tables being different. If you come to my game expecting and demanding it be like Critical Role you get once change to stop. If not your being shown the door. I don't have time for ignorant and lazy people especially one who refuses to learn to know better. I can almost pretty much guarantee that your chicken little scenario of CR ruining the hobby is just that a scenario in your head. Anything new to you seems to be the end of the world in this hobby.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070925You wouldn't know it based on my interactions with literally hundreds of "critters" on Twitter, all of which think I'm Voldemort for daring to even suggest there's acting or pandering to the cameras going on.
I don't think it is possible to separate out of this equation the situation that you are well known* as a cantankerous complainer about the modern state of RPG affairs, a state of affairs that precedes your presence on Twitter. Self-described 'Pundit' attracts volatile positive and negative attention? Who would have guessed? Someone warn Rush Limbaugh/Michael Moore/less-90s-ish-and-less-US-centric-examples before it's too late!
*Or sort of well known, I will be the first to admit that 'how big/not big a deal is Pundy in this arena?' is a question for which I genuinely can't determine an answer.Quote from: sureshot;1070977Well as a business owner it's one responsibility to be ready for the market to change at any time. If all it took in this case was baking white bread as a baker to be successful then everyone would be doing it. Bakeries had to expand to carry whole wheat bread. Then Gluten Free and so on. If one wants to remain competetive one apadts. .
Then if it's the new tho
Unlike your imaginary scenario where no one notices and gives a crap. In the real world that baker pre-internet days would be steadily losing business as word of mouth between customers would slowly eat up his market share. If he is lucky and people love the taste than sure he probably will not say anything. People can and do notice when food taste differently and if it adds nothing to the taste or makes it taste worse. They lose their clients and possibly their business with people blogging about the baker putting bacon grease and lying about it. How you ask with social media you seem to hate when you it does not benefit you and love when it comes to pushing your product.
I saw a bakery that had been in the area for at least 20 years slowly go under because they went from making frsh bread to making it fresh say Monday. Then freezing it overnight and trying to sell the same day bread as "fresh". As a kid I bought a loaf and I was wondering why it felt so cold in my hands as freshly baker bread is supposed to be room temperature. Being a kid I totally forgot about that two seconds later and went to play soccer with my friends. I get back home my mom makes me a sandwich and I notice both slices had a cold spot in the middle of both. I told my mom and she told her friends and so on and the baker tried to lie about it and he never recovered and lasted surviving for another ten years.
I will always blame viewers for being ignorant and lazy if they can't tell the difference between CR and that other tables being different. If you come to my game expecting and demanding it be like Critical Role you get once change to stop. If not your being shown the door. I don't have time for ignorant and lazy people especially one who refuses to learn to know better. I can almost pretty much guarantee that your chicken little scenario of CR ruining the hobby is just that a scenario in your head. Anything new to you seems to be the end of the world in this hobby.
For more historically significant examples, consider tags on mattresses and peanut butter labeled with percentage of contents being peanuts (they were historic examples of people trying to doctor the ingredients without acknowledging it). The primary difference between these things and gaming is that it becomes trivially easy to detect the difference in products, and assigning blame is also easy. If anyone accidentally thinks* that gaming is like the parts of CR that gaming isn't really like, they pick up on it very quickly, and there's no nebulous mattress supplier who the store can blame it on -- it goes right back to Mercer.
*And I agree that the amazing chicken-little scenario that there are vast swaths of ignorant and lazy people who somehow don't realize that CR is modified by tapes rolling (something I thought we'd all realized since back when there was actual tape in the cameras) just seems incongruous to my experience.
Mercer has no reason to acknowledge anything. He's making a buck doing something he enjoys his own way. That it contributes to ruining the expectations of new GM's/Players is really irrelevant to him. Because he has no incentive to care at all. Quite the opposite.
That said - I think his performance gaming is weak gaming by my standards, which I largely agree with then novel idea of comparing it by analogy to porn-sex. I suspect Mercer could/does probably run good games away from the camera.
There appear to be a number of cast members of Critical Role (including Mercer) who will be guests at Emerald City Comic Con.
Wheeeeeee.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070447In my latest video, I talk about the so-called "Mercer Effect", a phenomenon causing problems for a lot of D&D DMs with newbie players joining their groups.
Have you taken a look at Geek & Sundry's Star Trek game sessions? It's almost like watching a TV game show from the '70s.
There have been plenty of studies showing how porn creates unrealistic (and questionable) expectations for real sex. Unfortunately, people are morons and do think what they see on their screens is real. That's not a new phenomenon. It's why Jackass movies had warnings to not try these stunts at home....because people were doing the stunts at home.
So Critical Role confusing first time gamers doesn't surprise me.
But the current Nerd/D&D fad isn't going to last much longer (no fad lasts forever) so I wouldn't stress it.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1071068There have been plenty of studies showing how porn creates unrealistic (and questionable) expectations for real sex. Unfortunately, people are morons and do think what they see on their screens is real. That's not a new phenomenon. It's why Jackass movies had warnings to not try these stunts at home....because people were doing the stunts at home.
So Critical Role confusing first time gamers doesn't surprise me.
Indeed, I recently saw a commercial where folks were pulling down Imperial Walkers with their Toyotas (or something), during which they felt the need to admonish watchers "Do not try this at home." You know, just in case you're 4-wheeling your Tacoma on Hoth.
Never overestimate the public!
Quote from: Haffrung;1070466I hope you're not suggesting Pundit has taken such an intense disliking to Mercer because the latter's success and online popularity dwarfs his own efforts at becoming an RPG social media star.
Perish the thought.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070564They're actors, playing an improv theater act of hobbyists playing a session.
(https://i.imgflip.com/2qmq50.jpg)
Quote from: estar;1070637It not common as most hobbyists are not interested in acting as a different personality and/or doing funny voices.
My experience has been completely contrary.
Quote from: SP23;1070645Perkins is a great! Best 4E game I ever played in he was the DM.
Quote from: SP23;1070661I worked at WotC for 13+ years so it wasn't a big deal. One day, in I want to say 2010, but it could have been plus or minus a year, a Air Force Major, (or was it a Lt. Colonel, I can't recall, he was a Predator pilot), (total aside, but he would put a the D&D mini model that had a scythe into the Predator before he flew it off to kill Taliban), visited us, and really wanted to play D&D with the designers. Chris, I think, was volunteered, (kinda like he was for the PAX actual play stuff that he's know for), so he sent an email out looking for other employees to fill out the party. I don't remember everyone who participated, but I do remember Ian Richards of RPGA fame, myself, and 2 people from the sales department filled out the rest of the party for an after work session (well, maybe we started around 3 pm, so we got paid for playing ;) )
I've played D&D for 36 years, and have played with lots of famous designers like Jonathan Tweet, Sean K Reynolds, SRM, the list goes on and on..... but Perkins is the bees knees, he really made 4E flow just like any other edition of D&D, which I thought was impressive, as it's one of my least favorite version of the game. I only dislike OD&D, & Holmes more then 4E.
And more clues to SP23's true identity emerge.
Quote from: S'mon;1070760I think the vast majority of viewers can tell that stuff is hyped up for the cameras and is not an exact reflection of a typical game.
I would hope so.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070927it is NOT Mercer's responsibility to worry about the state of anyone else's game. So if people are complaining about the "Mercer Effect", he had the right to keep quiet.
And yet your entire video is demanding he take responsibility and speak up.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070927But where you fail is that he didn't keep quiet, he answered in a way that was essentially a LIE.
Here's what you requested (https://youtu.be/59VEDTIDhNo?t=521):
QuoteIf he went and just said "know what? We're a bunch of professional paid actors, and we're doing this game, and we're presenting it in this way, and it's not that our game is completely fake, it's not scripted, but we do a bunch of stuff and 'normal' D&D games are not like this, they're not the same thing, but you could try D&D and it will be really fun anyways if you don't assume it's going to be like being on the Matt Mercer TV show.
If he said that, that's all that it would take,
And here's what Matt Mercer posted (https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/comments/a999sd/comment/eclht66/):
QuoteNeed I also remind your players that we are a table of professional actors, and I have been DMing for well over 20 years. We have spent our lives training in particular skills that allow us to get as immersed in the characters as we enjoy doing. Anyone can jump in as deeply, should they wish to, but EXPECTING that immediate level of comfort and interest is unfair and absurd. Do they want a deep, convoluted emotional journey like Scanlan? They better be able to bring it like Sam did. No? Then sit down and just have fun finding your own path. ;)
So who's the liar here?
Quote from: S'mon;1070958Maybe they like trolling you, or maybe they have bad reading comprehension and think you're saying the whole thing is pre-scripted.
Or maybe Pundit is not being clear and/or honest about what they're trying to do.
Quote from: estar;1070637They are roleplaying by acting as their character. It not common as most hobbyists are not interested in acting as a different personality and/or doing funny voices. But people do play this way and it how I play my characters as a player.
I often pick voices for the characters I play; I want them to be larger than life, and find having a unique voice is a helpful tool for roleplaying. A bombastic high-charisma character running in to try to bluff his way through a bad situation would just be ridiculous in my own voice, but I can get over that hurdle if I have a different voice for it. It helps to ramp me up past my introverted nature and be in roles that are further removed from just being me. That said, I've never seen this YouTube show, so if they're espousing being scene-stealers who hog the DM's time, I can see where that's a considerable problem at most peoples' game tables.
Quote from: Almost_Useless;1070543I don't have any problem with Critical Role for what it is. It's the pro-wrestling of rpgs -- performers engaging in a mostly-arranged exhibition.
Quote from: kythri;1070597Scripted (or at least, outlined) play and outcomes for dramatic effect, rather than letting the dice fall where they may, makes this a simulacrum.
They're not actually playing D&D. They're pretending to play D&D.
It's really not like pro-wrestling. They don't pre-arrange it. It's not outlined either before hand, at least not by the players (the DM of course has stuff planned in advance) It really is improvised. Many players really were playing D&D well before any camera showed up.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070564Except he didn't. He figured out how to make a fashionable and feasible SIMULACRUM of hobbyists playing a sessions. They're actors, playing an improv theater act of hobbyists playing a session. And this causes the problem of the Mercer Effect. People think the Simulacrum is real and the actors are really feeling things they're acting.
Almost all the players were playing D&D prior to any camera. I know one of the players in CR and have for 30 years. He's always played D&D, well before he was even doing any acting work of any kind (aside from Ren Faire). These are uncomfortable facts for your narrative, but all true nonetheless.
I don't have time to watch the video right now. Can someone TLDR the REAL REASON?
Quote from: Mistwell;1071098Almost all the players were playing D&D prior to any camera. I know one of the players in CR and have for 30 years. He's always played D&D, well before he was even doing any acting work of any kind (aside from Ren Faire). These are uncomfortable facts for your narrative, but all true nonetheless.
The really vocal members of this forum need the sky to constantly be falling.
Every hobby that Democrats touch, turns to suck.
I can attest many LA wannabe actors are LARPers and some were/are RPGers.
I've gamed with many at the LA cons over the years. A good buddy of mine was DM on a cable TV show years ago and I met his players who are Hollywood in-crowd.
But they all know when they are performing for the camera vs. playing for fun.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1071115Every hobby that Democrats touch, turns to suck.
Well hey, at least they aren't grabbing you're hobby by the pussy. When your the GM they let you do it, you can do anything.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070954It's the best online game I've found.
It is also a haven for every fruitcake on earth who commute between it, RPGnet and Facebook.
Quote from: trechriron;1071105I don't have time to watch the video right now. Can someone TLDR the REAL REASON?
TLDR is Pundit thinks the show is scripted. Others think it is partially scripted. Personally I think its impossible to tell for sure either way. Some people just game naturally like that. Some game ALOT more flamboyantly that that. Acquisitions Incorporated is another one and they act alot more over the top.
Quote from: Omega;1071228TLDR i....
Thank you.
----- ------ -----
The concept of the "Mercer Effect" (based on my limited reading thus far...) largely stinks of jealousy, fear, and self-doubt. Not on the part of the Pundit per se, but in general. MM doesn't have to admit shit. Why in the seven fucks of Asgard would you expect him to "answer" to any of you when I'm certain you would never answer to him? What a pretentious load of self-loathing horseshit.
If you
believe MM is better than you, then what are you going to do about it? Complain about MM's existence? How wonderfully VICTIM of you. So, if you raise your hand to GM (let's say for the first time) you're expected to execute with the polish of a professional voice actor? What are we measuring GM capability by, a TV show? Since when? I thought we leaned conservative here? What happened to self-reliance, free market, low oversight, bill of rights? If you
believe MM has a set a bar you could never achieve... you're right. Is this some strange reverse-psychology world?
Look worry-warts - Become the fucking GM you want to be! If players don't like you, invite them to seek a game elsewhere. It doesn't have to have any emotional context if you really want to become the GM you want to be. I mean, why does it matter if one players doesn't like you? What about the 4 or 5 other players at the table that DO like you? Focus on the people playing, not on the ones leaving. This is success thinking 101. Run towards your dreams not away from the boogey man you just invented as an excuse to run away from your dreams. Find the friends who want to run with you not the frienemies who want to shit on you. Sit up straight and invest in yourself. You're going to get better with each game you run. That certainly isn't going to happen each time you use MM as an excuse to not run one.
I am sure MM had no intention of binding the collective Geriatric Gamers Club trousers into a knot, so you might consider reanalyzing why his existence bothers you so much. Just a little suggestion.
Quote from: trechriron;1071243If you believe MM is better than you...
That's not even close to what this whole thing with MM is about. Are you even cognizant at all? There's actually a whole shit-ton of crap role-players that attract more losers to this hobby, than they attract normal people. MM is on one end of the RPG spectrum, while uber nerds are on the other end. And both ends are crap.
When I sit down to run a game, I don't compare myself to anyone else. I just don't care.
I've watched a small amount of Matt Mercer material. He's good. So is Chris Perkins. Good for them.
Players shouldn't expect me to be MM or CP. I don't expect them to be someone they're not, other than role playing their character. If a player ever says, "Matt Mercer does it this way". Ok, I'm not him. Or, "Critical Role does it this way". Ok, this isn't Critical Role. Not one single piece of anything at my table has Critical Role written on it. Hell, I home brew D&D my own way; why would I let another DM overwrite what I have written?
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1071002I don't think it is possible to separate out of this equation the situation that you are well known* as a cantankerous complainer about the modern state of RPG affairs, a state of affairs that precedes your presence on Twitter. Self-described 'Pundit' attracts volatile positive and negative attention? Who would have guessed? Someone warn Rush Limbaugh/Michael Moore/less-90s-ish-and-less-US-centric-examples before it's too late!
*Or sort of well known, I will be the first to admit that 'how big/not big a deal is Pundy in this arena?' is a question for which I genuinely can't determine an answer.
Given that a vast number of "Critter" CR-fans are non-gamers, and many of the rest are very much D&D-5e-newbs who don't hang out on internet forums or read gaming blogs or know what the OSR is or go to G+ or buy any products that aren't WoTC products, I'm pretty sure that for most of these people this was the very first they'd ever heard of me.
Quote from: tenbones;1071003Mercer has no reason to acknowledge anything. He's making a buck doing something he enjoys his own way. That it contributes to ruining the expectations of new GM's/Players is really irrelevant to him. Because he has no incentive to care at all. Quite the opposite.
That doesn't excuse him commenting in a way that is intentionally deceptive.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1071082Here's what you requested (https://youtu.be/59VEDTIDhNo?t=521):
And here's what Matt Mercer posted (https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/comments/a999sd/comment/eclht66/):
So who's the liar here?
He is. If you look at his response, he's not saying "our game is not what D&D is really like", he's saying "I'm just such an awesome GM and my players are so amazing and we have such skills that you can't possibly expect one of those prole-GMs to make a game that will be as awesome".
Which again, is like a porn star pretending that what they're doing on video is just 'really awesome' normal sex, and not something intentionally designed for porn that is not meant to be like how normal sex goes at all.
Quote from: Mistwell;1071098Almost all the players were playing D&D prior to any camera. I know one of the players in CR and have for 30 years. He's always played D&D, well before he was even doing any acting work of any kind (aside from Ren Faire). These are uncomfortable facts for your narrative, but all true nonetheless.
Did you watch my videos?
Quote from: Omega;1071228TLDR is Pundit thinks the show is scripted.
Did you even watch the videos?
I explicitly said the shows are NOT directly scripted.
Pundie isn't necessarily wrong in this thread. Go over to r/dndnext and you'll see posts almost daily from new DMs who think they need to run games like they see on the internet to be "doing it right." Example from today: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/afdna3/an_open_letter_to_wotc_about_new_books_from_a/
A response in that thread:
Perhaps he shouldn't try to emulate someone like Mercer or Perkins.
Tell that to my players. It literally keeps me up at night, considering I'm yet to find my style. I've tried telling them, but the looks in their eyes.
Whatever happened to sitting down at the table with some buddies, killing some goblins, having a laugh, and not worrying about highly detailed in depth epic narratives. My best gaming has primarily been improvised on the fly. RPGs are a shared emergent storytelling experience, not a novel or play that you're supposed to elevate to some high art form.
Long string of tweets from Mercer on this subject:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2019/01/13/every-six-months-or-so-i-see-discussions-pop-up-defending-critical-role-from-people-saying-it-isnt-real-dd/
His response to the "Mercer effect":
https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/comments/a999sd/_/eclht66/
Quote from: SP23;1071288Long string of tweets from Mercer on this subject:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2019/01/13/every-six-months-or-so-i-see-discussions-pop-up-defending-critical-role-from-people-saying-it-isnt-real-dd/
His response to the "Mercer effect":
https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/comments/a999sd/_/eclht66/
It's pretty much "Response To Pundit".
I also think it's hilarious when people accuse them of staging the game and rehearsing it or outlining it in advance. So stupid...they really are just playing D&D guys. There is no rehearsal of any kind at all. It's just D&D players who also are voice actors and good at improve role playing...that's it. There is no other secret behind the scenes, and it would look good if you were just in the room watching it or playing with them and there was no camera.
There is no such thing as reality TV. If it isn't scripted up front, its edited in the back end. You chop out the boring bits, you add in reaction shots, you add sound F/X here, you use silence noise there, etc.
I feel sorta bad for these DMs dealing with players who can't tell the difference between TV and real life.
My advice? Find other players. You can't fix stupid.
If you taught someone to play Chess, they wouldn't expect you to be Bobby Fischer.
New players shouldn't expect you to DM like Matt Mercer either.
Quote from: Razor 007;1071361If you taught someone to play Chess, they wouldn't expect you to be Bobby Fischer.
New players shouldn't expect you to DM like Matt Mercer either.
I'll let y'all on a little secret: MOST DON'T!
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1071363I'll let y'all on a little secret: MOST DON'T!
Seconded. The old adage of it must be on the Internet so it must be true comes to mind imo.
Pundit saw a bunch of Twitter pists or so he claims where some on the hobby expect all of D&D to be run like Critical Role..panicked and did his op.
When the reality is most are intelligent enough to realize that Critical Role is what it is and not the absolute final and only way to play D&D.
As Razor says above if I learn to play Chess it's on me if I expect to be good as a Chess Master and not the fault of the person who taught me.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1071354There is no such thing as reality TV. If it isn't scripted up front, its edited in the back end. You chop out the boring bits, you add in reaction shots, you add sound F/X here, you use silence noise there, etc.
I feel sorta bad for these DMs dealing with players who can't tell the difference between TV and real life.
My advice? Find other players. You can't fix stupid.
My wife was on a reality show (Stan Lee's superhero show - I can tell you stories). I know very much of what you speak. This isn't that (and again, I know one of the players). The editing is bare bones. There are no reaction shots added in post. There are no F/X added in post aside from the silly opening theme song stuff, unless they've changed something fairly recently. There is no silencing done - in fact if you watch it, they speak over each other all the time sometimes to the deriment of the "show". The "crew" is very bare bones. This is a fairly small time streaming operation which you're assuming operates like network television reality shows. It's a terrible comparison. It's not a comparison you'd make to Pundit's videos I suspect, is it? And yet, those are likely more outlined that this thing is. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. There is no trick involved.
I've seen Mercer's responses. They little shit just DOUBLES DOWN on saying "we're just a normal but much more awesome campaign, and so you shouldn't be mad at your inferior DM for not being able to reach our level of entertainment" rather than ADMITTING IT'S AN ACT. That his Player are ACTING as players.
Then to top it all off, because an essential part of Mercer's FAKE PERSONA is being a "nice guy" he tweets about how he just wishes he could sit down with me and talk and then we could understand each other. But he did this minutes after he was just bragging about how he can't see my posts because he has me Muted.
So he's a FUCKING LIAR. And as fake a moralist of the Left as a TV evangelist would be on his side. He's selling this mr.nice-guy act while consistently doing things that are morally abysmal.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1071632... morally abysmal.
That sir was moral hyperbole... :P
I supported the crusade against the story games because what you warned about actually happened to me. I survived the bullshit, but barely. This is just an annoyance at best. Also, a great opportunity for others to jump into the ring and showcase a "real" game. The trick is doing so in a way that is entertaining. Thus far Critical Role, Adventurers Incorporated (??) and LA by Night seem to be the top shows that cracked that conundrum. You may hate them for whatever perceived slights they have perpetrated against gamer-kind but the overwhelming majority of gamers just see them as rpg evangelists and enthusiasts pulling record numbers of people into the hobby.
Maybe there's some spit-polish on it that might otherwise be missing from a non-Hollywood game, but it hardly rises to the energy you're wasting on it. Just my two cents...
Mercer is a hypocrite so are most people imo. Call me a cynic but I have done the same sometimes.
We are not against you talking negatively about Mercer. Some of us are getting tired of the sky is falling, end of the world hyperbole you keep using in videos and posts. It makes me want to listen to you less not more.
"Narrative rpgs will be the end of the hobby"...plenty of people still playing non-narrative rpgs.
"special snowflakes style characters are overwhelming the hobby and will destroy it any minute". I have come across that to the extent it will ruin the hobby. Not even remotely.
"Mercer and Critical Role are ruining the hobby" No he is not. it's also not my damn problem if gamer xyz is too stupid to realize that Critical Role is not the real thing.
Message heard and received except we are not as worried or want to spend the energy on the subject.
Quote from: sureshot;1071687We are not against you talking negatively about Mercer. Some of us are getting tired ... we are not as worried ...
Is that the Royal "we"? Or are you representing a conglomerate? Who else exactly are you speaking for here?
Quote from: Zalman;1071729Is that the Royal "we"? Or are you representing a conglomerate? Who else exactly are you speaking for here?
Sureshot embodies the General Will of therpgsite - what are you, some kind of contrarian?
I guess I should have written I and instead of we. I suppose some might come across still as speaking for others. Not my intention and I generally agree with Pundit opinion on many subjects.
Between this video, Critical role being porn and his latest which to me at least comes off as "if your not doing it my way it's badwrongfun it just seems like less wanting to discuss and more on gatekeeping and gronardism. Some in the hobby just want to play and run heroic games. Some want to play and run less heroic styles games. Neither is badwrongfun on any remote level. It's just different styles in play. The less heroic is not my cup of tea but I'm not going to say they are playing wrong simply to enforce what seems to be an increasingly narrow and only one way to run rpgs position by the Pundit.
Quote from: sureshot;1071763I
Between this video, Critical role being porn and his latest which to me at least comes off as "if your not doing it my way it's badwrongfun it just seems like less wanting to discuss and more on gatekeeping and gronardism.
I don't think Pundit is gatekeeping - he wants people, even thespians, to play RPGs - but I think he wants attention, and he thinks this is the way to get it. Really, picking a fight with a more famous Youtube personality is a standard attention-seeking tactic on Youtube; but it's not particularly edifying.
Quote from: sureshot;1071763I guess I should have written I and instead of we. I suppose some might come across still as speaking for others. Not my intention and I generally agree with Pundit opinion on many subjects.
Between this video, Critical role being porn and his latest which to me at least comes off as "if your not doing it my way it's badwrongfun it just seems like less wanting to discuss and more on gatekeeping and gronardism. Some in the hobby just want to play and run heroic games. Some want to play and run less heroic styles games. Neither is badwrongfun on any remote level. It's just different styles in play. The less heroic is not my cup of tea but I'm not going to say they are playing wrong simply to enforce what seems to be an increasingly narrow and only one way to run rpgs position by the Pundit.
Except it doesn't matter what you want to run. Sword & Sorcery D&D, for example, is just a more pagan variant of the Hero's journey. And playing an "evil party" campaign is just the flipside of the heroic campaign.
Unless what you want to run is a setting with 2018 left-coast values where all the characters are just quirky hipsters or tragic victims, this still affects you.
Critical Role and other pod-cast play sessions have made enough people generally interested in the idea of RPGs that I was able to wave my hand and create a second Savage Worlds group.
People thinking improv acting is the highest form of Role Playing is a small price to pay for the increased interest.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1071826Except it doesn't matter what you want to run. Sword & Sorcery D&D, for example, is just a more pagan variant of the Hero's journey. And playing an "evil party" campaign is just the flipside of the heroic campaign.
Not sure what the point being made here. Whatever rpg or campaign I decide to run if I am comfortable running it I adapt and run it. No one is holding a literal and metaphorical gun to my head. If you wan to act like their is one it's on you.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1071826Unless what you want to run is a setting with 2018 left-coast values where all the characters are just quirky hipsters or tragic victims, this still affects you.
I have yet to find a setting where the core values is just characters being quirky hipsters or tragic victims. I would probably never play or run such a setting. Nor would a play a quirky hipster if that even exists in a setting. Tragic hero why not some great myth and stories have such characters. I get it your bothered by others not playing your one true way yet the hobby will survive. Stop worrying about what others say on Twitter as well as Matt Mercer or anyone else filming their games. Unless you give them views by drawing attention to them they really don't seem to care about you. Unless damn it all you need to be validated be their attention it's not healthy for you.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1071830Critical Role and other pod-cast play sessions have made enough people generally interested in the idea of RPGs that I was able to wave my hand and create a second Savage Worlds group.
People thinking improv acting is the highest form of Role Playing is a small price to pay for the increased interest.
Apparently it's not only the end of the rpg world as we know it yes indeed. We are also forced because of such shows to
HAVE run it exactly the way it comes in those videos. The only thing Pundit to me at least is giving them attention and views. While coming across as needing attention. When the majority of the people in the thread don't seem to care or are bothered by the OP and your still trying to draw attention to the topic well your trying to get validation and attention imo.
It's also not helped that most of the last videos seems to be "if it's not done my approved way it's bad wrong fun". If the roles were reversed and he not Critical Role was more popular he would not give a crap about them. If he did only to stir up more drama for more views. That's why unlike in the past I'm starting to dislike his videos more because it's less to help the hobby and more to stir up drama and controversy for more views and clicks and attention seeking.
Quote from: sureshot;1071833Apparently it's not only the end of the rpg world as we know it yes indeed. We are also forced because of such shows to HAVE run it exactly the way it comes in those videos. The only thing Pundit to me at least is giving them attention and views. While coming across as needing attention. When the majority of the people in the thread don't seem to care or are bothered by the OP and your still trying to draw attention to the topic well your trying to get validation and attention imo. It's also not helped that most of the last videos seems to be "if it's not done my approved way it's bad wrong fun". If the roles were reversed and he not Critical Role was more popular he would not give a crap about them. If he did only to stir up more drama for more views. That's why unlike in the past I'm starting to dislike his videos more because it's less to help the hobby and more to stir up drama and controversy for more views and clicks and attention seeking.
After the first session, "That was fun, but not anything like the podcast."
Me, "Those are TV shows for the audiences enjoyment" and that was the end of it.
I still run games with these people. Now my main group has some CR fans so there is way more butthurt about not believing it is real but I do not rub their face in it. One guy is particularly bad at thinking CR is ideal and tries to run/play games like it and bores everyone with his RP when he isn't muder-hoboing
I'm lucky in that I have met players and DMs who have heard and some watch Critical Role none of them think it's the only way to play D&D.
Sure are their some in the hobby that do. I'm sure there is. Yo the sky is falling, end of the world for our hobby. I doubt it. Even then it's on them to realize the difference.
As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, watching other people do stuff on youtube is huge with kids, so CR is probably some of the most effective (in volume, at least) outreach to younger potential players that the game is likely to get. If 10,000 people try D&D this year as a result of watching CR and 7,000 of them leave after the first few sessions because it's not like what they saw on youtube, that's still 3,000 new players.
I can't even remember all of the threads I've seen in various online forums over the years about the "death of the hobby", the "graying of the hobby", "RPGs are destined to go the way of model railroading in the next 10 years" & etc. Some players having initial misconceptions about what a real game looks like is a small price to pay for bringing in new blood.
