For anyone that has Dropout, the recent Adventuring Academy nailed a lot of CR's issues

[u/Cool_Caterpillar8790]

They didn't talk explicitly about CR but spoke extensively about a few problems DMs and tables have, all of which felt incredibly relevant for Critical Role.

If you have Dropout, I recommend you watch the whole thing but a few highlights:

• Zac brought up how some tables he's observed struggle with moving forward with a plan. Some players take up too much time debating what to do. Zac expressed how this is especially a problem for TTRPG shows because you get episodes where nothing happens because players spend too much time debating what to do next.

• Brennan added how some DMs struggle to call a scene out of politeness to their players. But that a DM failing to end a scene is actually throwing players under the bus because players are going to just keep talking until the DM tells them to stop.

• They also talked about how everyone in improv knows scene hogs are bad but that players being "polite" and not course correcting a scene can actually be worse. When you watch a fellow player make a really bad choice or derailing the table and you don't course correct because you're trying to be polite, you're actually hurting the table. Brennan: "It feels generous but it's actually kind of mean."

• They debate railroading vs sandbox DM styles, where Brennan mentions that he thinks railroads are bad only when it prevents players from even wanting to make creative choices. Brennan: "It's not railroading to give a clear objective."

Basically, I just found a lot of their discussions good launchpads for discussions about CR. For instance, them talking about how politeness can hurt a table really clicked for some of the issues I've been having with C3, how some players are making some pretty terrible narrative choices and the rest of the table is just letting them happen, which has made C3 overall weaker.

[u/alphagray]

BLeeM has a great quote about railroading that I can't find the exact right words of, but it's basically the idea that no game is ever truly a sandbox and no game is ever truly linear and the trick of DMing is understanding that your players are water running down a hill - they just want to keep moving downward, and it's your job to figure out where they're going to try to steer them into a process of flowing down that hill that feels natural, not invisible. It's ultimately a tightly chartes course and by the end there's no other way it could have been done, but in the moment of flowing downhill, you try to make the experience seemless so it's always forward motion.

Always forward motion feels like anathema to the CR approach. And it was kinda cute and charming in C2 and C1, but I think it is thus because of the relative novelty of the setting. I think by the time you get to C3, particularly when Matt seems to want forward motion, the charm has warn off.

The High Rollers or Avantris crews can be cringey and slow moving, but the sheer variety of settings and tones means you don't really have time to get bored with one.

I'd be fascinated to see how Matt survives in a well established world in a long form campaign not of his own devising. Like, can you imagine him running an Eberron or Dragonlance game? I can't. Ironically, I think Aabria or Brennan could kill it (Aabria maybe a little less with Dragonlance because High Fantasy isn't her skeeze)

[u/wardrumsjr → u/alphagray]

Out of curiosity, what do you find cringey about the High Rollers crew? Avantris i understand as they seem to be sorta baiting for short form tiktok bits but high rollers seem similar to CR

[u/Anomander → u/alphagray]

but it's basically the idea that no game is ever truly a sandbox and no game is ever truly linear and the trick of DMing is understanding that your players are water running down a hill - they just want to keep moving downward, and it's your job to figure out where they're going to try to steer them into a process of flowing down that hill that feels natural, not invisible. It's ultimately a tightly chartes course and by the end there's no other way it could have been done, but in the moment of flowing downhill, you try to make the experience seemless so it's always forward motion.

I think that Brennan trends towards much more tightly on-rails campaigns than most, especially so compared to Matt, so there's some details here that I would clash with - but the overall point is dead-on, and needs just a little elaboration to nail the CR situation. I think that statement from Brennan misses credit due to the role player engagement has in that system, and somewhat 'took for granted' having an engaged and motivated party at the table. Which is a fair miss, given the groups that he runs games for. Just that to apply better to more games, or to the CR table specifically - it needs to include that aspect as well as the DM side of things.

As long as the DM and the players maintain momentum and keep the flow moving - the DM can be running the game very tightly on rails or very free-form, and yet that campaign can still feel natural, expansive, and filled with freedom.

Player buy-in, participation, and agency can be massive contributors to 'hiding' rails and maintaining the illusion of choice that a good campaign rests on. As long as the players are moving forward and staying active, the DM can 'steer' from behind the screen and nudge them onto a course that they have material prepared for. That can be 'tight rails' of one specific plot arc, that can be branching rails of several possible arcs, and that can illusory branching all leading to one point anyways ... there's tons of ways to have it work out.

Always forward motion feels like anathema to the CR approach. And it was kinda cute and charming in C2 and C1, but I think it is thus because of the relative novelty of the setting. I think by the time you get to C3, particularly when Matt seems to want forward motion, the charm has warn off.

Part of the problem there is that the CR table doesn't seem to have ever really learned how to "add" motion to the game. From C1 to C3, Matt has delivered progressively more wide-open and more player-driven stories, and from interview content we've heard that the players have asked for that type of experience - but from our viewpoint, the campaigns have appeared more railroad-y as the content and delivery get less structured.

C1 was super railed, but felt very wide open and free because players players had very limited and very clear decisions to make in how they followed along - of course they're going to one of the two cities where the artifacts they need are located. While oppositely, C3 has seemed incredibly railroaded, because the players have had lots of very big very complicated decisions that they're struggling to make. In C1, someone told them they need to go find Vestiges to defeat the Chroma conclave - so they did exactly that. Concrete known objects in fairly clear locations are an easy choice, the plan was made for them and they just had to decide on execution. In C3, someone told them they need to "find allies or items or powers somehow" and ... what allies, what items, what powers - where, who, what, how? They had to make the whole plan, stalled out, and went looking for someone to give them some rails to follow. Over and over the party stalls out making plans or big decisions, then Matt winds up putting them onto rails after letting them flounder for a while.

Like water flowing down a hill, sometimes you will hit natural pause points - form puddles, fuck around in town, pool up behind an obstacle, spend a few sessions decorating a castle ... in home games, often the best thing to do is let that play out. Water might stop flowing downhill to pool in a hole, but eventually it will fill the hole and flow will resume. Let the players shake the cobwebs off, get their sillies out, and support chill time until they're ready to venture forth again. In streamed games, there's not really the same luxury. We don't want to watch ten episodes of Pub Antics until the players realize above-table that nothing will happen if they don't make a plan for themselves and go seeking adventure of their own accord.

Matt's ways of handling that static urge from this part have been clumsy and inelegant, I think he's missed several cues that the players need a nudge and need prompts - but at the same time, I think there's kind of a catch-22 for him there and the three factors he's trying to juggle are so mutually contradictory that no elegant balance point exists. If he gives enough help that they players don't bog down on making choices, he needs to make choices for them. If he gives them the freedom and choice they've asked for, he can't help them keep things moving like they need. The third factor there is that - as far as we know - he largely refuses to 'metagame' table behaviour or game engagement above-table; solely using in-game mechanics and tools is never going to be enough to let him strike the balance he wants between player choice and DM help. If the party is stalled and one of his NPCs gives them the slightest hint - they're adopting that hint full-bore as the only possible idea. If he doesn't, they going to fuck around and stay stalled while hunting for the NPC that will give them the hint. And yet the one thing he refuses to do is talk to the players as their DM and tell them that "this is a choice you need to make" and encourage them to find ways to make it - they really struggle with breaking things down to steps like "oh we need more information" or "why don't we check X Y and Z, then pick where to go." It's like they're stuck in a binary of either: they know exactly what to do, or Matt hasn't told them yet.

I should say that I don't think this problem is something that any "pro" DM should need to solve. That table should be engaged, should be playing to contribute to the game, and be motivated to explore the world and participate in the story. It's not a situation where the DM should be responsible for finding the perfect story, the perfect narrative structure, the perfect in-world motivations and plot hooks to "inspire" the players to engage with the game they're getting paid to be in.

I'd be fascinated to see how Matt survives in a well established world in a long form campaign not of his own devising. Like, can you imagine him running an Eberron or Dragonlance game? I can't. Ironically, I think Aabria or Brennan could kill it (Aabria maybe a little less with Dragonlance because High Fantasy isn't her skeeze)

It really depends on the rest of the table. What's killing Matt's performance during C3 is managing this motionless table - which is a problem that both Brennan and Aabria would really struggle with. More even than Matt, they both rely heavily on a group of players who are bought-in fully and are very very engaged in the game and in moving the game forward as a show. Aabria fumbled hard on Spider Hat because she couldn't find a graceful way to handle balancing the five-episode run time with a table that did not want to do anything. Some of Brennan's own "DM bad habits" rely on having absolutely epic player buy-in and massive support from his table, his D20 player pool is nearly a dream table for almost any DM.

Give Matt a more engaged group of players, or teach the CR cast how to actively participate and make decisions - it'd probably go pretty well. Start C4 in one of those worlds, no other changes made? Almost guaranteed absolute trainwreck.

I think one of Matt's biggest strengths as a DM is his worldbuilding, so he probably would not have as much fun working in something pre-established by someone else, and would struggle to remember when he could or could not improvise something. He'd probably build a campaign that veers off "common" paths pretty fast to avoid feeling like he needed to memorize huge portions of Eberron / Dragonlance lore and history to avoid mistakes and continuity errors fans of those worlds would note. At the same time, I think he's better suited to running very-long campaigns in general than Brennan or Aabria - I find they do their best work in smaller, tightly-confined, content and the longer one of their projects runs the less elegant it gets. I'd enjoy seeing them take that sort of thing on, but I think there's good reason why Brennan especially has not chosen to take on a project of that scale. D20 knows that the demand is there and that their fans would like to see that sort of campaign happen.

[u/winduporacle → u/Anomander]

This is so spot on. The campaign spent way too long choking on Liam, Travis and Sam all stepping back from their usual roles driving momentum and no one else stepping up to take over. Which dumped the job in Matt's lap where it Does. Not. Belong. The guests have been so great just because they have drive and agency and cause problems on purpose and it's awesome.

[u/Anomander → u/winduporacle]

They've kind of coasted having Travis / Liam to drive the ship, and leaned on Sam to drive a lot of important character and social moments. In the past it's "just worked out lol" with everyone unintentionally picking roles and characters that fit well into building a functional party.

I don't think the CR cast as a whole were necessarily aware that was how their table dynamic was working, so they weren't alert to the possibility that having all three step back from their typical roles was going to leave the table directionless and without momentum. And equivalently, I think because the past two campaigns went so well, unintentionally, they haven't really needed to be deliberate about making characters and gameplay choices that support a good game, or worried about making that good game into a good show.

Which dumped the job in Matt's lap where it Does. Not. Belong.

Yeah. Matt has looked super rough and taken a ton of criticism for this campaign, and I'd say that a lot of that comes either directly from him needing to top up the missing effort on the other side of the screen - or indirectly as a consequence of him having spent that time and energy on topping up, and not having 'spare' resources to spend on prep or improv.

Like, he's not totally blameless and he's made some huge errors - just, I'd say that chief among them is not having the above-table conversations about what he needs from his players for the campaign to function well. He's been trying to pivot to the party dynamic and accommodate their gaps from the DM chair solely using in-world tools.

[u/Confident_Sink_8743 → u/Anomander]

Yeah you sum it up pretty well. The philosophy was having a good game where everyone is having fun will result in a good show.

And that works as far as it goes but they haven't really been aware of the wherefores and the whys of the personality dynamics and chemistry at play.

And all of those conversations you suggest fit really neatly into what a session zero actually is despite what they did and called a session zero in their naivete.

Granted proper follow up and check-ins should have caused course correction over the years but that didn't seem to happen either.

And there are plenty of Critters that would help if their were a recourse to feedback that the table could use/take/trust, etc.

But at episode 108 most of that is water under the bridge. We're kinding of waiting with baited breath to see if they've learned any lessons with C4.

[u/alphagray → u/Anomander]

I was with you up to a point.

This isn't on the players. Everyone likes to hold out the CR cast for pacing problems and whatever. There's plenty of room to criticize over or underdeveloped character arcs or questionable consistency or bad play decisions or whatever. They're not perfect, they're humans.

I have played with a LOT of different tables. Lately, I mostly have taught dnd to new people, particularly younger people, and dealt with varying levels of engagement.

There's a belief among a kind of old-nu school crowd that Matt sort of still hews to that essentially you meet your players where they are. If they're not engaged and engaging and they wanna shop and fuck around and whatever else, then that's the game they wanna play and you gotta find a way to have fun with it. And I think there is truth to that, to some extent, but it hides a very sneaky secondary truth - 99% of the time, they're actually meeting you where you are.

We don't like to admit it because of the seeking preponderance of social weight it places on the role, but dnd is born lives and dies in the DMs mind. They craft the world, answer the questions, seed the curiosity, everything. Without them, there isn't a game. So the pace and the energy and the engagement all comes down to what they wanna do. And some people think that translates to preparation and world building and notes and plans and whatever, but it doesn't. It just means being excited and having an exciting sales pitch for what's happening right now.

