Critical Role. Good/Bad/Other?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Well im no CR scholar, ive watched some but not a ton. And ill admit that because i dont have any insider knowledge i cant know anything for sure, so most of this is just putting together what i see with what i think, but i am doubtful that there is not some element of inevitability in a show that is

1. high production value
and
2. dramatic entertainment

if i really am wrong then Matthew must be a very impressive dungeon master. But i just dont get that feeling (that im wrong, not that hes not impressive)

I think your definition of Railroading is backwards.

You're describing a scenario where the players have a plethora of choices that lead to a BBEG (what kind of campaign doesn't have a BBEG waiting at the end?) as railroading but encouraging a dungeon crawl where you are literally constrained by the dimensions of the dungeon, don't leave because that's all the adventure that's ready.

By your definition, most published modules are railroading. Curse of Strahd will inevitably lead you to Strahd, the variance introduced from tarokka readings isn't important. SKT inevitably leads you to

Spoiler

Show

fight a dragon, and not a giant

and it doesn't matter what you do between then because that's the climax of the story. We already know that Waterdeep Dragonheist ends with the party thwarting a criminal from getting a massive cache of gold, I suppose what criminal and how it happened isn't important because the journey will always end with someone finding the gold.

An inevitable outcome doesn't mean you were railroaded necessarily, because even in the published modules above I mentioned that have a specific outcome your actions up until that point (those taken and those ignored) change the narrative and possibly the final encounter as a whole.

Railroads take one path, they don't deviate to take a trip to the plane of elemental fire to kill pit fiends and save slave children and they certainly don't account for the party druid throwing herself off a mountain to her death. As a goldfish. Nor do they account for daily trips to a magical item shop just so you can listen to the DM make a funny voice. Point being is that the party was at most reminded what they should be doing and were given full freedom to make terrible decisions along the way.

And they did.

[Tanarii]

You're describing a scenario where the players have a plethora of choices that lead to a BBEG (what kind of campaign doesn't have a BBEG waiting at the end?) as railroading but encouraging a dungeon crawl where you are literally constrained by the dimensions of the dungeon, don't leave because that's all the adventure that's ready.

Right. Most published content is on some degree of rails, because they tend to be a "all rails lead to the BBEG" style. And with 5e, they're also often "save the world" rails, which means walking away isn't an option.Which isn't required for an adventure or adventure-path. But I'm willing to bet basic rails makes them more appealing to a larger audience.

Whereas a dungeon is not required to be a railroad at all. First, it can be one of several dungeons with equally important things in them. Second, any single given dungeon does not have to have a single reason for being there.

Mega dungeons like Castle Greyhawk or the Under mountain are the great example of how a campaign can be centered around a single dungeon that is not a railroad. And you can extrapolate that structure to entire campaigns. Most designers just choose not to.

Edit: OTOH, probably a better term than 'on the rails' would be 'converging roads'. Notice I had to change 'all roads lead to the BBEG' to 'all rails' in my point above, which kinds of makes the point it's not the perfect terminology, and there already is a better one for it.

[Trask]

I think your definition of Railroading is backwards.

You're describing a scenario where the players have a plethora of choices that lead to a BBEG (what kind of campaign doesn't have a BBEG waiting at the end?)

A lot of campaigns dont necessarily have villains. The games i run for instance, usually do not. The players are exploring, taking up missions for factions, or pursuing their own goals and whatnot. If i had a big evil guy then i would have to force them down a path to fight him.

Of course sometimes you can get an adventure where, for instance, an orc army invades led by a dragon and theres your villain. But my players dont have to stand and fight him. They could flee. They could set a trap. They could offer him tribute. They could even join him if they wanted. Thats what a non railroad means to me, that i dont feel as though i need to get this encounter with the bbeg in the game as a suitable "climax". Instead i create a scenario, and the players respond to it.

In addition, even more than "bosses" and stories, the most railroady element in many games is the enforced morality.

[Sorlock Master]

A lot of campaigns dont necessarily have villains. The games i run for instance, usually do not. The players are exploring, taking up missions for factions, or pursuing their own goals and whatnot. If i had a big evil guy then i would have to force them down a path to fight him.

Of course sometimes you can get an adventure where, for instance, an orc army invades led by a dragon and theres your villain. But my players dont have to stand and fight him. They could flee. They could set a trap. They could offer him tribute. They could even join him if they wanted. Thats what a non railroad means to me, that i dont feel as though i need to get this encounter with the bbeg in the game as a suitable "climax". Instead i create a scenario, and the players respond to it.

In addition, even more than "bosses" and stories, the most railroady element in many games is the enforced morality.

Oh you mean like on CR when the group teleported to the Feywild to get a long rest after thier first run in with the raised titan? And they made a deal with an arch fey to only lose 2 hours rather then 8?