Quote from: S'mon;1071766I don't think Pundit is gatekeeping - he wants people, even thespians, to play RPGs - but I think he wants attention, and he thinks this is the way to get it. Really, picking a fight with a more famous Youtube personality is a standard attention-seeking tactic on Youtube; but it's not particularly edifying.
I don't think Pundit is gatekeeping so much as indoctrinating. He wants all sorts to play D&D, he just wants them to play it 'right'.
It's baffling to me that anyone could read/watch the OP here and think it has anything to do with playing the game the "right" way. Sounds like a straight up strawman to me.
Quote from: Zalman;1071870It's baffling to me that anyone could read/watch the OP here and think it has anything to do with playing the game the "right" way. Sounds like a straight up strawman to me.
I was going more by my impression of his overall work than the actual video, so I've deleted the relevant post.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1071632I've seen Mercer's responses. They little shit just DOUBLES DOWN on saying "we're just a normal but much more awesome campaign, and so you shouldn't be mad at your inferior DM for not being able to reach our level of entertainment" rather than ADMITTING IT'S AN ACT. That his Player are ACTING as players.
Then to top it all off, because an essential part of Mercer's FAKE PERSONA is being a "nice guy" he tweets about how he just wishes he could sit down with me and talk and then we could understand each other. But he did this minutes after he was just bragging about how he can't see my posts because he has me Muted.
So he's a FUCKING LIAR. And as fake a moralist of the Left as a TV evangelist would be on his side. He's selling this mr.nice-guy act while consistently doing things that are morally abysmal.
Sounds like you're pissed because he has you on mute.
Quote from: trechriron;1071648Maybe there's some spit-polish on it that might otherwise be missing from a non-Hollywood game, but it hardly rises to the energy you're wasting on it. Just my two cents...
Mercer gets a lot of attention, so Pundit is bashing him to gain attention for himself. It's not more complicated than that. Pundit is trying to ride Mercer's coat tails, sort of like CNN rides Trump's coat tails. Anything for ratings (though I am not sure it's working for Pundy).
There is of course another option. It could be Pundy is pissed Mercer is stealing his shtick. After all, The RPG Pundit is itself an act.
Quote from: S'mon;1071766I don't think Pundit is gatekeeping - he wants people, even thespians, to play RPGs - but I think he wants attention, and he thinks this is the way to get it. Really, picking a fight with a more famous Youtube personality is a standard attention-seeking tactic on Youtube; but it's not particularly edifying.
It is vaguely amusing that it was this of all things that united the RPGsite. :)
The Pundit is so clearly in the wrong, being told by pretty much everyone that this is so, that I can only conclude that you are correct, he's going off on some pitiful Alex-Jones-style rant for publicity purposes. Then again, that's always been kind of business as usual for him.
Next chapter, how Pundit is the real victim here.
This started originally on Reddit. Someone posted something describing this problem, then a bunch of other people posted that they had had the same problem, then Matt Mercer did his "everyone has something to contribute." Pundit didn't make this up. You don't have to agree, but it's not crazy to worry about it, since a bunch of people reported the problem initially on that Reddit thread long before he posted about. I'd be upset if whenever I tried to run a game people told me that everyone has to dress up in costume or that I somehow had to run the game like Matt Mercer.
Again no one saying its not a potential issue. I'm sure some in the hobby expect that D&D has to be played like a session if CR. To the extent thst Pundit and others make it out to be hardly imo.
Quote from: Motorskills;1072176It is vaguely amusing that it was this of all things that united the RPGsite.
I'd hardly consider this site united about this subject.
Quote from: PencilBoy99;1072181This started originally on Reddit. Someone posted something describing this problem, then a bunch of other people posted that they had had the same problem, then Matt Mercer did his "everyone has something to contribute." Pundit didn't make this up. You don't have to agree, but it's not crazy to worry about it, since a bunch of people reported the problem initially on that Reddit thread long before he posted about. I'd be upset if whenever I tried to run a game people told me that everyone has to dress up in costume or that I somehow had to run the game like Matt Mercer.
Exactly. Pundit is far from the only one who has been talking about this issue.
Quote from: kythri;1072185I'd hardly consider this site united about this subject.
Definitely true, but the level at which people who have come to this site (presumably because they share some commonality with Pundy) have been willing to call him out on this is indicative of
something.
QuoteExactly. Pundit is far from the only one who has been talking about this issue.
And if what Pundy were doing was merely talking about the issue, people probably would be universally supportive. However, he's done more, including suggesting that it is a big problem, that it is effecting lots of non-CR-crowd-people's tables (to a degree where a simple 'this isn't CR, adjust your expectations' does not solve the problem), and that Mercer's response is insufficient/disingenuous. I think that these additional positions, combined with a few beliefs that I think are creeping into this site--Pundy is bitter and vindictive of WotC/Modern gaming/anyone who is succeeding at making a living at RPGs more successfully, Pundy is trying to monetize outrage (and thus we are not the customers here, but the product), Pundy is trying to gatekeep the hobby (despite resistance to such things being a major reason a lot of people are here), etc. -- are, IMO, just highlighting some of the strains here within the site.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1072219And if what Pundy were doing was merely talking about the issue, people probably would be universally supportive. However, he's done more, including suggesting that it is a big problem, that it is effecting lots of non-CR-crowd-people's tables (to a degree where a simple 'this isn't CR, adjust your expectations' does not solve the problem), and that Mercer's response is insufficient/disingenuous. I think that these additional positions, combined with a few beliefs that I think are creeping into this site--Pundy is bitter and vindictive of WotC/Modern gaming/anyone who is succeeding at making a living at RPGs more successfully, Pundy is trying to monetize outrage (and thus we are not the customers here, but the product), Pundy is trying to gatekeep the hobby (despite resistance to such things being a major reason a lot of people are here), etc. -- are, IMO, just highlighting some of the strains here within the site.
Seconded.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1072219highlighting some of the strains here within the site.
I don't feel strained by disagreeing with my beloved Pundit - if I wanted to lick some demagogue's ass, there's plenty of places where that is expected & required behaviour. Being able to disagree and to call out bullshit even from On High is the biggest attraction of this place!
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1072219Definitely true, but the level at which people who have come to this site (presumably because they share some commonality with Pundy) have been willing to call him out on this is indicative of something.
And, I'd point out, that this is nothing new. I've been here 9-10 years, and from the get-go, people have been calling Pundy out because they disagree with him. Ironically, more often than not, time proves him correct.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1072219And if what Pundy were doing was merely talking about the issue, people probably would be universally supportive. However, he's done more, including suggesting that it is a big problem, that it is effecting lots of non-CR-crowd-people's tables (to a degree where a simple 'this isn't CR, adjust your expectations' does not solve the problem), and that Mercer's response is insufficient/disingenuous. I think that these additional positions, combined with a few beliefs that I think are creeping into this site--Pundy is bitter and vindictive of WotC/Modern gaming/anyone who is succeeding at making a living at RPGs more successfully, Pundy is trying to monetize outrage (and thus we are not the customers here, but the product), Pundy is trying to gatekeep the hobby (despite resistance to such things being a major reason a lot of people are here), etc. -- are, IMO, just highlighting some of the strains here within the site.
Oh, horseshit. Is his style purposely loud and bombastic? Certainly, like any number of commentators (though, to be honest, I couldn't name any in this specific subject/genre), but based on jealousy over RPG publishing success? Give me a break. This has been his style consistently, since before he was even publishing anything, so, before he had anything to be jealous about.
He has adopted a provocative style that garners some attention. Oh, my stars and garters.
As far as gatekeeping, that's an equally horseshit accusation. Point out a specific example of his attempt at gatekeeping, please.
Quote from: kythri;1072228As far as gatekeeping, that's an equally horseshit accusation. Point out a specific example of his attempt at gatekeeping, please.
Being part of the OSR 'movement' is a form of gatekeeping. You (the general you, not you personally, Kythri) are defining a distinctive, in this case, play style in such a way that if you don't do it this way, you're doing it wrong.
Now, is he banning people for it, well no, that's just silly, he doesn't want to kill any potential audience to his side of the edition warring.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072260Being part of the OSR 'movement' is a form of gatekeeping. You (the general you, not you personally, Kythri) are defining a distinctive, in this case, play style in such a way that if you don't do it this way, you're doing it wrong.
Now, is he banning people for it, well no, that's just silly, he doesn't want to kill any potential audience to his side of the edition warring.
Oh, come on....
By that definition having any particular interest at all, and proclaiming that interest, makes you a "gatekeeper". This would easily turn into World of Gatekeepers, since almost every solitary human being on the planet (and likely those few in the ISS as well) has particular interests and occasionally declares that interest.
Like Punk Rock? Call yourself a "Punk Rocker"? Want other people to get interested in Punk Rock? Gatekeeper.
This would go
ad nauseam...
The worse thing you can say CR is doing as a bait-n-switch.
Oh no I have all these players with incorrect expectations but after a session or two some of them get-it and stay around!
Matt Mercer is a used-car salesman (The horror!)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072260Being part of the OSR 'movement' is a form of gatekeeping.
Horseshit, for the third time.
With the exception of the leftist shitbags who have attempted to co-opt the OSR, the OSR is welcoming and inclusive, and wants people to come play their games. They're not trying to get anyone to stop playing other games. They're not trying to keep people out of the hobby.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072260are defining a distinctive, in this case, play style in such a way that if you don't do it this way, you're doing it wrong.
So, then, by that completely idiotic definition, every single RPG ever published is gatekeeping, because they've defined distinctive rules and play-styles that, by default, if you're breaking them/ignoring them, you're playing that game wrong.
You realize how epically stupid that sounds, I hope?
I never watched Critical Role before listening to Pundit's video. After watching a few, I am left with interesting questions about what Pundit thinks the DM's job is.
Quote from: kythri;1072279Horseshit, for the third time.
With the exception of the leftist shitbags who have attempted to co-opt the OSR, the OSR is welcoming and inclusive, and wants people to come play their games. They're not trying to get anyone to stop playing other games. They're not trying to keep people out of the hobby.
Edition warring is gatekeeping, by saying 'your version is better' and those who don't agree with you are doing it 'wrong'. That is gate keeping. I don't care if you don't like it, it's still gate keeping. Deal with it.
Quote from: kythri;1072279So, then, by that completely idiotic definition, every single RPG ever published is gatekeeping, because they've defined distinctive rules and play-styles that, by default, if you're breaking them/ignoring them, you're playing that game wrong.
You realize how epically stupid that sounds, I hope?
No, because it's clear you didn't think it through. Most games will tell you to 'play it your' way, the whole 'Rule Zero' thing: If the game is doing something you or your group doesn't like, you have every right to change it in a manner that makes you all happy. After all, it's your game.
The only two games/movements that do otherwise are the OSR/Old School (did you read Gronan's response to Spinachcat's desire for an array for his older edition game?) and White Wolf's Storyteller system. The former proclaims that there was this mystical One True Way that everyone played back in the day, and the other has built in mechanics that punish you for going outside the lines (the Humanity system.)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072292Edition warring is gatekeeping, by saying 'your version is better' and those who don't agree with you are doing it 'wrong'. That is gate keeping. I don't care if you don't like it, it's still gate keeping. Deal with it.
No, because it's clear you didn't think it through.
To which I reply, again: Horseshit. You're full of it.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072292The only two games/movements that do otherwise are the OSR/Old School (did you read Gronan's response to Spinachcat's desire for an array for his older edition game?) and White Wolf's Storyteller system. The former proclaims that there was this mystical One True Way that everyone played back in the day, and the other has built in mechanics that punish you for going outside the lines (the Humanity system.)
I tend to ignore pretty much everything Gronan says. I was pleased as punch that he rage quit, and disappointed that he apparently thinks so little of his wife's honor that he would return to participate on the very forum that so callously attacked her virtue (or whatever bullshit he was spouting when he had his temper tantrum). tl;dr is no, I didn't read Gronan's spew. And I'm pretty sure that was Kiero's desire for an array, but maybe there were two similar threads.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072292Edition warring is gatekeeping, by saying 'your version is better' and those who don't agree with you are doing it 'wrong'. That is gate keeping. I don't care if you don't like it, it's still gate keeping. Deal with it.
You don't seem to understand the term. Gatekeeping is keeping people
out - not saying "Come through my gate, it's better in here!"
Quote from: S'mon;1072227I don't feel strained by disagreeing with my beloved Pundit - if I wanted to lick some demagogue's ass, there's plenty of places where that is expected & required behaviour. Being able to disagree and to call out bullshit even from On High is the biggest attraction of this place!
The fact that we get to is decidedly wonderful. I agree, it is the biggest attraction of this place. That doesn't change (and this is all perspective, I could always be wrong) that there seems to be an amount of strain over those that want to call out bullshit and those that want to circle the wagons. Case in point...
Quote from: kythri;1072228Oh, horseshit. Is his style purposely loud and bombastic? Certainly, like any number of commentators (though, to be honest, I couldn't name any in this specific subject/genre), but based on jealousy over RPG publishing success? Give me a break. This has been his style consistently, since before he was even publishing anything, so, before he had anything to be jealous about.
He has adopted a provocative style that garners some attention. Oh, my stars and garters.
Loud, bombastic, and provocative? Yes, he's been doing that since we met him. I don't know why you bring it up. Actually, this entire paragraph could be shortened to 'I disagree/don't buy it.' Which is fine, but not a resounding rebuke. Regardless, I am simply voicing my perception about what is going on. I've made my one and only real disagreement with Pundy* clear a long time ago, and left it at that once I felt my voice was heard.
*you can declare politics off limits for the gaming session, and make an exclusion to in-industry politics. That's your prerogative as site host. The distinction is meaningless, however, as people -- to whom you will not get to make your, 'but this is different' argument -- will vote with their feet, and thus we will have less people in the gaming session talking about actual gaming.QuoteAs far as gatekeeping, that's an equally horseshit accusation. Point out a specific example of his attempt at gatekeeping, please.
The several threads and videos trying to declare that people who watch the CR-like live-play videos are not gamers. Given that no one has any enforcement powers, arguing that someone else is not part of the hobby is the activity most worthy of the term gatekeeping that I can think of. Mind you, I agree on a linguistic level that using the term gamer to those that don't personally play is a poor choice of wording. But I don't try to pretend that it isn't an attempt at gatekeeping.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072260Being part of the OSR 'movement' is a form of gatekeeping. You (the general you, not you personally, Kythri) are defining a distinctive, in this case, play style in such a way that if you don't do it this way, you're doing it wrong.
This, although wrong, illustrates the point. No one... scratch that... very few people in the OSR movement are saying that people not playing OSR table top RPGs aren't playing table top RPGs (the exception being whichever OSR gamer initially called Chris here a bad name and started this crusade). As a general rule, OSR gamers recognize that non-OSR gamers are indeed gamers and part of the same community (although not the same sub-sect therein, or some such categorical distinction). Even if one of them says that X, Y or Z is doing it wrong (and we have all said, at one time or another, that something is bad/wrong or the like when we really meant that we don't like it/it is wrong for our tastes), that's not the same as saying that it isn't table top RPG-ing.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1072337The several threads and videos trying to declare that people who watch the CR-like live-play videos are not gamers. Given that no one has any enforcement powers, arguing that someone else is not part of the hobby is the activity most worthy of the term gatekeeping that I can think of. Mind you, I agree on a linguistic level that using the term gamer to those that don't personally play is a poor choice of wording. But I don't try to pretend that it isn't an attempt at gatekeeping.
People who play games are gamers.
People who watch people play games, but don't play themselves, are, by definition, not gamers.
This isn't rocket science. Why take offense at a non-gamer being called a non-gamer?
Additionally, by definition, someone who isn't participating in the hobby (i.e. playing the games) isn't a member of the hobby. They may very well be a member of the fandom, but they're not a member of the hobby.
As for the spurious charge of gatekeeping yet again, you're just wrong. Dead wrong. Gatekeeping, as S'mon just pointed out, is an attempt to keep people out. If you'd actually watch/listen to Pundit's video, he's blatantly asking these people to join the game and play. Pretty much the fucking opposite of gatekeeping, chief.
Quote from: kythri;1072341People who play games are gamers.
People who watch people play games, but don't play themselves, are, by definition, not gamers.
This isn't rocket science. Why take offense at a non-gamer being called a non-gamer?
Additionally, by definition, someone who isn't participating in the hobby (i.e. playing the games) isn't a member of the hobby. They may very well be a member of the fandom, but they're not a member of the hobby.
As for the spurious charge of gatekeeping yet again, you're just wrong. Dead wrong. Gatekeeping, as S'mon just pointed out, is an attempt to keep people out. If you'd actually watch/listen to Pundit's video, he's blatantly asking these people to join the game and play. Pretty much the fucking opposite of gatekeeping, chief.
As I remember it, the initial assertion that Pundit took issue with was that the people who were only watching Critical Role was said to be part of the gaming community. I don't think anybody called them "gamers", which seems to be a strawman.
And one part were I think Pundit is at least close to gatekeeping is when he says "you've never really played #DnD right if you haven't had at least one really long campaign. Like at least 500 total hours of #Roleplaying" and that each session needs to be at least 6 hours long.
"You are doing it wrong" is not gatekeeping.
'"You are not part of the community" is gatekeeping - it may also be true.
Quote from: S'mon;1072349"You are doing it wrong" is not gatekeeping.
'"You are not part of the community" is gatekeeping - it may also be true.
Agreed, but it also depends on how you follow it up. "You are doing it wrong" can easily lead to "so you are not a real gamer, and thus not part of the community".
And there are different types of gatekeeping. It is not only to keep the gate firmly shut, but also to set up such a high bar for entry so that in effect the gate is shut.
Gatekeeping is a bullshit accusation, because you can't actually be a gatekeeper unless you have some actual ability/authority to close the gate on people.
Any accusation against someone who lacks that ability/authority is, by definition, a false accusation.
Quote from: kythri;1072357Gatekeeping is a bullshit accusation, because you can't actually be a gatekeeper unless you have some actual ability/authority to close the gate on people.
Any accusation against someone who lacks that ability/authority is, by definition, a false accusation.
You're clearly invested in this, and cannot be objective. There for, I'm out.
Yeah, I'm the one who's not objective here.
I'm sorry you can't articulate how Pundit has his hand on the gate, or is even near the gate.
Quote from: kythri;1072368Yeah, I'm the one who's not objective here.
I'm sorry you can't articulate how Pundit has his hand on the gate, or is even near the gate.
Look, you HAVE TO let anyone in your club who wants to be in, even if they don't follow any of the rules, or you're just a bigot. But they can have their own private clubs and exclude you for "problematic" reasons, like the wrong skin color or sex. Wrong here being whatever they're not. Unless you're a self-loathing hypocrite, then you can sort of hang out. Want to run AD&D by the book? It's gatekeeping if you won't allow tieflings! Or require rudimentary math skills to add up damage dice!
Yeah nice strawman I'm pretty certain no one here. Or outside of here with a functioning brain cell would accuse anyone of gatekeeping because they want to run an rpg by the book or allow Tieflings. Sure to those used to getting their way one might be accused of being unfair. Which is bullshit imo.
I will concede he is not gatekeeping. He sure as hell is imo engaging in absolute onetruwayism. If it's not being done exactly how he does it's playing the game wrong.
With trying too stir up a fake controversy of their being a horde of unruly narrative rpg playing barbarians just waiting to knock down the walls and destroy their hobby. Sure are their some who think that way absolutely. In large amounts hardly and it's nothing put Pundit trying to push an end of days style narrative.
Quote from: sureshot;1072377Yeah nice strawman I'm pretty certain no one here. Or outside of here with a functioning brain cell would accuse anyone of gatekeeping because they want to run an rpg by the book or allow Tieflings. Sure to those used to getting their way one might be accused of being unfair. Which is bullshit imo.
I will concede he is not gatekeeping. He sure as hell is imo engaging in absolute onetruwayism. If it's not being done exactly how he does it's playing the game wrong.
With trying too stir up a fake controversy of their being a horde of unruly narrative rpg playing barbarians just waiting to knock down the walls and destroy their hobby. Sure are their some who think that way absolutely. In large amounts hardly and it's nothing put Pundit trying to push an end of days style narrative.
This is the goddamn Internet, sir. Hyperbolic strawmen and ad hominem are the only way to post.
LOL
Very true.
Quote from: kythri;1072341People who play games are gamers.
People who watch people play games, but don't play themselves, are, by definition, not gamers.
This isn't rocket science. Why take offense at a non-gamer being called a non-gamer?
Additionally, by definition, someone who isn't participating in the hobby (i.e. playing the games) isn't a member of the hobby. They may very well be a member of the fandom, but they're not a member of the hobby.
These are arguments on why the gatekeeping is justified. Right after this you call the charge of gatekeeping spurious. Why justify it if it isn't gatekeeping in the first place.
Quote from: kythri;1072341As for the spurious charge of gatekeeping yet again, you're just wrong. Dead wrong. Gatekeeping, as S'mon just pointed out, is an attempt to keep people out. If you'd actually watch/listen to Pundit's video, he's blatantly asking these people to join the game and play. Pretty much the fucking opposite of gatekeeping, chief.
If you're saying you don't belong, that is gatekeeping. Manning the gate and saying, 'but you can come on in if you want' does not change this.
Quote from: kythri;1072357Gatekeeping is a bullshit accusation, because you can't actually be a gatekeeper unless you have some actual ability/authority to close the gate on people.
Any accusation against someone who lacks that ability/authority is, by definition, a false accusation.
Okay, here we have a definitional distinction. If we're simply arguing over best term, we can do that, and I will even concede to a different term if we can agree upon one which everyone can agree upon. If having the actual authority to keep someone out is a requirement to gatekeeping, than obviously no, Pundey isn't doing that, since he can't. However, I feel like we've used the term before with other people who have declared people not part of the community/not welcome, but who also obviously can't force people out. Every time a publisher declares that they really don't need the money of people who do not share their opinions on the culture war, we are more than happy to call that gatekeeping, even though they can't actually force people not to. If don't see the distinction between the two action. But if we want to find another word, other than gatekeeping, that is fine. As long as we are consistent between our allies and enemies when they do the same action.
Quote from: S'mon;1072349"You are doing it wrong" is not gatekeeping.
'"You are not part of the community" is gatekeeping - it may also be true.
And there it is in a nutshell. I'm not particularly thrilled with the Mercers of the world, or what these online pseudoplays are doing to peoples' expectations (although I also am not especially convinced that there are vast hordes of new gamers going around demanding that DMs play like what they see Mercer do, certainly past the point of a DM chiding them with 'reality doesn't work like your favorite show, deal with it'), but declaring them outside of the community is gatekeeping (or whatever term we land on)(and yes, even if true).
Regardless, the gatekeeping bit was only supposed to be one thing amongst the many that I think people are grating under. See also:
Quote from: sureshot;1072377I will concede he is not gatekeeping. He sure as hell is imo engaging in absolute onetruwayism. If it's not being done exactly how he does it's playing the game wrong.
With trying too stir up a fake controversy of their being a horde of unruly narrative rpg playing barbarians just waiting to knock down the walls and destroy their hobby. Sure are their some who think that way absolutely. In large amounts hardly and it's nothing put Pundit trying to push an end of days style narrative.
And these are others. The onetruewayism, the Chicken Little-ism, and yeah the self-induced controversy. Again, it's his deal and he's a big boy, if this is what he wants to do, rock out. I feel it is making him look like more kook-ish than valiant voice of truth, or however one might want to phrase it.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1072421These are arguments on why the gatekeeping is justified. Right after this you call the charge of gatekeeping spurious. Why justify it if it isn't gatekeeping in the first place.
I'm not justifying gatekeeping, because I don't believe it exists in this case.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1072421If you're saying you don't belong, that is gatekeeping. Manning the gate and saying, 'but you can come on in if you want' does not change this.
Pundit (and others), if they are even saying such, are saying "you don't belong" not in the context of "you're unwelcome" but in the context of "You don't do X, which doing X is literally the definition of this term". If you don't drive, you're not a driver. If you don't own a pet, you're not a pet owner. You might be a fan of driving, or a fan of pet owning, but unless you actually do those things, you're not one of those things.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1072421Okay, here we have a definitional distinction. If we're simply arguing over best term, we can do that, and I will even concede to a different term if we can agree upon one which everyone can agree upon. If having the actual authority to keep someone out is a requirement to gatekeeping, than obviously no, Pundey isn't doing that, since he can't. However, I feel like we've used the term before with other people who have declared people not part of the community/not welcome, but who also obviously can't force people out. Every time a publisher declares that they really don't need the money of people who do not share their opinions on the culture war, we are more than happy to call that gatekeeping, even though they can't actually force people not to. If don't see the distinction between the two action. But if we want to find another word, other than gatekeeping, that is fine. As long as we are consistent between our allies and enemies when they do the same action.
We've used the term, because it was co-opted by people who want to push a particular agenda. If we make it sound bad (as an example, we make it sound like someone is trying to keep other people out of the hobby), then we can demonize them for that, which is exactly what is happening here.
I really don't understand how this isn't clear. This nonsense idea of gatekeeping is based around the concept that gatekeepers want to keep people out. When an accused gatekeeper explicitly states "Please, join me/us! You are welcome here! Come do what I/we do!" how in the hell can that be considered gatekeeping?
Saying that someone who doesn't play games isn't a gamer isn't gatekeeping, it's merely a statement of fact - and, to the overall point, those people (non-gamers) are not who the gaming hobby should be listening to when looking for feedback or direction.
Quote from: kythri;1072456Saying that someone who doesn't play games isn't a gamer isn't gatekeeping, it's merely a statement of fact - and, to the overall point, those people (non-gamers) are not who the gaming hobby should be listening to when looking for feedback or direction.
But this becomes problematic when Pundit also argues that if you are not gaming for at least six hours at a time you are doing it wrong. Is then the conclusion that you should not be listened to either? That only the few who fulfills Pundits narrow definition of a "real" gamer should be allowed to have any influence on the future of the hobby?
And I have still not seen anybody argue that those who only watches people play should be called "gamers". It has been argued that they should be included in the bigger "DnD community", but that is a different thing.
Quote from: RoyR;1072461And I have still not seen anybody argue that those who only watches people play should be called "gamers". It has been argued that they should be included in the bigger "DnD community", but that is a different thing.
The problem (as trivial as it is) with that is that "D&D Community" is a weasel term meant to imply more than that, but providing the cover of "not saying they are really gamers" when called on it. They are supposed to be Schrodinger Gamers--gamers by default until you look at them, and then go back again as soon as you stop looking at them.
It's that old story again about the chicken telling the pig, "Let's you and me team up and start a restaurant, serving breakfast." The pig says, "Ham and eggs sounds like a plan to you. You've got an interest, but I've got skin in the game."
Except in this case, the "game watchers" aren't even chickens. They are merely someone that wandered in the kitchen while the food was getting cooked. They aren't even customers. They are part of the "breakfast community" only in the most obtuse, theoretical extent in one sense. Granted, they are "potential customers" too, which is the only worthwhile sense in which they are worth discussing from a gaming perspective.
If I call myself a Basketball player to people who ask what I do, and I've literally never played a game of basketball in my life for even a moment but I do watch NBA basketball on TV, then I am most definitely not a basketball player. I might be part of the "larger basketball community" as I am a "fan" of people who do play basketball, but I am not a basketball player myself and should not go around telling people I am a basketball player.
I'm not sure why this would be different for D&D. If you only watch D&D being played and never play it yourself, you're not a D&D player. I don't think there are any issues of gatekeeping involved with that question.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1072464The problem (as trivial as it is) with that is that "D&D Community" is a weasel term meant to imply more than that, but providing the cover of "not saying they are really gamers" when called on it. They are supposed to be Schrodinger Gamers--gamers by default until you look at them, and then go back again as soon as you stop looking at them.
I have no problem to see both the baseball players and the fans watching as part of the "baseball community", a community which shares some common interests and goals. And in the same way I don't see any problems of identifying a "roleplaying community", which consists of players, GMs, youtube audience, writers, artists etc. Because nobody is calling for including the audience in the concept of "gamers" or "players".
Quote from: Mistwell;1072478I'm not sure why this would be different for D&D. If you only watch D&D being played and never play it yourself, you're not a D&D player.
And nobody is arguing for anything else. Nobody has said that they should be called players, you are fighting against windmills.
Quote from: kythri;1072228And, I'd point out, that this is nothing new. I've been here 9-10 years, and from the get-go, people have been calling Pundy out because they disagree with him. Ironically, more often than not, time proves him correct.
Yup. Which is one of various reasons why I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. It often gives me the opportunity to say "I told you so" down the line.