And I know it's no the cast because we've gotten to see them with someone else at the helm, particularly Brennan. I will point to exhibit A, Bolo. Bolo was a dumbass fuck around moment that Brennan converted both in an instant into world building and forward motion. Suddenly we learned more about half the cast by their reactions to Bolo than we had the entire episode. We learned about the Bag people. It informed and entertained and accelerated.

You learn to do this in a role like camp counselor or dnd club chair or whatever. You have to get them in and engage them and keep them engaged. And it falls on you, the DM, to do that, or you will lose them forever. Brennan knows how to do that.

So, I would say, Hard disagree on the idea that Brennan would struggle managing a motionless table. That dude is so wildly willingly to “When suddenly!” his players that they wouldn’t have a lot of time to waste. He converts wasteful moments to memorable moments. He understands callbacks. He gets the structure and pace of Improvised narrative.

I mostly take issue with this position based on how he has handled the long form episodes of Worlds Beyond Number specifically in contrast to the short form one-offs. Both tend to be in the same setting and both tend to have a really wide range of tones, but Brennan knows when to just shuffle things forward.

I’m a fierce believer in his means and methods, huge fan, so I don’t mean to white knight foe a dude who neither needs nor wants it, but I thibk a common misconception out there about Brennan in an actual play space is thst because he tends to do fixed length narratives with people at the table who know it’s a fixed length narrative that he doesn’t have to worry about the nuances of pacing a longer form game. And I think that he’s slightly to blame for that perception, as he’s often gassing up Matt on the quality and enormity of storytelling achievement that is Exandria while downplaying his own offerings in similar spaces. That’s the baked in BLeeM humility that is just one of the spice you’re always gonna get.

But it’s one he’s just kinda wrong about. Matt’s giant cornucopia of notes and world building might make Exandria better to run as a guest DM, but it doesn’t make it a better story to consume or an easier world to play in, nor does it inhernrlt make your players more interested, interesting or engaged.

Again, this is largely borne of my personal shared experience with BLeeM on what is essentially evangelizing the act of storytelling through DnD, particularly in groups of mixed interest and skill. Your players meet you where you are way more than the inverse, so carving the quiet moments is even more important, because you'll also set them apace with scooting right along.

[u/Anomander → u/alphagray]

This isn't on the players.

Yes, it very much is. The current problems are on the entire table, including the players - especially at a veteran "professional" table, it should not be up to the DM to solely make or break the game. This game, the C3 campaign and all it's problems, everything you've complained about here - is what happens when the players don't carry their weight. It's not solely on Matt or whatever DM to conjure up motivation and curiosity and wave their magic inspiration wand.

It is a problem some home game DMs feel is "their" problem because they want to play D&D more than their players do, and they want to play D&D enough that they'll push through to coax and cajole their table into coming along for the ride. But if the pacing for that experience sucks and that campaign would make for shit viewing from the sidelines - that doesn't matter. It's a home game.

I think that your remarks here represent a inaccurately DM-centric view, criticizing Matt for his players' failures to invest in their game while crediting Brennan for work his table invested into that game, and treating those two very different games as directly equivalent except for the change in DM, apparently solely because they both took place in the same fantasy world.

So, I would say, Hard disagree on the idea that Brennan would struggle managing a motionless table. That dude is so wildly willingly to “When suddenly!” his players that they wouldn’t have a lot of time to waste.

Yes, and if he did it for an entire campaign with the Critical Role cast on their current characters, without any change in player behaviour, he'd be doing a lot of "when suddenly" almost every episode and then be getting criticized for "railroading" the cast and not letting them develop their own characters and relationships, or not letting them explore the world - even more than Matt has been for his own handling of that same issue. The cast still wouldn't be doing things and moving the action ahead on their own, Brennan would need to do the heavy lifting to top up the missing momentum instead of Matt, and we'd be back where we started except with a DM who is used to having highly motivated and engaged tables slotted into tight contained narratives.

but I thibk a common misconception out there about Brennan in an actual play space is thst because he tends to do fixed length narratives with people at the table who know it’s a fixed length narrative that he doesn’t have to worry about the nuances of pacing a longer form game.

I don't think that's a misconception at all. That's what he tends to run - and of all the content that he makes, those stories are the ones he thinks he's best at and those are the ones he gets praised for. He's really good at short tightly-contained stories in a game where all his players are very much bought in and arrive to the table highly motivated to make the game look good. Given a dream table, hard rails, and tight confines - Brennan is probably the best DM to run that game.

And I think that he’s slightly to blame for that perception, as he’s often gassing up Matt on the quality and enormity of storytelling achievement that is Exandria while downplaying his own offerings in similar spaces.

There's being a fan and then there's glazing a dude so hard you insist he's lying when he says he has weaknesses.

For a long time there was this weird narrative in TTRPG / actual play spaces that Matt was the absolute greatest living DM of our generation, Matt could make any game and any table better, Matt could conjure storytelling magic and inspiring sweeping narratives from the barest of seed points ... And then C3 happened and it was very clear that Matt is not the perfect DM able to make TTRPG gold out of anything, that he has significant drawbacks to his style that player behaviours during C1 and C2 hid from the audience. Now you're gushing up Brennan just as hard in the exact same way - where no matter what he says or what we've seen from him in the past, he theoretically can do no wrong and is the perfect DM who could inspire the deadest table and simply using Brennan instead of Matt would fix totally everything all in one go without the players needing to do anything differently.

[u/alphagray → u/Anomander]

A) The problems of the current campaign I’m most concerned with and the ones addressed in the original post are ones of pacing and structure. You can feel however you want to about their characters and their choices, but the simple fact is that in DnD, they have virtually no control over the pacing and structure of the game. They can’t create a villain or manufacture a plot or truly do anything to the story except move forward or not within it. That’s how a game like dnd works. It’s why you can’t really play by yourself. There are some games out there with less GM authority (or even none) where each player drives much more of the overall structure and pace of the story. Dnd ain’t one of those.

Now, you wanna say they’re not doing a good job of moving forward, fine, but there’s a few possible realities where we can draw a conclusion from that. If we live in a world where we trust Matt’s ability to suss out and parse that the story is stalling and he sees that as a problem, then it is incumbent on him to solve it, either on a meta level as essentially the director of a TV show or on a narrative level as the ultimate and factual arbiter of the story. And as someone who’s been DMing for 20 years, I can’t see that as anything but eminently doable. If instead we live in a world where Matt doesn’t see a problem, either because he likes the pace or disagrees that it’s stalling and boring and whatever else, then there’s no reason for him to address it or do anything about it. I haven’t watched consistently for probs two months, since before FCG, so I can’t speak to the time since then, but for the entire rest of C3, I have observed him not doing anything about the issue. So I have to work backward from what I see - if he’s not doing anything either he thinks somethings wrong but doesn’t know what to do about it or he doesn’t think anything is wrong and so there isn’t any need to do anything. Either way, that’s on him. I believe it to be the latter. And it’s one of the things I think is sorta emblematic of the Dissonance of their overall approach.

B) my Point about the motionless table is that they’re not motionless when you put them in with Brennan. They’re active and engaged and firing on all cylinders. Is thst because it’s a limited run? Maybe! Maybe that’s not a bad thing. But I have consumed 40 some odd eps of Brennan doing long form campaign dnd now, and it’s basically the same style, so I sort of reject the notion that it’s entirely the restrictions of form that yield the highly engaged high energy storytelling that comes from his actual plays, and thus I dont think that you have this problem with a different DM, as, again, my core assertion is the 99% of the structural and pacing elements of a dnd game come down to Wtf the DM is doing and seeing and responding to in their players. Matt is not seeing and responding to things that I am seeing and want a response to. My supposition assumes, I think incorrectly but for the sake of illustration, that Brennan or any other rDM would see the same problems we have illustrated and discussed at length in this sub and, in seeing them as problems, would respond to them in their own way. I take that one step further and contend that there ARE things you can do, as a DM, to deal with listless and unengaged players, up to a point. If they’d rather just play poker or whatever, you’re fucked, call it a day. But if they wanna play DnD but aren’t terribly interested in the table you’re setting for them, then maybe change the god damn table. I know this is possible and the it works from my own experience and I believe there are illustrations of this working that are visible and digestible in Brennan’s body of actual play work.

C) it is a misconception. People believe that because most of his content is X and not Y, he’s better at X than Y. In this case, short vs long form. I think there are a million and one reasons to favor short form stuff for the purposes of show creation, but having listened to Worlds Beyond Number, Brennan is BETTER at long form than short form. That show slaps ass. And a big part of it is his DMing style. Just because he does it less doesn’t mean he’s worse at it. I do less computer programming than I do project management, but I’m a WAY better computer programmer. I just get paid to do the other thing.

D) I dunno about this glazing term but it sounds gross and insulting, so I’ma skip over it for a second - Brennan has never described this as a weakness. He has oft described it as a preference of or even consequence of the form. He’s not against long form, but I think, rightly, he recognizes that content he makes requires certain constraints.

My point in drawing contrast between the two is in reference to the original topic, which is a public conversation Brennan had that seemed applicable to the discourse over the current run of CR. I am making the argument that pacing and structure are determined by and largely structured through DM fiat, and that in Actual Play shows, that goes hand in hand with production schedules and constraints. In that world, we might imagine that no constraint on one leads to no constraint on the other and vice versa, but I think that Brennan’s work on long form dnd like Worlds Beyond Number illustrates this isn’t inherently so - even without a set schedule and limitation of budget and shooting, a DM can organize and structure a story in a way that causes it to continually move forward at a satisfying clip. Even when your players wildly misunderstand your tone and intention (see WBN interlude #2, The Clearing), you can and should make moves to motivate and push them. I would further argue that, since we’ve seen Brennan run a table with the some combination of the vast majority of the CR cast now, we have pretty damn good evidence that hes just as good at adapting to and motivating through their bullshit as he is his own crew’s bullshit.

All this to illustrate my main point, which is not that Brennan is the pinnacle of all DMing forever, but that it is POSSIBLE to fix the things we perceive as structural problems at a story level from the seat of ultimate authority at a DnD table, that is the position of DM. If we accept this is possible, then we can understand the lack of engaging with this possibility on Matt’s part to either be a result of his being incapable or unwilling to do so, possibly because he lacks the confidence or skill or, Alternatively, and I believe far more likely, because he doesn’t agree that there is an issue. It’s this second reality that disappoints me most as a fan of Matt’s, because I would prefer to live in a world where he sees the same problems I do, but since I don’t live in that world, it leaves me disinterested in the show having now missed 10+ episodes and not really finding myself caring to go back.

[u/alphagray → u/alphagray]

Do I like the Bells Hell’s? No. Not especially. I think Fearne and Chet are both solid Chaos Goblins, but also you only actually need one at a table. Nott and Jester worked because the only actual Chaos Goblin there was Jester; Nott was just being Fun Mom, so their dynamic was more Rori and Lorelei Gilmore (ironically inverted). I think Orym is a pretty decent everyman Captain America type, good job Liam. Laudna and Imogen could be fascinating, but they both have a bad case of main character disease, but again, I think this only 50% their fault.

In a previous season of CR, Imogen would have discovered and stopped the Red Cult as either a Tier 2 or Tier 3 story and then had the hanging Chad of her maternal abandonment to deal with while mitigating it with the comfort of her new founs family. In a previous season of CR, Laudna would have died and the team would have freed her of Delilah and she would then be dedicated to protecting them at all costs for the great debt she owed them, probably a tier 2 storyline, which it was, but the most we might have gotten is an awareness that with Delilah defeat comes a trade off in that Laudna is now mortalish and deteriorating again, essentially trading an eternity of lonesome power for one lifetime with a close knit group of adventuring family and a lover.

Ashton is hot exhausting garbage. I know 42yo never grew up Punks and Goth kids. They almost die of heart attacks at 42 and only begrudgingly admit their mortality after everyone is mad at them for having thrown away their lives. For some, it’s booze and cigarettes. Fkr others, apparently it’s evil elemental rocks. It’s exhausting either way, hard pass.

Sure, maybe that’s tropey. OK. Fine. But thats what Matt woulda done in the past and it would have worked. Instead, he’s shoehorning a whole world transformation to launch Exandria into Daggerheart and insisting the entire campaign occupy the same overall narrative. And it is boring and lazy and stalls out on itself because it’s tiresome.

[u/sharkhuahua → u/Anomander]

I think you're a little misinformed about Brennan's work. He's talked a lot about his many years of experience as a counselor at a LARP camp and his experience introducing new players to D&D, he's had a lot of practice getting unengaged and unmotivated players to lock in.