Like I said before people saying he railroads have such a lose definition of railroading that rolling GO for monsters ahead of time would be considered railroading.

No one is forcing them to engage in the fight. I have campaign right now that has an extra moon in it because the players were like "Eh we dont want to fight drow" so now it's never brighter then dim light during the day. It's not a you have to fight the BBEG its if you don't there will be CONSIQUENCES.

[War_lord]

Whereas a dungeon is not required to be a railroad at all. First, it can be one of several dungeons with equally important things in them. Second, any single given dungeon does not have to have a single reason for being there.

Then you don't have a campaign, you have a series of liner corridors. It's the same problem was the "absolute sandbox", if there's no stakes to the adventuring, what's the point in the adventuring.

Mega dungeons like Castle Greyhawk or the Under mountain are the great example of how a campaign can be centered around a single dungeon that is not a railroad. And you can extrapolate that structure to entire campaigns. Most designers just choose not to.

It is a railroad, except the rails are corridors. If your players say "we grab the first chest full of gold we see, and use the money to set up our own criminal organization in Waterdeep" and then they want to spend the rest of the game engaging in political intrigue, all you've got is "get back in my tedious 70's throwback". And using Greyhawk as an example is disingenuous, we don't know what the actual greyhawk castle looked like, we do know that Gygax eventually ended up creating the rest of the setting when players wanted to go beyond the dungeon. And we also know that even early D&D had a built in assumption that players would eventually want to go beyond the tedium of the geomorpic dungeon. Granted Gygax thought that meant they wanted to play wargames after a certain level, but by 1979 he seems to understand the real potential of D&D as a unique product.

I think the demise of the megadungeon has more to do with the strides in playablity, availability and graphical fidelity video games take starting in the mid 80's and rapidly accelerating. If I'm a gamer in 1989, why would I play Undermountain when I could play Pool of Radiance

Edit: OTOH, probably a better term than 'on the rails' would be 'converging roads'. Notice I had to change 'all roads lead to the BBEG' to 'all rails' in my point above, which kinds of makes the point it's not the perfect terminology, and there already is a better one for it.

It's still stupid terminology. You've set a definition of a word with heavy negative connotations so wide it could apply to any game. And then you've just excluded your preferred playstyle, even though it well fits within your definition of railroading, since a dungeon has literal rails and a set goal.

A lot of campaigns dont necessarily have villains. The games i run for instance, usually do not. The players are exploring, taking up missions for factions, or pursuing their own goals and whatnot. If i had a big evil guy then i would have to force them down a path to fight him.

Of course your campaign has villains, every campaign has villains. The villain is the main person or organization that hinders the goal of the party. That has no connection to the morality of either the party or the villain. "villain" in terms of D&D is just the adversary, since the party automatically sees themselves as heroes. Anyone the party conflicts with is a villain, and the BBEG is just the ultimate villain. If the party have spent the entire campaign being evil monsters the "BBEG" can be a Lawful Good Paladin. The term "BBEG" just specifies evil because as it turns out, we're a culture that likes heroes, and amoral monsters don't really work in a team game. You might hate the conventions of storytelling, but you're ultimately still a slave to them. Like a computer programmer who rolls his eyes at formal logic.

Of course sometimes you can get an adventure where, for instance, an orc army invades led by a dragon and theres your villain. But my players dont have to stand and fight him. They could flee. They could set a trap. They could offer him tribute. They could even join him if they wanted. Thats what a non railroad means to me, that i dont feel as though i need to get this encounter with the bbeg in the game as a suitable "climax". Instead i create a scenario, and the players respond to it.

Do you have any evidence that Vox Machina couldn't have said "sod the Chroma Conclave taking over our homeland and butchering anyone who'd resist, including most of our friends, we'll just leave"? You're mistaking "players generally want to play good people who stand up to tyranny and destruction" for "railroading".

Players will generally confront tyrants for one of three reasons 1. They're Good aligned and want to fight injustice 2. They're Neutral and don't want the place where they live ravaged or 3. They're Evil and want to be in charge instead.

In addition, even more than "bosses" and stories, the most railroady element in many games is the enforced morality.

OD&D had alignment, "Lawful" in practice usually ended up meaning a good person and "Chaotic", in practice usually ended up meaning Cultist or Monster. Gygax lifted it from Three Hearts and Three Loins which was not a masterpiece of grey and grey morality.

[Veldrenor]

Of course sometimes you can get an adventure where, for instance, an orc army invades led by a dragon and theres your villain. But my players dont have to stand and fight him. They could flee. They could set a trap. They could offer him tribute. They could even join him if they wanted. Thats what a non railroad means to me, that i dont feel as though i need to get this encounter with the bbeg in the game as a suitable "climax". Instead i create a scenario, and the players respond to it.