Quote from: RoyR;1072506I have no problem to see both the baseball players and the fans watching as part of the "baseball community", a community which shares some common interests and goals. And in the same way I don't see any problems of identifying a "roleplaying community", which consists of players, GMs, youtube audience, writers, artists etc. Because nobody is calling for including the audience in the concept of "gamers" or "players".
As a description of the actual reality, it sucks. Other than that, nothing wrong with it. Though I know I'm channeling William Safire here, and tilting at wordsmith windmills. The debasing of the language to be imprecise, because a segment of people want it to be imprecise, is a historical trend with a pedigree as long as something you could remotely call "English" has been around (at least). It's particularly jarring in this case, because if you go back to what a "community" is, the analogy falls apart rapidly. (Picture a local community of a small town and the people immediately around it. No one calls someone that drives through occasionally on their way to somewhere else part of that community.)
For the record, I'd say that there is a gaming community (People who game), a game watching community (observers), and a game discussing community (people on message boards). There are, of course, enough people that participate in more than one of those communities to create a poor illusion that it is all one thing--if you don't make your roll to disbelieve. It was almost assured that eventually someone would use the shorthand of "gaming community" to mean all of those collectively.
We've had people pretending that people that talk on message boards about games incessantly, but never play them, are "gamers" for a long time. So this latest push is merely the latest evolution of that. Some of you are saying that no one is calling the "watchers" gamers, and this is a strange hill to die on. Yeah, except, this is a losing rearguard action to delay as long as possible the real fight, which is coming, where people start insisting that they are gamers. It's only a matter of time.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1072531As a description of the actual reality, it sucks. Other than that, nothing wrong with it. Though I know I'm channeling William Safire here, and tilting at wordsmith windmills. The debasing of the language to be imprecise, because a segment of people want it to be imprecise, is a historical trend with a pedigree as long as something you could remotely call "English" has been around (at least). It's particularly jarring in this case, because if you go back to what a "community" is, the analogy falls apart rapidly. (Picture a local community of a small town and the people immediately around it. No one calls someone that drives through occasionally on their way to somewhere else part of that community.)
I agree that the word "community" is a very vague term, so vague that is often essentially meaningless. And that is why I am so surprised in the hostile reactions to the use of it - that is a very strange hill to die on. As for the hypothetical battle you see in the future, I can't see that you are improving your position in it by using your strength attacking windmills today.
Quote from: RoyR;1072533I agree that the word "community" is a very vague term, so vague that is often essentially meaningless. And that is why I am so surprised in the hostile reactions to the use of it - that is a very strange hill to die on. As for the hypothetical battle you see in the future, I can't see that you are improving your position in it by using your strength attacking windmills today.
We are getting people on record that people who only watch games aren't gamers. Will be interesting to see which ones stick to that.
Quote from: RoyR;1072533I agree that the word "community" is a very vague term, so vague that is often essentially meaningless. And that is why I am so surprised in the hostile reactions to the use of it - that is a very strange hill to die on.
In my experience, when people on social media these days use the term 'community' in reference to hobbies, there are usually two things going on:
1) They're preparing the ground to start enforcing social norms, where declarations of commitment to certain stances on social issues will become mandatory to be included in the community.
2) They really mean 'market', but using the word 'community' is a nicer way to get lonely people to feel they're part of something bigger than themselves so they don't mind being treated like customers.
Turning an online group into a 'community' basically lubricates a push towards making it conformist, commercial, and performative.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1072535We are getting people on record that people who only watch games aren't gamers. Will be interesting to see which ones stick to that.
How is that even controversial? If I only watch football, and never play, I'm not a football player, period. If I go on football forums, play fantasy football, know 20 years of stats, etc. I'm a FAN.
That's what people who never play games but only watch them are, Gaming Fans.
Gamer's a general term though. I doubt anyone who actually watches RPGs or Video games as entertainment plays no games of that type at all.
I don’t know why because nerds are involved this whole Community bullshit becomes important.
I watch movies, I'm not an actor.
I watch porn, I'm not a pornstar.
I watch sports, I'm not an athlete.
I play games, I'm a gamer.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1072275The worse thing you can say CR is doing as a bait-n-switch.
Oh no I have all these players with incorrect expectations but after a session or two some of them get-it and stay around!
Matt Mercer is a used-car salesman (The horror!)
I think this is where I am with it. People are going to respond to what they learn according to their personalities.
Which can range anywhere from this delightful little tale:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJOvSzCYTb4
To this grinding nightmare:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WMzXmjOcik
No level of overacted tripe is going to make the DM in the first video worse; she's got a good sense of humility, enthusiasm and creativity. She'll get on, her games will rule a little more every session.
Conversely, I don't think there's any saving the guy in the second. What
does that to a human being?
Quote from: CRKrueger;1072564How is that even controversial? If I only watch football, and never play, I'm not a football player, period. If I go on football forums, play fantasy football, know 20 years of stats, etc. I'm a FAN.
That's what people who never play games but only watch them are, Gaming Fans.
Gamer's a general term though. I doubt anyone who actually watches RPGs or Video games as entertainment plays no games of that type at all.
I don't know why because nerds are involved this whole Community bullshit becomes important.
I say within 2 years from today, there will be someone that will post to this board that will say that they are gamers. I'm throwing the marker down. I'll probably forget that I've thrown it, but I'm sure someone will remember to link back to this topic eventually when it comes up again.
Quote from: Azraele;1072568I think this is where I am with it. People are going to respond to what they learn according to their personalities.
Which can range anywhere from this delightful little tale:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJOvSzCYTb4
To this grinding nightmare:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WMzXmjOcik
No level of overacted tripe is going to make the DM in the first video worse; she's got a good sense of humility, enthusiasm and creativity. She'll get on, her games will rule a little more every session.
Conversely, I don't think there's any saving the guy in the second. What does that to a human being?
He's just here to bring light to some awesome aspects of this wonderful person that we can learn from!
Or, blue haired blobby guy fancies skinny actress. News at Ten. :D
Quote from: Azraele;1072568To this grinding nightmare:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WMzXmjOcik
I couldn't get past the first 30 seconds of that squeaky narration, so I'm really not sure what Joel's point is here, but you only need to get 5 seconds in to hear more proof of Pundit's point (emphasis mine):
"... one of the best players on Critical Role, her characters are ...
written very well ..."
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1072219And if what Pundy were doing was merely talking about the issue, people probably would be universally supportive. However, he's done more, including suggesting that it is a big problem, that it is effecting lots of non-CR-crowd-people's tables (to a degree where a simple 'this isn't CR, adjust your expectations' does not solve the problem), and that Mercer's response is insufficient/disingenuous. I think that these additional positions, combined with a few beliefs that I think are creeping into this site--Pundy is bitter and vindictive of WotC/Modern gaming/anyone who is succeeding at making a living at RPGs more successfully, Pundy is trying to monetize outrage (and thus we are not the customers here, but the product), Pundy is trying to gatekeep the hobby (despite resistance to such things being a major reason a lot of people are here), etc. -- are, IMO, just highlighting some of the strains here within the site.
This.
Those worried about Critical Role steering the presumed mode of play for new players in a direction they don't like should take comfort in Matt Colville's new streaming game. Colville is a hugely influential guy in the hobby, and his mode of play is much more traditional.
I just found Colville, and am looking at some of his videos. Haven't watched any of his "actual play" stuff, and doubt I'll give it much attention, but the rest of his content, I'm liking.
Quote from: Haffrung;1073000Those worried about Critical Role steering the presumed mode of play for new players in a direction they don't like should take comfort in Matt Colville's new streaming game. Colville is a hugely influential guy in the hobby, and his mode of play is much more traditional.
I just watched a few minutes -
damn that was boring! Definitely a real game going on there! :D
Yeah, Colville is boring. Which is hugely less awful than Mercer, who is outright terrible.
Quote from: kythri;1073012I just found Colville, and am looking at some of his videos. Haven't watched any of his "actual play" stuff, and doubt I'll give it much attention, but the rest of his content, I'm liking.
I remember when Colville was just starting out. This was like late-ish 2015 I think. He did an ongoing series on the history of older D&D (1st and 2nd ed) via longform book delving and chargen. You could tell even then he was REALLY into D&D and that specific mix of medieval-ish culture and warfare flavored with copious anachronisms. He defo wasn't aiming to do what he's doing now and he was on hiatus for awhile but he got back and better than ever.
The real shame is that Colville has taken over from where Noah Antweiler left (or dropped off the map...) and he's just not in the same league and his stories just sound like something you'd get RPG.SE or something. Defo no Counter Monkey. He's done good in talking about actually useful techniques and concepts for new GMs though, I'll give him that.
Quote from: S'mon;1073020I just watched a few minutes - damn that was boring! Definitely a real game going on there! :D
You'll probably like these guys better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT_ysdpg17s&index=1&list=PL4IScHuOGRjYfD-pRygwXnMtf8TUgRZlc
YouTube recommended links strikes again! They're a bit old for me (30s-40s) but I've played in UK groups like this so it's pretty authentic and nice to hear in the background when doing chores and stuff.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073274Yeah, Colville is boring. Which is hugely less awful than Mercer, who is outright terrible.
It's funny: when Mercer was first starting out doing the CR thing, his and Colville's game really weren't that different. In fact, Colville's (and many others) is an appropriation of Mercer's original format (which itself was a in-the-flesh variant of the burgeoning live play scene on YT at the time). I genuinely think if Mercer's show had only done the quarter of that first season or so (because season 1 was essentially two or three seasons sandwiched together) that you would not have an issue with it.
Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1073651I genuinely think if Mercer's show had only done the quarter of that first season or so (because season 1 was essentially two or three seasons sandwiched together) that you would not have an issue with it.
This is generally true of any show -- whether on YouTube, cable, Hulu, etc. Every show that persists beyond the life of the good idea that spawned it inevitably jumps the shark soon thereafter.
Quote from: shuddemell;1070623I am somewhat curious, as this simulacrum seems to be more and more common among many hobbies. Is this really a larger societal trend that people prefer to watch an experience rather than to live it? And if so, what does it say about the current state of our culture?
Poker vlogs seem to be fairly popular. I know people who have pretty much given up playing but still watch the vlogs. They both say that they are using them to learn so that they can play better when they resume. I don't know of any bridge vlogs but that doesn't mean there aren't any.
I've started listening to the Glass Cannon Podcast and it's an entertaining mix of theatrical and real play.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072292Edition warring is gatekeeping, by saying 'your version is better' and those who don't agree with you are doing it 'wrong'. That is gate keeping. I don't care if you don't like it, it's still gate keeping. Deal with it.
No, because it's clear you didn't think it through. Most games will tell you to 'play it your' way, the whole 'Rule Zero' thing: If the game is doing something you or your group doesn't like, you have every right to change it in a manner that makes you all happy. After all, it's your game.
The only two games/movements that do otherwise are the OSR/Old School (did you read Gronan's response to Spinachcat's desire for an array for his older edition game?) and White Wolf's Storyteller system. The former proclaims that there was this mystical One True Way that everyone played back in the day, and the other has built in mechanics that punish you for going outside the lines (the Humanity system.)
If they are saying that, and I haven't seen it, they are wrong. At least in the New Haven area, everyone called what they were playing D&D and only one DM I played with came close to rules as written. There was probably more probably variety in mechanics in the six campaigns I played in or talked to people about than in six OSR games picked at random. My game wasn't even the farthest from RaW.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1071632Then to top it all off, because an essential part of Mercer's FAKE PERSONA is being a "nice guy" he tweets about how he just wishes he could sit down with me and talk and then we could understand each other. But he did this minutes after he was just bragging about how he can't see my posts because he has me Muted.
That is indeed poor form.
Quote from: sureshot;1071831I have yet to find a setting where the core values is just characters being quirky hipsters or tragic victims.
If such a thing were released the target demographic would likely feel victimized by it no matter how favorable the representations were. Because these people aren't a market, they're a liability, and catering to them is just a backstab waiting to happen.
Quote from: cranebump;1071914Sounds like you're pissed because he has you on mute.
To be fair, blocking someone and then claiming you want to have a discussion with them is the definition of disingenuous.
Quote from: Mistwell;1072075Mercer gets a lot of attention, so Pundit is bashing him to gain attention for himself. It's not more complicated than that. Pundit is trying to ride Mercer's coat tails, sort of like CNN rides Trump's coat tails.
I do think it's slightly more complicated than that.
Just slightly.
Quote from: Mistwell;1072075It could be Pundy is pissed Mercer is stealing his shtick. After all, The RPG Pundit is itself an act.
Which is a fair cop considering Pundit's primary complaint is that Mercer isn't genuine.
Quote from: kythri;1072228And, I'd point out, that this is nothing new. I've been here 9-10 years, and from the get-go, people have been calling Pundy out because they disagree with him. Ironically, more often than not, time proves him correct.
This is not wrong.
Quote from: camazotz;1072288I never watched Critical Role before listening to Pundit's video. After watching a few, I am left with interesting questions about what Pundit thinks the DM's job is.
He should make a video about this.
Quote from: Haffrung;1072562In my experience, when people on social media these days use the term 'community' in reference to hobbies, there are usually two things going on:
1) They're preparing the ground to start enforcing social norms, where declarations of commitment to certain stances on social issues will become mandatory to be included in the community.
2) They really mean 'market', but using the word 'community' is a nicer way to get lonely people to feel they're part of something bigger than themselves so they don't mind being treated like customers.
Turning an online group into a 'community' basically lubricates a push towards making it conformist, commercial, and performative.
Well said.
To add, a real community doesn't just depend on shared values but also
needs. An RPG community formed on #GooglePlus because it met those needs by providing video conferencing, plugins for dice and the like, and scheduling. Once those were gone the only reason to stick around was because everybody else was already there, which is why now that #GooglePlus
itself is going away the community is falling apart instead of cohesively moving to another platform.
Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1073651The real shame is that Colville has taken over from where Noah Antweiler left (or dropped off the map...)
Speaking of which... (https://youtu.be/OMSZ1TqgOIU)
Anon I think you may have misquoted me in your latest post. It's OK and I feel honored it's not everyday one is misquoted by a angry bird ;)
So, first of all, I like Matt Mercer. I think he's a nice guy. And a decent GM.
Secondly, I don't understand the problem of the "Mercer Effect" at all. For two reasons:
First of all, I consider Critical Role to be D&D. If you don't, then you should have gone into greater detail why it's not. For me (from what little I have seen), it looks a great deal like standard role-playing. Do they focus a bit less on rules and mechanics and numbers than normal? Yes. Do they come in fired up, hyping each other on good rolls or going "Oh no" for the camera on bad rolls? Yes. But it's still D&D.
Secondly, it's not even amazing role-playing sessions overall. I think Mercer is a fairly good GM. His strong side is clearly portraying different characters with voice and facial expressions. That part of his GMing is amazingly entertaining. But beyond that? He's average. Not bad, just average. When it comes to plot and pacing combats and handling challenges, etc. ... he does nothing that I or or any of my friends couldn't do as good or better. On top of that, he does the kind of D&D/WoW-style fantasy that is not my thing at all. ANd the role-playing of the players again shows their professional talent but overall, if you disregard the voice-acting, it's nothing special either.
So, in short, except for the voice-acting Critical Role has nothing that I don't find equally good (or better) in my gaming community (well, I suppose they have nice dungeons with minis but I'm considering Theatre of Mind superior anyway). And except for some compromises that goes with doing a professional internet show, it's pretty much normal role-playing. Prove me wrong.
So, if you attack Matt Mercer, Mr. Pundit, I would challenge you to elaborate a little more on these two points: How is this not D&D? And why would anyone be disappointed coming to a different D&D group, except for the lack of professional voice acting?
As long as you cannot demonstrate that, Matt Mercer has no responsibility to come out and confess to anything.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1073999So, if you attack Matt Mercer, Mr. Pundit, I would challenge you to elaborate a little more on these two points: How is this not D&D? And why would anyone be disappointed coming to a different D&D group, except for the lack of professional voice acting?
As long as you cannot demonstrate that, Matt Mercer has no responsibility to come out and confess to anything.
Read this thread, then come back.
It's a big thread.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3183[/ATTACH]
Quote from: RPGPundit;1070927But where you fail is that he didn't keep quiet, he answered in a way that was essentially a LIE.
Or maybe he disagrees with you that it's all
that different from a normal D&D session. The main differences being
- professional voice acting
- unnaturally constant cheeriness
- unnatural high attention span
- stylish gaming board and minis, I guess
Doesn't sound too different. If anyone has got something of substance to add, feel free to do so.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074009It's a big thread.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3183[/ATTACH]
LOL
and welcome to the Rpgsite
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074020Or maybe he disagrees with you that it's all that different from a normal D&D session. The main differences being
- professional voice acting
- unnaturally constant cheeriness
- unnatural high attention span
- stylish gaming board and minis, I guess
Doesn't sound too different. If anyone has got something of substance to add, feel free to do so.
That's my impression too. Differences seem more in presentation than substance. And apart from the professional voice acting Mercer doesn't do anything a competent regular GM can't do.
The "Mercer effect" is players expressing dissatisfaction with their DM because he doesn't do things the way Mercer does. A corollary effect is players reluctant to take up DMing because, with examples like Mercer and Perkins of how DMs are supposed to run a game, the bar is set intimidatingly high.
I've seen this even within the circle of the dozen or so people I've played with in the last couple years. The much greater emphasis on PC backstories, on ongoing storylines, and on voice acting - the whole performative mastery of popular streams - has changed what a lot of players think D&D is about. It's not enough simply to master the rules. To present engaging encounters. To roll some dice. The players who have thought about DMing assume they have to devote hours and hours into crafting these theatrical story-driven sessions. And they're expecting other players to provide deep PC backstory, speak in character, etc.
So while the streaming fad has been a net positive for the hobby, it does have a drawback in the distorted expectations it sets among players. I started DMing when I was 10 years old by creating and running dungeons, and that wasn't at all uncommon back in the day. That mode of play was an ideal on-ramp to running an RPG campaign. Given the expectations around what a session or campaign of D&D should involve - something closer to writing and directing a local theater production - I'd wager precious few 10 year olds are taking up DMing today.
The hobby now definitely seems something 20 year olds take up at college, not something many 10 year olds are doing unless they learn from their parents.
Greetings!
Wait a minute, please. When did roleplaying your character, "speaking in character" become some kind of exceptionally rarefied geek theater thing? I as a DM have of course voiced NPC's and monsters for decades. Also, for decades--I have taught, and encouraged all players in my group to *speak in character*. No, it's not them telling me what their character says. Say what your character says! BE YOUR CHARACTER. It can take a few sessions, but with proper enthusiasm, most people eventually get into it quite well.
Oh, and what's with all the insistence on and praise for *boredom* during the game? My players are non-stop roleplaying, listening to other's conversations, jumping into fights, screaming and laughing. Nonstop fun for 6, 8, 10 hours. Hell, we only somewhat reluctantly are eager to call a break in the fun so that we can eat--because of course, we all get famished and need to eat, too. LOL. Then it's back to pouring the drinks, passing the munchies around, and lighting up the cigars as we get back into the game-world.
Doesn't everyone do it like this?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1074130Greetings!
Wait a minute, please. When did roleplaying your character, "speaking in character" become some kind of exceptionally rarefied geek theater thing? I as a DM have of course voiced NPC's and monsters for decades. Also, for decades--I have taught, and encouraged all players in my group to *speak in character*. No, it's not them telling me what their character says. Say what your character says! BE YOUR CHARACTER. It can take a few sessions, but with proper enthusiasm, most people eventually get into it quite well.
Oh, and what's with all the insistence on and praise for *boredom* during the game? My players are non-stop roleplaying, listening to other's conversations, jumping into fights, screaming and laughing. Nonstop fun for 6, 8, 10 hours. Hell, we only somewhat reluctantly are eager to call a break in the fun so that we can eat--because of course, we all get famished and need to eat, too. LOL. Then it's back to pouring the drinks, passing the munchies around, and lighting up the cigars as we get back into the game-world.
Doesn't everyone do it like this?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Well said SHARK!
This is why I am more with the pro Mercer side on this. I am not seeing much different in his games than in the stuff I run couple times a week. Speaking in character is something almost anyone can do, and it makes the game a lot more fun for everyone else round the table. And the game generally should be fun pretty much the whole time. Those are not signs of a fake game imo.
Quote from: SHARK;1074130Greetings!
Wait a minute, please. When did roleplaying your character, "speaking in character" become some kind of exceptionally rarefied geek theater thing? I as a DM have of course voiced NPC's and monsters for decades. Also, for decades--I have taught, and encouraged all players in my group to *speak in character*. No, it's not them telling me what their character says. Say what your character says! BE YOUR CHARACTER. It can take a few sessions, but with proper enthusiasm, most people eventually get into it quite well.
Oh, and what's with all the insistence on and praise for *boredom* during the game? My players are non-stop roleplaying, listening to other's conversations, jumping into fights, screaming and laughing. Nonstop fun for 6, 8, 10 hours. Hell, we only somewhat reluctantly are eager to call a break in the fun so that we can eat--because of course, we all get famished and need to eat, too. LOL. Then it's back to pouring the drinks, passing the munchies around, and lighting up the cigars as we get back into the game-world.
Doesn't everyone do it like this?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Yes. Critical Role just does it really well so people who don't like it have turned being the opposite (boring, no roleplaying flavor) into an ideal in opposition.
I did have a slightly weird experience at the end of my last tabletop session, the second of my Primeval Thule campaign. It was just two noble ladies of House Vorzin having a conversation about retrieving some scrolls - I played Tyarna Vorzin a scholar courtier and a female player played Aeridnis Vorzin a wizard.
At the end we became aware the three male players were watching us agog. They proceded to congratulate us and gush over our "fantastic roleplaying" - I was a bit taken aback. We weren't doing anything unusual imo, though the player (a newbie) had certainly handled the discussion very well and got an agreement she would get to study the scrolls rather than hand them over right away to the Grand Vizier who Tyarna is courting.
It's not like I put on some exotic Quodethi accent or did more than sketch the scene. I did have a clear view of Tyarna's personality and goals and Daphne the player had the same for Aeridnis, which was admittedly quite impressive since Aeridnis had only been rolled up 4 hours previously.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1074153Yes. Critical Role just does it really well so people who don't like it have turned being the opposite (boring, no roleplaying flavor) into an ideal in opposition.
Greetings!
Heya Chaotic! That made me laugh! I have to ask though--these people that *don't like" Mercer's CR game--minus the professional voice actors, and the divine goddess Laura Bailey, divine singer and employed by wow/Blizzard Entertainment: https://www.bing.com/search?q=wow+daughter+of+the+sea&FORM=QSRE1 Laura Bailey is the lead vocalist for this awesome song, part of WOW's soundtrack for their latest expansion, Battle For Azeroth. Anyways, these people that *don't like* CR, I have to ask, if they aren't doing what CR is doing, at the foundation--what the hell ARE THEY DOING?
Does that make sense? LOL. I'm kind of boggled how any gamer wouldn't think everything, for the most part, that CR does, is what everyone does at home or in their restaurants, clubs, or pubs, for S'mon. LOL.:)
PS: As good as Laura Bailey is, this singer, SHARM, nails "Daughter of the Sea" even better. SHARM, I believe this girl is Irish, too. Divine voice for sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVQjyzoPH0E
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: S'mon;1074151Well said SHARK!
This is why I am more with the pro Mercer side on this. I am not seeing much different in his games than in the stuff I run couple times a week. Speaking in character is something almost anyone can do, and it makes the game a lot more fun for everyone else round the table. And the game generally should be fun pretty much the whole time. Those are not signs of a fake game imo.
Greetings!
Outstanding, S'mon! Thank you! How the hell is anyone's game--or "most" game sessions have lots of periods of being *Boring*? HUH? You know? Hell, if not for need of sleep, all of my players--all adults--just like when we played as kids and teenagers on the weekends--we would prefer to fuck it, keep playing on and on, you know? Watching movies, jerking off to your cell phone--forget that shit! I put some appropriate music on, and they're like dayum! Lets get the dice going, and get back to the game!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Surely do I speak in the voice of a given character. Do I do it all the time? Nah, most certainly not. It's hard to remember that, for example, when putting together clues to solve a mystery. Also sometimes you're lazy or not feeling as engaged. It also depends on if you have someone play with in a given group. But I have to give kudos in particular Matt Mercer who can seemingly effortlessly switch accents and intonations and is pretty entertaining with his facial expressions as well. I am not good as him in that regard, no doubt. It's not even a contest. But then again my focus is on providing mood by different means.
And if we look at young, entry-level gamers being intimidated - well, it was always bound to happen to some degree. You cannot expect them to have the same experience as those of us who have been at it for 30+ years. So there's more of an intimidation factor than in the 80s, pretty sure of that. I wouldn't call it the Mercer effect but if you insist on affixing it to his face, sure, alright. Why not.
For the record, I consider this guy to be a better GM than Mercer and if I was a freshman gamer, he would not be any less intimidating to me:
[video=youtube;AW_ASUL0k-Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW_ASUL0k-Q[/youtube]
His opening monologue is an object lesson in how to get the players immediately into your story (and forget about Critical Role entirely).
For the record, I intend to refer to it as the 'Guthrie Effect' from now on, to confuse and mock all of you. :D
Quote from: SHARK;1074159if they aren't doing what CR is doing, at the foundation--what the hell ARE THEY DOING?
For me, I'm working a day job, rather than being paid to act in a pre-scripted, predetermined-outcome D&D campaign.
As such, unfortunately, I only really have time to play a real game. No time leftover to learn the script, run lines, etc.
Quote from: kythri;1074201For me, I'm working a day job, rather than being paid to act in a pre-scripted, predetermined-outcome D&D campaign.
As such, unfortunately, I only really have time to play a real game. No time leftover to learn the script, run lines, etc.
Which beyond a select lucky few pretty much describes most people imo.
Quote from: kythri;1074201For me, I'm working a day job, rather than being paid to act in a pre-scripted, predetermined-outcome D&D campaign.
As such, unfortunately, I only really have time to play a real game. No time leftover to learn the script, run lines, etc.
It's actually more work to make a four hour script and memorize it than just play a game. Where are you pulling out this "it's scripted" thing from?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1074213It's actually more work to make a four hour script and memorize it than just play a game. Where are you pulling out this "it's scripted" thing from?
His ass, like most of his comments. Until there's evidence, it's all hot air.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1073999So, first of all, I like Matt Mercer. I think he's a nice guy. And a decent GM.
I've already given evidence above about how his "nice guy" persona is utterly fake. He's the "nice guy" who suggested everyone who didn't agree with him about the Kavanaugh hearings needed psychiatric intervention. He's the "nice guy" who pretends he wants to sit down and talk it out with me right after bragging about how he has me muted.
QuoteSo, if you attack Matt Mercer, Mr. Pundit, I would challenge you to elaborate a little more on these two points: How is this not D&D? And why would anyone be disappointed coming to a different D&D group, except for the lack of professional voice acting?
Did you watch my video? Was there anywhere that I said that Critical Role's game is "not D&D"? That's not what's at issue here. What it is, however, is people performing an improv theater show ABOUT a group of players playing D&D. Which is DIFFERENT from what the experience of just PLAYING D&D (rather than playing super excited super emotive chipper people that are super duper excited and emotional about playing a D&D game) is like.
Quote from: SHARK;1074130Greetings!
Wait a minute, please. When did roleplaying your character, "speaking in character" become some kind of exceptionally rarefied geek theater thing?
SHARK
Speaking in character is not a rarefied geek theatre thing. But people play D&D for a variety of reasons. Some like to master the rules and make kick-ass characters. Some like to do deep PC backstory. Some just show up and play. Some are just there for the beer and socializing.
I'd wager there very few D&D tables where everyone there cares deeply about PC backstory, speaks in character for virtually the entire session, never digress into off-game conversations, never fumble around with the rules, never get into long tactical debates, etc. And precious few GMs direct the whole affair like live theatre without ever looking up rules or pausing to figure something out.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1074274I've already given evidence above about how his "nice guy" persona is utterly fake. He's the "nice guy" who suggested everyone who didn't agree with him about the Kavanaugh hearings needed psychiatric intervention. He's the "nice guy" who pretends he wants to sit down and talk it out with me right after bragging about how he has me muted.
Isn't he from L.A.? Pretty sure peer pressure is quite intense in that place and in his line of business. Anyway, I don't want to get drawn into soap opera. What's between you and Mercer is none of my business, sir.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1074274Did you watch my video? Was there anywhere that I said that Critical Role's game is "not D&D"? That's not what's at issue here. What it is, however, is people performing an improv theater show ABOUT a group of players playing D&D. Which is DIFFERENT from what the experience of just PLAYING D&D (rather than playing super excited super emotive chipper people that are super duper excited and emotional about playing a D&D game) is like.