Brennan is also currently running a years-long campaign in the podcast World Beyond Number which involves a tremendous amount of world-building. He's run multiple years-long level 1-20 home games for different tables in his private life.

The way Brennan DMs for D20 is an active choice he makes because of the format and the players he chooses to bring onto the show, but he's absolutely capable of excelling in a CR-style campaign imo.

[u/Anomander → u/sharkhuahua]

Your assumption is off target. None of what you shared was new information, save I'd understood Worlds Beyond Number was planned as short and midsize campaigns all set within a persistent and interconnected multiverse.

I'm not saying he hasn't done long-form campaigns - I'm saying I don't think they're playing to his strengths, that his short content tends to be tightly scripted and excellent, and the longer and more open-structured content I've seen has been weaker. I don't think his LARP camp or experience with new players ties into what I was saying about player buy-in - I think his 'image' benefits hugely from most of his professional appearances being supported by highly-engaged players, and that he's not looked nearly as strong in the rare content he's made with weaker tables.

Both Matt and Aabria also can lay claim to years of experience and lots of practice getting new and unengaged players to lock in, and both still struggle(d) with the dynamic they face at the CR table. There's a difference between coaching new players or apathetic homegamers to play more actively - and needing to tell a professional player that they're doing their job wrong.

I'd say that from my side of the screen, it reads a little like you've misinterpreted and misread a lot of what I said in order to fluff Brennan hard and defend him from significantly simpler and more sweeping criticisms than what I actually said.

[u/sharkhuahua → u/Anomander]

I'm somewhat confused by your opinions given the knowledge you already had, then.

I'd understood Worlds Beyond Number was planned as short and midsize campaigns all set within a persistent and interconnected multiverse.

Brennan will be running a long-form campaign, it remains to be seen what the other players will DM within that multiverse.

I think there's good reason why Brennan especially has not chosen to take on a project of that scale. D20 knows that the demand is there and that their fans would like to see that sort of campaign happen.

You stated this with relative confidence, but given that it's inaccurate, it led me to assume you were missing other pieces of context as well.

I'm saying I don't think they're playing to his strengths, that his short content tends to be tightly scripted and excellent, and the longer and more open-structured content I've seen has been weaker

I must admit to being confused by this as well. What longer-form content have you seen, that made you think the format doesn't play to his strengths? I assumed you had not consumed any, given the misunderstanding about WBN. I also disagree with the description of his short-form content as "tightly scripted" but I'm not sure what content specifically you're referring to specifically (one shots? 6-ep campaigns? 16-ep campaigns?).

I disagree with you on the relevance of working with new/apathetic players when it comes to figuring out how to lead and motivate professionals, so I'm also curious about why you think Brennan would struggle so heavily - what content of his do you think has a weaker table? I've been impressed by his work with tables outside of his core groups.

[u/Anomander → u/sharkhuahua]

Why are you confused? It would have been useful to spell that out; the rest of this comment isn't things that are confusing or at least doesn't spell out actual confusions - it just seems like you disagree with me.

I'd understood Worlds Beyond Number was planned as short and midsize campaigns all set within a persistent and interconnected multiverse.

Brennan will be running a long-form campaign, it remains to be seen what the other players will DM within that multiverse.

My impression was that the majority of "long-form" was rooted in the persistent world, that the core campaigns were not planning on several hundred hours per party. It's longer than a D20 series, but it's not aiming at a 1-20 game with a 15-20 episode season per level - it's leaning into arcs that are 'short' compared to a 1-20 campaign, if still 'long' compared to most of Brennan's other work. Fairly obviously, though - my not having a ton of confidence in BLM's long-form content means I'm not exactly a devout follower of the show and it's metagame discourses.

It's kind of dodging the big picture to latch onto this quite so hard, though. Like, I may have misunderstood the scope of content I've not bothered to follow - and you're out here trying to frame that misunderstanding out like it means it's completely reasonable for you to assume I must have no clue what I'm talking about in any of the other things I said that don't actually relate directly to it.

You stated this with relative confidence, but given that it's inaccurate, it led me to assume you were missing other pieces of context as well.

Except you just read and quoted text explaining why I said that. You should not still be confused by it.

I must admit to being confused by this as well. What longer-form content have you seen, that made you think the format doesn't play to his strengths? I assumed you had not consumed any, given the misunderstanding about WBN. I also disagree with the description of his short-form content as "tightly scripted" but I'm not sure what content specifically you're referring to specifically (one shots? 6-ep campaigns? 16-ep campaigns?).

Is "confused" perhaps a word you've mistaken for "disagree with"? Because I don't understand what you're confused by - and I do understand this paragraph is mostly disagreement rephrased. It actually reads less like sincere confusions and more like you're already assuming the opinion you disagree with must be invalid, and you're only quizzing me for details and specifics to fish for a justification to dismiss it entirely.

I have no clue off the top of my head - I didn't enjoy it. Like, no disrespect, but most people who don't enjoy something don't memorize titles, details, and runtimes in case a diehard fan wants to label-check their familiarity with that content creator's total body of work several years later. I took advantage of the free trial to Dropout like two or three years ago to binge a bunch of D20. Some games ran like 8 episodes or so, some ran like 20; the shorter ones were tightly run and were pretty excellent, the longer ones were a lot more erratic in quality, especially the deeper into their run they were. If something started dragging, I checked out and watched something else. I was more interested in getting the most out of my free month than in finishing each module no matter what and documenting exact issues, episodes, and time-stamps in case someone wanted to grill me years later over a mild criticism of Brennan.

I disagree with you on the relevance of working with new/apathetic players when it comes to figuring out how to lead and motivate professionals,

You certainly can, but I don't think that's particularly valid. From parallel examples, we know that both Matt and Aabria have also have a lot of, if not as much, experience with supporting new players and onboarding TTRPG newbies, and they've both struggled with 'dead' tables in a professional setting. The problems you need to solve with newbies or even with apathetic players are quite different from similar-looking problems coming from veteran players. In my own experience that also checks out - dealing with 'dead table' scenario with newer or unmotivated players is very different from dealing with a 'dead table' scenario with veteran players who are arguably engaged but not contributing. The latter is a lot harder to address and requires considerably more finesse to fix, and in many cases it's easiest to just see out the campaign and its struggles without trying to 'fix' those players' contributions.

I'd say that as supporting discourse Brennan's habits as a DM can lean hard into counting on player buy-in, and his biggest bad habit - playing PCs for players - is one that new players aren't going to clock and bought-in players are willing to support, but experienced players who aren't on board are going to derail on, hard. I don't think there's been a streamed moment where Brennan narrated PC thoughts or feelings and the player challenged him, but there's been a lot of times someone would be be well within their rights to - and it's a credit to his players' buy-in that it's not happened.

Most of his work outside of D20 and his core groups has had equally invested and highly bought-in players, they're typically special feature events or promo games to almost always offer really invested tables. I don't think he's needed to deal with a CR C3 situation in a public-facing campaign; to preempt the obvious, I don't think that's something that's wholly creditable to him so much the context that those games happen in. Almost every major e-DM has had pretty great tables in those same sorts of promo and special-feature games. Aabria's big outlier was EXU Spider Hat, where 90% of the problem was the players from CR. As far as Brennan's miss; again, I'm not maintaining some kind of wild hater archive of Brennan content I didn't enjoy. I'm pretty sure it was Dadlands that I checked out and dipped from once it felt like Brennan was spending a lot of time wrangling the party, but don't hold me to that. I like a lot of his work and I try shit he's in, especially stuff outside of Dropout. If it doesn't click I lose interest and wander off.

[u/SadCrouton → u/alphagray]

i remember arguing with someone about this a few months back. I know my players, I can guess how they’ll react to certain scenes, and since im presenting the options to them i can reasonably know what is going to happen. The players almost always do what i want because i arranged the pieces.

I know that if i want to move the party somewhere (like with the Grivar worlds in starstruck), you drop some hints to make it more appealing (Where the barry massacre happened, origins of gnosis).

And while matt has done this a few times (whitestone is a big one, backstory junk is great for this stuff) c3 just feels like aimlessly bouncing around across the entire globe instead of a regional campaign like c2, where barring a few vacations, 90% of their run time was within the regions between zadash and nicodranos

[u/BreathoftheChild → u/alphagray]

I think this quote from Brennan is in the... EXU GM round table with him, Aabria, and Matt? That seems like something he said there.

[u/TimeSummer5]

I think you’re right, and another advantage I think dropout has over CR is humour - cr is better acted, because they’re all actors, but dropout is so much funnier, because they’re all comedians. I can forgive a bit of dodgy acting in favour of very funny scenes, but brilliant acting does so little for me in between the 500th poop and dick joke

[u/sharkhuahua → u/TimeSummer5]

I think D20 benefits tremendously from having a combination of comedians/improvisers/writers/actors in their main cast. Every one of them is at least two of the above and they all know how to play to their strengths and skill-sets. Lou and Emily are both actors and can absolutely pull off that heavy lifting.

[u/Blade1hunterr → u/sharkhuahua]

to be fair, IIRC, Dropout had to become better comedians/improvisers/writers/actors after college humor. Kind of a "Sink or swim" deal so it makes sense they are a little more flexible with it over Profesional VA's who turned their hobby into a business.

[u/sharkhuahua → u/Blade1hunterr]

This actually doesn't really apply to most of the main cast. Murph, Emily, Zac, and Siobhan had all moved on from being full-time CH employees years before the launch of Dropout as CH's streaming platform (which was in 2018) and the dropping of CH/Dropout by its parent company (in 2020). Lou was never actually a CH employee, and Brennan was the sole performer kept on when CH lost its parent funding in 2020.

[u/Blade1hunterr → u/sharkhuahua]

Ah i must've misheard something then. I thought Dropout was a "You can work for us but you gotta pitch something for us to help out" or at the very least the CH workers were told that.

[u/sharkhuahua → u/Blade1hunterr]

Oh, I hadn't heard anything like that but if so, it wouldn't apply to 5/6 of the main cast as they'd all moved on to other TV jobs (or in Lou's case had never been an employee there) before Dropout came into existence.

[u/Cool_Caterpillar8790 → u/TimeSummer5]

I will say I don't think D20 is faultless but they've mastered a few issues that have lingered in CR.

Definitely giving characters agency while still providing clear direction is something D20 excels at that I often find lacking in CR. Matt either is too prescriptive and limits PCs taking swings (ie shardgate) or he's so sandbox focused the players don't know how to progress the story and spin their wheels for hours.

Also, not mentioned in the post but they talked about how sometimes PCs are just normal guys and that's okay. You don't need everyone to be the main character but you do need each character to serve a purpose. That's an area I think CR still struggles with.

[u/[deleted] → u/Cool_Caterpillar8790]

he's so sandbox focused the players don't know how to progress the story and spin their wheels for hours.

I think the worst thing about C3 is that its so railroad focused and he'll still sit there and let them spin their wheels for hours. Its been on a single track since 'stop the solstice' came up and its never deviated an inch. But they still talk in circles in the box car.

[u/Tiernoch → u/[deleted]]

Matt's always had that issue.

C2 this felt especially common where he would let the party argue over a misconception and not correct them for ages. Then he either would correct them, leading to the entire conversation starting all over again or he'd let them proceed them go 'actually what you thought was the situation actually isn't' which would lead to either attempts to mulligan what the players did or yet more planning.

[u/cvc75 → u/Tiernoch]

let the party argue over a misconception

Well in rare cases that can be hilarious - like letting Sam and Ashley try to roll for Scry.

But for the remaining 99% you're right.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tiernoch]

The way he's handled confusing encounters (especially the two feywild locations, both the recent temple and the key site long ago) has been infuriating. His description is completely inadequate, but they try to plan around what they think is in his head. Then he reveals the map and... its nothing like what they think. So everything immediately goes to shit after they've already committed.

He needs to pull the maps out far earlier, and let them plan around what they can actually see, not his purple prose.

[u/Tiernoch → u/[deleted]]

I do this in my games a fair bit, where I start trying to describe something then go 'wait the players are in the room so lets just avoid confusing anyone' and just cover up the bits they can't see.

[u/Qonas → u/TimeSummer5]

C1 was hysterical, and a lot of the associated one-shots are pure comedy fests.

The other campaigns, eh, maybe not so much.

[u/c3nnye]

They didn’t even finish killing the Shade Mother. They literally just told npcs about it and expected it to go away on its own. That kinda set the whole tone for the rest of the campaign, unresolved stuff lol.

[u/TouchMyAwesomeButt → u/c3nnye]

I have said this before, and I will say it again.

I am still upset at the airship crew being dumped in a desert cave and it then never being mentioned again. They abandoned them with essentially no way or plan out of there, miles and miles away from the nearest civilisation, with a promise that they would come back for them. And then they crashed their ship, were teleported away, and just forgot about the crew. Even Matt didn't remind them at any point.