Is this not a railroad too, though? Unless you run adventures for a new set of strangers every week, presumably you know how your players and their characters react to presented challenges. True, they could flee. They could set a trap. They could offer tribute or join the dragon. But if your players are the "stand and fight" type, have always been the "stand and fight" type, are these actually choices or are they merely the illusion of choice? And if this isn't railroading, then how is Critical Role railroading?

Spoiler

Show

When the Chroma Conclave attacked, the party didn't have to start working towards beating them. They could've bowed and offered fealty to Thordak. They could've fled: the Conclave claimed portions of Tal'dorei and one valley in Wildemount, most of the world was clear. When they heard about the Vestiges of Divergence they could've said "neat!" and gone on their way. Or they could've gone out to steal the Vestiges for their own goals and left Tal'dorei to suffer. There were many things they could've done that didn't involve a showdown with Thordak. But they had become heroes in Tal'dorei, righting wrongs and saving lives. They had made Emon their home and were on the ruling council. Mercer didn't make the showdown inevitable, there were other choices they could make, but only one that they would.

[Unoriginal]

Do you have any evidence that Vox Machina couldn't have said "sod the Chroma Conclave taking over our homeland and butchering anyone who'd resist, including most of our friends, we'll just leave"? You're mistaking "players generally want to play good people who stand up to tyranny and destruction" for "railroading".

Players will generally confront tyrants for one of three reasons 1. They're Good aligned and want to fight injustice 2. They're Neutral and don't want the place where they live ravaged or 3. They're Evil and want to be in charge instead.

Anecdotal evidence: in the second campaign, the Mighty Nein are explicitly avoiding joining the Empire or the war that's been declared against the "evil nation", because they don't want to be tied to this mess. Not that the Empire is not tyrannical and corrupt by itself. Basically the group think the war is not their business... and they're pretty right. So they just go around helping people who are more or less shady, and the campaign is progressing.

[War_lord]

I mean, I don't watch critical role. But from that I understand the events of campaign 2 so far makes the charge that "Mercer forces the party to be Good" look utterly absurd.

[mephnick]

Basically any story that boils down to "stop the BBEG or the world dies" is a "railroad". (I hate that term). That's why a world ending threat should never be the goal of the campaign unless the characters have some other reason to confront it built up from previous play. Just tossing players into a game and saying "If jerk mcjerkface gets the stupid thing everyone dies. Now you HAVE to care about him. " is not a good setup. For this reason I find most of the 5e adventures pretty dumb.

[War_lord]

Basically any story that boils down to "stop the BBEG or the world dies" is a "railroad". (I hate that term). That's why a world ending threat should never be the goal of the campaign unless the characters have some other reason to confront it built up from previous play. Just tossing players into a game and saying "If jerk mcjerkface gets the stupid thing everyone dies. Now you HAVE to care about him. " is not a good setup. For this reason I find most of the 5e adventures pretty dumb.

In the case of the adventurer's league stuff, it has to be like that because AL has to be bite sized. In the case of the published campaign books, the ones that involve world ending threats are full campaigns. The DMG even says that constructing a campaign from a series of "world ending" threats is a bad idea. And it is a bad idea to give your players no reason to go after something other then "if you don't, the game ends", because that is a disguised railroad. It's a good job that's nowhere near as prevalent a crutch as the OSR likes to pretend it is.

Good setup is entirely independent of the style of game being played, and ironically, crafting a good setup requires an understanding of the conventions of that thing called "narrative" certain people hate on.

[Finieous]

You're describing a scenario where the players have a plethora of choices that lead to a BBEG (what kind of campaign doesn't have a BBEG waiting at the end?)

The kind where the PCs choose their enemies based on their own actions and decisions over the course of the campaign?

That's not the only "right way" to do it, and may even be the wrong way for some groups, but, like, you can run a campaign based on the PCs actions and decisions.

In the first 5e campaign I ran, the PCs were based in Shadowdale (Old Gray Box). I threw in some info on how the town of Voonlar was occupied by Zhents, mainly because I wanted to show the PCs that Zhentil Keep was a threat encroaching from the north. That little bone I threw led to (1) a failed diplomatic mission to Voonlar (2) the PCs making contact with local resistance fighters (3) the PCs springing a resistance leader from the dungeons under the Temple of Bane, and ultimately (4) the final adventure of the campaign was the battle to liberate Voonlar. The "BBEG" was a hostile army.

I never even expected the PCs to go to Voonlar. There were many other things they could have done, and even many other ways they could have sought to thwart Zhentil Keep, if that's what they decided they wanted to do.

It's hard to publish that kind of campaign, but it's not hard to run one. You know how you ask players "What do you do?" throughout a game session? At the end of the session, ask, "What do you want to do next session?" Prep accordingly.