I don't understand what makes you think I haven't. When I asked "How is this not D&D?" this was obviously short form for "How is this not playing D&D?"
You were asked in #93:
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1070688Can you go into what some of the improv techniques these people are using? I don't see it when I watch so I'm curious.
Skimming over the thread I have not seen you provide any evidence-based answer. Please respond by providing links and timestamps so that we can verify how widespread this is - or isn't. Other than that, it's an unverified charge, null and void, I'm afraid.
Yeah I was interested in what people are saying but nobody ever actually gives examples.
Quote from: Haffrung;1074301Speaking in character is not a rarefied geek theatre thing. But people play D&D for a variety of reasons. Some like to master the rules and make kick-ass characters. Some like to do deep PC backstory. Some just show up and play. Some are just there for the beer and socializing.
I'd wager there very few D&D tables where everyone there cares deeply about PC backstory, speaks in character for virtually the entire session, never digress into off-game conversations, never fumble around with the rules, never get into long tactical debates, etc. And precious few GMs direct the whole affair like live theatre without ever looking up rules or pausing to figure something out.
Greetings!
LOL! Haffrung! I see what you're saying there. Of course, there's all of that which you mentioned. I agree. I was just reacting to some kind of perception that there was something wrong or suspicious, or unbelievable about players speaking in character, developing detailed backstory, and otherwise caring about their character.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1074315Yeah I was interested in what people are saying but nobody ever actually gives examples.
I'm not discounting what pundit says but I'm not going to kavanaugh Mercer, no matter his political views.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1074315Yeah I was interested in what people are saying but nobody ever actually gives examples.
Its like flat earthers. The truth that its fake is obvious. The actors are insincere untrustworthy. Any time Mercer gives gaming advice is just further proof of how untrustworthy he is.
Ive been doing improv for over ten years so if Pundit could just provide an example video or timecode to look at I can see what improv techniques they are using. But Pundit has a habit of making authoritative claims like this and avoiding any specific answers when challenged.
Quote from: Haffrung;1074301Speaking in character is not a rarefied geek theatre thing. But people play D&D for a variety of reasons....
I'd wager there very few D&D tables where everyone there cares deeply about PC backstory, speaks in character for virtually the entire session, never digress into off-game conversations, never fumble around with the rules, never get into long tactical debates, etc. And precious few GMs direct the whole affair like live theatre without ever looking up rules or pausing to figure something out.[/I]
This.
Critical Role episodes are obviously staged sessions. I watched one. They are just too damn smooth.
Not that there isn't some actual 'game' in there. The character death kinda showed that - but it is also very much a type of improve theater with a D&D game being used as their plot generator.
Now the degree to which they are staged is very much up for debate.
But a smooth as it is I wouldn't be surprised if they all reviewed an outline of some kind before play.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074303I don't understand what makes you think I haven't. When I asked "How is this not D&D?" this was obviously short form for "How is this not playing D&D?"
And I already answered what I MEANT (rather than your strawman line of questioning) in the very post you just quoted.
QuoteYou were asked in #93:
Skimming over the thread I have not seen you provide any evidence-based answer. Please respond by providing links and timestamps so that we can verify how widespread this is - or isn't. Other than that, it's an unverified charge, null and void, I'm afraid.
It's not my job to teach you improv theater. Or for that matter, to keep arguing with you when it's clear you're arguing in bad faith and nothing whatsoever would change your mind.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1074509It's not my job to teach you improv theater. Or for that matter, to keep arguing with you when it's clear you're arguing in bad faith and nothing whatsoever would change your mind.
There we go, classic sidestep. See also SJW 'It's not my job to educate you, you are obviously a bad faith arguer'. Not even a video reference? That doesn't seem like a huge effort, considering you must have watched some of Critical Role to make your video. Or even an example from memory?
I've played RPGs with actors and improvisers, and actors do get more into character and perform more, because its a skill they have. Stage actors are easier to hear in crowded conventions or game rooms because they project more. Fake talking? Or just naturally using skills they have learned in their everyday life?
Quote from: RPGPundit;1074509It's not my job to teach you improv theater. Or for that matter, to keep arguing with you when it's clear you're arguing in bad faith and nothing whatsoever would change your mind.
You're not helping your case, I'm afraid. If you make public accusations against someone else, it's incumbent
on you to demonstrate the validity of your charges. It's
not incumbent on me to do any kind of research.
Also, your response here undermines your credibility - by demonstrating that you are prone to jumping to conclusions. False conclusions at that.
Quote from: Verdant;1074517There we go, classic sidestep. See also SJW 'It's not my job to educate you, you are obviously a bad faith arguer'. Not even a video reference? That doesn't seem like a huge effort, considering you must have watched some of Critical Role to make your video. Or even an example from memory?
I've played RPGs with actors and improvisers, and actors do get more into character and perform more, because its a skill they have. Stage actors are easier to hear in crowded conventions or game rooms because they project more. Fake talking? Or just naturally using skills they have learned in their everyday life?
That's the thing. I watch them and they just seem to be using their normal acting skills from their jobs to make their RPing more colorful and that's why it's smooth. But that doesn't mean it's faked.
Also, a lot of it is just from doing this for 2 years. Everyone says Critical Role in its early days was a mess.
Quote from: Verdant;1074517There we go, classic sidestep. See also SJW 'It's not my job to educate you, you are obviously a bad faith arguer'. Not even a video reference? That doesn't seem like a huge effort, considering you must have watched some of Critical Role to make your video. Or even an example from memory?
I've played RPGs with actors and improvisers, and actors do get more into character and perform more, because its a skill they have. Stage actors are easier to hear in crowded conventions or game rooms because they project more. Fake talking? Or just naturally using skills they have learned in their everyday life?
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074523You're not helping your case, I'm afraid. If you make public accusations against someone else, it's incumbent on you to demonstrate the validity of your charges. It's not incumbent on me to do any kind of research.
Also, your response here undermines your credibility - by demonstrating that you are prone to jumping to conclusions. False conclusions at that.
Once you guys hang here a month, you'll realize that this is the Pundit's MO, he makes grand assertions, never backs them up and then accuses others of maligning him. Watch out for his hangers-on, they'll do the same. But really, they're harmless and you're allowed to have your own opinions here, even if no one will agree with them.
Quote from: Haffrung;1074301I'd wager there very few D&D tables where everyone there cares deeply about PC backstory, speaks in character for virtually the entire session, never digress into off-game conversations, never fumble around with the rules, never get into long tactical debates, etc. And precious few GMs direct the whole affair like live theatre without ever looking up rules or pausing to figure something out.
But the last point can't be about Critical Role, as Matt Mercer definitely picks up the rulebooks from time to time to look something up. (Or the cellphone to look it up online.) What he does really well though is that he often makes a quick ruling, even if not perfectly RAW, and keeps the game going. And the group is really good in accepting the GMs ruling, and keep themselves from arguing at the table. This makes for a smooth game that is not bogged down on details, and something that I would recommend for most RPG games.
And he is really fortunate in having been able to collect a group of players that are really interested in the style of RPG that they are playing, who (mostly) keeps a focus on the game and (also mostly) refrains from metagaming, also known as "tactical debates".
They're actors, so obviously they're predisposed to have their tastes run in that direction. It's not really unlikely at all. Like if you had a bunch of military guys being really into war gaming.
Also they DO have off topic conversations and you can see Matt get annoyed when it happens.
People should actually watch them play instead of what they imagine is happening.
They even had a That Guy™ that would argue with Matt and try to powergame everything that they had to kick out.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1074544That's the thing. I watch them and they just seem to be using their normal acting skills from their jobs to make their RPing more colorful and that's why it's smooth. But that doesn't mean it's faked....
Again, CR is not just smooth due to the vocation of the participants; it's
Too Smooth.
It's is absolutely
Staged to
some degree.
For Example:
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074020Or maybe he disagrees with you that it's all that different from a normal D&D session. The main differences being
- professional voice acting
- unnaturally constant cheeriness
- unnatural high attention span
- stylish gaming board and minis, I guess
....
By your own admission, what they are doing is
Unnatural.
It's just too clean for everyone not to be consciously making a Staged presentation to an audience.
Virtually no out of character cross talk. Almost no looking at cell phones. Everyone is hyper attentive to Mercers GM soliloquy's. Like really attentive. And his prolonged soliloquies are obviously written ahead of time. No pauses to think what to say next, just smooth delivery with occasional downward glances at some notes.
No Editing of the actual play (I'm sure that stuff like music and character stat pop ups are added in post). The lack of editing is a big tell that they are all on the same page with what they are doing. Combat really tells the story. No hesitation from the players what they want to do when it is their turn. No pausing and weighing of options, no questions about in game effect to the GM, Ever. WTF.
No out of character tactical debates among the players of how to deal with a threat. 7 players who never have out of character debates of what to do next. They are all in general agreement with what they are all doing. All the time. With 7 different players? That's 100% Unnatural.
They are in character and super smooth
all the time. Almost 100% On point for 3 hours!?
Impossible without being
staged to some degree.
Too Smooth too Unnatural.
It is an obvious Staged presentation.
If you are not being dazzled by the smooth presentation and production values, and pay attention to what is actually going on (or rather what is
not going on) during play, it is obviously not an "authentic" game session.
There is some actual game there - they are using the D&D game as a type of randomizer of results.
But to pull of what they are doing, takes skill, talent and
planning.
Luckily, they all happen to be trained Voice actors and actresses;)
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1074610People should actually watch them play instead of what they imagine is happening.
Take your own advice.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1074610Also they DO have off topic conversations and you can see Matt get annoyed when it happens.
Absolutely he'd get annoyed, because when it happens, (which is much rarer than in real groups) it detracts from the presentation.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1074610They even had a That Guy™ that would argue with Matt and try to powergame everything that they had to kick out.
Wasn't down with the program. Detracted from the presentation. Had to go.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1074610They're actors, so obviously they're predisposed to have their tastes run in that direction. It's not really unlikely at all.
100% unlikely that it is coincidence the group is composed of people with the skills to pull off what they are doing.
Why can't they just be a good player group with mature players who're dedicated?
I have groups where nobody talks out of character. Not every group has to be full of tactical gamers who argue OOC what to do. In fact, I forbid it in my own games. I also run online games on roll20 where everyone is super attentive for 4 to sometimes *EIGHT* hours! And it's all in character. I concede they do ask rule questions though, but Matt also opens the rulebook to answer Qs now and then, and his reading written text is pretty old hat for GMs.
I guess if you never played that way it does look unnatural, but to me it just looks like how we normally play but they're just better at it.
Meanwhile my offline group has exactly the traits you mentioned, but they're all "problem solving" players who mostly play to plan their way around obstacles rather than play out personalities.
People think because the CR guys are playing to live out a personality that it's not real, but it's just them having a different preference for the type of D&D they play.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074625Virtually no out of character cross talk. Almost no looking at cell phones. Everyone is hyper attentive to Mercers GM soliloquy's. Like really attentive. And his prolonged soliloquies are obviously written ahead of time. No pauses to think what to say next, just smooth delivery with occasional downward glances at some notes.
That Matt's descriptions often are written in advance is no secret, and I don't think anybody has argued otherwise
Quote from: Jaeger;1074625No Editing of the actual play (I'm sure that stuff like music and character stat pop ups are added in post). The lack of editing is a big tell that they are all on the same page with what they are doing. Combat really tells the story. No hesitation from the players what they want to do when it is their turn. No pausing and weighing of options, no questions about in game effect to the GM, Ever. WTF.
The music and some of the on-screen graphics are done live. I believe the music is played by Matt using Syrinscape.
And the players are definitely hesitating sometimes on what they should do next. Though they are really good at being attentive, and having mostly thought through what to do when it is their turn. And Matt is often telling the next player in turn after the current one to get ready to keep the game flowing. So if you are watching some episodes you will encounter many instances where the players are unsure of their actions, or even try to do something that is not within the rules. This has been such a common occurrence that some of the players have been heavily criticized for not learning their own characters capabilities.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074625No out of character tactical debates among the players of how to deal with a threat. 7 players who never have out of character debates of what to do next. They are all in general agreement with what they are all doing. All the time. With 7 different players? That's 100% Unnatural.
They are really good at not giving each other tactical tips out of character. That is to say, they are really good at not metagaming. Which is something I would love some players to learn from.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1074626Why can't they just be a good player group with mature players who're dedicated?
You're dazzled.
Nobody is that smooth and dedicated, without a conscious effort for 3 hours straight.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1074626...I guess if you never played that way it does look unnatural, but to me it just looks like how we normally play but they're just better at it.
But they're not "just better at it."
They're better at it 100% of the time every session. Super smooth, Virtually No glitches. That's an intentional effect.
Intentional effects take effort and planning.
Yes mercer was rougher in the early days. So what? He saw a winning formula and ran towards it.
He had speed bumps, but when you watch his latest videos, a presentation that smooth with no editing is only achieved through some degree of Staging.
Mercer had to consciously plan what he wanted his videos to be like, and select his group of players to get to that point.
To what
degree the game sessions are staged it totally up for debate. But there is a lot of thought and planning that goes into what you see. It is too polished not to be.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074633To what degree the game sessions are staged it totally up for debate. But there is a lot of thought and planning that goes into what you see. It is too polished not to be.
Matt knows that he will have thousands of viewers following his campaign, so it is natural he is more prepared than the general GM. I know I would be in those circumstances, for sure.
And you are missing the role of selection: there are hundreds of streamed RPG games, and this one has one of the largest followings, and thus we are talking about it. Part of the reason is that they happen to have only very dedicated people involved. And there is nothing strange about that, as at least one out of the hundreds of games should have that by pure chance, even if the typical game only have one or two persons that are that dedicated.
Quote from: RoyR;1074629That Matt's descriptions often are written in advance is no secret, and I don't think anybody has argued otherwise. The music and some of the on-screen graphics are done live. I believe the music is played by Matt using Syrinscape.
Just one data point among many that all points to the planning involved into making the presentation smooth.
Quote from: RoyR;1074629And the players are definitely hesitating sometimes on what they should do next. Though they are really good at being attentive, and having mostly thought through what to do when it is their turn. And Matt is often telling the next player in turn after the current one to get ready to keep the game flowing. So if you are watching some episodes you will encounter many instances where the players are unsure of their actions, or even try to do something that is not within the rules. This has been such a common occurrence that some of the players have been heavily criticized for not learning their own characters capabilities.
Pointing out exceptions in
some episodes does not disprove the general rule. The fact that they are hitting so close to an "Ideal" form of game play that they get criticized for their missteps should be telling in and of itself.
You just don't get that close to an "Ideal" without planning and forethought beforehand.
Quote from: RoyR;1074629They are really good at not giving each other tactical tips out of character. That is to say, they are really good at not metagaming. Which is something I would love some players to learn from.
Which is absolutely intentional! It has to be, to be that good.
I've done podcasts (non RPG related.), and GM'd my share for games.
You just don't get to the degree of polish and presentation Mercer has gotten to in CR Videos, without significant planning and preparation behind the scenes.
Quote from: RoyR;1074634Matt knows that he will have thousands of viewers following his campaign, so it is natural he is more prepared than the general GM. I know I would be in those circumstances, for sure.
But he didn't get those 1000's of viewers overnight. His presentation is intentionally done to be as good as it is to grab and retain audience.
Quote from: RoyR;1074629And you are missing the role of selection: there are hundreds of streamed RPG games, and this one has one of the largest followings, and thus we are talking about it. Part of the reason is that they happen to have only very dedicated people involved. And there is nothing strange about that, as at least one out of the hundreds of games should have that by pure chance, even if the typical game only have one or two persons that are that dedicated.
LOL! There is nothing "Pure Chance" about a CR game session. It is too polished to leave totally up to chance.
The only "role of selection" happening is Mercer's drive to present a highly polished presentation.
On this very thread; By it's defenders own admissions, players who weren't down with the program were kicked to the curb! By it's defenders own admissions, the degree to which the players project cheeriness, have a high attention span, and talk in character 100% of the time is
unnatural.I have got to give it up to Mercer, his bedazzlement powers are strong. I guess the idea that there is a group out there that can actually have such Idealized gaming sessions, is too strong a dream for some to admit that it can't be 100% real.
Greetings!
Jaeger, you make some excellent points, and I appreciate your detailed breakdown of *how* the show is worked out. I agree. I think if I was to get 7 or 8 friends together, to play D&D and at the same time have it filmed LIVE in front of thousands of viewers--you damn straight we would have a lot of planning. I would say hey, study your abilities, know your characters, have your shit DOWN. Make notes, have this shit together. Would you want to be the one doofus that fucks the show up in front of thousands of viewers? I know I wouldn't. I can also see how he would insist on everyone training themselves to NOT ask stupid questions, don't get into stupid debates, and learn to perform, but also to just run with shit more, and not interrupt or sidetrack the game. Yes it's a game, but also a SHOW. Before thousands of people, watching. Noone wants to watch Doofus A and Doofus B have some stupid argument about tactics for 20 minutes. Yeah, that shit's not happening, you know? Also training and being aware NOT to engage in metagaming. Just focus on doing your character, performing, and listening to the others, and pay the fuck attention to the DM. These are all absolutely ESSENTIAL for the show to be a success.
Otherwise, if these disciplines were not learned and adhered to, the show would be stupid and boring like most all of the other video shows of game sessions. That's why the other shows are obscure and not watched very much, while CR has a huge fanbase and is watched regularly with a crazy popular following.
Good stuff. There's some neat things that can be embraced by home groups, for certain. But CR is a SHOW, first and foremost. That doesn't mean it isn't also a game session, but there are simply essentials that must be adhered to, if the show is to be successful, interesting, and entertaining. The scope is much different. Home game: DM and players. That's it. A You-Tube Show? DM, players, and thousands of fans viewing the show, every week. That changes a whole lot of things in how you have to go about running and organizing things.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: RoyR;1074629They are really good at not giving each other tactical tips out of character. That is to say, they are really good at not metagaming. Which is something I would love some players to learn from.
Agreed. And it's something that most people are perfectly capable of. I have players who watch Critical Role and are trying to model their game off it to some extent, so I'm going to ask them to take a page from the show and not metagame so much.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074642You just don't get to the degree of polish and presentation Mercer has gotten to in CR Videos, without significant planning and preparation behind the scenes.
Do I understand you correctly that what you are criticizing now is that Matt is actually too well prepared for a game as a GM?
Because it obviously is very well prepared sessions, but I never thought that I would see that as an example of some kind of fake or bad GMing. Rather the opposite.
Quote from: RoyR;1074648Do I understand you correctly that what you are criticizing now is that Matt is actually too well prepared for a game as a GM?
Because it obviously is very well prepared sessions, but I never thought that I would see that as an example of some kind of fake or bad GMing. Rather the opposite.
No, you purposely understood me incorrectly.
Never said he was a fake or bad GM. Just his extensive prep is
one data point along with the others I pointed out, that when taken as a whole, show how well STAGED the CR game sessions are.
All you just did was put words in my mouth, and tried to derail the debate over a side issue, without having to address my argument as a whole.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074655No, you purposely understand me incorrectly.
Never said he was a fake or bad GM. Just his extensive prep is one data point along with the others I pointed out, that when taken as a whole, show how well STAGED the CR game sessions are.
All you just did was put words in my mouth, and tried to derail the debate, without having to address my argument as a whole.
No. I stated my understanding of your point in my own words, and asked you if I had got it correctly. Which I hadn't. Thanks for that.
But now I'm unsure what your point actually is. Could I humbly ask you to restate your argument regarding Critical Role?
Quote from: SHARK;1074646Greetings!
Jaeger, you make some excellent points, and I appreciate your detailed breakdown of *how* the show is worked out. I agree. I think if I was to get 7 or 8 friends together, to play D&D and at the same time have it filmed LIVE in front of thousands of viewers--you damn straight we would have a lot of planning. ... Also training and being aware NOT to engage in metagaming. Just focus on doing your character, performing, and listening to the others, and pay the fuck attention to the DM. These are all absolutely ESSENTIAL for the show to be a success.
Otherwise, if these disciplines were not learned and adhered to, the show would be stupid and boring like most all of the other video shows of game sessions. That's why the other shows are obscure and not watched very much, while CR has a huge fanbase and is watched regularly with a crazy popular following. ...
This.
And these things have to be done intentionally.
To consistently put out that degree of
professional presentation is not some thing that just organically happens by chance.
Why some people have a hard time accepting this, I do not understand.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074642LOL! There is nothing "Pure Chance" about a CR game session. It is too polished to leave totally up to chance.
The only "role of selection" happening is Mercer's drive to present a highly polished presentation.
On this very thread; By it's defenders own admissions, players who weren't down with the program were kicked to the curb! By it's defenders own admissions, the degree to which the players project cheeriness, have a high attention span, and talk in character 100% of the time is unnatural.
And here you misunderstand my point. Which was that with hundreds of streamed games, one will have the highest concentration of dedicated players. And as that one will be the most enjoyable to watch, it will be that one that we discuss. And it seems to be Critical Role. That was the role of selection I was discussing.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074657This.
And these things have to be done intentionally.
To consistently put out that degree of professional presentation is not some thing that just organically happens by chance.
Why some people have a hard time accepting this, I do not understand.
But I don't see anything in what Shark writes that is controversial. This as it is consistent with playing a game of DnD, live, for an audience. Which puts demands on careful planning from the GM of the session for it to be enjoyable, as with most other RPG sessions. And I don't think any of the fans of Critical Role will have a problem with what Shark is stating either.
Quote from: RoyR;1074661But I don't see anything in what Shark writes that is controversial. This as it is consistent with playing a game of DnD, live, for an audience. Which puts demands on careful planning from the GM of the session for it to be enjoyable, ...
Look again at what he actually wrote:
Quote from: SHARK;1074646...
Jaeger, you make some excellent points, and I appreciate your detailed breakdown of *how* the show is worked out. I agree. I think if I was to get 7 or 8 friends together, to play D&D and at the same time have it filmed LIVE in front of thousands of viewers--you damn straight we would have a lot of planning...
Yup, that's right. We.
As in the GM and players planning together for how the session will be Staged.
They are all in on it.
Quote from: SHARK;1074646...There's some neat things that can be embraced by home groups, for certain. But CR is a SHOW, first and foremost.
SSSHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...............
Don't tell anyone. If you do, they won't believe you.
Quote from: RoyR;1074656No. I stated my understanding of your point in my own words, and asked you if I had got it correctly. Which I hadn't. Thanks for that.
But now I'm unsure what your point actually is. Could I humbly ask you to restate your argument regarding Critical Role?
LOL! Nice try!
I salute your brazenness!
You even threw in a thank you and a humbly! I give you a 5.6 on disguising your intentional obtuseness just to mess with me.
Shark got it. And I'm sure he isn't the only one that had no trouble getting what I was saying.
Believe what you want to believe pal.
At this point if everything I was saying is beyond your ability to comprehend, then Mercers bedazzlement spell on you is just too strong.
I bow to his superior sorcery, after all, not everyone you talk to will want put down the kool-aid.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074481Critical Role episodes are obviously staged sessions. I watched one. They are just too damn smooth.
What do you define as "staged"?
Being done in front of an audience? Critical Role definitely is.
Being done on a set? Also true for Critical Role.
Having lighting, sound and makeup? Also true.
Being well prepared? Looks true also, as in that the GM has done some careful planning of the session.
Being scripted, as in having the order of things happening being defined and communicated to the players in advance? I would say highly unlikely.
Or do you have anything else in mind when you use the word "staged"?
Quote from: Jaeger;1074662Look again at what he actually wrote:
....
As in the GM and players planning together for how the session will be Staged.
They are all in on it.
We seem to have different interpretations of what Shark meant by the word "planned". You seem to interpret it as "scripted", I as guidelines (table rules) for an RPG game session.
OK hold on.
You say "staged" which I presume to mean people are memorizing their lines and playing it all out like an actual TV show.
But then you point out stuff like them just preparing, and Matt picking players who want to have that kind of in depth RP experience. That's not staging! That's just preparing and being "on" for the cameras. So in that sense, yes, it's different than a home game! Of course it is! Everyone already pointed out you don't want to be the idiot that ruins it in for everyone in front of the cameras.
In that sense, YES, of COURSE, it's a produced professional show. But that's just the players and Matt being on good behavior so they can make a good stream. That doesn't mean they are pre-planning the story or plotting out what's going to happen or Matt is showing an outline.
They aren't even as perfect as you say. The players make mistakes all the time; the one player death in the second campaign of CR was from the player not reading his own abilities. They make dumb mistakes all the time. Matt just lets them get away with it a lot (which he's criticized for).
So, first of all, I am confused what I am arguing against
Against that claim that they bringing out
their best Sunday suit for a professional on-camera RPG sessions? (How dare they!)
Or against the claim that it's
significantly scripted - beyond what goes on in a normal RPG session with a pre-written adventure?
It would be nice to know.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074625Virtually no out of character cross talk. Almost no looking at cell phones. Everyone is hyper attentive to Mercers GM soliloquy's. Like really attentive.
Boy, would I be pissed if I was to stage a professional-level on-camera actual play and this wasn't the case with my players.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074625And his prolonged soliloquies are obviously written ahead of time. No pauses to think what to say next, just smooth delivery with occasional downward glances at some notes.
A GM having a prepared, clear mental image of a scene, similar to boxed text in a published scenario? Virtually unheard of!
You're not helping your case but I enjoy playing - so I'll go along.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074625Combat really tells the story. No hesitation from the players what they want to do when it is their turn. No pausing and weighing of options, no questions about in game effect to the GM, Ever. WTF.
That's because Mercer is obviously what Paranoia RPG referred to as limp-wristed GM. He's going easy on the players because it makes for better entertainment value. The players know their PCs are unlikely to die. That's why there's no need to extensive arguing (which I am certain they want to avoid because it is bound to be confusing to look at and thus detracts from the viewing experience). It's quite likely that there is some behind-the-scenes agreement that he'll go lightly on them - if they avoid extensive arguments and tactical analysis paralysis in return.
I have played under GMs like that - in non-public sessions. So, it's wrong to not consider it roleplay. It's just not a good representative of what your average role-playing campaign looks like, at least in my gaming circles. Although my friends are also kinda limp-wristed (whereas I am the tough He-Man GM).
Quote from: Jaeger;1074625If you are not being dazzled by the smooth presentation and production values, and pay attention to what is actually going on (or rather what is not going on) during play, it is obviously not an "authentic" game session.
Their goal is NOT to be representative of 50% of games out there. It's to be entertaining to viewers and that involved keeping the action going. They're bringing their A-game because they get attention and money for doing so.
That's a far cry from being anymore scripted than any adventure that I have run. How is this
tantamount to being actors that play role-players playing a role-playing game?
I am losing my patience with the nonsense in this thread.
Quote from: RoyR;1074629That Matt's descriptions often are written in advance is no secret, and I don't think anybody has argued otherwise
Prepared descriptions of a scene or character? Astounding!
Quote from: RoyR;1074629So if you are watching some episodes you will encounter many instances where the players are unsure of their actions, or even try to do something that is not within the rules.
I haven't managed to sit through a single full episode (even though I am clearly bedazzled by hypnotic Mr Mercer) and evem I know that. My main exposure comes from analyzing combat and particularly how much time they spend on a couple of things during combat. Very helpful reference in designing your own system.
That said, you will have to admit that they make sure the action never grinds to a halt for long. Because of the audience. Why anyone would hold that against them is beyond me though. It's just a fast-paced game.
Quote from: RoyR;1074629They are really good at not giving each other tactical tips out of character. That is to say, they are really good at not metagaming. Which is something I would love some players to learn from.
Be a limp-wristed GM and communicate to your players that they don't need to do meta-gaming to get ahead. That's really it.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074633Nobody is that smooth and dedicated, without a conscious effort for 3 hours straight.
Unless they're on camera and getting paid for it. You can be sure that if I was on Critical Role, I would be just the same.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074633He had speed bumps, but when you watch his latest videos, a presentation that smooth with no editing is only achieved through some degree of Staging.
We should be careful to not reach staged-moonlanding levels of reasoning here... or maybe we shouldn't!
Quote from: Jaeger;1074633To what degree the game sessions are staged it totally up for debate. But there is a lot of thought and planning that goes into what you see. It is too polished not to be.
Fair enough.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074642You just don't get that close to an "Ideal" without planning and forethought beforehand.
It's impossible to be concentrated in front of a camera for 4 hours, including a half-time break! (Especially after how many episodes of experience with that now?)
I think you're underestimating how group psychology works - who of those wants to stick out like a sore thumb and be the one derailing/disturbing the game on camera? Repeatedly. It takes much less discipline than you think.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074642Which is absolutely intentional! It has to be, to be that good. [...]
