As the kids might say, "they major." And things that are major tend to attract criticism, both fair and unfair. So, along those lines, I've been giving a little bit of thought about those criticisms, because I think they provide some insight into the state of things in the hobby and where it might be going.Gotta catch ‘em all. pic.twitter.com/KyYyHQH19I— Liam O'Brien (@VoiceOfOBrien) February 9, 2018
First, a couple of preliminary matters. I think I could be characterized as a "moderate Critter"--I have watched and enjoyed many episodes of Critical Role, but I have not seen every one, nor do I participate in the broader Critical Role fan community. Part of it, and I can't for the life of me understand why this is, is that I have to be in a very specific frame of mind to really engage with either streamed or podcasted tabletop RPG content. I would think that I would eat up streamed RPGs given how much I like playing RPGs and reading RPG books, but I have a tendency to zone out. And it's not specific to Critical Role--I have an enormous backlog of Friends at the Table episodes that make me sad every time I look at my Podbean feed. It is what it is, I guess.
Second, many of the critiques that I have seen have come from Kasimir Urbanski, a/k/a "the Rpgpundit." I don't want to make this personal to him (because I think it is broader than just one person), but I think I am being pretty even-handed when I say the Rpgpundit is a controversial figure in the online RPG world, one that has very specific ideas about the correct way to play tabletop RPGs (some of which I think are at least to some degree motivating some of the criticisms) and who is not hesitant to express those positions. I think that's worth getting on the table as well.
So, what are the criticisms? Like many things, I think there are a couple of distinct if related issues in play, making it worthwhile to tease them apart. The first one is the claim that Critical Role is not presenting an authentic picture of what D&D is really like. To be honest, when I first saw this criticism I was baffled. One of the things that struck me immediately when I first saw Critical Role was how little artifice the show had--it basically was pointing a camera at a bunch of people playing D&D and pressing record. None of the rules were simplified, and the kind of additional material is exactly the kind of homebrew stuff you would see in any D&D campaign. What's not authentic?
Digging a little deeper, there are a couple of references to/complaints about the "scripted" nature of Critical Role. Here, I think we need to situate this in the context of a broader debate about what the "right way to play D&D." Critical Role, and most but not all of the streamed games, has a strong narrative focus, emphasizing character development and ongoing complex storylines. Critical Role is scripted in the sense that Matt Mercer develops large scale plotlines ahead of time and has them play out during the course of play. Critical Role certainly didn't invent this style of play, but the visibility of Critical Role likely pushes this style of game to the forefront. By contrast, there is a school of thought that views this as a departure from the way that tabletop RPGs, and D&D in particular, were designed to be played. These folks have been very vocal about the trend toward more narrative focused play, and so to the extent that Critical Role makes this style more popular this would be seen by this group as a bad thing.
It is ironic that Gary Gygax was famously dismissive of people "using funny voices" while playing D&D, while now the most famous players of D&D are people who make funny voices for a living. But, for me, I am totally uninterested in any sort of "original intent" arguments marshaled to tell people what the "right way" to play D&D is. For one, I prefer a more narrative style in my games--one of the reasons 13th Age is my favorite d20 fantasy game is the elements in the game that facilitate narrative play. For another, I think the narrative play style accentuates the things about tabletop RPGs that are superior to other forms of media, especially video games. But even putting those things aside, once you buy the books, you can play the game any way you want, and if people see something they like, they are allowed to model what they see. Insisting that you play D&D according to the ethos and preferences of Gary Gygax and other folks from the 70s is a weird form of RPG fundamentalism.
A second dimension to the criticism is that Critical Role creates unrealistic expectations for people about the experience of playing D&D, leading to disappointment when Critical Role viewers sit down to play themselves. One thing along those lines that I have heard that I think is just wrong is that Matt Mercer is such a transcendent DM that no mere mortal will ever be able to match his work, leading to inevitable let down. Don't get me wrong, Mercer is a fantastic DM, but at the end of the day he is not doing anything that is different in kind from what thousands of other DMs do in games every day. Even the visuals used on Critical Role, while perfectly great, are not anything out of the ordinary or beyond the realm of reasonable possibility. Early episodes of Critical Role used hand-drawn maps and other low-tech solutions. That's not a criticism, but it points out that home DMs can do the stuff that Mercer does, with the probable exception of the voice work (check out videos of the insane stuff people make with Dwarven Forge to see the scope of what is possible). It's not like he has holograms of monsters or other blow-out-the-budget bells and whistles. It's not giving Critical Role viewers much credit to think that they can't internalize the idea that their first home game experience is not going be an exact copy of what they see on Twitch. But how different is what goes on at the table, anyway?