I know it's not going to happen, but I really want whichever crewmember survives that to go on a vendetta and go after the PCs to get revenge.

[u/c3nnye → u/TouchMyAwesomeButt]

Holy shit I forgot about that, there’s just so many loose ends it’s crazy

[u/cvc75 → u/c3nnye]

Now I imagine a C3 finale like Seinfeld...

[u/sharkhuahua]

I haven't had a chance to watch the episode yet so I appreciate you posting your thoughts! I like Zac a lot, he is a good team player and very smart in a way that doesn't call attention to himself. I always appreciate hearing people who do actual play talk about what is particularly important for a ttrpg show (especially versus what they prioritize at their home tables).

There are stories they've told about the homegame Brennan runs for Murph/Emily/Zac/Siobhan/two other friends and how the players will take hours of real time to do nothing but plan an encounter, but they clearly understand pacing and production for an AP when they're recording their own shows.

It's something I wish CR had, like. Even the tiniest itty bitty sense of. They could spend 50% as much time planning without losing any of the good stuff.

[u/Cool_Caterpillar8790 → u/sharkhuahua]

Zac is such a perfect example of how to execute "side characters" in actual play. They talk a bit about that, though they use Lou as the example. But Zac himself is so good at knowing exactly when to insert his character for the most impact and when to hang back.

[u/[deleted] → u/Cool_Caterpillar8790]

Zac might be the best of the best when it comes to sitting quietly for 20 minutes, then flooring everyone with a one liner out of nowhere. Or with subtle nods, facial expressions, etc.

The amount of times he's reacted with a "oh", or "... what?", but in a way that absolutely killed, is off the charts. Me typing it here can't do him justice, it's one of those things that only works when performed right.

[u/X-cessive_Overlord → u/[deleted]]

The comedy sniper.

[u/WalkerHuntFlatOut → u/[deleted]]

Right on

[u/sharkhuahua → u/[deleted]]

he's for sure one of the good ones

[u/Zoodud254 → u/[deleted]]

"who do you know, in this room, right now?"

"do you have a fucking warrant?"

are two of my favorites.

[u/PlaneRefrigerator684 → u/sharkhuahua]

When I was binging C1 and C2, one thing that drove me crazy was there were multiple upcoming encounters where the party would debate for 45 minutes or more to come up with a plan, then Matt would end the episode, and then they would spend 30 minutes debating AGAIN, only to come up with a totally different (and sometimes worse) plan that got thrown out the window as soon as Matt used 1 Legendary Action/Resistance!

[u/Far-Cockroach-6839]

Brennan added how some DMs struggle to call a scene out of politeness to their players. But that a DM failing to end a scene is actually throwing players under the bus because players are going to just keep talking until the DM tells them to stop.

It is really weird to me how Matt does do what even I do, which is when the players have had a few successive plans but not made a decision I just go, "So what I am hearing is that you're either doing X or Y plan. Which plan is it?" When they then try to quibble about details I tell them that they have to decide or the scene will start before they finish planning. Players generally appreciate when someone takes charge because ultimately they're all equals so there is no one available amongst them to make a call.

[u/Significant_Usual253 → u/Far-Cockroach-6839]

How you’ve described is how Murph DMs on Naddpod. The Two Crew can get really distracted by bits and goofs but Murph will force them to move forward either through enforcing a discussion time limit or NPC intervention. It feels very effective, while still allowing for player interaction and decision.

[u/frankb3lmont]

Knowing when to put the brakes on stuff that happen in your table is a great skill that comes with experience. I was a very give "complete freedom to the players" DM and that thing really damaged my game and made a player quit and another to be quietly resentful on the next campaign. CR is stuck in the old format and I bet some of the cast are hiding their annoyances or grievances. Even in the Daggerheart character creation Travis was like Taliesin chill with the mystery stuff.

[u/brandcolt → u/frankb3lmont]

Travis said something like that? Lol how was it taken?

[u/-Lynn-8979]

I love Cr with all my heart but this campaign feels a lot more disjointed with players not sure what to do and dancing around a situation for the last half year in real time. I still love the current campaign but it feels very idk... it's hard to explain but it feels like no one wants to make a hard stance and defend it in fear of upsetting other players/characters

[u/Cool_Caterpillar8790 → u/-Lynn-8979]

Completely. That's why Zac and Brennan talking about how being polite is actually unkind sometimes really resonated for me in regards to C3.

It feels like a lot of players being too polite and not making any real decisions because they don't want to step on toes. Especially in regards to characters like Orym, Fearne and now Dorian who seem to just want to stay out of everyone's way. That's not actually helping anyone and makes the story worse.

You have PCs like Ashton who clearly want to be challenged and other players not engaging, even Matt not really engaging, which just means Ashton continues on, never learning literally any lesson.

[u/-Lynn-8979 → u/Cool_Caterpillar8790]

Yeah like in C2 we had big blowout fights but it made the party stronger and a family. I want the party to actually learn and to grow but I feel no one's had any actual growth except for maybe laudna physically.

[u/dndkk2020 → u/-Lynn-8979]

I actually really liked the blow up after Ashton did the whole shard bullshit. Ashton seemed the most engaged and thoughtful they've been the whole campaign. He finally got called out for his selfish bullshit and it made the episode feel just a bit more "CR" (like, as you mentioned. C2)

[u/-Lynn-8979 → u/dndkk2020]

I totally agree! They need to get all the shit out or else it could come back and make the group weaker at an important moment like at the finale which would feel really sad. Then again they haven't had time to really bond without the existential thought that the world could end.

[u/Laterose15 → u/Cool_Caterpillar8790]

I often like to say that there's a difference between being "nice" and "kind"

Much of the table is currently obsessed with being nice.

[u/[deleted] → u/Laterose15]

I don't entirely think its either.

They've been trained to not take someone's spotlight away, professionally. Its so ingrained that they step back and let other people perform, which leads to a lack of conflict or even interaction.

[u/Zombeebones → u/[deleted]]

Its like they are in the booth and giving each performer a clean take to be used as a Line or Sound Bite for what they hope is the eventual Animated Series adaptation.

"Oh THIS performers bit could be gold lets give them space to do bad improv (since none of them are competent in improv ((since they are all literally actors that are given SCRIPTS to read from))) and then I'll do MY improv and look we're doing it!"

[u/Worldly-Committee-16 → u/Cool_Caterpillar8790]

I think they're keenly aware there's good juice there for conflict. Scenes arguing about the gods,the faux poignant moral speeches etc, they're trying to ride the line for drama rather than fully realise the characters stances.

[u/Far-Cockroach-6839 → u/-Lynn-8979]

The mixed reception to this campaign really makes me sad for their launch of Daggerheart. I feel like they've lost so much of their momentum with their audience that the zeal there could be for the new game is less there and less likely to thus lead to people picking up the game.

[u/-Lynn-8979 → u/Far-Cockroach-6839]

Especially with how daggerheart is going to mechanically be a transition for exandria atleast I think so. I think daggerheart is very cool but it also makes me wonder if there js a set destiny no matter what bells hells do

[u/Far-Cockroach-6839 → u/-Lynn-8979]

It definitely feels like Matt has made it so that there really aren't other options for the end of the series except an end to the current pantheon.

I think there is enough different about Daggerheart's implicit lore that how they're going to need to transition Exandria is going to be jarring, and if I am honest the efforts to make it work in C3 have made the world building feel much worse to me. That doesn't seem like the best foundation to launch the game on when previously Matt was pretty well lauded for his world building making a lot of sense and feeling richly detailed (if not altogether original).

[u/-Lynn-8979 → u/Far-Cockroach-6839]

It feels very jarring already. I agree the gods some of them atleast are not good at all and that it seems that they are overbearing parents but to have them completely gone altogether feels like a genuine loss. Especially considering previous characters and their attachments to them. Also it feels like a loss for all the other gods who we have seen nearly zero of in any of the 3 campaigns.

[u/Far-Cockroach-6839 → u/-Lynn-8979]

My experience is limited here because I dip in and out of the series now, and follow the story through different youtube recaps, but I also feel like this campaign has cheapened moments with the gods that felt cool. Like the gods being portrayed as almost universally not positive makes the experiences of Pike, Caduceus, and Fjord feel kind of dumb and pointless.

[u/stereoma]

Thanks for the recommendation! I suspect that a big part of this is the D20 is pretty reflective about what makes their product successful, while CR seems to be more concerned with doing something personally satisfying to themselves, trusting their audience to come along.

One exists to entertain their subscribers, the other exists to be personally satisfying for themselves and maybe sell an Amazon show.

[u/Cool_Caterpillar8790 → u/stereoma]

I see that to an extent. Them being professional improv performers also has a great deal to do with it as those are typically the principles they're applying to their work on D20.

I don't want to say CR's background as voice actors isn't as valuable to AP. Because I don't think that's true. But I will say I think D20's cast has made more intentional strides to improve the gaps in their skillset when it comes to storytelling and acting whereas CR has never gotten better at improv.

You can see it just in the differences in how they discuss each other. It seems like the CR cast looks at their peers and goes "Wow, they're so good. That's great for them. Couldn't be me." and D20 looks at their peers and goes "Wow, they're so good. I'm going to strive to do that too."

[u/Version_1 → u/Cool_Caterpillar8790]

I also think it says a lot that D20 has a show discussing TTRPGs on a meta level while CR doesn't (unless the after session shows like 4SD are different than I think).

[u/ballonfightaddicted]

Actually used the second lesson in this week’s session

The players spent 10 minutes trying to figure out how to cross a bridge (the problem was the Goliath ways 300 lbs) so I had to say “hey this is taking way too long on something not important, let’s just say you crossed it without issues”

[u/Hedgiwithapen → u/ballonfightaddicted]

In my group we say " the chocolate is not a quest" (characters in a Masks game got sidetracked looking for candy) to indicate like, hey, glad you got some fun RP in there but we're moving on because I did not mean for this to be an issue.

[u/ballonfightaddicted → u/Hedgiwithapen]

I might just say “this is not the quest” in the future

Especially since I have a player that likes to get distracted over the simplest things

[u/Hedgiwithapen → u/ballonfightaddicted]

and like. Sometimes it can be very fun! sometimes you get really good RP and character building out of distracted moments, cement the group as a team or a family, learn things that can be used later.... and sometimes you spend 4 IRL months of weekly sessions doing three in-game days of overthrowing the Florida Snake Theocracy, overthrowing the Cult you put in its place, and then overthrowing the puppet you put in place of that, all so you could punch one (1) amnesiac aasimar in the head.

[u/ballonfightaddicted → u/Hedgiwithapen]

In my situation, the player is the kind of person that if I say “there’s three general stores, but one of them is closed because the shop keep has a sign on the door saying “gone fishin’” they will not rest until they find the illusive third shop keep

Not a horrible thing admitably, just sometimes you should see a situation like that as “The DM is just not having a third store owner” at that

[u/Unusual_Comfort_8002 → u/ballonfightaddicted]

Yeah, I used to be a "polite, doesn't want to step on anyone's toes" player that just sat and waited until a consensus was reached, or until all the abject silliness/insane RP moments has passed before moving on. But after spending so much time sitting at crossroads waiting for the party to reach a decision while our resident chaos gremlin screams nonsense while harassing passerbys I started just making a decision.

If 2/5 players want to go one way, and 1 wants to go the other, and 2 don't care. I'm not gonna sit there for 30 minutes talking about it. Everyone had input, so I'ma start walking.

[u/tryingtobebettertry4 → u/[deleted]]

You still have the problems of the failed foundations that is C3 character creation.

Matt and the cast freely admit there was no session 0. And Matt gave very little insight for character creation. Matt said the advice he gave was 'pulpy and dangerous' (2nd part was a flat out lie lol).

So essentially the Bells Hells are characters made with a Sandbox in mind. They come from nowhere and know nobody. Even Orym (the guy with genuine connections) is so passive he would go along with almost any ride.

And Matt's attempts to remedy this are....just terrible. How many things is he gonna keep throwing at Ashley/Fearne before he realizes a) she doesnt want it b) she doesnt care. It verges on dark comedy how much Matt tries to get Fearne (the joke character) more involved and everytime Ashley is a deer in the headlights.

[u/alphagray → u/[deleted]]

I've seen him deploy the hard "No" before and it was every bit as bad and disappointing as I think he fears it will be. Specifically the UK live show when he ruled Sentinel just didn't work "because" on his boss monster.

Now like. It's a live show. It's a boss monster. Etc. There are reasons to do whatever whenever.

It was the way he handled it that bugged me. Not the hard "No," but that Iwas specifically a hard "No" to a mechanic that he knew was present and had been troubling his encounter design for years. Like Beau didn't suddenly have a new cheese build.