I have got to give it up to Mercer, his bedazzlement powers are strong. I guess the idea that there is a group out there that can actually have such Idealized gaming sessions, is too strong a dream for some to admit that it can't be 100% real.
Sounds more like jealousy, tbqh, famalam. And I'm not even a fan of the show (or d20 in general).
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074745That's because Mercer is obviously what Paranoia RPG referred to as limp-wristed GM. He's going easy on the players because it makes for better entertainment value.
I definitely run games that resemble what I've seen of Critical Role, where the players plunge in roleplaying/hamming it up like crazy, the pace of action is breakneck, and the energy levels stay high the whole session. My new 3-hour Primeval Thule sessions have been very like that.
I also run much more adversarial games and yes they are often much slower paced. In the middle of a tough battle in Rise of the Runelords recently a player asked "Can we break here and restart next week when we have a plan?" - obviously I said no. :D
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074745So, first of all, I am confused what I am arguing against...
This is clear.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074745I haven't managed to sit through a single full episode
This is also clear.
Think they might be related?
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074745Or against the claim that it's significantly scripted - beyond what goes on in a normal RPG session with a pre-written adventure?
Please show one post that I made that makes that claim.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074745I am losing my patience with the nonsense in this thread.
Think how I must feel.
People can't even be bothered to look up the actual definition of Stage or Staged!
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074745It's just not a good representative of what your average role-playing campaign looks like, ....
Agreed.
Because:
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074745Their goal is NOT to be representative of 50% of games out there. It's to be entertaining to viewers and that involved keeping the action going. They're bringing their A-game because they get attention and money for doing so.
I have been saying that very same thing ad-nauseam.
Even to you, the following is Obvious:
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074745That's because Mercer is obviously what Paranoia RPG referred to as limp-wristed GM. He's going easy on the players because it makes for better entertainment value. The players know their PCs are unlikely to die. That's why there's no need to extensive arguing (which I am certain they want to avoid because it is bound to be confusing to look at and thus detracts from the viewing experience). It's quite likely that there is some behind-the-scenes agreement that he'll go lightly on them - if they avoid extensive arguments and tactical analysis paralysis in return.
By your own admission of what is obviously going on:
1: "...easy on the players because it makes for better entertainment value."
2: "players know their PCs are unlikely to die."
3: "...quite likely that there is some
behind-the-scenes agreement..."
Doing all three things for the sake of "entertainment", means that what CR does is
by definition not an authentic game of D&D.When something is not authentic people often use an interchangeable phrase: "It's Fake!"
It is not real.
CR is a Staged Game that does not represent the way D&D is actually played.
Your own observations prove this to be true.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074825This is clear.
This is also clear.
Think they might be related?
Please show one post that I made that makes that claim.
Think how I must feel.
People can't even be bothered to look up the actual definition of Stage or Staged!
Agreed.
Because:
I have been saying that very same thing ad-nauseam.
Even to you, the following is Obvious:
By your own admission of what is obviously going on:
1: "...easy on the players because it makes for better entertainment value."
2: "players know their PCs are unlikely to die."
3: "...quite likely that there is some behind-the-scenes agreement..."
Doing all three things for the sake of "entertainment", means that what CR does is by definition not an authentic game of D&D.
When something is not authentic people often use an interchangeable phrase: "It's Fake!"
It is not real.
CR is a Staged Game that does not represent the way D&D is actually played.
Your own observations prove this to be true.
Greetings!
QED. :)
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Jaeger;1074825CR is a Staged Game that does not represent the way D&D is actually played.
It seems to be less fake than a lot of the actual games I see discussed online! A lot of GMs absolutely won't kill the PCs, ever!
Quote from: Jaeger;1074825Please show one post that I made that makes that claim.
There is nothing in that post that indicates that the segment was specifically directed at you. In fact, its placement indicates that it's not. It was meant to express that it would be nice if the people who criticize CR could get some consensus on what the actual problem is. It would help clear things up and make my life easier.
Quote from: Jaeger;10748251: "...easy on the players because it makes for better entertainment value."
2: "players know their PCs are unlikely to die."
3: "...quite likely that there is some behind-the-scenes agreement..."
Doing all three things for the sake of "entertainment", means that what CR does is by definition not an authentic game of D&D.
By your definition. You will not find agreement from me here. I
specifically and preemptively pointed out above that I have been in games where the GM has been lenient on the players (and I guess I have to add that it was readily apparent to the players, even without explicitly expressing it). To no avail, it seems.
Or do you take umbrage with the explicit agreement (which is not established fact, mind you)? Or should they have made that agreement in front of the cameras: "Don't worry, dear audience: no PC is going to die here, no matter how grim things might look like."
Quote from: Jaeger;1074825CR is a Staged Game that does not represent the way D&D is actually played.
Yeah, it's radically different from D&D/other role-playing, hardly recognizable... I suppose there are scores and scores of experienced D&D GMs that take a look at CR and say: "No, this is fake, this is inauthentic." Unless they're too bedazzled by Matt Mercer...
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074833..
Yeah, it's radically different from D&D/other role-playing, hardly recognizable... I suppose there are scores and scores of experienced D&D GMs that take a look at CR and say: "No, this is fake, this is inauthentic." Unless they're too bedazzled by Matt Mercer...
We are in agreement then. Fantastic.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074825It is not real.
Welcome to D&D! None of it is real.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074825CR is a Staged Game that does not represent the way D&D is actually played.
Citation needed. Making wild accusations like this NEED proof.
Quote from: Jaeger;1074825Your own observations prove this to be true.
Do they? Do they really? Or are they based ENTIRELY on opinion?
Don't bother.
Quote from: Jaeger;10748253: "...quite likely that there is some behind-the-scenes agreement..."
As you seem to be unwilling to answer my previous questions, I add a new one (as hope springs eternal):
Could you outline what you think is covered in this alleged agreement?
The accusations of "it's staged!" seem more like "good/professional manners" to me, if you know you're going to be on a televised broadcast.
They are actors. Every time they're on-screen, it's an audition, whether they know it or not. Good sense would be to make sure they come across as animated and engaged during the session.
A better argument for it being somewhat staged is that a pregnant woman and several gamers who are regularly eating and drinking for 4 hour shifts, with a singular 15 minute break, never have to get up and use the restroom during normal game time.
Even an agreement to take it easy on rules contesting isn't any different than what most players and GMs have, as an informal understanding of what's appropriate. There's a big difference between "good manners" and "this is scripted."
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074020- unnaturally constant cheeriness
- unnatural high attention span
Again, that's the part where they're ACTING. No one would care if they just used their acting skills to portray the characters; it's that they use their acting skills to portray a player who's super-excited and super-emotive, like some housewife in a tv ad being near orgasmic about finding a better household cleanser.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1075458Again, that's the part where they're ACTING. No one would care if they just used their acting skills to portray the characters; it's that they use their acting skills to portray a player who's super-excited and super-emotive, like some housewife in a tv ad being near orgasmic about finding a better household cleanser.
It doesn't take a trained actor. Give me a 100 bucks and I'll be really attentive and engaged for 4 hours as well.
I can't stand these kinds of videos long enough to watch them, so take this as the uninformed opinion that it is:
It seems from the descriptions that y'all are making that the "staging" is somewhat akin to what professional sports announcers do. Obviously, they don't know the exact direction of everything (i.e. not "scripted"), but they do have a very good idea of some of the possibilities, and have "rehearsed" dealing with those. No one pretends that the two or three people in the booth (backed by their legion of stat guys, camera guys, etc.) are aware of the outcome before it start, but no one pretends that they are the same thing as people watching at home, however well prepared or informed, either.
You can't observe something involving other people without potentially changing it. And the more obviously observed it is, the more likely and dramatic the changes. That's proven human psychology.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1075491I can't stand these kinds of videos long enough to watch them, so take this as the uninformed opinion that it is:
It seems from the descriptions that y'all are making that the "staging" is somewhat akin to what professional sports announcers do. Obviously, they don't know the exact direction of everything (i.e. not "scripted"), but they do have a very good idea of some of the possibilities, and have "rehearsed" dealing with those. No one pretends that the two or three people in the booth (backed by their legion of stat guys, camera guys, etc.) are aware of the outcome before it start, but no one pretends that they are the same thing as people watching at home, however well prepared or informed, either.
You can't observe something involving other people without potentially changing it. And the more obviously observed it is, the more likely and dramatic the changes. That's proven human psychology.
I like your analysis. But it leaves the question - does this make it fake? And if so, is it then possible to stream a game that is not fake?
People are on good behavior for the cameras but that doesn't make it fake, any more than anything else on TV is being fake. Obviously you don't act like you're sitting in your underwear at home when you're on TV. But you're still you.
Quote from: Haffrung;1074077The "Mercer effect" is players expressing dissatisfaction with their DM because he doesn't do things the way Mercer does. A corollary effect is players reluctant to take up DMing because, with examples like Mercer and Perkins of how DMs are supposed to run a game, the bar is set intimidatingly high.
And as noted before. This is not just limited to YouTube replays. It goes back at least as far as the 80s and definitly the 90s where there were players expecting big dungeon dioramas with minis and 3d terrain for example, or those believing minis were needed to play and thus not getting into the game.
And as also noted. There are allways going to be people who see one example of something and for god unknown reasons become mentally locked in believing this is how all gaming is everywhere forever. It is not limited to RPGs. Seen it in board games, animation, writing, LARPing, costuming, freaking model rocketry even.
Quote from: RoyR;1075500I like your analysis. But it leaves the question - does this make it fake? And if so, is it then possible to stream a game that is not fake?
Well, if my analogy holds, it isn't a binary question. A sport broadcast is
always somewhat fake. Parts of it are; parts of it are not.
It is not possible to stream a game without changing how the game is played. As in, whatever the players think about it, they will change. Now, it is possible to deliberately play in the way that one would as if it were streamed, even when it is not. So over time, it would eventually become true that streaming that particular group wouldn't alter how they played in any measureable way. They play the "streamed way" whether they are actually streamed or not. In the same way that a sports caster will have developed habits of speech and mind that will not completely turn off, even when the cameras aren't rolling.
You get a similar dynamic in a courtroom when the proceedings are televised. That's a more serious example, because it has potentially serious consequences for the people involved.
My gut reaction--and a big part of why I don't watch streamed games--is that I find them either unwatchable or inauthentic. For the subset of "inauthentic" that might be called "fake", I suppose I find them fake. I'm not sure that helps much. I'd say "inauthentic" is less forceful than "fake" on the surface, but probably more damning in the long run. The more charitable interpretation is, "changed to be so different that is its own thing."
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1075516Well, if my analogy holds, it isn't a binary question. A sport broadcast is always somewhat fake. Parts of it are; parts of it are not.
It is not possible to stream a game without changing how the game is played. As in, whatever the players think about it, they will change. Now, it is possible to deliberately play in the way that one would as if it were streamed, even when it is not. So over time, it would eventually become true that streaming that particular group wouldn't alter how they played in any measureable way. They play the "streamed way" whether they are actually streamed or not. In the same way that a sports caster will have developed habits of speech and mind that will not completely turn off, even when the cameras aren't rolling.
You get a similar dynamic in a courtroom when the proceedings are televised. That's a more serious example, because it has potentially serious consequences for the people involved.
My gut reaction--and a big part of why I don't watch streamed games--is that I find them either unwatchable or inauthentic. For the subset of "inauthentic" that might be called "fake", I suppose I find them fake. I'm not sure that helps much. I'd say "inauthentic" is less forceful than "fake" on the surface, but probably more damning in the long run. The more charitable interpretation is, "changed to be so different that is its own thing."
I agree that doing something in front of an audience of any kind, if only of one or a single microphone, do change how people behave. So if your definition of an authentic game is that the game is done without any audience at all, then it follows that streamed games are inauthentic. One interesting aspect of this would be how you see games of strangers, or games in public places like at a convention. Because also here people change how they behave and thus are, to a varying degree, inauthentic by this use of the word.
But listening to Pundit I don't think this is the whole issue that he has with Critical Role. This as he is stressing that Critical Role is a "show" and neither "real" nor "real dnd", but he fails to state what he defines as a "show" or "real". Or that being inauthentic is what Jaeger is defining as "staged".
I think the main 'Mercer Effect' is that among new players these days I get a higher proportion of good looking, well dressed, young professionals, and fewer catpissmen - though the latter were always pretty rare.
Edit: I do have one new guy who doesn't actually smell of cat urine, but his aspergery PMs are starting to annoy me.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1075491I can't stand these kinds of videos long enough to watch them, so take this as the uninformed opinion that it is:
It seems from the descriptions that y'all are making that the "staging" is somewhat akin to what professional sports announcers do. Obviously, they don't know the exact direction of everything (i.e. not "scripted"), but they do have a very good idea of some of the possibilities, and have "rehearsed" dealing with those. No one pretends that the two or three people in the booth (backed by their legion of stat guys, camera guys, etc.) are aware of the outcome before it start, but no one pretends that they are the same thing as people watching at home, however well prepared or informed, either.
That's an interesting comparison.
I just watched a Youtube video called Matt Mercer: How to Be a Good Dungeon Master. It's a reverential fanboy* summation of how awesome Mercer is at D&D and how you can be too if you learn to be like him. And we know how awesome Mercer is by the theatrical, emotional, over-the-top reactions of his players that the video captures. They gasp in astonishment. Recoil in horror. Clutch one another in rapturous joy. They cry.
This video has 639k views. Shitloads of people are getting their expectations about what D&D is from this sort of thing. And while there's some good advice in it, I suspect it's also setting up a lot of players for disappointment and frustration. Why aren't our D&D session like that? Why doesn't my DM make me astonished or frightened or rapturous with joy? Why doesn't he make me cry?
I suspect it's also convincing a lot of prospective DMs that they can't do this. Can't make people hug one another in jubilation or recoil in horror. Can't make them cry. Can't be a good DM because they're just a guy who knows the rules to the game and has some cool ideas for adventures.
* Is it just me, or has this sort of exaggerated, gushing, performative shout-it-from-the-mountaintop love of content creators become more prominent in recent years? I see it on goodreads too, in the reviews of fantasy books. It seems to be a way to gain status in fandom. Is this just a geek thing, or a digital native thing?
It's a "now we can pump out so much content on a theme that you don't have to consume anything else" thing. (along with a "almost no one has to labor hard for 12 hours a day to survive" thing)
There were people in 1860 who loved Charles Dickens books like today's geeks love star wars. But they couldn't have devoted their life to it had they tried.
What an interesting thread!
I don't think it's fair to say that pornographic sex is not 'real sex'. I mean, clearly the participants are paid to look like they're having more fun than they probably are and there is a lot more consideration for the audience than you would find in a personal relationship that wasn't being recorded. But that same couple with the same personal relationship would probably play to the camera more, pretend that they're enjoying it more, or spend less time negotiating their positions. I'm not a fan of watching games online no matter how much they try to make it fun for me, but I certainly don't think it isn't 'real' because it's designed for an audience. I don't even think it is 'uncommon' - I know that there are a lot of pornographic movies released - at what point would 'real sex' become less common than porn sex? I'm pretty sure that real sex is more common, but I bet for a lot of adult entertainers, they see more of the fake type than the real type. It's a matter of perspective.
If you take someone that is really good at pornography, I think they might bring some of that into the 'real sex' realm. If you really have sex with a porn star (say, because she's your girlfriend) the line for you between 'real' and 'porn' might be a little blurry.
Which ultimately just goes to the point that different people play D&D and emphasize different things. I'm tempted to agree that a gaming group where people are polite must be fake, but that's just a dig at the people who like gaming enough to spend hours of their real life arguing about it online with strangers.
Saying 'it must be fake because nobody could be that good' is unconvincing. How do you make a determination like that? That's like saying Olympic gymnastics is fake because nobody could move their body like that. It's not common by any means, but there are teams of elite gymnasts from nearly every country in the world - but I've probably never met anyone that could do that in real life - but that's just a reflection of the social circles I run in.
There are people that might see Matt Mercer's game and hope for something like that. They may be disappointed and they may leave the hobby - that doesn't hurt anyone. There's also some non-zero number that probably will enjoy the hobby and join it for life. There's even a small chance that a very small number set out to achieve the apparently insurmountable and make games that are really that fun.
In any case, even if the people playing aren't really that happy or really that scared, among a certain type of person PRETENDING that you are is just as fun as actually feeling that emotion. Like, it's a known thing with actors. There's even a name for it - acting. It's not weird that actors would enjoy acting when they're doing non-acting things. In fact, it is less weird than me pretending that a walk through the National Park is exploring a fantastic forest.
It's ridiculous to expect people to stop doing what they're doing if they're having fun with it to avoid giving other people the 'wrong ideas' about the hobby. Most people are going to realize that gaming is variable in how much fun it is - like a TV series there are good sessions and bad sessions; you just hope on the whole it's worth the time you're putting in. If you're playing with friends, it probably is. What's wrong with that?
Quote from: estar;1070456You know what boring in general, listening to other gamers talk about in detail about playing in a campaign.
What even more boring is watching a video of RPG hobbyists playing in a session.
Matt Mercer was one of the people to figure out how to make a video of hobbyists playing a session NOT boring.
Kudos for him. Not my cup of tea but I will give props to him for figuring it out and making it work enough to earn money from it.
And I agree with S'mon, Critical Role has been a benefit to the hobby. There is more than enough room on the ship to accommodate what he is doing.
If turns out in the long run to be something different enough to be own thing. Then the tabletop RPG hobby will continue chug along like when CRPGs turned out to be their own thing and one that grew to a far larger audience than the hobby that spawned them.
This would be my take on Critical Role as well. I have not watched much of it myself because I just cant get into watching other people play and on the other hand having actors play is a genius idea for getting people interested in playing themselves.
You are always going to have personalities with followings and at the moment we have the Matt Mercer effect, next month it might be the Matt Colville effect.
[video=youtube_share;zCZFubgKsk8]https://youtu.be/zCZFubgKsk8?t=1569[/youtube]
You guys should watch Matt Colville talk about how streaming affected his D&D game in this interview. He points out how a lot of the changes we see (like lack of tabletalk) aren't planned but just happen organically as the players try to focus in front of the camera. Then he says that's great. lool
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1076372You guys should watch Matt Colville talk about how streaming affected his D&D game in this interview. He points out how a lot of the changes we see (like lack of tabletalk) aren't planned but just happen organically as the players try to focus in front of the camera. Then he says that's great. lool
I've really enjoyed the first couple of episodes of
The Chain of Acheron*, interesting campaign thus far**. I haven't cared about the lack of banter, the "in-game" action has been good enough, and it's way too early to tell what the game will be like once things settle down. I know I would be self-conscious if I had a bunch of cameras in my face, plus regular chip-ins from the Twitterverse. :)
*it's Matt's take on
The Black Company after it all goes horribly wrong.
** I doubt I will stick with it, don't have the time, but interesting to see Matt's style, etc.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1075503People are on good behavior for the cameras but that doesn't make it fake, any more than anything else on TV is being fake. Obviously you don't act like you're sitting in your underwear at home when you're on TV. But you're still you.
I see. So you think Infomercials are real and reflect how people really feel in their ordinary lives about magic shammies and miracle cleansers?
I'm saying you obviously put your best foot forward on TV, like if you, RPG Pundit, happened to be on a TV interview on CNN. But that wouldn't make you "fake" because you're trying to present yourself well.
So, honest question for you, Pundit. When you do your video essays/podcasts, is that the real you or an act?
An infomercial is obviously fake enthusiasm. They were playing D&D before they started filming it. They are not QVC presenters showing off a product.
So for people who call CR fake what do you think about geek and sundry playthroughs of board games? They are clearly edited with reality TV cutaways that must have been filmed out of sequence. Is that just as bad? Or more acceptable because its more obviously staged.
To me there is a sliding scale of genuineness. Even with infomercials sometimes you have true believers selling their inventions amongst the obvious paid presenters. The odds of an infomercial presenter actually enjoying the product might be 1% so its fair to assume they are bullshitting. To make that comparison you are implying that the players enthusiasm for their game is faked, which I find much less likely.
Of course they will be on their best behaviour to make an entertaining show, they are getting paid to play their hobby. You could argue its more like a table tennis demonstration game than the usual couch game that most people experience.
Quote from: Verdant;1076602So for people who call CR fake what do you think about geek and sundry playthroughs of board games? They are clearly edited with reality TV cutaways that must have been filmed out of sequence. Is that just as bad? Or more acceptable because its more obviously staged.
I think CR is fake after trying to listen to it. Unlike Pundit though, I do not think it's all that bad of a thing.
Now what it does do is give some people the wrong ideas about what D&D and RPGs are like that is quickly cleared up with, "that's a TV show". But CR at least got them to the table. The bigger issue is when experienced GMs try to make their game like CR and it ends up just being boring since they aren't using a storytelling system with mechanics meant to gamify storycrafting. And my particular axe-to-grind is the 5e culture that CR supports that convinces people if the game is bad then it's the DM who is bad and its not the system being a bad fit or failing them. Matthew Mercer's fake DM advice is part of the problem.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1076623Matthew Mercer's fake DM advice is part of the problem.
I'll bite: what is "fake" about Matthew's advice?
Quote from: RoyR;1076624I'll bite: what is "fake" about Matthew's advice?
Yeah, I was wondering too. He's no Matt Colville, but the D&D Beyond clips of Mercer advice I've seen seemed workmanlike.
Aren't all of these GM advice videos 98% truisms?
It's not so much fake so much like favorite and non-favorite rpgs. If they like it then it's above reproach and flawless. If they don't it's the worst piece of crap ever. They can't prove that it is but they know it's true. So with Mercer videos they may not be completely unscripted neither do I think it's fake.
You can bet though if Pundit and others here liked the videos we would never heard a negative thing said about them. Again not a fan definitively not the end of rpg gaming as we know it either.
My issue is with Mercer, is his inexperience, he has done 3 campaigns so far, I had completed three campaigns by 1993, so I been down that road,
and I refused to give out advice at that stage. This is because I felt that I had along way to go, before I would be so ignorant, as to think I could give advice, when I will still early into learning(I have standards and a respect for this thing we call table top role-playing games).
Another issue, is his negative influence, like asking a player to detail out the out-come of the roll in combat.
What is the point of the game master working your imagination the entire session,
you get to the point where the game master can make that scene amazing for all,
the game master will work your imagination better then you can,
the game master has primed you for this the entire session when you get to that point.
Instead the player gives a lack luster description, or something better,
but the other players have not had that player running their imagination the whole session,
meaning they don't get much out of it.
If you are running the players imagination well,
and they pay attention when another player is doing something,
they will find themselves entertained,
as long as they are not left out of the direct fun for to long.
That is how powerful the imagination can be,
people who love reading, know exactly what I mean.
The voice acting..., allowing that to be used to judge how good someone is,
he should have came out and said that voice acting has nothing to do with how good of a player or GM you are.
Some of the sessions seem partly scripted,
you see his players looking miserable, and as soon as they notice it or get the hint from another player,
they are up fake smiling and pretending to be active.
It is hard to enjoy the game when the game master isn't playing to your imagine, as best they can,
real sessions don't appeal to an audience in my opinion.
On the other hand many have started to realize Matt's game is bs,
I have seen people recently openly talking about what they have to do, to please the audience,
making it clear they knew it would be at the expense of those involved.
Even Matt's fans are starting to get it,
because they tried his way and then they realized it doesn't work,
because they ain't paying their players money and the camera isn't on.
I go into further detail, on videos I have posted on YouTube.
Quote from: CondorDM;1076637My issue is with Mercer, is his inexperience, he has done 3 campaigns so far, I had completed three campaigns by 1993, so I been down that road,
Is this true? I was under the impression he had run plenty of games off camera before (I could be wrong).
He said in an interview with d&d beyond that his first campaign was on camera but he had played some games off camera, before trying to run a game.
He made jokes about the fact his first go at it was on camera.
He said this was his third campaign, the one he is running now(even if he ran one or two offline, that would still be puppy dog stage in my opinion).
I could be wrong but I swear up and down, that he said what I am claiming, I am open to being corrected,
everything else I said still stands but I am open to debate on that.
Quote from: CondorDM;1076637My issue is with Mercer, is his inexperience, he has done 3 campaigns so far, I had completed three campaigns by 1993, so I been down that road,
and I refused to give out advice at that stage. This is because I felt that I had along way to go, before I would be so ignorant, as to think I could give advice, when I will still early into learning(I have standards and a respect for this thing we call table top role-playing games).
Mercer has been a GM since 1996 or 97, according to an interview at Geek and Sundry.
And from the rest of your reply I get that you don't like his style of being a GM, but I fail to see how this makes his advice "fake".
Quote from: RoyR;1076643Mercer has been a GM since 1996 or 97, according to an interview at Geek and Sundry.
And from the rest of your reply I get that you don't like his style of being a GM, but I fail to see how this makes his advice "fake".
Well for me, he presents CR as "real", he then can't really give GM advice that makes what happens in CR look "fake".
When you maintain a lie like that, I am going doubt your advice about how to do the thing you do on TV in an actual setting. Just like how I wouldn't take self-defense tips from a Pro WWE wrestler acting in character (I think a lot of them are more open about how pro wrestling is staged).
Quote from: Rhedyn;1076646Well for me, he presents CR as "real", he then can't really give GM advice that makes what happens in CR look "fake".
When you maintain a lie like that, I am going doubt your advice about how to do the thing you do on TV in an actual setting. Just like how I wouldn't take self-defense tips from a Pro WWE wrestler acting in character (I think a lot of them are more open about how pro wrestling is staged).
I still have to grasp what is "fake" with CR gameplay. The only issue given this far in the thread does not concern the GM, but is that the players are too well-behaved, focused and happy. Which is somewhat strange as a criticism, as this probably is a group of people who actually are this way, especially in front of cameras and an audience.
I was not arguing that his advice is "fake".....
I am claiming this is fake - "the players are to well-behaved, focused and happy".
The players pretending to be happy and focused, was my criticism, they are paid to be.
Here is the video, he says he only finished one other campaign before the last one on critical role,
meaning this will be his third completed campaign.
He may have done more but has not finished a campaign other then a raven-loft one before the critical role one took place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdNUHfX_Dko&t=811s
Well, it's quite noteworthy that not all players appear to be overly happy and enthusiastic.
It is not a complaint that they are not always happy, that makes sense but they are trying to fake that they are happy, when they are not.
Which tries to cover something up, every group has ran into, yet they hide it, that is fake, they are paid to hide it.
It tells me that these people aim to please the audience and make money, not actually run a good game where players truly enjoy it.
Then pitching methods that they use in their live sessions(that does not produce good gaming in the privacy of your own home, with your friends), to new people coming into the hobby,
creating unrealistic expectations and when he is gone, we are left to clean up the mess.
This is a common occurrence in the rpg community.
Just my take on it.
If they're paid to look happy, then some of them do a pretty poor job.
Agreed Alexander, very much agreed.
Quote from: CondorDM;1076648Here is the video, he says he only finished one other campaign before the last one on critical role,
meaning this will be his third completed campaign.
He may have done more but has not finished a campaign other then a raven-loft one before the critical role one took place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdNUHfX_Dko&t=811s
There is a very big difference between
running a campaign, and
finishing one.
Quote from: RoyR;1076647I still have to grasp what is "fake" with CR gameplay. The only issue given this far in the thread does not concern the GM, but is that the players are too well-behaved, focused and happy. Which is somewhat strange as a criticism, as this probably is a group of people who actually are this way, especially in front of cameras and an audience.
That was my general impression from listening to a few "shows". What pushed me over the edge was some mike blasting screaming about some nonsense I didn't care about that was clearly forced acting.
Anyone who wants to listen to a group playing D&D (Pathfinder, actually) in an entertaining fashion that's also pretty close to how most people play should give the Glass Cannon Podcast a listen. I think they also have some videos up on Youtube.
The DM is more engaging than most, the players more quick-witted, everyone talks in character at times, and the production values are excellent. But it also includes a lot of real-game interaction that CR glosses over (table-talk, swearing, rules look-ups, tactical talk, long combats). To me, it's a far more realistic example for D&D tables to aspire to than CR.
Quote from: CondorDM;1076637Another issue, is his negative influence, like asking a player to detail out the out-come of the roll in combat.
What is the point of the game master working your imagination the entire session,
you get to the point where the game master can make that scene amazing for all,
the game master will work your imagination better then you can,
the game master has primed you for this the entire session when you get to that point.
Instead the player gives a lack luster description, or something better,
but the other players have not had that player running their imagination the whole session,
meaning they don't get much out of it.
