Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1076372You guys should watch Matt Colville talk about how streaming affected his D&D game in this interview. He points out how a lot of the changes we see (like lack of tabletalk) aren't planned but just happen organically as the players try to focus in front of the camera. Then he says that's great. lool

I've really enjoyed the first couple of episodes of The Chain of Acheron*, interesting campaign thus far**. I haven't cared about the lack of banter, the "in-game" action has been good enough, and it's way too early to tell what the game will be like once things settle down. I know I would be self-conscious if I had a bunch of cameras in my face, plus regular chip-ins from the Twitterverse.


*it's Matt's take on The Black Company after it all goes horribly wrong.
** I doubt I will stick with it, don't have the time, but interesting to see Matt's style, etc.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1075503People are on good behavior for the cameras but that doesn't make it fake, any more than anything else on TV is being fake. Obviously you don't act like you're sitting in your underwear at home when you're on TV. But you're still you.

I see. So you think Infomercials are real and reflect how people really feel in their ordinary lives about magic shammies and miracle cleansers?

I'm saying you obviously put your best foot forward on TV, like if you, RPG Pundit, happened to be on a TV interview on CNN. But that wouldn't make you "fake" because you're trying to present yourself well.

So, honest question for you, Pundit.  When you do your video essays/podcasts, is that the real you or an act?

An infomercial is obviously fake enthusiasm. They were playing D&D before they started filming it. They are not QVC presenters showing off a product.

So for people who call CR fake what do you think about geek and sundry playthroughs of board games? They are clearly edited with reality TV cutaways that must have been filmed out of sequence. Is that just as bad? Or more acceptable because its more obviously staged.
 
To me there is a sliding scale of genuineness. Even with infomercials sometimes you have true believers selling their inventions amongst the obvious paid presenters. The odds of an infomercial presenter actually enjoying the product might be 1% so its fair to assume they are bullshitting. To make that comparison you are implying that the players enthusiasm for their game is faked, which I find much less likely.

Of course they will be on their best behaviour to make an entertaining show, they are getting paid to play their hobby. You could argue its more like a table tennis demonstration game than the usual couch game that most people experience.

Quote from: Verdant;1076602So for people who call CR fake what do you think about geek and sundry playthroughs of board games? They are clearly edited with reality TV cutaways that must have been filmed out of sequence. Is that just as bad? Or more acceptable because its more obviously staged.

I think CR is fake after trying to listen to it. Unlike Pundit though, I do not think it's all that bad of a thing.

Now what it does do is give some people the wrong ideas about what D&D and RPGs are like that is quickly cleared up with, "that's a TV show". But CR at least got them to the table. The bigger issue is when experienced GMs try to make their game like CR and it ends up just being boring since they aren't using a storytelling system with mechanics meant to gamify storycrafting. And my particular axe-to-grind is the 5e culture that CR supports that convinces people if the game is bad then it's the DM who is bad and its not the system being a bad fit or failing them. Matthew Mercer's fake DM advice is part of the problem.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1076623Matthew Mercer's fake DM advice is part of the problem.

I'll bite: what is "fake" about Matthew's advice?

Quote from: RoyR;1076624I'll bite: what is "fake" about Matthew's advice?

Yeah, I was wondering too. He's no Matt Colville, but the D&D Beyond clips of Mercer advice I've seen seemed workmanlike.

Aren't all of these GM advice videos 98% truisms?

It's not so much fake so much like favorite and non-favorite rpgs. If they like it then it's above reproach and flawless. If they don't it's the worst piece of crap ever. They can't prove that it is but they know it's true. So with Mercer videos they may not be completely unscripted neither do I think it's fake.

You can bet though if Pundit and others here liked the videos we would never heard a negative thing said about them. Again not a fan definitively not the end of rpg gaming as we know it either.

My issue is with Mercer, is his inexperience, he has done 3 campaigns so far, I had completed three campaigns by 1993, so I been down that road,
and I refused to give out advice at that stage. This is because I felt that I had along way to go, before I would be so ignorant, as to think I could give advice, when I will still early into learning(I have standards and a respect for this thing we call table top role-playing games).

Another issue, is his negative influence, like asking a player to detail out the out-come of the roll in combat.
What is the point of the game master working your imagination the entire session,
you get to the point where the game master can make that scene amazing for all,
the game master will work your imagination better then you can,
the game master has primed you for this the entire session when you get to that point.
Instead the player gives a lack luster description, or something better,
but the other players have not had that player running their imagination the whole session,
meaning they don't get much out of it.

If you are running the players imagination well,
and they pay attention when another player is doing something,
they will find themselves entertained,
as long as they are not left out of the direct fun for to long.
That is how powerful the imagination can be,
people who love reading, know exactly what I mean.

The voice acting..., allowing that to be used to judge how good someone is,
he should have came out and said that voice acting has nothing to do with how good of a player or GM you are.

Some of the sessions seem partly scripted,
you see his players looking miserable, and as soon as they notice it or get the hint from another player,
they are up fake smiling and pretending to be active.
It is hard to enjoy the game when the game master isn't playing to your imagine, as best they can,
real sessions don't appeal to an audience in my opinion.

On the other hand many have started to realize Matt's game is bs,
I have seen people recently openly talking about what they have to do, to please the audience,
making it clear they knew it would be at the expense of those involved.
Even Matt's fans are starting to get it,
because they tried his way and then they realized it doesn't work,
because they ain't paying their players money and the camera isn't on.

I go into further detail, on videos I have posted on YouTube.

Quote from: CondorDM;1076637My issue is with Mercer, is his inexperience, he has done 3 campaigns so far, I had completed three campaigns by 1993, so I been down that road,

Is this true? I was under the impression he had run plenty of games off camera before (I could be wrong).

He said in an interview with d&d beyond that his first campaign was on camera but he had played some games off camera, before trying to run a game.
He made jokes about the fact his first go at it was on camera.
He said this was his third campaign, the one he is running now(even if he ran one or two offline, that would still be puppy dog stage in my opinion).
I could be wrong but I swear up and down, that he said what I am claiming, I am open to being corrected,
everything else I said still stands but I am open to debate on that.

Quote from: CondorDM;1076637My issue is with Mercer, is his inexperience, he has done 3 campaigns so far, I had completed three campaigns by 1993, so I been down that road,
and I refused to give out advice at that stage. This is because I felt that I had along way to go, before I would be so ignorant, as to think I could give advice, when I will still early into learning(I have standards and a respect for this thing we call table top role-playing games).

Mercer has been a GM since 1996 or 97, according to an interview at Geek and Sundry.

And from the rest of your reply I get that you don't like his style of being a GM, but I fail to see how this makes his advice "fake".

Quote from: RoyR;1076643Mercer has been a GM since 1996 or 97, according to an interview at Geek and Sundry.

And from the rest of your reply I get that you don't like his style of being a GM, but I fail to see how this makes his advice "fake".

Well for me, he presents CR as "real", he then can't really give GM advice that makes what happens in CR look "fake".

When you maintain a lie like that, I am going doubt your advice about how to do the thing you do on TV in an actual setting. Just like how I wouldn't take self-defense tips from a Pro WWE wrestler acting in character (I think a lot of them are more open about how pro wrestling is staged).