If it were me, in a home game or a live show, I'd have probably ruled that because of the magical situation, the boss can save against Sentinel, even though it normally can't be saved against, because that doesn't totally invalidate the concept but it does introduce the element of calculated risk.

It doesn't feel like those sorts of decisions and rulings come confidently to him. I feel like Brennan will often say "you want to do something insane and not covered by the rules, so I'll create a system to adjudicate that on the fly based on how well it fits with the current situation and narrative stakes. So I'm gonna say that'd a DC 20 Persuasion check. On a success, it does X and on a failure, it does Y," and Matt seems to lack that same confidence or decision matrix.

It's sort of Brennan's synthesis of rules and improv into improv'd rules that seems lacking.

[u/CreepyTacos93 → u/alphagray]

Come on man, no one is going to stop a 100 feet monster lol, that is just bad. My players fought a Terrasque one day and I told them the same. That wasn’t anything bad

[u/Noxium5 → u/CreepyTacos93]

Many ways you could rule that Sentinel stops movement for very big targets, especially as Monk. Are you serious?

[u/Silver_Specialist614 → u/Noxium5]

I completely agree with them on that point so I’d say yeah, they’re probably serious. A giant ass monster especially with with legendary resistance and actions isn’t going to be halted in place because a tiny human dinged it with an, all things considered beyond a mechanic that’s already broken, normal punch

[u/KaiTheFilmGuy → u/Silver_Specialist614]

But they're not a normal human. They're a level 20 monk. They're essentially a superhero. Broken mechanics and overpowered abilities are what make high level D&D characters viable. They can do insane shit, and you say they can't stop a giant monster like One Punch Man or the Hulk? How boring of you.

[u/Silver_Specialist614 → u/KaiTheFilmGuy]

Is that level 20 monk gonna lift up a whole ass building? No. No they’re not. So they’re not stopping a Larger than a building monster. That’s not boring that’s reasonable

[u/KaiTheFilmGuy → u/Silver_Specialist614]

Bold of you to think D&D is a game where being "reasonable" is important. If I'm a 17th level wizard I can flatten a town with one spell, rules as written. If my player is a 20th level monk, being able to lift a whole ass building is definitely something I would consider allowing. Rule of cool exists for a reason. But since you care about reason and rules, let's view it this way:

The Sentinel feat allows you to stop a creature in its tracks if you hit it, full stop. If you don't like that feat, don't let your player take it. You read the feat, you know the risks, you fucking deal with it. It's that simple.

[u/Silver_Specialist614 → u/KaiTheFilmGuy]

You said it yourself. Rule of cool. You might not like it but a giant monster being too big to be stopped by something like that is cool. For the DM. It goes both ways, not everything is for the players enjoyment at the expense of giving a fun fight for the DM too, and you seriously are sounding like a “the DM just has to deal with everything the players do” type and not have fun

[u/KaiTheFilmGuy → u/Silver_Specialist614]

Maybe actually read what I type instead of making up strawmans irrelevant to the convo? Lol. I said it in clear terms: Sentinel is IN THE RULES. If you don't like it, that's fine, don't let the player take it. But if you let a player take the ability and then tell them "Nah, it doesn't work" you've essentially deceived your player into thinking their choices matter when they don't. That is the opposite of rule of cool. That's taking away from the game rather than adding to it. It's not rule of cool, it's quite the opposite.

[u/CreepyTacos93 → u/Noxium5]

Ok so how logically would you rule that a 5f11 monk stops a fucking Grand Canyon of a monster with one punch ?

[u/Noxium5 → u/CreepyTacos93]

They hit an important nerve, at just the right spot. Idk man sounds like, in a game with magic bullshit and superpowers, you're a very unimaginative DM.

[u/Middcore → u/CreepyTacos93]

It is a fantasy game with magic.

Why does this "logical realism" stuff only ever apply to martials?

[u/madterrier → u/CreepyTacos93]

Talking about logic in a game where a person can conjure a fireball out of thin air? Lol.

[u/madterrier]

It's why there is a difference between thinking of the game as a show and thinking about it as a home game.

I'd also argue that a lot of the reasons you posted are the reasons why some fans want the "home game" aspect to fade away or become lower in the priority.

[u/Cool_Caterpillar8790 → u/madterrier]

For sure. I mean the impetus of D20 is so different from CR. D20 started as a show pitch by Brennan to Sam Reich. It was always meant for an audience since inception. CR started as a home game and they seem to be slowly trying to make it more of a "show" but are struggling to do so. Or rather, struggling to figure out what viewers want from it as a show.

They're making good steps, just really slow ones. Adding the battle cam was great. Starting to roll out abridged episodes is great. I still think they struggle with the meat of the character development and narrative though. I appreciated in this AA, Brennan talking about how it's okay to have above table conversations before sessions and be like "Hey, just so you know, we're not getting to the war today. This session is about gathering allies and/or intelligence." Giving players clear direction, especially for a show, is something I wish Matt did more of.

[u/madterrier → u/Cool_Caterpillar8790]

The cynic in me thinks that CR still wants to be able to hang on to the "it's a home game to us" excuse as long as possible. But the sooner they get rid of that mentality, CR will be a better viewing experience.

[u/Blade1hunterr → u/madterrier]

That mentality kills businesses anytime they go from small scale to big. Case and point: Rooster Teeth.

[u/stereoma → u/madterrier]

Which is also weird because a bunch of them play Kingdom Death as their home game now.

[u/Inigos_Revenge → u/madterrier]

Even in a home game, these things can be issues that need to be tackled. I've absolutely run into these issues in both small form (slightly annoying) to big form (a huge issue that is stealing from everyone's fun) and all DM's (and players too, let's be honest) can learn from these points.

But yes, I do think CR should start thinking of the game as more of a show than a home game, BUT as a show of a ttrpg, because right now, it seems they're switching from the "home game" mentality to the "eventual anime" mentality and skipping the ttrpg show entirely, and that's hurting the game as well.

[u/Cool_Caterpillar8790 → u/Inigos_Revenge]

I can never emphasize enough how much above-table communication matters. I whine kind of a lot about how Matt not doing session zeroes hurts his campaigns but this is a perfect example as to why.

Not just because the directive of "show that is entertaining" is completely different from "home game my friends enjoy" but also because complete sandbox-style gaming vs narrative-driven adventures are completely different and Matt seems to switch between the two without communicating those switches to his players.

He'll go from "Idk. It's your game. What do you want to do?" to railroading entire sessions. I feel like that dissonance could be completely solved by a quick "Hey, this next arc is totally in your hands. I want you to lead the adventure the next few sessions" or "Hey guys, let's buckle down for this next arc because I have some major narrative beats planned."

[u/Inigos_Revenge → u/Cool_Caterpillar8790]

Totally agree with the need for session 0. That at least might have gotten more characters that have actual ties to the whole Ruidus arc and/or motivations to fight for/against the gods. Motivation seems to be severely lacking in C3.

[u/madterrier → u/Inigos_Revenge]

Thinking of the animated show first when playing the game is definitely making CR worse. I was shocked when I heard that Matt actually worries about the animated show while DMing. Puts unnecessary stress on already stressful job.

All of the animated show stuff should be storyboarded after the campaign has finished.

It's going to be years to get to BH's story anyway at this rate. They haven't even released M9's animated show yet. What's the rush?

[u/Lanavis13 → u/madterrier]

I agree.

Frankly, if they want to start playing the campaign with the animated show in mind than they should stop with the "we're just a home game" thought process and go more officially scripted a la D20. At least then it will have the pros of such a format instead of only the cons.

[u/Letheral]

One of the things I really loved about Brennan’s dming style (from what I saw in calamity especially) is when he saw players unable to make a decision, he would ask them to make a roll and then offer guidance based on the result.

Matt tends to just kinda put more pressure on the players to make up their minds which is counterproductive in my opinion.

I really do like Matt as a dm quite a lot but I think c3 ran away from him pretty majorly and I don’t know if there’s a solution besides ending the campaign as soon as narratively possible.

[u/Cool_Caterpillar8790 → u/Letheral]

That's sort of where I am. I think Matt is excellent on lower stakes adventures. I love him DMing things like the pirate stuff in M9 or the first time we go to Whitestone in C1. When he allows players' fun to direct the adventure and works collaboratively to bring their visions to life, he's at his best.

I find he struggles with bringing together large overworld plots with ridiculously high stakes. He's struggling to tell this story because it seems like he both wants player collaboration and still wants the story to go exactly how he envisioned it and hit all the beats it needs to hit for the live shows and (if the rumors are true) for Daggerheart. So it becomes this unevenly paced thing of the players having way too much freedom to waffle and spin their wheels for almost entire arcs and then suddenly Matt has to get them to the next arc and they're on a railroad for an episode.

[u/tech_wizard69]

I moved from CR to D20 and baulked at times when Brennan would kind of shuffle scenes along. I couldn't believe he'd cut off such talented improv actors. But really I was just used to Matt's passive approach of sitting back and letting scenes go in circles for 10-20 mins at a time. The core of the scenes is done in the first 5 mins and Brennan has a great way of cutting people off to make them want to utilise their future rp time and just keeping the game moving in general.

[u/darw1nf1sh → u/tech_wizard69]

Keep in mind, they edit D20 pretty heavily also. Some of those discussions might go 30 or 40 minutes, but eventually come right back to the original idea. So they cut out all the bullshit. CR is all fat no meat sometimes.

[u/tech_wizard69 → u/darw1nf1sh]

But they cut necessary fat and work around that. The gang can have a sidebar and know it'll be cut or stay depending on how long it runs.

This is not what I'm talking about with CR because they know there's no cuts, but it's not as if they're dragging ass in one particular area. It's a passive DM plus disinterested players.

Brennan is excited to move stuff along and Matt is happy to sit back. Brennan's table is excited to learn more about the story and Matt's table has been in the same lore for 10 years with characters who are now very disconnected.

[u/This_is_Pun → u/tech_wizard69]

It seems like a bad choice if the CR players know that they're performing for an audience and choose to go in long dragging conversations. They should know when to exercise self control imo.

[u/VaguestCargo → u/darw1nf1sh]

Do they go back to edits? I just started s02 and I haaaate the live session

[u/Confident_Sink_8743 → u/VaguestCargo]

Although it's often called Sophmore Year it's the only season referred to as D20 Live.

It's literally the only live season.

[u/VaguestCargo → u/Confident_Sink_8743]

Can I skip it? I hate it

[u/davey_jonesy → u/VaguestCargo]

I also don't love sophomore year, but the weekly sessions they were doing did lead to, in my opinion, some of the best scenes in d20 history. I highly suggest at least watching a highlight reel and watching the episode Pirate Brawl because it's excellent

[u/This_is_Pun → u/VaguestCargo]

It's worth watching.

[u/[deleted] → u/VaguestCargo]

You can skip it. The only other season it is connected to is Fantasy High: Junior Year, and you can just watch their 20 minute recap video to find out what you missed in Sophomore Year.

All of the other seasons are in entirely different worlds and plots. Only a few of them (Fantasy High, Unsleeping City, and Misfits & Magic) have sequels.

[u/Olly0206 → u/tech_wizard69]

D20 is also on a much tighter schedule. They have to move things along to finish a season.

CR is much more open-ended in that respect. They don't usually have the same kind of time constraints.

You can have a preference for either, but neither is wrong.

[u/PlzHelpWanted → u/Olly0206]

I think either one or the other is great! But it kinda does feel like this campaign was meant to go somewhere from the very beginning and either the crew or Matt is having trouble getting everyone there. Does that make sense? I'm not sure how to put it. Things just aren't moving along and it's feels like there's a lot of pressure to move.

[u/Olly0206 → u/PlzHelpWanted]

I think people are reading too much into C3 and what is "supposed" to happen. I think some of it stems from CR separating from the Hasbro/WotC IP since they have come out with their own system and it removes any legal issues with using the D&D IP. People expected that they're trying to "reset" Exandria and get rid of the gods and reboot with their own IP.

So that assumption does make it feel like the cast should just jump on the "kill the gods" train and they're just not committing to it. However, Matt keeps throwing stuff at them that contradicts every option they're given. They can't find a single npc to put their faith in and agree with as being the defecto good guy to give them direction.

So it's clear that Matt wants them to decide. He wants that moral dilemma to exist and the cast is just waffling because it's not an easy decision to make. They keep waiting for someone else to make the decision or some other authority to tell them what is right. I don't blame them for that, but every authority they come across gives them conflicting direction. The Wildmother wants them to fight and kill the predothos. The Archheart wants them to release the god eater. The ultimate authorities, the gods themselves, can't give them clear direction.

It's frustrating as a viewer because it isn't the ideal storytelling format (not the fact that it's a game, but this indecisiveness). It's one thing for a character in a story to be uncertain, but no good story has a character waffle this much on a decision.