I find your posts very difficult to read, but I disagree with this section wholeheartedly. If you're a player and you've created the character, you SHOULD be able to imagine your actions more fully than the GM that has to keep aspect of the world in mind. All the players are playing a game, describing what you do is a good thing. If the GM tells you you succeed and asks you to describe your success, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Not every player is going to be adept at it, but since the game requires a GM to function, turning players into GMs is an important part of maintaining the hobby; easing them into it by giving them GM duties in your game is important. Sometimes if a player doesn't have a character, I'll ask them to run a monster in a combat encounter. That keeps them engaged and if nothing else, it helps prepare them for the future. I'm luck in that my current group we all rotate GM duties, but there's nothing wrong with letting players make contributions from their imagination.
Quote from: Haffrung;1076666Anyone who wants to listen to a group playing D&D (Pathfinder, actually) in an entertaining fashion that's also pretty close to how most people play should give the Glass Cannon Podcast a listen. I think they also have some videos up on Youtube.
The DM is more engaging than most, the players more quick-witted, everyone talks in character at times, and the production values are excellent. But it also includes a lot of real-game interaction that CR glosses over (table-talk, swearing, rules look-ups, tactical talk, long combats). To me, it's a far more realistic example for D&D tables to aspire to than CR.
It doesn't surprise me that the CR table is atypical. What I would say (IME, YMMV etc) is that very few tables are "typical", and even those won't be "typical" from week to week.
A long-standing group could even have a lot more
or a lot less banter than a "typical" table, again, shifting from week to week.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076494So, honest question for you, Pundit. When you do your video essays/podcasts, is that the real you or an act?
Have you watched them?! There's not the slightest bit of professionalism in the damn things.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1076828Have you watched them?! There's not the slightest bit of professionalism in the damn things.
Which is a presentation choice in itself.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1076828Have you watched them?! There's not the slightest bit of professionalism in the damn things.
As said, professionalism is something else. The concepts we mostly discussed here are when something can be called "staged" and/or "fake". Your presentations are definitely staged to a degree: you put your books on display, you make your coffee and light your pipe. But to what degree you are "authentic" in them is the question: are you the "real" you, or are you changing your behavior to any extent due to the presence of the the microphone and the audience?
Quote from: RPGPundit;1076828Have you watched them?! There's not the slightest bit of professionalism in the damn things.
No, I haven't, and I've said so several times. I don't find you engaging enough. My ADHD won't let me sit through the entire things, I tune out midway. I'd like to, but I honestly have no idea if there's something either of us could do to make it more interesting. It's probably just me.
However, that was not my question. Is the Pundit on your videos an act, or the real you?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076494So, honest question for you, Pundit. When you do your video essays/podcasts, is that the real you or an act?
The cat is obviously an animatronic... :o
(https://am22.akamaized.net/tms/cnt/uploads/2018/10/evil.gif)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076494So, honest question for you, Pundit. When you do your video essays/podcasts, is that the real you or an act?
Pundit is an act. He admitted that in an interview he did. Professionalism has nothing to do with genuineness. You can be acting, and unprofessional. In fact, I'd argue MOST acting is done unprofessionally.
I mean, he never wants anyone to know his real name (despite living in a different nation from anyone he's communicating with) and goes by "PUNDIT" and courts controversy and won't even show his face on camera and uses the picture of an actor for his avatar. OF COURSE it's an act.
Quote from: CondorDM;1076639He said in an interview with d&d beyond that his first campaign was on camera but he had played some games off camera, before trying to run a game.
He made jokes about the fact his first go at it was on camera.
He said this was his third campaign, the one he is running now(even if he ran one or two offline, that would still be puppy dog stage in my opinion).
I could be wrong but I swear up and down, that he said what I am claiming, I am open to being corrected,
everything else I said still stands but I am open to debate on that.
You remember wrong. Mercer's been DMing a long time. In fact he was DMing that very group (the first one) well before they were ever on camera. He had been DMing a Pathfinder game. It's why Talisin adapted the gunslinger to 5e.
In my videos, when I'm joking, I'm actually joking. When I'm enthusiastic about something, I'm sincerely enthusiastic. When I'm ranting mad, I'm honestly ranting mad. When I'm showing affection to my cats, it's a genuine level of affection.
If I was pretending to be SUPER DUPER SQUEE EXCITED about a game, or pretending to be SUPER DUPER GRUMPY MAD when I'm really not, or if I was making my cats fake-spontaneously get in the shot and then faking excessive affection toward them, and generally emoting the fuck out of the camera, then I'd be "acting" the way the CR actors are acting.
So if you're a naturally demonstrative person (ie, wear your emotions on your sleeve), you're acting no matter how much you're consistent with your life outside the camera?
Quote from: RPGPundit;1077349In my videos, when I'm joking, I'm actually joking. When I'm enthusiastic about something, I'm sincerely enthusiastic. When I'm ranting mad, I'm honestly ranting mad. When I'm showing affection to my cats, it's a genuine level of affection.
On the other hand, you have admitted to having some amount of training in improv acting... ;)
Quote from: RPGPundit;1077349In my videos, when I'm joking, I'm actually joking. When I'm enthusiastic about something, I'm sincerely enthusiastic. When I'm ranting mad, I'm honestly ranting mad. When I'm showing affection to my cats, it's a genuine level of affection.
If I was pretending to be SUPER DUPER SQUEE EXCITED about a game, or pretending to be SUPER DUPER GRUMPY MAD when I'm really not, or if I was making my cats fake-spontaneously get in the shot and then faking excessive affection toward them, and generally emoting the fuck out of the camera, then I'd be "acting" the way the CR actors are acting.
If your videos were watched by millions, I would assume everything was staged and was fake.
Regularly people just shooting the shit isn't some sort of phenomenon that people watch in-mass.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1077349If I was pretending to be SUPER DUPER SQUEE EXCITED about a game, or pretending to be SUPER DUPER GRUMPY MAD when I'm really not, or if I was making my cats fake-spontaneously get in the shot and then faking excessive affection toward them, and generally emoting the fuck out of the camera, then I'd be "acting" the way the CR actors are acting.
How do you know for a fact that CR people are "acting"?
Quote from: RoyR;1077384How do you know for a fact that CR people are "acting"?
Their reactions
may be spontaneous. But the way they hold them in poses is acting. When normal gamers are shocked, they might gape with surprise and hold their hands over their mouth. But they don't freeze in the reaction for eight seconds. While the player beside them looks up to the heavens and shakes their fist. For eight seconds.
These are actors. Being aware of where the cameras are, exaggerating all of their emotional responses, and holding poses for maximum effects
is what they do.
Quote from: Haffrung;1077437Their reactions may be spontaneous. But the way they hold them in poses is acting. When normal gamers are shocked, they might gape with surprise and hold their hands over their mouth. But they don't freeze in the reaction for eight seconds. While the player beside them looks up to the heavens and shakes their fist. For eight seconds.
These are actors. Being aware of where the cameras are, exaggerating all of their emotional responses, and holding poses for maximum effects is what they do.
If so, how do you know that this is not how it looks when actors are playing RPGs, even at home?
(Not that I recognize your description of CR, but let's leave that for now for the sake of argument.)
I'm not a classically trained actor, but I have certainly seen people at the table emulate acted scenes that were relevant to their own case. For example, many variations on Shatner's classic 'KHAN' have been reenacted at my table in various degrees of seriousness.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1077382If your videos were watched by millions, I would assume everything was staged and was fake.
Regularly people just shooting the shit isn't some sort of phenomenon that people watch in-mass.
Well exactly.
The actual play livestreams that are just people actually playing an RPG, rather than acting, usually get views in the 100s at very best.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1077565Well exactly.
The actual play livestreams that are just people actually playing an RPG, rather than acting, usually get views in the 100s at very best.
If we have hundreds of live-streamed games, most will be fairly uninteresting to watch. But by random chance one or two will have a combination of players and GM which are really fun to watch, and they will get thousands of viewers. Thus the high viewer count of CR is not a valid argument to use in favor of it being "acted", it can equally well be explained by them being an outlier, a "perfect storm".
Quote from: RoyR;1077570If we have hundreds of live-streamed games, most will be fairly uninteresting to watch. But by random chance one or two will have a combination of players and GM which are really fun to watch, and they will get thousands of viewers. Thus the high viewer count of CR is not a valid argument to use in favor of it being "acted", it can equally well be explained by them being an outlier, a "perfect storm".
CR is an outlier in many ways. In addition to YouTube / Twitch (etc), there's also a large number of Actual Play podcasts.
Again, anyone who wants to hear people playing an RPG in a dramatic and entertaining way that is also close to the way most people actually play (certainly closer than CR), then give the Glass Canon Podcast a listen.
Oh look, they got four million dollars (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/criticalrole/critical-role-the-legend-of-vox-machina-animated-s/description) in just 24 hours.
Quote from: Frey;1077675Oh look, they got four million dollars (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/criticalrole/critical-role-the-legend-of-vox-machina-animated-s/description) in just 24 hours.
Good news for the hobby I think, assuming that the end product is decent, and there's plenty of reason to think that it will be.
Are they going to use new scripts, or re-use their old scripts?
They're making a cartoon series so they'd have to write it from scratch presumably.
Quote from: kythri;1077717Are they going to use new scripts, or re-use their old scripts?
I see what you did there...
Quote from: Frey;1077675Oh look, they got four million dollars (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/criticalrole/critical-role-the-legend-of-vox-machina-animated-s/description) in just 24 hours.
For an animated series, which has even
less to do with gaming than the show it's based on. Even the rewards (except for the dice) and stretch goals have nothing to do with gaming.
I hate to say but Pundit might have a point.
Quote from: Motorskills;1077688Good news for the hobby I think, assuming that the end product is decent, and there's plenty of reason to think that it will be.
I'll believe that when I see a tabletop RPG campaign as successful.
Quote from: Frey;1077675Oh look, they got four million dollars (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/criticalrole/critical-role-the-legend-of-vox-machina-animated-s/description) in just 24 hours.
I am not letting my kids anywhere close to that, it is probably going to be used to push SJW propaganda on children.
4 Million in 24 hours, for something with a planned budget of 750,000.
Someone is getting fucking PAID.
Quote from: kythri;1077717Are they going to use new scripts, or re-use their old scripts?
Quote from: RoyR;1077752I see what you did there...
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1077755For an animated series, which has even less to do with gaming than the show it's based on. Even the rewards (except for the dice) and stretch goals have nothing to do with gaming.
I hate to say but Pundit might have a point.
...
In this case, Yes. Very much so.
Quote from: critical-role-the-legend-of-vox-machina-animatedSo, what will this campaign allow us to create? A bitchin' high-quality, fantasy cartoon set in a world created by one of the most accomplished storytellers, Matthew Mercer. With heart-stopping action and side-splitting comedy, it will have something for everyone.
I like the particular choice of words they used...
Quote from: Frey;1077675Oh look, they got four million dollars (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/criticalrole/critical-role-the-legend-of-vox-machina-animated-s/description) in just 24 hours.
Pretty smart. Grab the money now before the fad dies.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1077755For an animated series, which has even less to do with gaming than the show it's based on. Even the rewards (except for the dice) and stretch goals have nothing to do with gaming.
I hate to say but Pundit might have a point.
And what would that point be in this case?
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1077755For an animated series, which has even less to do with gaming than the show it's based on. Even the rewards (except for the dice) and stretch goals have nothing to do with gaming.
I hate to say but Pundit might have a point.
I'll believe that when I see a tabletop RPG campaign as successful.
Close enough, no?
(https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/255133215/strongholds-and-streaming?ref=discovery_category&term=strongholds)Matt's next Kickstarter will launch in a few months. I expect it to either do double or half...not sure yet. :D
It is not a series, just 1 22 minute animation. But it looks like the extra stretch goals will be making extra 22 minute episodes.
The estimated cost of an animated episode starts from maybe around $700000. Titmouse are a TV level studio, the campaign has unlocked 4 x 22 minute episodes so most of that money will still go to the studio. Assuming it all gets made. I never back kickstarters because you never know what the end product will be.
They do have an experienced industry scriptwriter omboard so it will probably be the same quality as the Justice League cartoon at least.
Quote from: Verdant;1077831It is not a series, just 1 22 minute animation. But it looks like the extra stretch goals will be making extra 22 minute episodes.
The estimated cost of an animated episode starts from maybe around $700000. Titmouse are a TV level studio, the campaign has unlocked 4 x 22 minute episodes so most of that money will still go to the studio. Assuming it all gets made. I never back kickstarters because you never know what the end product will be.
They do have an experienced industry scriptwriter omboard so it will probably be the same quality as the Justice League cartoon at least.
I for one, am thrilled to have more fantasy cartoons.
Quote from: CondorDM;1077758I am not letting my kids anywhere close to that, it is probably going to be used to push SJW propaganda on children.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: RoyR;1077802And what would that point be in this case?
That it was never about gaming, and all about a group of voice actors performing for an audience.
Honestly they could have ditched D&D entirely and done exactly the same thing. The branding is peripheral.
Quote from: Motorskills;1077806Close enough, no?
(https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/255133215/strongholds-and-streaming?ref=discovery_category&term=strongholds)
Not even.
At the time of this writing the #Kickstarter is at 4.9 million (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/criticalrole/critical-role-the-legend-of-vox-machina-animated-s/description) (2 days into a 45 day campaign) and trending towards 76.7 million (https://www.kicktraq.com/projects/criticalrole/critical-role-the-legend-of-vox-machina-animated-s/).
Seventy six point seven
million.
Quote from: Motorskills;1077806Matt's next Kickstarter will launch in a few months. I expect it to either do double or half...not sure yet. :D
I'll take that bet.
Quote from: Verdant;1077831It is not a series, just 1 22 minute animation. But it looks like the extra stretch goals will be making extra 22 minute episodes.
So a series.
My bet is they end up with enough to make multiple seasons and #Hulu or #Netflix pick it up.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1077851That it was never about gaming, and all about a group of voice actors performing for an audience.
Honestly they could have ditched D&D entirely and done exactly the same thing. The branding is peripheral.
I fail to see the logic here. They are playing and streaming a game of DnD, it's get popular and they follow that up by selling dice, T-shirts and posters. And now they go further by basing one or more animated episodes on the characters they played. Which gets funded due to that a lot of people liked to follow the adventures of these characters.
Where do any of this invalidate that they played a game of DnD to start with?
Quote from: RoyR;1077856I fail to see the logic here. They are playing and streaming a game of DnD, it's get popular and they follow that up by selling dice, T-shirts and posters. And now they go further by basing one or more animated episodes on the characters they played. Which gets funded due to that a lot of people liked to follow the adventures of these characters.
Where do any of this invalidate that they played a game of DnD to start with?
There is no logic. Just the accusation that they aren't as enthusiastic in their hearts about d&d as their performances show. Thus them making money from their hobby is not the action of enthusiastic hobbyists creating professional content, but phony hollywood making money off of fans. Except CR fans are not really roleplay game fans apparently.
So no gamers will be harmed in the making of this cartoon.
Except it may sneak terrible falsehoods about roleplay into the unwitting minds of the viewers.
Grats to Matt Colville on his KS. I hope he goes deep into animation and makes great animated shows of his fantasy campaign world. Then I hope he goes on to make movies.
Quote from: tenbones;1077859Grats to Matt Colville on his KS. I hope he goes deep into animation and makes great animated shows of his fantasy campaign world. Then I hope he goes on to make movies.
It is too confusing to have two famous Matt's doing DnD stuff. One of them has to change and I suggest some kind of Thunder Dome event.
Quote from: RoyR;1077384How do you know for a fact that CR people are "acting"?
Common fucking sense.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1077382If your videos were watched by millions, I would assume everything was staged and was fake.
Regularly people just shooting the shit isn't some sort of phenomenon that people watch in-mass.
Exactly.
Actors + Editing = more professional, thus more engaging product.
Critical Role is a mixed bag for the hobby. It provided greater exposure, but its false presentation of actual play doesn't help so the final result is an influx of new players with wrong ideas about how gaming happens. But that's fine because most of those people seeking "the Critical Role" experience will fade out and leave behind people who understand that real gaming is going to be different than TV actor gaming.
But kudos to Mercer and CR for making money off gaming. Maybe now the gaming companies could try that.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1077755For an animated series, which has even less to do with gaming than the show it's based on. Even the rewards (except for the dice) and stretch goals have nothing to do with gaming.
I don't see that as a bad thing. The CR KS is focused on CR fans...
I expect they will get 10-12 episodes made and flip that into a NetFlix deal.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1077960Common fucking sense.
The most UNCOMMON thing in this universe. In fact I'd argue that what people call 'common sense' has died back in the early 80's.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1077960Exactly.
Actors + Editing = more professional, thus more engaging product.
Critical Role is a mixed bag for the hobby. It provided greater exposure, but its false presentation of actual play doesn't help so the final result is an influx of new players with wrong ideas about how gaming happens. But that's fine because most of those people seeking "the Critical Role" experience will fade out and leave behind people who understand that real gaming is going to be different than TV actor gaming.
But kudos to Mercer and CR for making money off gaming. Maybe now the gaming companies could try that.
No one has proven it false. I want PROOF, not butt-hurt opinion that because a crew of people who can stay on point and keep playing the game they are somehow 'fake'.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1077960I don't see that as a bad thing. The CR KS is focused on CR fans...
I expect they will get 10-12 episodes made and flip that into a NetFlix deal.
If it's good, I don't care where the get the material.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1077960Actors + Editing = more professional, thus more engaging product.
But CR is not edited, as in cut. It is live-streamed.
Current (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/criticalrole/critical-role-the-legend-of-vox-machina-animated-s/): $5,813,297 (so +1 mil in one day)
Trending (https://www.kicktraq.com/projects/criticalrole/critical-role-the-legend-of-vox-machina-animated-s/): $68,215,812
Quote from: Verdant;1077858There is no logic. Just the accusation that they aren't as enthusiastic in their hearts about d&d as their performances show. Thus them making money from their hobby is not the action of enthusiastic hobbyists creating professional content, but phony hollywood making money off of fans.
On the contrary, their genuine enthusiasm is what sells the show, and they deserve all the success they get.
Quote from: Verdant;1077858Except CR fans are not really roleplay game fans apparently.
Most of them aren't.
What they are are fans of the people involved.
Quote from: Verdant;1077858So no gamers will be harmed in the making of this cartoon.
Of course not. That's ridiculous.
Quote from: Verdant;1077858Except it may sneak terrible falsehoods about roleplay into the unwitting minds of the viewers.
Not falsehoods, but expectations a large segment of the hobby is unwilling or unable to meet.
As I said before, what they're doing is Improv 101, only instead of an audience feeding them cues they have a GM. There's nothing wrong with this. In fact this is exactly how _I_ play, and think if you're not entertaining your fellow players you're doing it wrong. Thing is I more often than not have to seek out Improv clubs and non-gamers in order to do it. It may not be brain damage, but conditioning has left a lot of gamers seemingly unable to adapt. And if they enjoy what they're doing, they shouldn't have to.
What
is a terrible falsehood is the idea that D&D provides the tools necessary to facilitate this kind of play. So new players get the books, (try to) follow the rules, and then wonder why they're not getting the expected results. This sort of dissonance is endemic in the RPG field, and too many designers get defensive when you ask them to address it. So success ends up being a product of random chance rather than selecting the right game.
Quote from: Shasarak;1077907It is too confusing to have two famous Matt's doing DnD stuff. One of them has to change and I suggest some kind of Thunder Dome event.
Just two? Matt is the most ubiquitous name in the hobby.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1077960I expect they will get 10-12 episodes made and flip that into a NetFlix deal.
I think you may be right (https://comicbook.com/gaming/2019/03/06/critical-role-animated-series-announced-dungeons-and-dragons/) ;)
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1078015As I said before, what they're doing is Improv 101, only instead of an audience feeding them cues they have a GM. There's nothing wrong with this. In fact this is exactly how _I_ play, and think if you're not entertaining your fellow players you're doing it wrong. Thing is I more often than not have to seek out Improv clubs and non-gamers in order to do it. It may not be brain damage, but conditioning has left a lot of gamers seemingly unable to adapt.
Reminds me of my game Sunday. A bunch of us roleplaying away happily, until a newbie interjects:
"Wait! Only the PC with the highest Charisma should talk to the NPC!"
He seemed to think that success would come from applying the biggest Persuasion bonus, whereas the way I run it a sufficiently good approach might not require any skill check at all.
Quote from: Shasarak;1077907It is too confusing to have two famous Matt's doing DnD stuff. One of them has to change and I suggest some kind of Thunder Dome event.
Colville, Mercer. What's the difference?
Quote from: tenbones;1078052Colville, Mercer. What's the difference?
Colville is definitely a lot more old-school. He's also mainly about giving DM advice.
Quote from: Haffrung;1078059Colville is definitely a lot more old-school. He's also mainly about giving DM advice.
LOL I know. I'm being a twat.
Colville and Mercer are both better than average DM's with different styles for different folks.
I have no problem at all with D&D "shows," but CR, in particular, isn't really my jam. I've liked Mercer better in other stuff I've seen him in both as a player and as DM. CR is simply too melodramatic and overwrought for my tastes. I begrudge them nothing though, and I like to check in on the hijinks from time to time.
That said, I actually like watching (or listening) to other people play D&D because it's an entertaining time-killer at the gym, in the car, working, doing housework, etc. while simultaneously making me a better DM through example.
If nothing else they are good sources of inspiration.
I don't care how anyone makes a lot of money in a situation like this. If they were to turn down the profit potential to stay pure I'd say they must have gotten some real holes in their head while playing, somehow.
Everyone thinks the line should be immediately where they've decided to stop; I don't see this as any different than when people who hadn't played D&D back in the day joined the OSR and proceeded to take what they liked of those games and change whatever they cared. That wasn't what the first OSR creators expected, but we learned both to adapt, and also that it didn't really matter outside of giving us some fodder to grump every once in a while. Just like WOTC didn't expect their poorly written license would unlock those editions.
He who profiteth on another's unintended consequence can't complain about the pie shifting in a way likewise unexpected
I ran into a woman at GC who got into D&D because her husband watched critical roll and she liked the show. Her husband liked 1E, but ran 5E for her to match what she was seeing. She came to GC and was trying out swords and wizardry, and saw my 1E books while we were standing in line for coffee, which struck up the conversation
She was excited to try S&W, and during the looong line wanted to hear about 1E. By the end she wanted her husband to run his preferred 1E game instead of 5E. So while the show might produce pop culture D&D fans, like the LOTR movies didn't cause everyone to rush out and buy the Semerillion (sp) or even the main books, it is also causing some to go deeper. And she bought my coffee, so clearly they like to throw small change around ;)
None of these people will give a shit about Pundits opinion, which will only serve to quarantine anyone who takes up that banner. But why stop someone from learning the lesson?
Also: it's hard to use mobile here.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1077349In my videos, when I'm joking, I'm actually joking. When I'm enthusiastic about something, I'm sincerely enthusiastic. When I'm ranting mad, I'm honestly ranting mad. When I'm showing affection to my cats, it's a genuine level of affection.
If I was pretending to be SUPER DUPER SQUEE EXCITED about a game, or pretending to be SUPER DUPER GRUMPY MAD when I'm really not, or if I was making my cats fake-spontaneously get in the shot and then faking excessive affection toward them, and generally emoting the fuck out of the camera, then I'd be "acting" the way the CR actors are acting.
Oh please. You don't show your face, and conceal your name behind a facade. The facade is literally Pundit, and you call yourself the last boss of the internet shitlords. I mean seriously, please, NOBODY believes you're anything other than an act. We might LIKE your act, but you're definitely an act. Much more an act than these guys. You're like a theater actor to their television acting. You yell for the cheap seats in back.
Shoot, didn't you even admit you're an act in an interview with a guy visiting Uruguay?
Quote from: RoyR;1077856I fail to see the logic here. They are playing and streaming a game of DnD, it's get popular and they follow that up by selling dice, T-shirts and posters. And now they go further by basing one or more animated episodes on the characters they played. Which gets funded due to that a lot of people liked to follow the adventures of these characters.
Where do any of this invalidate that they played a game of DnD to start with?
You are correct. I believe we are observing envy. It's kinda ugly to watch.
Very much agree with what's been said by a lot of people on here: it's different strokes for different folks.
I do dislike a lot of CR-esque shows, if only because I think the worldbuilding is very shallow and unimaginative, and the jokes absolutely cringeworthy. BUT if other people get value out of it, and enjoy it, that's a great thing! If they have unrealistic expectations for the first few sessions of D&D that isn't great, but those expectations are bound to change once they start playing the game themselves, and at least they're giving it a go and seeing if its really for them!
Also, from personal experience, I've had a few new players who got into DnD via CR, adventure zone, etc. - and they all ended up enjoying it and being great players, even though the way I run adventures is super different from what they'd been used to.
So apparently #Polygon thinks Critical Role's massive crowdfunding success is kickstarting some interesting conversations (https://www.polygon.com/2019/3/11/18256668/critical-role-kickstarter-animated) such as these:
Quote from: AerokiiTowards the profit angle of this, I find it odd that they're treating this Kickstarter as if it belongs in the "Tabletop RPG" space just because it's based off of a Tabletop RPG game. People are backing to see media they consume turned into a different form of media, and I'm having a hard time believing that if this Kickstarter didn't exist, those people would instead be spending money on indie tabletop rpgs instead...
DISCLAIMER: I don't know anything a bout Critical Role beyond the fact it's a bunch of professional VOs and hwatnot playing DnD for an audience, so if that caused me to miss some nuance I apologize. (https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/b07mu5/polygon_on_critical_role_kickstarter_questions_on/)
This has nothing to do with gaming! Who knew someone posting on #GamerGhazi with the title 'Social Justice Paladin' would ever agree with ThePundit.
Quote from: @AbstruseIf you're curious why otherwise nice and well-meaning game designers are a little grumpy over the Critical Role Kickstarter, I remind you that they made almost 10% of the gross sales for the ENTIRE RPG INDUSTRY in a year in just a day built off their work and they get none of it. (https://twitter.com/Abstruse/status/1102792343432904710)
This doesn't mean that the designers hate Critical Role, the people behind it, or their fans. They're just upset some streamers make more money off RPGs than the people who actually make the games, and fans don't support the designers the same way they do streamers. (https://twitter.com/Abstruse/status/1102793830577946624)
Because @Polygon went and quoted me without asking my permission or even warning me, let me clarify this:
No game designers I know of are angry at Critical Role or anyone involved. They're frustrated at the situation and state of the industry. (https://twitter.com/Abstruse/status/1105215751466577920)
It's not fair they make all this money for being popular while the designers of the games they play don't. Also you need to ask permission or give a warning when embedding a #Tweet.
Quote from: @GoldenLassoGirlI want to talk for a moment about #criticalrole - It is incomprehensible that they have not diversified their cast. There is no excuse to not include POC in your APs, especially in Los Angeles. I speak from experience. I did it with my APs and we stream minutes from CR (https://twitter.com/GoldenLassoGirl/status/1103033352754356225).
As they continue to succeed and solidify(even more) their place as the ambassadors of #Ttrpg they are accepting the responsibility that comes with that. They aren't a home game anymore. (https://twitter.com/GoldenLassoGirl/status/1103052123804061696)
Honestly, "we're friends, it's not personal" is a form of gatekeeping. I faced it MANY times as a woman before I found my current group 10 years ago.
It's not always intentional gatekeeping, but considering the diversity of many gaming friend groups, it has the same effect. (https://twitter.com/GoldenLassoGirl/status/1103054425021534208)
Quote from: @wundergeekSome people say "they started out as friends", but once you get bigger than a certain size, and once you start doing shit for money, THAT CHANGES THINGS. They could have used their SIZEABLE platform to create and hold space for marginalized creators, and they didn't. (https://twitter.com/wundergeek/status/1102939603357630471)
The reality is that THIS is what gatekeeping really looks like. It's not "I refuse to work with brown people". It's "I only want to work with my friends.... who just happen to all be white".
Extending your whites-only friend bubble into your business decisions IS GATEKEEPING. (https://twitter.com/wundergeek/status/1102939605135958021)
Fellow whites - I'm not invested in Critical Role in any way - I don't follow them, and I don't follow their stuff. But boy am I tired of people using "but they're all friends" to justify this kind of white nonsense. Because "but all my friends are white" IS WHITE NONSENSE. (https://twitter.com/wundergeek/status/1102939605882552321)
So having friends is a form of racist gatekeeping now, and once you're successful enough you should ditch everyone you trust and have chemistry with in order to start working with diverse strangers. The fact they think working relationships are this arbitrary, superficial, and interchangeable explains so much, and their demands are downright Orwellian: Literally no loyalty other than to the state.
Quote from: @wundergeekI have thoughts on the Critical Role stuff, from someone who has been complaining about this kind of shit for a lonnnngggg time.
