Quote from: Rhedyn;1076646Well for me, he presents CR as "real", he then can't really give GM advice that makes what happens in CR look "fake".

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

I still have to grasp what is "fake" with CR gameplay. The only issue given this far in the thread does not concern the GM, but is that the players are too well-behaved, focused and happy. Which is somewhat strange as a criticism, as this probably is a group of people who actually are this way, especially in front of cameras and an audience.

I was not arguing that his advice is "fake".....
I am claiming this is fake - "the players are to well-behaved, focused and happy".
The players pretending to be happy and focused, was my criticism, they are paid to be.

Here is the video, he says he only finished one other campaign before the last one on critical role,
meaning this will be his third completed campaign.
He may have done more but has not finished a campaign other then a raven-loft one before the critical role one took place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdNUHfX_Dko&t=811s

Well, it's quite noteworthy that not all players appear to be overly happy and enthusiastic.

It is not a complaint that they are not always happy, that makes sense but they are trying to fake that they are happy, when they are not.
Which tries to cover something up, every group has ran into, yet they hide it, that is fake, they are paid to hide it.
It tells me that these people aim to please the audience and make money, not actually run a good game where players truly enjoy it.
Then pitching methods that they use in their live sessions(that does not produce good gaming in the privacy of your own home, with your friends), to new people coming into the hobby,
creating unrealistic expectations and when he is gone, we are left to clean up the mess.
This is a common occurrence in the rpg community.
Just my take on it.

If they're paid to look happy, then some of them do a pretty poor job.

Agreed Alexander, very much agreed.

Quote from: CondorDM;1076648Here is the video, he says he only finished one other campaign before the last one on critical role,
meaning this will be his third completed campaign.
He may have done more but has not finished a campaign other then a raven-loft one before the critical role one took place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdNUHfX_Dko&t=811s

There is a very big difference between running a campaign, and finishing one.

Quote from: RoyR;1076647I still have to grasp what is "fake" with CR gameplay. The only issue given this far in the thread does not concern the GM, but is that the players are too well-behaved, focused and happy. Which is somewhat strange as a criticism, as this probably is a group of people who actually are this way, especially in front of cameras and an audience.

That was my general impression from listening to a few "shows". What pushed me over the edge was some mike blasting screaming about some nonsense I didn't care about that was clearly forced acting.

Anyone who wants to listen to a group playing D&D (Pathfinder, actually) in an entertaining fashion that's also pretty close to how most people play should give the Glass Cannon Podcast a listen. I think they also have some videos up on Youtube.

The DM is more engaging than most, the players more quick-witted, everyone talks in character at times, and the production values are excellent. But it also includes a lot of real-game interaction that CR glosses over (table-talk, swearing, rules look-ups, tactical talk, long combats). To me, it's a far more realistic example for D&D tables to aspire to than CR.

Quote from: CondorDM;1076637Another issue, is his negative influence, like asking a player to detail out the out-come of the roll in combat.
What is the point of the game master working your imagination the entire session,
you get to the point where the game master can make that scene amazing for all,
the game master will work your imagination better then you can,
the game master has primed you for this the entire session when you get to that point.
Instead the player gives a lack luster description, or something better,
but the other players have not had that player running their imagination the whole session,
meaning they don't get much out of it.

I find your posts very difficult to read, but I disagree with this section wholeheartedly.  If you're a player and you've created the character, you SHOULD be able to imagine your actions more fully than the GM that has to keep aspect of the world in mind.  All the players are playing a game, describing what you do is a good thing.  If the GM tells you you succeed and asks you to describe your success, I don't think there is anything wrong with that.  Not every player is going to be adept at it, but since the game requires a GM to function, turning players into GMs is an important part of maintaining the hobby; easing them into it by giving them GM duties in your game is important.  Sometimes if a player doesn't have a character, I'll ask them to run a monster in a combat encounter.  That keeps them engaged and if nothing else, it helps prepare them for the future.  I'm luck in that my current group we all rotate GM duties, but there's nothing wrong with letting players make contributions from their imagination.

Quote from: Haffrung;1076666Anyone who wants to listen to a group playing D&D (Pathfinder, actually) in an entertaining fashion that's also pretty close to how most people play should give the Glass Cannon Podcast a listen. I think they also have some videos up on Youtube.

The DM is more engaging than most, the players more quick-witted, everyone talks in character at times, and the production values are excellent. But it also includes a lot of real-game interaction that CR glosses over (table-talk, swearing, rules look-ups, tactical talk, long combats). To me, it's a far more realistic example for D&D tables to aspire to than CR.

It doesn't surprise me that the CR table is atypical. What I would say (IME, YMMV etc) is that very few tables are "typical", and even those won't be "typical" from week to week.

A long-standing group could even have a lot more or a lot less banter than a "typical" table, again, shifting from week to week.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076494So, honest question for you, Pundit.  When you do your video essays/podcasts, is that the real you or an act?

Have you watched them?! There's not the slightest bit of professionalism in the damn things.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1076828Have you watched them?! There's not the slightest bit of professionalism in the damn things.

Which is a presentation choice in itself.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1076828Have you watched them?! There's not the slightest bit of professionalism in the damn things.

As said, professionalism is something else. The concepts we mostly discussed here are when something can be called "staged" and/or "fake". Your presentations are definitely staged to a degree: you put your books on display, you make your coffee and light your pipe. But to what degree you are "authentic" in them is the question: are you the "real" you, or are you changing your behavior to any extent due to the presence of the the microphone and the audience?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1076828Have you watched them?! There's not the slightest bit of professionalism in the damn things.

No, I haven't, and I've said so several times.  I don't find you engaging enough.  My ADHD won't let me sit through the entire things, I tune out midway.  I'd like to, but I honestly have no idea if there's something either of us could do to make it more interesting.  It's probably just me.

However, that was not my question.  Is the Pundit on your videos an act, or the real you?