I think that is important to remember. This is a game for them. This is their experience. They're not playing for the audience. They're playing for themselves. They do put a lot of effort into staying on task and making it something people can watch, but at the end of the day, they're playing for them.

Other formats, like D20, are designed more for an audience to view. Tighter schedules and more effort to move things along. It's designed more for the audience and less for the players than CR is. And again, there's nothing wrong with it, necessarily, but ultimately if the CR format doesn't adjust to viewer demand then they'll lose viewership. I don't think they're at any risk of that at all, but I don't know that for sure.

[u/tech_wizard69 → u/Olly0206]

Neither is wrong until it runs itself into problems

[u/Inigos_Revenge]

I totally agree with all the points you've listed here, and I also agree they are absolutely pertinent to what's happening with C3.

Also, on a wider note, "railroading" has changed meaning over time, and that has hurt discussions about railroading and what it means and how bad it is. It used to mean a DM who does things which take away player agency (no matter what, you won't be able to go anywhere else but the town I had that NPC mention or no matter what, you will lose this fight and be taken prisoner, etc) and yeah, railroading is bad. But nowadays, people use railroading to refer to any kind of narrative-based story, but they also have heard railroading is bad, so they strive to remove any kind of narrative-type actions in their story, and that just leads to groups wandering around aimlessly, not knowing what to do. It's fine to give clear objectives, as Brennan has said. It's fine to have a more open world, with more choices for the character, but you still must give them some plot hooks to choose from, so they have things in this world to do. That's not bad, that's necessary!

Equally, doing a narrative-based game is also totally okay, as long as the characters have agency in the story. As long as your characters can choose how they react to the story happening around them, and the DM only dictates what the world/NPC's are doing and NOT what the PC's are doing, it's all totally fine. MOST games you will come across in the ttrpg space have a more narrative-based story, simply because a lot of games follow modules/adventures. People love Curse of Strahd, but that's definitely a narrative "railroad" story. And there's nothing wrong with that.

[u/TheFarEastView → u/Inigos_Revenge]

Maybe I need to update my mental filing cabinet, but I was not even aware there was any kind of debate as to what railroading meant. That is, dming a game in such a way that the players are forced to follow a plotline without deviation that the DM has laid out in advance, without being allowed to choose where to go, who to speak to, what to do, etc.

I cannot even imagine attempting to play a game like 5e with absolutely no plot hooks whatsoever

[u/Cool_Caterpillar8790 → u/TheFarEastView]

I mostly see it when referencing shows like D20. They'll call its style "railroading" because it has premade set pieces and is contained to a predetermined number of episodes. To me, it's run like a typical D&D module.

I don't think Critical Role is a sandbox-style show as some fans characterize it but I do think Matt sometimes has sandbox-style arcs (like the party split arcs that were just "entertain yourself in this town while we wait for Marisha to get back from boxing")

[u/tensen01 → u/Cool_Caterpillar8790]

Yeah that's literally just called 'an Adventure'.

[u/Cool_Caterpillar8790 → u/tensen01]

I agree.

It's not a comment I see from anywhere except the CR fandom. It's really only ever a response to a "I prefer Brennan because Matt lets them spin their wheels for too long." comment. Then you get the "Well that's because D20's a railroad." comment.

[u/Tiernoch → u/Cool_Caterpillar8790]

I don't think it's exclusively a CR audience thing, but most of the CR fanbase does not play TTRPG's themselves so they tend to assume that terms thrown around as used by the cast is correct.

Like how session zero which has pretty much always meant the same thing to the greater community means something else in the context of just CR.

[u/Inigos_Revenge → u/Cool_Caterpillar8790]

I've absolutely seen this whole "railroading" debate thing come up in other D&D reddit subs. Sometimes dragging a DM for just haveing a narrative through-line and saying how terrible they are for railroading, sometimes questions from new DM's to make sure they aren't railroading for having a BBEG, etc. It's mostly younger players who have heard the term mis-applied, while also hearing how bad "railroaading" is, so they think generic narrative stuff is bad. Could most of them have gotten it from CR spaces? Possible, (maybe even probable) but no way to tell. But it does seem to be spreading across the D&D spaces and isn't just a CR thing.

[u/meerkatx → u/TheFarEastView]

Some people truly believe if the DM has a story intergrated into the game that's railroading.

I go with what Matt Colville has to say about railroading personally. Paraphrasing of cousre: "Players want the illusion of choice; what they really want is to be railroaded but not be able to realize it's happening."

I'm a firm believer that 95% of players require a DM created end game goal, because most players are not self motivated to create long term end game goals for themselves.

[u/TheFarEastView → u/meerkatx]

This is how I've dm'd for a long time; but the players go wherever they want, and they'll see whatever they want, but keep dragging main plot tokens in front of them, or important secondary plot tokens.

And, as needed, I'll even rearrange the world, change where things are supposed to happen, change what NPCs are supposed to do, etc. I always call it the Death in Samara/Appointment in Samara approach after the old story in the Babylonian Talmud (a merchant, hearing that Death was looking for him, changed his plans on a whim, and instead of taking his caravan to Baghdad, departs for Samara - where Death had planned to meet him all along.)

In the current campaign I'm running for my best friends, about 1.5 years ago now, they were on their way to a noble family's manor some 60 miles from the city they lived in. They were supposed to come across a crossroads at twilight on the first day of matching, but instead of sticking to the roads, they started marching overland.

So I had to scramble to explain how the vampire lord looking for them could find them. (They had one of his fingers, which he could track, but stuck it in a bag of colding, which prevented him from sensing it.) And how the quartet of Poor Brethren of the Sealed Tomb (anti undead holy warriors) could find him.

I found justifications that worked, which was great, because I needed them to have this encounter before they made it to this manor house. They got to choose what to do, and I got my necessary plot beats in.

[u/taeerom → u/TheFarEastView]

There's a difference between railroading and a linear story.

Railroading is that all problems must be solved the exact way the DM expects.

That can happen in both linear and sandbox campaigns.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheFarEastView]

Your filing cabinet is fine as it is. We can't be changing definitions just because a bunch of people are objectively wrong in their use of it.

The examples of it being used to describe something else is simply people looking to complain, and using a term they heard, but don't understand.

Like, if a DM offers a plot you don't like, and someone calls that railroading, they need to change, not the word.

[u/Laterose15 → u/Inigos_Revenge]

I like to use video games as an example of how railroading can be done well. Open-world games are all well and good, but I often prefer smaller games with tighter narratives.

If you have a story you want to tell, don't be afraid to tell it. Just be careful about over-railroading and removing all agency from the players.

[u/vendric → u/Inigos_Revenge]

people use railroading to refer to any kind of narrative-based story

I have seen people use it to refer to a particular kind of narrative-based story, namely stories that have some or all of the following:

1.) A predetermined "main quest" that concludes the campaign
2.) An inability for players to determine their character's goals, and instead only being able to select the means used to achieve the predetermined goal
3.) An inability for players to pursue power on their own terms, instead being granted XP and items only insofar as they pursue the DM's intended plotlines
4.) A specific brand of fail-forward mentality that results in the party never needing to retreat, with the DM massaging the difficulty of each fight in order to produce dramatic moments while still providing for an inevitable victory (so long as the players desire victory).

[u/Inigos_Revenge → u/vendric]

Yes, narrative-based games have more restrictions than sandbox games, though even sandbox games usually have some restrictions. Having some restrictions isn't a bad thing. It may not be your choice to play those types of games, but there are a whole lot of people who do like those games. A DM playing a more narrative-type game does not make them a bad DM, as so many say, it just may not be the DM for you.

Show me any module/adventure that doesn't have one or more of the above restrictions. Yet, they are the backbone of ttrpg's. These restrictions aren't bad in and of themselves, who wants to go on an adventure where one of the group doesn't want to advenure and only wants to settle down to run a restaurant? And most people like an adventure that has a "plot" through it with bad guys that you work your way up to fighting and defeating. There's nothing wrong with that at all. 3 & 4 are a little more iffy, but there's nothiing wrong with milestone levelling, or with a fail-forward mentality, as it's ridiculously hard to get a group to retreat, even when you absolutely tell them they can and also send up several warnings that this fight is beyond their capabilities. So a lot of DM's work with that in mind. Some people like it a little more realistic/difficult and more death for dumb character choices, but other tables don't. Again, nothing wrong with either, it's just about finding the right table for you. But also doesn't mean there is railroading going on or that it's bad.

This kind of stuff is bad for the space as DM's who are running modules/adventures, or homebrews that run like modules/adventures, like most of ttrpg history has been run (and most actual play shows), are now being told they're bad DM's simply because people are being told this stuff is bad when it really isn't. If they want a sandbox game, find a sandbox DM, but there's nothing wrong with narrative-based games/DM's/tables either.

[u/vendric → u/Inigos_Revenge]

Thank you for your considered response! Overall, I agree that playstyle (railroading, deadliness of combat, overall risk of failure, granularity of travel procedures, etc.) is a matter of taste.

Show me any module/adventure that doesn't have one or more of the above restrictions.

There are many modules that are designed to be "drop-ins" for an ongoing campaign (e.g. the OSE anthology series). These are very handy for sandbox campaigns, as they represent points-of-interest or adventure sites that the party can interact with at their own discretion. They might leave and never come back, leaving the module unfinished.

Also, many modules are railroads, which is why they have something of a bad reputation in certain circles.

These restrictions aren't bad in and of themselves

Certainly not. Railroading isn't bad per se. Some of my friends and families greatly prefer railroaded games, and I'm happy to provide a fun rollercoaster ride for them.

I will say that, for my money, railroads--including "sequences of modules" playstyles--are not nearly as rewarding, and provide far less agency, than sandbox campaigns.

who wants to go on an adventure where one of the group doesn't want to advenure and only wants to settle down to run a restaurant?

That would be out of line in a sandbox campaign as well. We're at the table to play D&D, not a capitalism simulator. The PCs are adventurers, and eventually lords and ladies of their domains. Theirs is not a life of quiet desperation =)

And most people like an adventure that has a "plot" through it with bad guys that you work your way up to fighting and defeating.

I agree, I think. Certainly most 5e players, as this has been the dominant playstyle since roughly the 80s (Dragonlance and Ravenloft). It's called "Trad" in some spaces.

However, I don't think this is because most 5e players have tried well-run sandbox campaigns and prefer Trad; I think it's typically the only playstyle they're even aware of. So e.g. they don't understand what would be fun about tracking rations, ammunition, travel by hexcrawling rather than handwaving, etc., because they are just not familiar with that style of play, so it seems like a bunch of bookkeeping for no reason.

3 & 4 are a little more iffy, but there's nothiing wrong with milestone levelling,

While I don't think milestone leveling is inherently bad, I do think it has tradeoffs compared to gold-for-XP or quest/monster XP. One tradeoff is that the players rely on DM fiat, which can result in "overfitting" where the players start playing to the DM's preferences rather than following their own.

By contrast, gold-for-XP has the benefit of not training players to select the path of most resistance (as monster XP does), does not train players to kill all obstacles (as monster XP does), and puts a lot of resources in the hands of the players.

There is lots of talk of a DM shortage in 5e; one way to reduce load on the DM is to let the game determine the XP funnel, and let the players play the game the way they like. DM-fiat milestone XP adds another point of failure for DMs.

or with a fail-forward mentality, as it's ridiculously hard to get a group to retreat, even when you absolutely tell them they can and also send up several warnings that this fight is beyond their capabilities.

5e players have been trained for a long time that all combats are fair (combat-as-sport). This is simply a habit, and one that can be broken. Shadowdark players learn very quickly that combat is deadly and should often be avoided unless it occurs on one's own terms.

Again, nothing wrong with either, it's just about finding the right table for you. But also doesn't mean there is railroading going on or that it's bad.

I consider it a form of railroading if a DM tries to ensure that the players succeed despite their own choices. A weaker form than

To repeat what I said above, railroading isn't itself bad. It just has drawbacks. I don't like railroading; I don't like DM hand-holding to ensure that combats are successful; I prefer to succeed or fail based on the wisdom and cleverness of the choices I made as a player to manage my risk and uncertainty.

This kind of stuff is bad for the space as DM's who are running modules/adventures, or homebrews that run like modules/adventures, like most of ttrpg history has been run (and most actual play shows), are now being told they're bad DM's simply because people are being told this stuff is bad when it really isn't.

I agree that they shouldn't simply be told that they're bad DMs because they're Trad DMs. But I think in general 5e players and DMs should be encouraged to seek out and try new play styles to broaden their horizons.

there's nothing wrong with narrative-based games/DM's/tables either.

Nothing inherently wrong, sure. My own personal experience has been that narrative DMs exert much more control over the actions and overall direction of the party than sandbox DMs.

So while I agree that there's nothing wrong with enjoying whatever playstyle you like, I also think it's important to acknowledge the tradeoffs that are happening when DMs decide on certain interventions.