So. On diversity stretch goals, the insidiousness of gatekeeping, and why lack of diversity is a marketing problem in 2019. (https://twitter.com/wundergeek/status/1102939600090210307)
First, as a marginalized publisher, let me just say I'm REAL FUCKING TIRED of diversity only being bolted on as an after-thought through stretch goals. I used to do diversity-hire stretch goals. Now I don't. (//First,%20as%20a%20marginalized%20publisher,%20let%20me%20just%20say%20I'm%20REAL%20FUCKING%20TIRED%20of%20diversity%20only%20being%20bolted%20on%20as%20an%20after-thought%20through%20stretch%20goals.%20I%20used%20to%20do%20diversity-hire%20stretch%20goals.%20Now%20I%20don't.)
I don't want to help you check the diversity boxes you should have thought about BEFORE planning your campaign. And I hate feeling like the "only" worth I bring to the table is being marginalized.
So there's that. BUT ALSO. (https://twitter.com/wundergeek/status/1102939601759436800)
I have been out here for YEARS saying that people need to start building diversity into their Kickstarter teams from the beginning, not as an afterthought, and I'm not the only one!
How is the backlash against the startlingly not-diverse team in any way a surprise in 2019? (https://twitter.com/wundergeek/status/1102939602569052160)
Because even if you aren't moved by the desire to do better in terms of marginalized representation, you need to consider that in 2019 this is becoming a serious branding issue that you need to get out in front of. (https://twitter.com/wundergeek/status/1102939607451254785)
BTW, there
aren't any diversity stretch goals in the #CriticalRole Kickstarter.
So you can just smell the resentment and entitlement coming off these 'conversations' regarding the success of #CriticalRole, and complete lack of self-awareness about why their own brands are not as successful. And for all the problems with The Pundit, I still have to give them props for having enough character to actually allow his actions to be criticized
on his own forum. If I even responded to any of these folks I'd be blocked instantly.
Bonus round: The #Polygon article also mentions how 'actual play' won the Diana Jones Award (so much for racism being the deciding factor), and how Kingdom Death: Monster 1.5 (you know, the misogynistic one with tits in all the wrong places)
made money faster than any other #Kickstarter in history, including Critical Role (which is currently in 3rd place). Oh the humanity.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1078830So having friends is a form of racist gatekeeping now, and once you're successful enough you should ditch everyone you trust and have chemistry with in order to start working with diverse strangers. The fact they think working relationships are this arbitrary, superficial, and interchangeable explains so much, and their demands are downright Orwellian: Literally no loyalty other than to the state.
The problem is that you can not just add one POC to the game because anyone would tell you that having one POC friend does not mean you are not racist.
And also no one wants to be the token POC.
Quote from: Shasarak;1078834The problem is that you can not just add one POC to the game because anyone would tell you that having one POC friend does not mean you are not racist.
And also no one wants to be the token POC.
What gets me is that they think it's so damn easy to attract a POC, female or gay gamer to a tabletop session. My first gaming group was all white stereotypical social maladjusted geeks. Second group was much more normal and I joined not created the group like the first one. The DM had an open invitation to all and we had one female gamer who ended up leaving because she got married and wanted to focus on her family life. Two POC one who left to focus on work the other left because he played with a truly disruptive style at the table and refused to commit to playing regularly. We sent out the ad for more players guess what all male and all straight and white. THe Horror!
Quote from: sureshot;1078850What gets me is that they think it's so damn easy to attract a POC, female or gay gamer to a tabletop session.
Well it's not hard in London... I suspect it's pretty easy in Seattle (if you count east-Asian as POC), too. Although right now my only POC (terrible acronym) is a half-Chinese friend, which I'm pretty sure barely counts. Plenty of female players. Not sure if I have any gay players right now but they're certainly common around here. Gay men seem somewhat over represented, but lesbians seem hugely over represented among D&D players. There's a pretty strong positive correlation IME between lesbianism or bisexual players and female players who like killing things and taking their stuff.
Quote from: S'mon;1078861Well it's not hard in London... I suspect it's pretty easy in Seattle (if you count east-Asian as POC), too. Although right now my only POC (terrible acronym) is a half-Chinese friend, which I'm pretty sure barely counts. Plenty of female players. Not sure if I have any gay players right now but they're certainly common around here. Gay men seem somewhat over represented, but lesbians seem hugely over represented among D&D players. There's a pretty strong positive correlation IME between lesbianism or bisexual players and female players who like killing things and taking their stuff.
Obviously it can be easier or harder depending on the area one is living in. But unless at least 50 to 75% of the table is POC and other than straight, white and male your not trying hard enough. Sorry but unless I'm getting paid and my full time job is looking for POC to play D&D the only effort I'm putting towards that goal is an online ad on LGS websites with a paper ad as well and word of mouth.
Er...Taliesin is bi. Does that not count anymore?
FWIW, I glimpsed at the latest episode and only the two girls and the big guy seem to be super-cheery. Personally, I like Liam/Caleb best: he seems to play as a thinking man. But for me the success of CR is tied to the fact that you have 7 individuals here of which I don't dislike a single one. They're all likeable in one form or another.
I still can't sit through entire episodes though.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1078830So having friends is a form of racist gatekeeping now, and once you're successful enough you should ditch everyone you trust and have chemistry with in order to start working with diverse strangers. The fact they think working relationships are this arbitrary, superficial, and interchangeable explains so much, and their demands are downright Orwellian: Literally no loyalty other than to the state.
Reading that thread I'm actually encouraged by the pushback from fans against the diversity zealots. This moral panic can't last forever. The zealots are eventually going to exasperate enough people, especially their 'allies' who have enabled their bullying, that there will be a backlash. This kind of pearl-clutching over the makeup of a popular enterprise with a rabid fanbase is just another push towards that tipping point.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1078830It's not fair they make all this money for being popular while the designers of the games they play don't. Also you need to ask permission or give a warning when embedding a #Tweet.
For some reason I always read that guys handle as @Obtuse
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1078830So having friends is a form of racist gatekeeping now, and once you're successful enough you should ditch everyone you trust and have chemistry with in order to start working with diverse strangers. The fact they think working relationships are this arbitrary, superficial, and interchangeable explains so much, and their demands are downright Orwellian: Literally no loyalty other than to the state.
LOL.
"No loyalty except to the state" is exactly why SJWism = Stalinism.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1078830BTW, there aren't any diversity stretch goals in the #CriticalRole Kickstarter.
WTF is a "diversity stretch goal"?
Its sounds like creepy tokenism. Give us $10k and we'll have an Eskimo rub their junk on every book!
Quote from: Shasarak;1078834The problem is that you can not just add one POC to the game because anyone would tell you that having one POC friend does not mean you are not racist.
According to SJWs, being white is the unforgivable sin.
Fortunately, most real people (of all colors) don't live by the SJW playbook.
The only player anyone should add to their gaming group are is a fun new gamer, regardless of their "DNA identity".
And of course, FUCK OFF is always the best answer to anything SJWs say.
Quote from: Mistwell;1078897Er...Taliesin is bi. Does that not count anymore?
He's a white male, so no. He could have autism, aspergers, Huntington's disease, be a blind quadriplegic and Bi, Gay and Lesbian all at the same time. He's Literally Hitler to them.
The only white men currently that wouldn't get put against the wall are Transgender.
Of course the only real reason wunderkind is whining is because no one has ever wanted to buy anything she's ever written, outside her immediate family and friends who have to.
Quote from: Mistwell;1078897Er...Taliesin is bi. Does that not count anymore?
Nope. And if it is the same Taliesin I knew many a year ago, Then people should be a little careful with handing him money or anything he is associated with.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out that inclusivity is hard. If you don't try to make it happen, it won't happen.
The 'state' in our pluralistic democratic society is composed of representatives some of whom are more 'representative' than others. We believe that putting different people with different regional needs together to suss out the common good is the best way to make sure that everyone gets what they need. Put another way, our system is designed to ensure that minorities (like Iowans) are not completely ignored by majorities (like Coastal Areas (https://www.livescience.com/18997-population-coastal-areas-infographic.html). For this system to keep working, other minorities need a voice and representation.
Our Democratic system has checks and balances to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Minority voices pointing out that there isn't always room at the table isn't a problem. That's the system working as intended. And sure, if you're in the majority it can feel like it's unfair that you're constantly scooching, especially when you don't have enough for yourself, but I promise you, most of the room is at the head of the table with the billionaires, and if they let you scoot over there, we'd all have enough space.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078995There's nothing wrong with pointing out that inclusivity is hard. If you don't try to make it happen, it won't happen.
With the exception of some close minded gamers in the hobby most try and that is all we need to do. This is a hobby to us not a job. Once my hobby becomes work I expect to be paid for my services. Or I stop practicing the hobby. It is all too easy to say "TRY!" when one does try and nothing comes of it. We gamers can't force non-straight POC or women to come into the hobby. Sure if you live in a big city they are easier to find and not guaranteed. Even then if it not more than one we get accused of tokenism along the lines of " sure your not racist about POC all you have is one Indian/gay/women at the gaming ".
Speaking for myself I don't care about a person race, gender or sexual identity as long as they are hired for their knowledge, skill, experience and merit. Not to fill some artificial diversity and inclusivity quota and they know nothing at the job or even worse completely incompetent. If I have a choice of hiring all straight white people even if they are all males and they know what they are doing those are the people I hire. As a business owner if I had one I'm not losing money for diversity or inclusivity or care about the opinion of the SJW mob. Same thing if I have to chose two people to fix the roof of my mom house and one sells himself on the skills of his or her employees vs the other saying I should hire them for being diverse and inclusive. I will always go with the first as more often not the second hires just about anybody and everybody just on their race or gender and not on the skills and experience.
Gaining skills and experience requires opportunity.
Opportunity (or the lack of) is often correlated with race.
As a society, we either need to ensure equal opportunity (preferred) or we have to address the results of that lack of opportunity with the damage it does to society. The 'best person for the job' might not be able to get there because of a variety of roadblocks including, but not limited to, various 'gatekeeping' attempts all the way up to the job itself.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078995There's nothing wrong with pointing out that inclusivity is hard. If you don't try to make it happen, it won't happen.
No, it's rather easy. Let anyone in, even those you don't agree with. The ones that don't want to be there, won't be. But you'd be amazed at who wants to join.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078995but I promise you, most of the room is at the head of the table with the billionaires, and if they let you scoot over there, we'd all have enough space.
Agreed. So...maybe people should talk a little bit more about the Privilege of Class and Wealth instead of assuming some white boy born to a methhead single mother has a Free Ticket.
Quote from: Omega;1078968Nope. And if it is the same Taliesin I knew many a year ago, Then people should be a little careful with handing him money or anything he is associated with.
I know him. I've known him since the early 90s. He's a good guy, and plenty trustworthy, and has always been that way.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078995our system is designed to ensure that minorities (like Iowans) are not completely ignored by majorities (like Coastal Areas.
Well, geography matters. A country cannot afford to neglect the interests of whole regions without creating separatist movements and having to constantly force these regions to stay a part of the country at gunpoint.
The same is not true for social groups/tribes. In fact, you cannot ensure correct representation for all the tribes: institutions would fall apart if you'd try to reflect the demographical composition of the constituency across multiple dimensions: gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It's not feasible; that's a pipe dream.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078995For this system to keep working, other minorities need a voice and representation.
Gentle reminder: one central ideology of the 20th century was about creating "fairness" (equality) between individuals. Basically eliminating rich and poor. Eliminating priviledges for the children of rich people. Current generation of democrats not-withstanding, it failed. You cannot eliminate individual priviledge without central planning which causes in turn damage to the economy - and to people's liberties. (Plus you'll end up having a priviledged bureaucratic class.)
What does make 21st century people think they can eliminate the priviledge of groups (tribes) without the same means and without the same results? Priviledge (within limits, of course) is the way of life; it's the result of desiring that one's own off-spring has a head-start in life compared to the children of other parents, among other things. I have to wonder what the descendants of currently priviledged groups will think of their parents and grandparents when they will compare their lot in life with the station in life their ancestors had.
Will they see the current generation as the generation that gave the farm away to the children of different parents? Will they
curse their ancestors?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078995but I promise you, most of the room is at the head of the table with the billionaires, and if they let you scoot over there, we'd all have enough space.
Some people have learned nothing from the 20th century. Your remark at least raises questions. How do billionaires occupy space that other people would benefit from?
As for inclusivity in games, to return to the topic, it's not an issue for me: I'll play with anyone no matter where they're from or what they do between games for as long as they're enjoyable gamers (and they're not involved in criminal activities and the like).
We don't need to make a science out of it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079016Gaining skills and experience requires opportunity.
As a society, we either need to ensure equal opportunity ....
Done.
All the legal barriers have been removed In the US for more than 50 years. And as a "society" that's all you can legally do.
You can't force individuals to do anything else. And you shouldn't. Everyone has the right to choose for themselves.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078995There's nothing wrong with pointing out that inclusivity is hard. If you don't try to make it happen, it won't happen.
.
No one is under any moral obligation to "try" anything. It's called freedom of association.
Quote from: sureshot;1079009... This is a hobby to us not a job. ...
This.
We do this for fun. NO ONE has a right to tell us who our friends should be, or who we should play with.
NO ONE.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079018No, it's rather easy.
I certainly find it's very easy to let people of many races, both sexes, and a multiplicity of sexual orientations (& trans) play D&D with me.
They just have to want to play.
Woke: Critical Role needs to become more diverse!
Normie: How do you suggest they do that?
Woke: That's not my problem. Stop harassing me!
Also, here's a couple of white women congratulating each other on supporting those poor defenseless PoC. (https://twitter.com/GoldenLassoGirl/status/1103381353620365312)
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078947WTF is a "diversity stretch goal"?
Its sounds like creepy tokenism. Give us $10k and we'll have an Eskimo rub their junk on every book!
That's
literally what it is (at least if you replace rubbing their junk with working on a project), and @Wundergeek admits to having those kind of goals in
their campaigns. So by their own admission Critical Role is already more woke then they were.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078995There's nothing wrong with pointing out that inclusivity is hard. If you don't try to make it happen, it won't happen.
How do you suggest we do that?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078995The 'state' in our pluralistic democratic society is composed of representatives some of whom are more 'representative' than others.
The 'state' in this case is the internet and RPG 'community', and the only reason someone wouldn't be able to represent themselves is if they were blocked, banned, or deleted. So which group holds the power to do that, and do you really think they're concerned about people with different regional needs being heard?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078995We believe that putting different people with different regional needs together to suss out the common good is the best way to make sure that everyone gets what they need.
And have you seen what that results in when it comes to gaming, which regularly engages in 'edition wars' and arguments over whether you should roll low or high? They're
already divided, but that's fine because everyone's needs are being met and nobody is preventing anyone from following in Critical Role's footsteps.
Well that's not exactly true, as the biggest thing preventing black people from participating in geek hobbies
are other black people, but strangely that never gets addressed.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078995Minority voices pointing out that there isn't always room at the table isn't a problem.
No, the problem is all these woke white folk speaking
for them.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079016Gaining skills and experience requires opportunity.
Which anyone can do if they put the work in like everybody else. Expecting everything to be handed to someone because of their gender or race usually does not mean they get everything. Or expecting to coast byand not put the effort in because of gender or race
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079016Opportunity (or the lack of) is often correlated with race.
Sometimes yet more often than not people expect the equivalent of a free lunch for everything and refuse to work at it. It's not society fault if a woman or POC decides to major in interpretative lesbian dance theory and no one wants to hire them or pay them the salary they they want rather. It's not white person fault who decides to go into business or science majors who probably get paid more. Sometimes it's skin color yet more often than not it's entitlement and poor life choices.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079016As a society, we either need to ensure equal opportunity (preferred) or we have to address the results of that lack of opportunity with the damage it does to society. The 'best person for the job' might not be able to get there because of a variety of roadblocks including, but not limited to, various 'gatekeeping' attempts all the way up to the job itself.
All our society has to be based on is a meritocracy and nothing more. POC, female or other sexual identity should not be a factor. As outside places with diversity and inclusivty quotas most places hire the person with the right skills, knowledge and experience. I sure as hell am not hiring POC who has no experience in fixing cars to work in my body shop if I had one. Most companies only make a token effort and diversity and inclusivity anyway imo as they are not going to lose profits. Saying that hiring only the person with the right skills, knowledge and experience for the position is gatekeeping is pure and utter bullshit. It is good business practices. You want to run a company into the ground and bankrupt with poor hiring practices spend your own money.
More importantly one can't force people to go into careers they do not want go into. Maybe if their was a guaranteed salary attached once they graduate with good grades you might see POC or women go into careers dominated by white people. Other than that as I said you can't force them do so.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1079042Well that's not exactly true, as the biggest thing preventing black people from participating in geek hobbies are other black people, but strangely that never gets addressed.
There seem to be a good number of black D&Ders in London these days. Did use to be quite rare though. I'm guessing it's much like white 'jock' culture being down on the nerds.
I was struck by how many black players the Tomb of Annihilation campaign apparently attracted, and most have stuck around to play other stuff. Sometimes Diversity Casting in RPG settings can feel silly, but for American & British D&D campaign settings I guess it makes sense to have some 'these are the black people' ethnies, so black players don't have to play white PCs if they don't want to.
Quote from: Jaeger;1079038Done.
You can't force individuals to do anything else. And you shouldn't. Everyone has the right to choose for themselves.
Maybe it is just me yet all the SJWs in the hobby demanding more POC, female, gays and trans all come off as having a very creepy totalitarian bent when they demand it be done. Freedom of choice forget that you have to get POC, female, gays and trans and the damn table. More time passes the more the Left seems to be more controlling than the right. never taught I would see that in my lifetime. What are we supposed to do go out and grab a POC atie him to a chair and make him join a session.
Quote from: Jaeger;1079038No one is under any moral obligation to "try" anything. It's called freedom of association.
Apparently more "you will have POC, woman and LGBT at your table and they will join one whether your or they like it or not" vibe I am getting more and more lately/
Quote from: Jaeger;1079038This.
We do this for fun. NO ONE has a right to tell us who our friends should be, or who we should play with.
NO ONE.
How dare you say that Jaegar. Check your white privilege. ;)
Unlike some members of the hobby to be part of the cool SJW kids club throw away all their self-respect to join that club. If I can get POC, or LGBt members to my table I will. I will not forced to do so under any circumstances. All are welcome as long as they behave and are respectful of others and keep politics out of the table.My hobbies are for fun and not injecting politics into them
Quote from: S'mon;1079041I certainly find it's very easy to let people of many races, both sexes, and a multiplicity of sexual orientations (& trans) play D&D with me.
They just have to want to play.
For some SJW nutjobs it's still not enough you have to have 75-85% of the table be anything other than white straight males. Otherwise your not trying hard enough and should feel white guilt as well.
Quote from: sureshot;1079045the cool SJW kids club
The average SJW makes the average D&D nerd look like The Fonz.
Quote from: S'mon;1079047The average SJW makes the average D&D nerd look like The Fonz.
Yeah, we shouldn't mistake high-profile alpha SJWs for rank and file homely, socially inept, resentful SJWs. The movement overwhelmingly attracts people with an unattractive psychological profile - insecure, anxious, inflexible, judgemental. Certainly not the sort of people who become cool and popular. The cool and popular SJWs are basically ambitious types who will adopt whatever behaviours and attitudes will earn them more status in a community. They would behave differently if they were trying to climb to the top in a different social environment.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078995There's nothing wrong with pointing out that inclusivity is hard. If you don't try to make it happen, it won't happen.
Except you can not
make inclusivity happen. The moment you do it stops being about being inclusive and you relegate us to a dam checklist.
If the only reason you want me at the table is because you want a "cripple" to check off your inclusive (read: virtue signaling) list then Im probably going to punch you in the face.
Instead just play the damn game and hope to attract the interest of anyone. Not just those on some checklist.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079016Gaining skills and experience requires opportunity.
Opportunity (or the lack of) is often correlated with race.
As a society, we either need to ensure equal opportunity (preferred) or we have to address the results of that lack of opportunity with the damage it does to society. The 'best person for the job' might not be able to get there because of a variety of roadblocks including, but not limited to, various 'gatekeeping' attempts all the way up to the job itself.
The only barrier of entry to playing roleplaying games is the ability to read and maybe not even that if you have a DM to run thing for you.
Well-argued article on how the influx of RPG streaming fans is already changing organized D&D play.
https://gnomestew.com/dd-adventurers-league-and-a-more-narrative-style-of-play/
Quote from: S'mon;1079047The average SJW makes the average D&D nerd look like The Fonz.
Quoted again for Truth.
Preach it brother.
Quote from: sureshot;1079045Maybe it is just me yet all the SJWs in the hobby demanding more POC, female, gays and trans all come off as having a very creepy totalitarian bent when they demand it be done. ...
Creepy is the operative word here.
Quote from: sureshot;1079045How dare you say that Jaegar. Check your white privilege. ;)
But my Mom is from Guatemala. You are confusing me now.
Do they allow half-checks? ;)
The obvious solution to this problem is simply to ban white cishet males from D&D. ;)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1079085The obvious solution to this problem is simply to ban white cishet males from D&D. ;)
Cishet males?
Go home Armchair Gamer, you're drunk. ;0)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1079085The obvious solution to this problem is simply to ban white cishet males from D&D. ;)
Yes, because Exclusion is THE way to be Inclusive.
Quote from: S'mon;1079044There seem to be a good number of black D&Ders in London these days. Did use to be quite rare though. I'm guessing it's much like white 'jock' culture being down on the nerds.
I was struck by how many black players the Tomb of Annihilation campaign apparently attracted, and most have stuck around to play other stuff. Sometimes Diversity Casting in RPG settings can feel silly, but for American & British D&D campaign settings I guess it makes sense to have some 'these are the black people' ethnies, so black players don't have to play white PCs if they don't want to.
It's better now that geek hobbies carry less stigma
in general, but even now it's not primarily white people keeping these minorities from playing, but their own communities.
Quote from: sureshot;1079043All our society has to be based on is a meritocracy and nothing more.
This is a laudable concept I will start believing in the day we manage to get all professional athletes deliberately give up on doping. Because the matter of fact is that some people will always look to their tribe(s) for help to gain an (unfair) advantage over their competitors. My impression is that it is currently is okay for anyone to do so in the US, except for straight white cis males. A meritocracy would also literally demand of parents that they will be okay if their child fails in life if it is less gifted than others.
It's not going to happen. Modern society means having multi-dimensional (sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc) competition between tribes for supremacy. Between the most aggressive members of each tribe, at least. And demanding fairness and justice is sometimes (not always) no more than means to an end in this game. And all of that is of course just the background for individual efforts for excellence.
Welcome to the future, this is your life now. ;)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079105Yes, because Exclusion is THE way to be Inclusive.
Sadly to some of the nuts out there. Yes. They use the word inclusive. But what they really preach is tokenism or worse.
Quote from: Omega;1079132Sadly to some of the nuts out there. Yes. They use the word inclusive. But what they really preach is tokenism or worse.
ENW does a lot of Banning for Inclusivity these days. I recall I once told them they were a lot more inclusive before they were Inclusive.
Quote from: Haffrung;1079073Well-argued article on how the influx of RPG streaming fans is already changing organized D&D play.
https://gnomestew.com/dd-adventurers-league-and-a-more-narrative-style-of-play/
Seems reasonable - despite the use of made up bell curve graphs - and applicable beyond OP. Definitely seen a shift towards more in-character roleplay at the table, despite how lame the 5e PHB Traits-Bonds-Flaws system is. I think this is an actual 'Mercer Effect', one I like - I dislike the 3e era emphasis on char-op 'lonely fun', I prefer a renewed emphasis on what happens at the table.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1079129This is a laudable concept I will start believing in the day we manage to get all professional athletes deliberately give up on doping. Because the matter of fact is that some people will always look to their tribe(s) for help to gain an (unfair) advantage over their competitors. My impression is that it is currently is okay for anyone to do so in the US, except for straight white cis males. A meritocracy would also literally demand of parents that they will be okay if their child fails in life if it is less gifted than others.
It's not going to happen. Modern society means having multi-dimensional (sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc) competition between tribes for supremacy. Between the most aggressive members of each tribe, at least. And demanding fairness and justice is sometimes (not always) no more than means to an end in this game. And all of that is of course just the background for individual efforts for excellence.
Welcome to the future, this is your life now. ;)
I know meritocracy is more of a dream than anything else. I would still prefer that over " treat me better than everyone else because of my race, gender, sexual identity" garbage. All due respect you want me to hire you to fix a roof make a good case without using race, gender or sexual identity politics. Try any of those three with me and you are shown the door immediately.
It reminds me of disastrous business pitch on Dragon Den https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiEOd7Ks8xk
Quote from: S'mon;1079147Definitely seen a shift towards more in-character roleplay at the table, despite how lame the 5e PHB Traits-Bonds-Flaws system is.
It works. But personally I think it is both too convoluted and at the same time, not as well explained as it should be. I can see what they were aiming for. A mechanic to resolve NPC interactions the DM could use, or not. But the basic reaction table they provide does the job on its own. Though not as easily as BX's did.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1079124It's better now that geek hobbies carry less stigma in general, but even now it's not primarily white people keeping these minorities from playing, but their own communities.
198?: The first Black person I gamed with, Charlie Whitley, had a cousin who played with us once and had played in another game once. Charlie said that his cousin enjoyed gaming but stopped because his friends made fun of him. I guess those were Black friends, although I'm not sure. The SF fan, comic book fan, etc. community
were Charlie's friends, so he played until he passed away in the Nineties.
Later in the Eighties, another Black player, Art, gamed with us constantly. He had some friends who were critical because of the satanic panic. I don't know if race ha anything to do with it. He quit when he got married and his wife found out that there were girls in the game. He came back years later, after his divorce, still gamed, with another group, after he moved out of state.
I think Bryan, another Black player, started playing about the same time. He played for a long time and he said that he was looked at as strange in his community. I think he
is strange and I tell him so on Facebook once in awhile. He was a voice against the satanic panic in his church.
Chris was white but his Black wife Doris also played. However, she was one of those "also played" spouses who aren't there so much for the gaming but to be with the spouse.
That is far from all of the Black players in the New Haven community but I think the sample supports the idea that the community thought ill of gaming.
Quote from: Omega;1079066Except you can not make inclusivity happen. The moment you do it stops being about being inclusive and you relegate us to a dam checklist.
If the only reason you want me at the table is because you want a "cripple" to check off your inclusive (read: virtue signaling) list then Im probably going to punch you in the face.
Instead just play the damn game and hope to attract the interest of anyone. Not just those on some checklist.
Actually you
can.
"We welcome everyone, not least people in wheelchairs"
"But you haven't actually made it possible for me to get my wheelchair inside the building!"
So one thing these tyrannical SJWs have done in times past is push (successfully?) for building codes to require wheelchair access. So that has helped some.
But if they are hosting a convention in an old building, it might be exempt. Okay, but that doesn't prevent the organizers from considering solutions to the problem, and ideally do that in advance, rather than being called out for it later.
Quote from: Mistwell;1078681.. I mean seriously, please, NOBODY believes you're anything other than an act. We might LIKE your act, but you're definitely an act. Much more an act than these guys...
I keep seeing people trying to equate Pundit's Shtick with what CR does...
That's like saying I have a cold, and you have cancer, but really, we're both just kinda sick.
Quote from: Mistwell;1078684You are correct. I believe we are observing envy. It's kinda ugly to watch.
LOL. Then the Lady who wrote this article must be riven with envy:
Quote from: Paige Leitman-Editorial...
https://gnomestew.com/dd-adventurers-league-and-a-more-narrative-style-of-play/
"...Find a way to have some of the more popular streamers talk .... Let audiences know that the D&D people play at home/in game stores/at conventions is different than in streaming shows. ..."[/I]
Wait, did she actually just say that these "live streams" are different than home games?
WTF could she possibly be basing this on!?
I want Proof!
She needs to prove such a bold accusation to me, according to my standards, or she's just trying to hide her Ugly Envy of live Streamers like CR behind her little "I'm just writing an Editorial" act.
Quote from: Motorskills;1079202So one thing these tyrannical SJWs have done in times past is push (successfully?) for building codes to require wheelchair access. So that has helped some.
Typical SJW fashion you think that automatically works in all cases. The smart owner who wants to avoid legal issues and fines with the city will ensure wheelchair access. Most could care less as unless they get a huge influx of disabled people living in a building they are not spending the necessary money to do so. Not unless they are fined and forced and even then they drag their feet about it. Personally I consider such people scum. Yet it's not like waving a magic wand and suddenly every building has wheelchair access
Quote from: Motorskills;1079202But if they are hosting a convention in an old building, it might be exempt. Okay, but that doesn't prevent the organizers from considering solutions to the problem, and ideally do that in advance, rather than being called out for it later.