Another issue is the concern that people will see a group of actors and conclude that only actors can do what the Critical Role cast does. To be honest, I wondered about that myself. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Last weekend, I stumbled upon a half-dozen Youtube channels of people (all women, FWIW) who were offering "how to start playing D&D" advice, and all of them said that they started playing because of Critical Role. That's anec-data, to be sure, but it suggests that people are inspired by what they are seeing, as opposed to being scared off. Plus, if ten people start watching Critical Role with no prior D&D experience, but half are scared off of playing because of the acting talents of the crew, that's still five new D&D players that wouldn't have existed otherwise.
Along those lines, some have pointed to the large fan community for Critical Role that is producing fan-art or other spin-off content and claiming that they are not "part of the D&D community" because they are not actually playing D&D. I guess that is true in some narrow definitional sense, but who cares? People can spend their free time however they choose. I love watching ice hockey but can't skate--does that make me not a "real" hockey fan, such that I should get banished from the island of fans? In addition, playing tabletop RPGs require a fairly significant group of people to play with, which is an ever-present challenge. Lots of folks who want to play can't play for some period of time. If you can't play, then it is not surprising to see folks trying to get their RPG fix in other ways. And if you don't want to play, that's OK, too.
The final line of thought, and the one that bothers me the most, is that Critical Role and other shows with professional actors and other "famous" people represents some sort of invasion of the "cool kids" that will crowd out the core nerdy base of D&D and/or represents an invasion of "fake" gamers that are just pretending to be into D&D. First off, it is literally impossible to be crowded out of the RPG space. I am confident that Wizards of the Coast will print as many Players Handbooks as people want to buy. You don't need a ticket or a license to play D&D. Even if it became socially necessary for every actor and model and famous person to play D&D weekly, you still get to play if you want.
Second, unless you really want to put on the tinfoil hat and decide that the interviews that Mercer and folks like Joe Manganiello give are fake news, these folks are hardcore, long-time D&D players. Mercer started with 2nd Edition, over 20 years ago (as did I, incidentally). The Critical Role crew played Pathfinder for almost a year before there was even the notion of streaming it. Even the newer players show clear and difficult to fake signs of being bitten hard by the bug--is there anything that says "I am a serious D&D player" more than Laura Bailey's excessive dice collection and borderline-OCD pre-game dice rituals? Plus, notwithstanding the rising popularity of D&D, it's not like streaming some D&D is a direct line to Oscar roles or whatever, making it highly unlikely that anyone would go through the trouble of faking interest in the game. I suppose it is conceivable that some day ambitious young actors will need to get into the right streaming games in order to advance in Hollywood, but how about we cross that authenticity bridge when we come to it?
Here's another thing about the idea that Critical Role represents the "cool kids." I don't know the backgrounds of all of the folks on the show, but I assume many of them were, to one degree or another, "theater kids" when they were in high school, as that tends to be the population that becomes professional actors. I don't know about your high school, but the "theater kids" were not the same group as the "cool kids" at my high school--acting in a couple of plays didn't exactly enhance my Q rating. I have a strong suspicion that many of the Critical Role crew are thinking "since when did we become the cool kids?"
But that gets to the broader issue, one that transcends Critical Role and tabletop RPGs entirely. Here I want to get a little serious, and put on my "Uncle Mike" hat for a moment to dispense some advice, and maybe even wisdom. Here it is: Holding grudges and carrying water from when you were 15 years old is no way to live. If you look at the Critical Role folks, see the faces of people who rejected you many years before, and that causes you to get mad and want to exclude them, then that's something you need to work on with yourself, because that will be a massive detriment to leading a happy life. I don't mean to be dismissive or condescending, but the biggest pathology I see in "geek culture" is the notion that we were or are uniquely and singularly ostracized, and that this justifies bad or questionable behavior in the present.
That's simply not true. Everyone, even the "cool kids," felt awkward and isolated and confused when they were teenagers. The culture of victimhood in geek culture consists primarily in lashing out at people who are not responsible for the perceived source of victimization, and often at people who were more or less in the same boat as those lashing out. It's counter-productive, it's wrong, and you don't have to react that way.
New people want to come play the game you love. Some of them may be people who you (or they) would never have thought would be interested. And others who were always here have become more visible. There is no reason to treat this as a negative unless you insist on being unhappy about it. You don't have to play with them, or the way they play, if you don't want; they don't have to impact what you do in any way. It can be entirely neutral if you want. But, for me, I like seeing people doing something that makes them happy, and it certainly seems like Critical Role makes the crew and a large group of fans very happy. It doesn't really matter who they are, where they come from, or what they do. At a minimum, let them enjoy it, and let it go.
Anyway, the bottom line is, from where I am sitting, everything about the Critical Role phenomenon is a positive thing for folks who are tabletop RPG gamers and want to see the hobby flourish and grow. It is bringing in new blood, and new blood is basically always good. People are playing the games and having fun, and that's also basically always good. It sure looks like we are entering a new golden age of tabletop RPGs, brought about in large measure by a group of self-proclaimed nerdy voice actors. I can't see a reason not to celebrate that.