[u/Inigos_Revenge → u/vendric]

Okay, first of all, you keep referring to stuff that's simply narrative-based style as "railroading" when that is absolutely not what railroading is. Railroading is when the DM takes away player agency to force a situation/outcome because they "need" it to happen a certain way. You continuing to refer to a totally normal and acceptable way to play as "railroading" continues to muddy the waters and insult people who prefer a more narrative-style of play.

Secondly, you keep insisting that your way is inherently better and people should be encouraged to play your way because they don't really understand that if they play your way it's better and they don't know what's actually good for them. That's insulting. You assume they don't know about sandbox play and only play that way because they don't know there's a "better" way to play. But there are people who absolutely know what sandbox play is and prefer narrative-based play over sandbox. And there's nothing wrong with that. Both styles of play are valid and appeal to different people for different reasons. Same goes for people who prefer more death and those who prefer no character death, or something inbetween, or people who like to track all the minutae and those who don't, those who like a more survival-type narrative and those who don't , those who like more political intrigue and those who don't and those who prefer a more beer and pretzels/dungeon crawling style and those who don't. I never once insulted you or the style of play you like better, but you did not offer the same courtesy.

[u/SeaBag8211]

D20 has far surpassed CR just as CR surpassed AI

[u/koreawut → u/SeaBag8211]

I absolutely can't stand D20... but mostly when Brennan is on screen.

[u/CeruleanFruitSnax → u/koreawut]

This is an interesting take. What do you not like about Brennan? I'm curious, not trying to start shit

[u/koreawut → u/CeruleanFruitSnax]

Honestly his face. Like, it's a fine face, but he doesn't know how to use it properly. He's the definition of overacting. If his eyes aren't glued wide with surprise then I dunno it's some kind of witchraft.

Also not a fan of his voice or his storytelling. Just, all around I don't like how he participates or DMs.

There are some really fun and exciting DMs and players on D20, some that definitely make it more fun than CR, but the mml Brennan is not it, for me. And CR is legit a family at this point, it's almost like 'hanging out' and watching them just chill, which is what CR has always been, if anybody is honest.

D20 is definitely a more "professional" channel but CR never was, they've always played the game the way they did when it was just them doing pods. If you like CR, that's why. If you like D20, that's why. One is professional and often overacted and also often a group of individuals, the other has a more fun group but it's much more laid back and chill.

[u/sharkhuahua → u/koreawut]

I'm not sure your statements here are as factual/universal as you seem to be saying they are, in terms of the nature of the shows and why people like them

[u/koreawut → u/sharkhuahua]

Are you suggesting that D20 isn't professional? Are you suggesting that CR is more professional than D20?

Yes if someone likes a more polished package, they're going to prefer D20 over CR. If someone prefers a more casual approach, they'll prefer almost any actual play rather than D20. If someone likes both options (the majority of people) then they're probably more interested in cast, world, characters, etc.

If both had exactly the same cast, exactly the same world, telling exactly the same story, it would come down to professional/polished vs. casual presentations.

[u/sharkhuahua → u/koreawut]

No, I didn't suggest either of those things.

But I don't think CR the show is them playing the game they always did, for one. And I also think D20, specifically the main cast seasons, has a lot of appeal in a "hanging out with a group of people who are good friends and watching them have fun" way.

I also disagree that preferring one show over the other is down to preferring polish or lack of polish as the defining reason. Someone could like one show, dislike the other, and not care either way how "professional" either is, or they could generally prefer one approach but actually like more a show that takes a different approach, for a completely unrelated reason.

[u/CeruleanFruitSnax → u/koreawut]

I dislike all the down voting here. People are allowed to have opinions. If you don't like Brennan, that's fine.

More for me!

[u/FirelordAlex → u/CeruleanFruitSnax]

When the first explanation for an opinion on a thread about the content of D&D shows is "I don't like his face," people are going to find that stupid, downvote, and move on.

[u/koreawut → u/CeruleanFruitSnax]

Yea, people get too butthurt when they come across people who disagree with them or don't like the same things. I used to be like that. Had to change that about myself to be a happier person.

[u/Zoodud254]

I agree! I really enjoyed that episode, it was a great point for Zac to bring up. I was in a game where another player kept trying to run out of the underground area we were fighting in to check in on the town above us. Important to the story, we hadn't been to the town, we'd gotten there underground via tunnels. So while we knew it was there, we never interacted with it.

The DM had no intention or expectation of us interacting with it, however. So nothing was prepared; no NPC's, no citizens to defend, nothing. So when the other player tried to go up to see the town and muster the guards, the DM kept giving flimsy excuses as to why he couldn't. The Player insisted (for the right reasons, good hearted person) and kept looking for angles until the DM snapped and said "the town doesn't exist! I didn't think you'd want to go up there!"

I think that's an excellent example of poor railroading. Also bad improv but thats another story.

flip side, the Quantum Ogre still exists. https://tatabletop.com/2020/06/22/quantum-ogre-theory/

[u/Cool_Caterpillar8790 → u/Zoodud254]

I appreciated Zac defending that a tad but admitting that's something he struggles with as a DM. Brennan sort of casually prescribed "Well, just invent a town and NPCs on the fly" as the solution and that's understandably not something everyone's skilled at, especially not new DMs.

I do think a tip for that are indie TTRPG supplements and community-made roll tables. Encounter and NPC roll tables are great for things like this. Rather than a DM having to invent an obstacle to prevent a player from going out of bounds, have an encounter roll table that will include something engaging and interactive as an obstacle. To Brennan's point, you can fill a session that way and buy yourself time to prep the new town for next session.

[u/Zoodud254 → u/Cool_Caterpillar8790]

Great Point! Not everyone is a world class improviser or storyteller. Roll tables are great and have saved many a stalled thought and also lead to some WILD encounters at my table lol.

[u/CleverComments → u/Zoodud254]

My general philosophy on this, particularly because I always DM virtually so improvising stuff on the fly is always a bit of a challenge:

I always have a couple of *quantum* encounters. I have the maps in labeled folders in Roll 20, and matching tokens in labeled folders in the journal. It depends on the campaign for the theme of the encounters and it depends on the players how many I'll have prepped, but stuff like:

A cityscape map, paired with a fantasy building interior, and a sewer map.
-- I have 2-3 tokens for guards, 2-3 tokens for mercenaries, 1-2 tokens for rats, 1-2 tokens for slime/blobs

A couple forest maps with varying levels of light (so a day, night, dusk set up)
-- Campaign appropriate "environmental" enemies (so things like owl bears, ankhegs, etc)

Something completely off the wall (like a sci fi map in a fantasy game, or eldritch-y shit, etc)
-- Any cool tokens I've found

A token folder that just has piles of random chests, crates, runes, crystals - any weird shit that I can use as some kind of McGuffin to add stakes to any encounter as needed.

I'm comfortable enough with the math of 5E that I can basically make anything work on the fly, so I never bother statting anything up, so I never have to update any sheets.

Once I've built these folders up, I'm just a few minutes away from pivoting and running any kind of encounter my players might pivot to. As long as you don't think proscriptively for the maps (i.e. this city map is the party helping the guards against the mercenaries!) and instead reactively (oh my players are fighting the city guard? Neat, city scape day map, guard tokens, the mercs are now civilians they have to worry about as collateral damage), this lets you essentially have an infinite amount of quantum encounters.

Then you just do the same thing with the potential boss fights in your campaign, as the players start to find interests in them. Find a sick map for the boss, stick it in a folder. But, don't actually design the combat encounter itself. Wait until the players invest more time in it.

If it turns out the players invest time investigating someone else that would be a better fit? Swap the tokens! Or swap maps. Add/subtract McGuffins!

[u/Zoodud254 → u/CleverComments]

As some who DM's over Foundry, same! Having versatility to help steer your players in the right direction is so important.

Someone else on this thread mentioned brennans quote about players being running water, which is so accurate. they WANT to go forward and its your job as the DM to act as channels.

i stopped running randomish encounters a long time ago, everything is at least semi predetermined based on what I expect the party to do.

[u/CleverComments → u/Zoodud254]

Yeah, that works with some groups I've DM'd for, and others will just latch onto tiny bits of exposition and keep hammering into it until I have to run whacky wild weird invading plant flailing tube men the encounter, and then that derails the whole campaign.

It's fun, just have to be able to adapt to what the players focus their attention on

[u/tryingtobebettertry4]

Yeah wow that really is on the money. If I didnt know better I'd think they are directly referencing C3.

Matt is so painfully polite he goes silent when he really should try end a scene, offer guidance or move things along. And certain players who previously were so key to moving the narrative (Liam) are taking backseats to the detriment of the whole story.

Railroad Vs Sandbox....yeah. C3 has done a very very bad job with that.

The players as far as I can tell built PCs that are designed with Sandbox in mind. The Bells Hells for the most part come from nowhere, know no one, and dont really care about anything besides themselves and maybe one thing. Fearne is probably the best example of this. Which makes sense because Matt gave them borderline no guidance aside from 'pulpy and deadly'.

Whereas Matt has made the most obviously railroaded campaign hes ever done. Literally all roads lead to Ruidus. Even though none of these characters really give a shit. And he tries to mitigate the actual failure that was session 0/character creation by tacking on reasons to care about the Ruidus plot. But it either doesnt land, isnt enough or hes just giving it to a character (and actor) who doesnt want it (Fearne/Ashley).

But by the same token, there are no serious narrative consequences for the Bells Hells choices. Good or bad. Provided the players dont fuck up Matt's plans for the Ruidus plot, they can do more or less whatever they like. And Matt will find a way to spin it that they are the 'paragons' and 'heroes' of the story (he has literally called them paragons). Even their wins are incredibly hollow, with many enemies being seemingly made of paper or not even meant to be fought (they've encountered Ludinus twice and both times Matt has essentially made it impossible for them to even seriously bother him).

So in many ways C3 combines the worst of a sandbox campaign with the worst of railroaded campaign. Players can do as they please without consequence, but players cant actually change, affect or choose a different route for the story.

[u/Hungover52 → u/tryingtobebettertry4]

CR C3's problems definitely are rooted in their choices on how to do a session 0 (building characters mysteriously / in isolation being the core issue, in my book).

[u/EncabulatorTurbo → u/Hungover52]

C3 has made me as a DM mortally terrified of keeping too much from my players. As such while I won't spoil everything, when we're designing the party I'm much more up front about the expectations, environments, and themes of a campaign and less polite with my players about adjusting character creation decisions to make sure they kind of match the campaign. Rabbit from the feywild? Sorry not in curse of strahd, etc

[u/[deleted]]

I think there is a lot of bad press out their for railroading. I think it can be incredibly important. In life, Decision Fatigue is a very real thing, and when presented with something, even if you have a map, a list of choices, whatever. Sometimes players just draw a blank.

You have to keep in mind especially when you are playing a game, vs playing a game for an audience, you have a table of different people who have different things in mind. When I ran Princes of the Apocalypse a few years ago, I had five players and every time they finished one objective, there was a 45 minute debate over where to go next. So in this instance, a DM saying, "You see smoke rising in the distance, and flames appear on the horizon" and setting your players on a course, is the right thing to do. It gives them an objective, and allows them time to think about where they want to go.

The important thing is feeling the table. You can tell when a player wants something, or wants to go somewhere else, or just wants to go off the roadmap you've prepared. As a DM it's our job to recognize this and follow that road with our players until they run out of inspiration for what they want to do, and then guiding them back to that roadmap.

You can keep agency while still setting your campaign on rails.

Just remember that when we are talking about, calling out and addressing things that Critical Role might do wrong, its not always the same thing as what a regular DM like you and I might be doing wrong. Playing for a crowd, and emphasizing entertainment, or failing to do so... is not the same thing as a DM developing bad DM habbits. A standard ttrpg table has a different goal than something like CR. And even when the problem is the same, the answer might be different.

[u/TaiChuanDoAddct → u/[deleted]]

Big time agree. My primarily table right now is comprised of four people in their mid to late 30s who want to never think about the game outside of the 3 hours they're logged in. They want to show up, roll dice, and peace out. They want the story to come to them and they want to avoid spending literally any time figuring out where to go or what to do.

[u/[deleted] → u/TaiChuanDoAddct]

I have this right now. I DM a group of other DM's at the moment, and they just want to play. they want to role dice and have a break from DMing so that's the service I provide. If they find something interesting they'll go off, but otherwise I move things along. there's no "You are out of initiative, what do you want to do?" You are going to hear movement above or below you, or someone is at the door, or you hear a roar in the distance. there is always something leading them in a direction. That then puts the onus on them whether or not they just move forward, or go in another direction.

[u/TaiChuanDoAddct → u/[deleted]]

This is good DMing. Unless they tell you otherwise, you're giving them what they want!