Easier said than do imo. As I said above many will refuse to do it and maybe forced by the city do so and even then drag out the process.
Quote from: Motorskills;1079202Actually you can.
"We welcome everyone, not least people in wheelchairs"
"But you haven't actually made it possible for me to get my wheelchair inside the building!"
So one thing these tyrannical SJWs have done in times past is push (successfully?) for building codes to require wheelchair access. So that has helped some.
But if they are hosting a convention in an old building, it might be exempt. Okay, but that doesn't prevent the organizers from considering solutions to the problem, and ideally do that in advance, rather than being called out for it later.
I agree with you that disability is an area I champion in terms of inclusivity, and F anyone who calls me an SJW for doing it. I certainly have never even vaguely impied that it's easy or that it just automatically works and happens because I wish for it, but I've actively worked for it. It's hard work, but it's worth doing, and it doesn't make someone a snowflake or SJW for actively pushing for it and working hard to make it happen where you can.
Quote from: Jaeger;1079206I keep seeing people trying to equate Pundit's Shtick with what CR does...
That's like saying I have a cold, and you have cancer, but really, we're both just kinda sick.
Nope, that's bullshit. I personally know one of the people in Critical Role. His personality in the game is virtually identical to his personality outside the game. I say again, I think RPGPundit's personality outside of "The RPGPundit" is likely more different from his regular personality than the guy from Critical Role. I don't know RPGPundit in real life so I can't be sure, but his obsessive protection of his real name for non-privacy reasons (he lives in Uruguay), and his long history of edgelore posts, and his blocking out his identity on video, and his saying it's all part of his RPGPundit persona in an interview, adds up to an act. It's a good act. It's an act which has lots of genuine passion and belief behind it, but it's still an act. And that act is at least as different from his regular personality I suspect as the guy from Critical Role is different in the CR videos vs his regular life.
So no, it's not like a cold vs cancer. I am in fact saying they're both roughly equal in terms of who is "acting".
And the only reasons people here don't hold Pundit to the standards they're trying to hold the CR guys to are I suspect envy over their high level of success, and they're not here posting while Pundit is.
Quote from: Mistwell;1079226And the only reasons people here don't hold Pundit to the standards they're trying to hold the CR guys to are I suspect envy over their high level of success, and they're not here posting while Pundit is.
Has Pundit ever explicitly denied that his act is an act? He has mentioned familiarity with acting/improv techniques several times, so perhaps that's where he's employing them, and why he recognizes them in the Critical Role pigshit?
Quote from: S'mon;1079141ENW does a lot of Banning for Inclusivity these days. I recall I once told them they were a lot more inclusive before they were Inclusive.
Saying things like that could get you Banned.
Quote from: Mistwell;1079226Nope, that's bullshit.
Ahhh, sweet eloquent profanity.
The cornerstone of all well reasoned rebuttals on internet fora.
Quote from: Mistwell;1079226I personally know one of the people in Critical Role. His personality in the game is virtually identical to his personality outside the game. I say again, I think RPGPundit's personality outside of "The RPGPundit" is likely more different from his regular personality than the guy from Critical Role. I don't know RPGPundit in real life so I can't be sure, ... (More pure speculation)...
I'm talking of Critical Role as a whole vs Pundit. Which is evident in my post.
You've done a 1v1 individual comparison contrasting someone you know, with someone you don't, to try and prove your point.
Your own evident biases/ideas about who Pundit is cannot hope to make that even a remotely fair comparison.
But attacking Pundit personally, rather than the points he makes in his video, is a good way to try and deflect the subject of the debate.
In your favor, at least you seem to realize that CR is an act/Staged to some degree.
It's amazing how many posted here saying it's not staged at all, totally real, just like some games they know, only better!
I expect to see their challenges to Ms. Leitman's assertion that Live Streams are different to home games in her comments section shortly.
Quote from: Mistwell;1079226And the only reasons people here don't hold Pundit to the standards they're trying to hold the CR guys to are I suspect envy over their high level of success, and they're not here posting while Pundit is.
So this is what he is trying to do here everyone:
Labeling all criticism of CR as envy, is a classic debate tactic to try and shut down critics by putting them on the defensive, thereby controlling the direction of the debate.
If you are spending time trying to explain how not envious you are - then that is less time your opponent spends having to actually address an issue, or argue points on merit.
By attacking Pundit, and the posters with similar views directly, (hopefully getting them to react and defend themselves) they do not have to actually address any points made by those they disagree with.
Quote from: kythri;1079229Has Pundit ever explicitly denied that his act is an act? He has mentioned familiarity with acting/improv techniques several times, so perhaps that's where he's employing them, and why he recognizes them in the Critical Role pigshit?
He has not denied it yet in those terms, but he's danced around it in his reply in this thread.
Quote from: sureshot;1079172I know meritocracy is more of a dream than anything else. I would still prefer that over " treat me better than everyone else because of my race, gender, sexual identity" garbage. All due respect you want me to hire you to fix a roof make a good case without using race, gender or sexual identity politics. Try any of those three with me and you are shown the door immediately.
I agree but I at the same time see the danger. Aren't people who feel marginalized (or who see themselves having a competetive disadvantage) more likely to stick together when competition heats up? After all, it's only fair compensation to some of them? In sports, it's the people who feel they can't win without doping who resort to that. And then the second step is that at some point the majority will feel threatened by minorities sticking together (especially when those become big enough) and they will cover each other's back. Same in sports: you've been the reigning champion, you got beaten or you see the competition catching up fast and feel they're cheating (whether justified or not!). That's when these athletes resort to doping too and thus everybody ends up doing it.
What I am saying is: people will try to get any edge they can on their competition
if they feel they have to. Sometimes even mere paranoia can drive us human beings there. That's why I am as skeptical about a functioning meritocracy as I am about doping-free endurance sports: unlikely to happen without a totalitarian supervision regime. It'd be nice to have it though.
Quote from: Jaeger;1079237Ahhh, sweet eloquent profanity.
The cornerstone of all well reasoned rebuttals on internet fora.
Calling something bullshit is not profanity. I suspect you appreciate the difference.
QuoteI'm talking of Critical Role as a whole vs Pundit. Which is evident in my post.
You've done a 1v1 individual comparison contrasting someone you know, with someone you don't, to try and prove your point.
Your own evident biases/ideas about who Pundit is cannot hope to make that even a remotely fair comparison.
Let me see if I get this straight. None of you know anyone in CR, and none of the CR people have said anything much about this topic, but dismissing it all as actors and not real gamers without knowing them (though I know with 100% direct certainty they were all gamers before there was a camera, most before they were even actors). And that's acceptable to you. But my judging Pundit not knowing him but at least by his own words on the topic is somehow unacceptable to you?
QuoteBut attacking Pundit personally, rather than the points he makes in his video, is a good way to try and deflect the subject of the debate.
I am defintely not attacking him personally, and that odd reply of yours shows you're not grokking this topic. I am juding the act he portrays. He not only does not deny it's an act, but said in an interview it's an act. I am judging his acting, not him personally. And the only judgement I make about his acting is that it's roughly the equivelent of any acting done by the CR guys. I'd love to hear how that's some personal topic.
QuoteIn your favor, at least you seem to realize that CR is an act/Staged to some degree.
They have acting backgrounds. It's not staged in that it is not in any way scripted, it's not edited, it's done live, they're role playing. I know from direct personal experience at least one member behaves exactly like that when not on camera - that's just him. And I am saying that Pundit is doing a rough equivelent of that with his RPG Pundit persona.
QuoteLabeling all criticism of CR as envy, is a classic debate tactic to try and shut down critics by putting them on the defensive, thereby controlling the direction of the debate.
First of all I am classically trained to debate. Second, it's never been to shut down critics, it's always been to engage with critics. Nobody is trying to shut anyone down here. However, playing the victim like you're doing right now and whining, bitching, moaning, and complaining that someone is trying to squelch your right to free speech merely for saying thety think you're behaving with envy? That really IS a classic means of shutting down discussion. Man up. You can handle someone calling you envious without crying about it. If you disagree, then make an argument about why it's not envy.
QuoteIf you are spending time trying to explain how not envious you are - then that is less time your opponent spends having to actually address an issue, or argue points on merit.
There IS merit to the envy argument. I am saying Pundit is as much an act as members of CR and he gets treated differently than the members of CR, and one reason is envy. That's a plenty meritorious argument if true, and so far you've done nothing to refute it other than whine that someone dares say it. Go ahead, play the victim some more without addressing the point being made. But don't be surprised if you fail to impress the crowd here. People here don't tend to like those who play the victim card to get out of addressing hard truths.
Quote from: Mistwell;1079245He has not denied it yet in those terms, but he's danced around it in his reply in this thread.
And he definitely thought it. Just read between the lines people.
Quote from: Motorskills;1079202So one thing these tyrannical SJWs have done in times past is push (successfully?) for building codes to require wheelchair access.
No, you are confusing preening about something with getting something done. The people who did the heavy lifting on the wheelchair access were not notably SJWs.
But that is a great example of something SJWs do all the time: Take credit for something they had little to nothing to do with. It's kind of like socialism more broadly in that respect--any success anywhere is ripe for being claimed, and any failure was because it "wasn't tried properly".
With SJW and real life, it's "Post Turtles" all the way down. You see a turtle on a fence post. He didn't get there on his own merits. He doesn't know what to do now that he is there. But what you really want to know is who was the asshole that put him there?
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1079256But that is a great example of something SJWs do all the time: Take credit for something they had little to nothing to do with.
Good point.
@Jaeger
I've been watching this entire thread. As far as debate goes, not a single shred of actual evidence has been provided to indicate that CR is acting. The ONLY claim to evidence is that people seem to be enjoying themselves far more than is actually POSSIBLE and therefore it MUST be acting.
You should probably read that sentence a few times before you go off half-cocked because it really does imply that some people are having more fun than the people here are - more fun than apparently people here can IMAGINE.
Which is pretty sad when you think about it for any length of time.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079273The ONLY claim to evidence is that people seem to be enjoying themselves far more than is actually POSSIBLE and therefore it MUST be acting.
I'm one who thinks CR is, outright, pre-scripted fluff. And, quite frankly, I don't for a second believe those people are enjoying themselves. Certainly, they're acting as if they're enjoying themselves.
Quote from: kythri;1079281I'm one who thinks CR is, outright, pre-scripted fluff. And, quite frankly, I don't for a second believe those people are enjoying themselves. Certainly, they're acting as if they're enjoying themselves.
Thinking is not proof. Show us proof, and we will believe you. Or rather, I will.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079273@Jaeger
I've been watching this entire thread. As far as debate goes, not a single shred of actual evidence has been provided to indicate that CR is acting. The ONLY claim to evidence is that people seem to be enjoying themselves far more than is actually POSSIBLE and therefore it MUST be acting.
You should probably read that sentence a few times before you go off half-cocked because it really does imply that some people are having more fun than the people here are - more fun than apparently people here can IMAGINE.
Which is pretty sad when you think about it for any length of time.
I about 80% agree with this. I think the CR cast definitely ham up their OOC reactions for the audience - for the cameras as well as for their fellow players (a very actory thing to do,
Dahling); OTOH there does seem a bit of a "They should be mostly bored and checking their IPhones! Fake news!" thing going on here. :D
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079284Thinking is not proof. Show us proof, and we will believe you. Or rather, I will.
I advise you to just skip posts that make such claims without offering any evidence. Without evidence, the conversation is a waste of time.
Quote from: Motorskills;1079202So one thing these tyrannical SJWs have done in times past is push (successfully?) for building codes to require wheelchair access. So that has helped some.
SJWs never advocated for access. Normal people advocated for access. Handicapped people advocated for access. There is a notable difference.
SJWs are all about bitching about the oppression and trying to co-opt things to "make a statement". But they never actually care about the real issues or do anything about the real issues like access, support, and cures. SJWs are also the types most likely to give the group they are advocating for a bad name.
So again. No. Inclusivity can never be forced.
Quote from: Omega;1079315SJWs never advocated for access.
This is a 'no True Scotsman' argument. The moment a social justice warrior actually makes a difference, they're no longer considered a social justice warrior. But clearly and provably, someone must have INTENT before they take action. For every person that made a difference you can find a moment when they realized that it was a problem and that they'd join the fight. People with physical disabilities are a relatively small (but growing minority), but they didn't achieve the ADA entirely on their own. George HW Bush signed the bill into law.
You can disregard the contribution that popular opinion has when it is divorced from action, but you'd be an idiot to do so. Most laws are enacted by politicians who intend to get re-elected; voting for broadly popular policies is usually a good way to do so. Perhaps less so now due to how bad Gerrymandering has become, but state-wide elections still (generally) give each person a vote, so passing laws designed to piss off the majority isn't wise. Clearly, the powers that be didn't feel that making life harder on able-bodied people to better accommodate people with physical handicaps would anger the general population.
For myself, I've never been in a wheelchair, had to use crutches, or otherwise had trouble with stairs. That said, I appreciate the ADA because I understand that that could change at any time. As a parent, I have often appreciated access ramps as I've dealt with strollers. I wasn't even in High School when the law passed
Quote from: Omega;1079315So again. No. Inclusivity can never be forced.
I think that depends entirely on what your objectives are. Ask the Little Rock 9 (https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/central-high-school-integration).
SJW's don't make a positive difference. They are, at best, slacktivists, at worst domestic terrorists. Inclusion works if you don't force it. If you force it, you get people who push back, like the aforementioned Southern States that caused the Little Rock 9 incident.
Forcing something ALWAYS gets people to push back, ALWAYS.
I mean the good news is their kickstarter was so vastly successful that they're downright overfunded for making thier show. If the accusation is that what they've been doing is more of a show than legitimate gaming, well, now they have enough money to remove the pretense of gaming from producing the show itself.
Then the conspiracy theories about the legitimacy of pundits accusations possibly having been the very catalyst for them to finally bite the bullet and go whole hog on making it a full blown actual show can begin in earnest.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079375SJW's don't make a positive difference. They are, at best, slacktivists, at worst domestic terrorists. Inclusion works if you don't force it. If you force it, you get people who push back, like the aforementioned Southern States that caused the Little Rock 9 incident.
Forcing something ALWAYS gets people to push back, ALWAYS.
So, to be clear here, you're arguing that either a) chattel slavery was ended in the US without force, or b) the ending of chattel slavery in the US was not worth the pushback?
Quote from: VincentTakeda;1079385Then the conspiracy theories about the legitimacy of pundits accusations possibly having been the very catalyst for them to finally bite the bullet and go whole hog on making it a full blown actual show can begin in earnest.
Everything flows from Pundit...
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/0347431a-4296-4c22-ae3f-b737a679a2d0
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3250[/ATTACH]
Matt 'the Barbarian' Mercer faces Thulsa Pundit.
Quote from: Motorskills;1079202So one thing these tyrannical SJWs have done in times past is push (successfully?) for building codes to require wheelchair access.
You mean things the Americans with Disabilities Act requires, which was advocated for by actual disabled people, signed into law by George Bush Sr (Rep), and then amended by George Bush Jr (Rep)
to broaden its powers?
Yeah, modern SJWs haven't achieved anything close to that. On the contrary, some are now arguing
against accessibility measures like voicechat on the basis that its ableist, racist, and sexist (https://twitter.com/FerociouslyS/status/928338859007471616).
Quote from: Mistwell;1079226I don't know RPGPundit in real life
Does anyone?
No really, has anyone here ever met him personally, participated in one of his games, or know someone who has?
Quote from: kythri;1079281I'm one who thinks CR is, outright, pre-scripted fluff. And, quite frankly, I don't for a second believe those people are enjoying themselves. Certainly, they're acting as if they're enjoying themselves.
Sadly there's little I can do to convince you otherwise, as while they project and amplify more than the average person, I certainly believe their emotions are genuine.
Quote from: RoyR;1077384How do you know for a fact that CR people are "acting"?
Go take an improv class. That's all the facts you'll need.
And CR acting isn't a bad thing from the perspective of making YT content. Their acting skills are why CR has their success.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1077382Regularly people just shooting the shit isn't some sort of phenomenon that people watch in-mass.
Exactly.
That's why all Reality TV is fake.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078995There's nothing wrong with pointing out that inclusivity is hard. If you don't try to make it happen, it won't happen.
My table is open to fun gamers and fun people who want to be gamers.
I have never given a shit about their DNA or what they do with their junk.
I have zero cares about "inclusivity" because like all other SJW bullshit, its meaningless idiotic wank from self-destructive freakshows.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079016Gaining skills and experience requires opportunity.
Opportunity (or the lack of) is often correlated with race.
Wow, that's some A grade victimhood bullshit right there.
In the USA, opportunity is what you make for yourself. A basic fact known by almost everyone (especially immigrants), except whining SJWs and those who've drowned themselves in the victimhood narrative.
Quote from: S'mon;1079044Sometimes Diversity Casting in RPG settings can feel silly, but for American & British D&D campaign settings I guess it makes sense to have some 'these are the black people' ethnies, so black players don't have to play white PCs if they don't want to.
I haven't played in the AL campaigns so maybe you can explain this. How are there white and black PCs if everyone is making their own character? Or are you referring to in-book artwork?
Quote from: Jaeger;1079082But my Mom is from Guatemala. You are confusing me now.
Do they allow half-checks? ;)
You still have to Save vs. White Privilege, but you get Advantage on your roll.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1079085The obvious solution to this problem is simply to ban white cishet males from D&D. ;)
We can only hope. There are so many other great RPGs that need more fans.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1079414I haven't played in the AL campaigns so maybe you can explain this. How are there white and black PCs if everyone is making their own character? Or are you referring to in-book artwork?
I'm referring to the in-setting races. For instance Forgotten Realms canonically has black people, whereas Greyhawk traditionally doesn't - the jungle natives south of the main campaign area are either white (Suel) or Mesoamerican.
Quote from: sureshot;1079172All due respect you want me to hire you to fix a roof make a good case without using race, gender or sexual identity politics. Try any of those three with me and you are shown the door immediately.
I used to be a headhunter and recruited nursing executives for a few years. Mostly women, many non-white women. Exactly ZERO of them ever brought up their gender or ethnicity. Exactly ALL of them focused on their education, experience and successes.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1079256No, you are confusing preening about something with getting something done. The people who did the heavy lifting on the wheelchair access were not notably SJWs.
Exactly. SJWs only promote victimhood, not achievement.
My mother was hugely involved in ADA advocacy because of my disabled brother.
Mom's view on SJWs? Hmm, what's the name of Metallica's debut album?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079273The ONLY claim to evidence is that people seem to be enjoying themselves far more than is actually POSSIBLE and therefore it MUST be acting.
Of course, its acting.
Actors love acting. It's really fun for them. Improv is all about big emotions and exaggerated expressions and the melodrama of RPGing gives loads of opportunity for that. So yes, lots of fun for actors to be filmed doing improv.
And actors have the MOST fun when they know an audience is watching and appreciating their performance.
Quote from: Catulle;1079388So, to be clear here, you're arguing that either a) chattel slavery was ended in the US without force, or b) the ending of chattel slavery in the US was not worth the pushback?
It was only "worth the pushback" by those of us who didn't sacrifice anything.
Those who died in the Civil War? Or lost their husbands and fathers? Maybe not worth the cause.
Civil War was oh so "worthy" because its just words in history books and actors on screens to us. Far different for those who took a bullet.
Quote from: S'mon;1079418I'm referring to the in-setting races. For instance Forgotten Realms canonically has black people, whereas Greyhawk traditionally doesn't - the jungle natives south of the main campaign area are either white (Suel) or Mesoamerican.
I'm still confused. If a black kid showed up at AL and wanted to play a black paladin, would they be limited to playing a paladin from a specific area of the game world? That never was a thing in RPGA.
And is PC ethnicity a thing in AL now? The only time I knew any PC's skin color was when they made it a point or they did a drawing of their PC.
BTW, that's why my Japanese buddy hated Oriental Adventures and loved Bushido. He was a pain in the ass in our OA games because he demanded to know what everybody's PC looked like. OA 1e was a hodge podge of Chinese / Korean / Japanese / myths and chopsocky flicks, especially in the core book which (like D&D) assumed DMs would DIY their setting and he always wanted to know what NPCs looked like.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1079419It was only "worth the pushback" by those of us who didn't sacrifice anything.
Those who died in the Civil War? Or lost their husbands and fathers? Maybe not worth the cause.
Civil War was oh so "worthy" because its just words in history books and actors on screens to us. Far different for those who took a bullet.
Righto. Well, I suppose it's a positive that you're clear about what you are.
Quote from: Catulle;1079388So, to be clear here, you're arguing that either a) chattel slavery was ended in the US without force, or b) the ending of chattel slavery in the US was not worth the pushback?
It would have stopped naturally, eventually, the Plantation Model is literally unsustainable. Also, slaves don't pay taxes, and governments need money. But this is off topic, and I'm not touching this anymore.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1079420I'm still confused. If a black kid showed up at AL and wanted to play a black paladin, would they be limited to playing a paladin from a specific area of the game world? That never was a thing in RPGA.
And is PC ethnicity a thing in AL now? The only time I knew any PC's skin color was when they made it a point or they did a drawing of their PC.
BTW, that's why my Japanese buddy hated Oriental Adventures and loved Bushido. He was a pain in the ass in our OA games because he demanded to know what everybody's PC looked like. OA 1e was a hodge podge of Chinese / Korean / Japanese / myths and chopsocky flicks, especially in the core book which (like D&D) assumed DMs would DIY their setting and he always wanted to know what NPCs looked like.
I was not referring to AL in my post. I was talking about published settings.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1079420I'm still confused. If a black kid showed up at AL and wanted to play a black paladin,
... I guess I would be supposed to malign him for "cultural appropriation" (one of the most downright retarded concepts ever, culture is dependent on cross-pollination). :D
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1079407You mean things the Americans with Disabilities Act requires, which was advocated for by actual disabled people, signed into law by George Bush Sr (Rep), and then amended by George Bush Jr (Rep) to broaden its powers?
I am certainly not diminishing the efforts of disabled advocates, particularly Patrishia Wright, but none of this stuff happens in a vacuum.
At least disabled folks had the access to the ballotbox, women and slaves did not. You don't need to be in the group to advocate hard for their rights, and always there are people who embrace obstructionism, often because they don't like the advocates, regardless of what it is they are actually advocating for. And ultimately it is the activists' ability to convince the mainstream that will determine whether their efforts are successful or not.
Quote from: S'mon;1079418I'm referring to the in-setting races. For instance Forgotten Realms canonically has black people, whereas Greyhawk traditionally doesn't - the jungle natives south of the main campaign area are either white (Suel) or Mesoamerican.
er. Boxed set Greyhawk page 13.
QuoteThe Flan race have a bronze-colored complexion. This varies from a lighter, almost copper shade to a very dark tone which is deepest brown.
They also tend to have wavy or curly hair. A page later its noted that the dark Flan skin tone is fairly common across the land. Description of dress mentions body paints in the wilder regions and more normal, if brightly hued clothes elsewhere.
Quote from: Omega;1079485er. Boxed set Greyhawk page 13.
They also tend to have wavy or curly hair. A page later its noted that the dark Flan skin tone is fairly common across the land. Description of dress mentions body paints in the wilder regions and more normal, if brightly hued clothes elsewhere.
You see the Flan and think African-American? They're normally taken to be vaguely Amerindian.
Quote from: S'mon;1079513You see the Flan and think African-American?
Flan is a tasty caramel custard dessert popular at Mexican restaurants so the "The People of the Flan" was a running joke during the Living Greyhawk days in California cons.
Quote from: S'mon;1079513You see the Flan and think African-American? They're normally taken to be vaguely Amerindian.
Yes. Wavy or curly hair was the big tip off there. Who reads that and thinks NA?
Quote from: Omega;1079575Yes. Wavy or curly hair was the big tip off there. Who reads that and thinks NA?
I think East Indian. At most, Nubian.
Quote from: Omega;1079575Yes. Wavy or curly hair was the big tip off there. Who reads that and thinks NA?
OK... This seems a unique take on your part, judging by Google.
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1ZKTG_enGB823GB823&q=Flannae&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLw86guovhAhXsURUIHbFBAfwQsAR6BAgAEAE&biw=1920&bih=937
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3254[/ATTACH]
Quote from: S'mon;1079617OK... This seems a unique take on your part, judging by Google.
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1ZKTG_enGB823GB823&q=Flannae&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLw86guovhAhXsURUIHbFBAfwQsAR6BAgAEAE&biw=1920&bih=937
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3254[/ATTACH]
Nice try. But the art in the books has never been exactly an authority on what something looks like.
...
Quote from: Omega;1079618Nice try. But the art in the books has never been exactly an authority on what something looks like.
OK!
Quote from: Mistwell;1079247Calling something bullshit is not profanity. ...
This sentence is literally an oxymoron.
Quote from: Mistwell;1079247Let me see if I get this straight. None of you know anyone in CR, and none of the CR people have said anything much about this topic, but dismissing it all as actors and not real gamers without knowing them (though I know with 100% direct certainty they were all gamers before there was a camera, most before they were even actors). And that's acceptable to you. But my judging Pundit not knowing him but at least by his own words on the topic is somehow unacceptable to you?
I am defintely not attacking him personally, and that odd reply of yours shows you're not grokking this topic. I am juding the act he portrays. He not only does not deny it's an act, but said in an interview it's an act. I am judging his acting, not him personally. And the only judgement I make about his acting is that it's roughly the equivelent of any acting done by the CR guys. I'd love to hear how that's some personal topic.
They have acting backgrounds. It's not staged in that it is not in any way scripted, it's not edited, it's done live, they're role playing. I know from direct personal experience at least one member behaves exactly like that when not on camera - that's just him. And I am saying that Pundit is doing a rough equivelent of that with his RPG Pundit persona.
Quote from: Mistwell;1079247I am saying Pundit is as much an act as members of CR
And I'm comparing what he does to the CR show as a whole, and think that they are on far different levels.
You have compared him to an individual you know, and apply that comparison to the whole of CR.
We obviously have an irreconcilable disagreement on how we view the situation.
Quote from: Mistwell;1079247First of all I am classically trained to debate. Second, it's never been to shut down critics, it's always been to engage with critics. Nobody is trying to shut anyone down here. However, playing the victim like you're doing right now and whining, bitching, moaning, and complaining that someone is trying to squelch your right to free speech merely for saying they think you're behaving with envy? That really IS a classic means of shutting down discussion. Man up. You can handle someone calling you envious without crying about it. If you disagree, then make an argument about why it's not envy.
There IS merit to the envy argument. ... he gets treated differently than the members of CR, and one reason is envy. That's a plenty meritorious argument if true, and so far you've done nothing to refute it other than whine that someone dares say it. Go ahead, play the victim some more without addressing the point being made. But don't be surprised if you fail to impress the crowd here. People here don't tend to like those who play the victim card to get out of addressing hard truths.
When you question someones motivations - and they start to defend them, then you are no longer arguing the original points of the debate.
It is a change of subject. (And most people don't catch on to what is being done.)
So don't react to provocations like the "Envy" argument kids.
As you can see from his reaction to pointing such tactics out, (whether he consciously used them or not), what kind of sidetracked mess you'll be drawn into.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079273@Jaeger
I've been watching this entire thread. As far as debate goes, not a single shred of actual evidence has been provided to indicate that CR is acting. The ONLY claim to evidence is that people seem to be enjoying themselves far more than is actually POSSIBLE and therefore it MUST be acting.
You should probably read that sentence a few times before you go off half-cocked ...
You should actually read my past posts in this thread before you go off half-cocked; please point to one where I said they are outright acting, or going off a prepared script.
My past posts explain my position on what they are doing in CR thoroughly.
I see no need to re-type them here.
Quote from: Mistwell;1078681Oh please. You don't show your face, and conceal your name behind a facade. The facade is literally Pundit, and you call yourself the last boss of the internet shitlords.
Final boss. And it's not a title I gave myself (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40324-How-I-Got-My-Youtube-Title).
Quote from: sureshot;1078850What gets me is that they think it's so damn easy to attract a POC, female or gay gamer to a tabletop session.
I have all three.
Also, it's funny seeing wundergeek is still around.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078995There's nothing wrong with pointing out that inclusivity is hard. If you don't try to make it happen, it won't happen.
What utter nonsense. I have people of color, women, LGBT people, and even an actual communist (which I think basically counts as a disabled person; great gamer though!) at my table. And I sure as fuck haven't 'tried' to meet any diversity quotas.
Literally all you have to do is not care about anything other than their quality as gamers.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1079407Does anyone?
No really, has anyone here ever met him personally, participated in one of his games, or know someone who has?
JongWK, Sunboy and (I think his user name is) Magnetic Kid are all users here (none of whom post all that frequently) who have played at my table.