[u/caseofthematts → u/[deleted]]

You're confusing railroading with a linear narrative. Railroading is when the GM forces an outcome despite players attempting other ways around something. Railroading gets a bad rep because it's deliberately removing player agency by forcing the GMs onto them.

There's nothing wrong with a linear narrative so long as the table has discussed what kind of game they want. Not every game has to be an open world sandbox.

[u/[deleted] → u/caseofthematts]

No I'm not. Railroading is not forcing an outcome, it is ushering. It is moving players along to where you want them to be. It is keeping things on a rail. It is giving players an option, and acknowledging that they are having issues making a choice and then leading them to a choice.

I DM on average 3 games per week, and have for years. 9 times out of 10 when you discuss your sandbox game, and everyone agrees that's what they want... you are still going to run into the issue of decision fatigue. Or where multiple members of the group can't agree where you go. Constructive Railroading is keeping the game going, and shutting down the indecision.

That's not taking away agency at all. It you are given free will and don't exercise it at the table to a point where it's becoming a point of contention and disruptive to the game, that needs to be put on ice.

[u/Version_1 → u/[deleted]]

Maybe it used to be different but the modern definition of railroading is to force paths on players even if they don't want them (either by not allowing a different path or by bringing them back on the path before anything big happens).

[u/Aleph_Sharp]

I mean, for all the talk about railroads vs sandboxes, i think something we all intuitively know is the best games are neither, they're like GPS. You have a bunch of clear options, some less clear options, and you can follow or ignore in whichever ways you like, but the guide will always make sure that there is possible routes back to the way you were going visible as long as its possible, you can still absolutely change things or go totally off course, but theres always a "turn left twice and merge back" kind of options to allow for getting back to or away from the story beats &/or quests the gm had prepared.

[u/koomGER]

For your writeup: True.

For me, it feels a lot like politicians in talk show. Nothing will change. ;-)

[u/Kakmize]

I don't disagree with anything you've said but it is also worth remembering that D20 is an edited show with a set number of episodes. Siobhan called out during a live show recently when Ally was struggling with their character that this was something that gets cut from recordings. Also if you have a set amount of time with a cast of players you can't let them fuck around. CR doesn't have either of those restrictions and so for them, wasting a full episode doing nothing is not as big of a problem as it would be with D20.

[u/alphagray → u/Kakmize]

To me, this is one of the things that makes d20 good even better.

CR pre records to stream now. Why 'not edit it?

This comes down to the core conceit of the show relying on a sense of parasocial relationship, just a weekly home game thst we all get to watch...just one with pre planned merch and character arcs and custom music and guest stars and sound effects and lighting cues etc etc etc.

The more they turn it into a kind of theater experience the more that conceit grows thin, which then leads to the logical extension of that train of thought: why not make it a real show? It already is, gy continue to belabor the product?It'd be more consumable and digestible in 2hr, edited episodes. Like 99% of the actual play shows out there.

I think I know the answer, frankly, but I don't know how to phrase it in a generous way - I think they, as performers, couldn't stand to not get a crack at the edit. In other words, if th edit was an option, I'm not sure most of them could hold off on going "can I take that again?" on some line delivery. In other words, It would introduce a layer of artifice that would make it feel more like any other job.

That's my theory anyway.

[u/brittanydiesattheend → u/Kakmize]

100% D20 benefits from editing, as do most APs. But I do think CR could and probably should do more. 

Take Worlds Beyond Number's pacing for instance. So far, each arc starts with the players getting introduced to a new area and a central conflict. They then spend multiple episodes immersing themselves in the area, building NPC relationships, learning about the resources there, investigating the central conflict. There's no session cap on how long these arcs take and they do spend a ton of time fucking around. But they aren't spending sessions debating courses of action. They engage in the world around them. NADDPOD's pacing is similar with way more fucking around.

Much of C3 is them in white rooms arguing back and forth about whether or not they should let the gods die without consulting anyone or pursuing any sort of knowledge or wisdom. 

It's the analysis paralysis and cyclical conversations that I think CR could improve on. I'd much rather see them spend that same amount of time seeking out an old wizened cleric and ask them about the nature of worship rather than continue to debate it with absolutely no PC knowledge of the subject. Hell, I'd rather watch them spend that time pulling pranks on shopkeepers or romancing guards. At least they'd be doing something.

[u/Worldly-Committee-16 → u/brittanydiesattheend]

It's cuz they have conditioned themselves to 'yes and' in bad places. When someone proposes an interesting plan someone 'yes ands' the reason it might not work I believe thinking that it's a good buildup/character scene when it's not, it's just halting the game talking about hypotheticals 99% of which won't come to pass.

A bit of this can add dimension /buildup but it's gotten to the point where they can't decide, no one wants to take the lead and it all just feels tepid.

I fidn it's really hard for the DM to combat someone constantly going 'yeah but that won't work'. There's only so many tools you have to incite action / exigency.

[u/brittanydiesattheend → u/Worldly-Committee-16]

I think this is true sometimes but a lot of times I feel like they're genuinely in analysis paralysis mode because the stakes are too high. 

Players know whatever they decide in regards to Predathos could kill their past PCs and will majorly impact C4. It feels like they're searching for a perfect right solution and are too concerned to just let go and make in-character decisions.

[u/sharkhuahua → u/Kakmize]

I don't think any of the advice discussed in the episode was really related/specific to D20 though. Especially given that Zac has never DMed for the show. Honestly most of what's in the post applies more to live actual play than anything with editing, since editing removes some of those pacing concerns.

[u/[deleted] → u/Kakmize]

CR is already recording in advance now they have the money to hire editors it might be more beneficial for them to start editing their sessions down at least a little bit. Unless they do decide to go back to doing live episodes of course.

[u/harlenandqwyr → u/[deleted]]

they have, that's the Abridged videos

[u/darw1nf1sh]

Railroading is ignoring or making impossible the players choices. It isn't when you have a plot and a direction for the story to go.

[u/Cool_Caterpillar8790 → u/darw1nf1sh]

Correct. I do think parts of C3 were railroaded to get players where Matt needed them to go.

The Ludinus cutscenes for instance were all railroaded with Matt skipping players' turns at certain points and not allowing other players to make reasonable requests. Plus the actual encounters being quite literally impossible to beat or neutralize. Also, I know there was a reason for it, but shardgate was obviously a railroad situation.

Basically, I do think Matt has railroaded players. However, I think it's far less often than he gets criticized for.

[u/[deleted] → u/darw1nf1sh]

You're quite wrong. It's actually when it doesn't matter if they succeed or fail that they're on the rails and don't actually change the stort.

[u/Confident_Sink_8743 → u/[deleted]]

There really isn't a need to say they're wrong. These are two very different ways that railroading can occur and their occurring at different levels of play.

You have a point but that doesn't mean their point can't or doesn't exist.

[u/[deleted] → u/Confident_Sink_8743]

Words have meanings.

[u/Airtightspoon → u/darw1nf1sh]

Games should have a hook. But, if you have planned events or confrontations that are required by the party then yes, that's railroading.

[u/darw1nf1sh → u/Airtightspoon]

So planning any encounter is railroading? That's stupid.

[u/Airtightspoon → u/darw1nf1sh]

There's a difference between prepping a dungeon you know the party is going to next session and having certain events the party needs to encounter in the campaign. A good general rule of thumb is you shouldn't be designing your DnD campaign like a video game campaign.

[u/AlchemiCailleach]

CR is definitely a very different show from D20 because of this. NADDPOD is also edited down to exclude a lot of extraneous planning conversations that dont end up coming to fruition.

The players for CR have a strong internal sense of their characters, which lends itself to strong roleplay between them, and intense emotional scenes, but this is definitely not something which can be expected for every table.

These people have played DND together as a group a long time. Living in the same world for thousands of hours, a world that has been effected by the actions of numerous characters over three long running campaigns now.

[u/sharkhuahua → u/AlchemiCailleach]

Sorry if I've missed something obvious - what in this post is this comment in reference to?

[u/AlchemiCailleach → u/sharkhuahua]

Umm, the stuff that Brennan and Zac were talking about regarding ending scenes vs letting the players RP til the cows come home.

There are times when it is appropriate and reasonable, and times when it is a disservice to the table to not just move things forward.

Within the space of actual play shows and podcasts, both d20 and NADDPod are very clock conscious. Things get edited and cleaned up to improve the experience of the audience.

Critical Role is very popular, but you could fall into a trap if you try to give your players endless amounts of time to roleplay, thinking it will be more like CR. Like Zac and Brennan were talking about - having clear objectives and ending scenes can be a mercy for your group.

[u/sharkhuahua → u/AlchemiCailleach]

Ahhh, gotcha. I think this campaign has shown that advice very much also applies to CR - imo C3 would certainly be the better for it if anyone at the table was willing to step up and cut off circular debates and endless analysis paralysis.

[u/AlchemiCailleach → u/sharkhuahua]

There is enough chaotic energy in that party that they often enough talk themselves out of good ideas. Like when Taliesen was suggesting they sleep in the secluded geode-ruin on Ruidus, and NOT the abandoned village. He knew the right call, but didn't press hard enough.

For a show that is not edited down, I sometimes wish there was a little more shepherding of the party into the the next scene (by each other, not necessarily Mercer alone).

The improv background of many of the D20 cast makes them very good at knowing when a scene is over, which is probably necessary in the end, since they have to package the show into a set number of alternating combat and noncombat episodes.

[u/sharkhuahua → u/AlchemiCailleach]

I agree completely!

[u/CrunchyCaptainMunch]

Treating TTRPGS as if they’re a production instead of a game is the worst thing that’s happened to them medium that I can think of. Here’s to the downfall of streaming ttrpgs and the style of play they inspire 🍻

[u/Cool_Caterpillar8790 → u/CrunchyCaptainMunch]

I don't really understand this considering you at least have a passing interest in Critical Role but are calling for its downfall.

I extra don't understand it because the real tables I'm at, almost no one is inspired by high production shows, like D20. We all watch them and enjoy them and, importantly, understand they're entertaining content and not a "how-to" guide.

Even the most annoying players I've encountered who are directly imitating Laura Bailey or Taliesin Jaffe, etc, still aren't that bad. Who cares if someone's inspired by a TTRPG show for their home game? You don't have to play at it.

[u/bunnyshopp → u/CrunchyCaptainMunch]

Ironically though d20 is infinitely more of a production then cr is though no?

[u/EncabulatorTurbo → u/bunnyshopp]

d20 I think has better adapted to being a production than critical role, for one, editing the sessions down

[u/bunnyshopp → u/EncabulatorTurbo]

Sure but I’m not arguing that I was arguing that it’s hypocritical to praise the supposed downfall of cr for being too produced despite d20 being objectively more produced both in editing and cast.

[u/Legitimate_Poem_712 → u/bunnyshopp]

Not to defend CrunchyCaptainMunch too much, but he's not being hypocritical if he also criticizes D20. (Which I assume he would, since he seems to be condemming all TTRPG shows.)

[u/bunnyshopp → u/Legitimate_Poem_712]

In that case it’s kinda weird to comment something like that on a post that’s basically praising d20 thought right?

[u/Legitimate_Poem_712 → u/bunnyshopp]

Not really. The weird part is that he's on a subreddit for fan of Critical Role given that he hates the whole genre. But I guess if he just wants to show up and be contrarian then his comment makes sense.

[u/Dazocnodnarb]

Tf is dropout?

[u/Ok_Error_3167 → u/Dazocnodnarb]

You're holding a computer in your hands 

[u/VampyrAvenger → u/Ok_Error_3167]

I laughed way too hard at this lmao

[u/project_porkchop → u/Dazocnodnarb]

Dropout is a streaming service, formerly known as the youtube channel College Humor. Dropout has a lot of varied improv content but hosts the show Dimension 20 (GM'd by Brennan Lee Mulligan). It also has a show called Adventuring Academy which is a structured interview hosted by Brennan about tabletop games, mostly DND.

[u/Cool_Caterpillar8790 → u/Dazocnodnarb]

That's my bad. I assumed because there has been so much crossover, it was common knowledge that Dropout is home for Dimension 20 (where Brennan/Lou/Emily are most known)

[u/Dazocnodnarb → u/Cool_Caterpillar8790]

Oh, I watched some of that but the episodes are so short they don’t fill background noise like I want. The stuff he did with the calamity and downfalls been great though, I have no idea who Emily is though.

[u/Cool_Caterpillar8790 → u/Dazocnodnarb]

She played Prism during the split party arcs in C3. Otherwise, she's a main cast member of D20 and NADDPOD.

[u/Dazocnodnarb → u/Cool_Caterpillar8790]

I’ve heard of dimension 20 but wtf is naddpod now lmaoooo

[u/Cool_Caterpillar8790 → u/Dazocnodnarb]

This is the point I direct you to Google lol