[Anonymouswizard]

Right. Most published content is on some degree of rails, because they tend to be a "all rails lead to the BBEG" style. And with 5e, they're also often "save the world" rails, which means walking away isn't an option.Which isn't required for an adventure or adventure-path. But I'm willing to bet basic rails makes them more appealing to a larger audience.

Yeah, when writing for publication your only real choices are to railroad somewhat or present a sandbox. It's well known that if you want to publish an 'adventure path' you have to railroad enough that a party will be in a situation close enough to the 'official' end of adventure 1 so they can play adventure 2.

Whether or not it's railroaded at any particular table is a separate concern.


I am having the fun idea of a group going into a campaign where everybody has OOC knowledge that the campaign villain is doomed to failure whether the PCs intervene or not. The campaign goal is for the PCs to become famous by causing the villain's downfall. If they don't do it another party of PCs will, or the villain will blow himself up, and the characters will lose their chance to live on in legend. It would still likely require some railroading, but it's a bit more open than your standard save the world plot because you need to come up with a cool and visible way of taking down the BBEG.

[EvilAnagram]

Well im no CR scholar, ive watched some but not a ton. And ill admit that because i dont have any insider knowledge i cant know anything for sure, so most of this is just putting together what i see with what i think, but i am doubtful that there is not some element of inevitability in a show that is

1. high production value
and
2. dramatic entertainment

if i really am wrong then Matthew must be a very impressive dungeon master. But i just dont get that feeling (that im wrong, not that hes not impressive)

I think the post-campaign interviews were very revealing in this regard.

Spoiler

Show

Every time someone asked Mercer what would have happened if they had done something differently, his answer was comprehensive. What if they had killed god-Vecna before using the magic spears to banish him from the material plane? Well, that six-hour campaign finale wouldn't have been the finale. Vecna would have just been reborn and been more prepared for them. What if they had lost the battle? Then it would be an interesting second campaign. What if they hadn't tracked down Raishan and killed her? Then she would have put plans into motion that wouldn't bear fruit for a few decades. What if they hadn't collected the Vestiges of Divergence? Killing the dragons would have been harder.

Nothing was set in stone, but rather subject to the players' actions. This was actually something he brought up when G&S pitched the show: he didn't think it would work because a player could have such a big impact on the story. However, it turns out people liked it for precisely that.

[MadBear]

Nobody DMs like that "railroad DM" strawman. What youre describing IS railroading. No matter where you go, or what you do, you'll end up at my designed encounters. Usually for some kind of plot.

Matt Mercer does this and its railroading, its not wrong necessarily to do this, and it can make for enjoyable games. But its a bad lesson to teach new players and DMs that D&D is about that plot. Especially when they lack all the tools to get to the point.

New DMs need a framework upon which to build their ideas and develop their tastes. Simple dungeon crawls.

Of course this isnt the burden of CR, its WOTC's burden. But they dont do it, and CR introduces way more people to D&D than anything else.

Just a few things:

I've had a club of high schoolers who DM each other, and that first DM 100% does exist. It wasn't 3 tunnels, but rather 3 buildings the players were trying to sneak into. The DM hard fast stopped them from going to any of the building except the tavern (where his villain was). So while I agree that the vast majority of games don't go that way, some absolutely do. And it's games like that, that'd I'd call railroading in a negative bad sense.

Games like Mercers there are definitely rails (at least in the first campaign), but the players can make meaninful choices, it's just not completely free (like a sandbox). In fact, most WOTC campaigns are on rails to some degree. In that sense, I don't see a game on rails as a bad thing at all. In that sense, it's just preference. Some prefer sandbox, others a narrative that restricts the players to some varying degree. I'm ok with that.

What I'm not ok with, is people who conflate the first scenario with the second, because they have definite differences.

[Trask]

Just a few things:

I've had a club of high schoolers who DM each other, and that first DM 100% does exist. It wasn't 3 tunnels, but rather 3 buildings the players were trying to sneak into. The DM hard fast stopped them from going to any of the building except the tavern (where his villain was). So while I agree that the vast majority of games don't go that way, some absolutely do. And it's games like that, that'd I'd call railroading in a negative bad sense.

Games like Mercers there are definitely rails (at least in the first campaign), but the players can make meaninful choices, it's just not completely free (like a sandbox). In fact, most WOTC campaigns are on rails to some degree. In that sense, I don't see a game on rails as a bad thing at all. In that sense, it's just preference. Some prefer sandbox, others a narrative that restricts the players to some varying degree. I'm ok with that.

What I'm not ok with, is people who conflate the first scenario with the second, because they have definite differences.

The first kind is not really that different from the second kind except for one major thing. The first kind of railroading is aggressive, in your face, and tyrannical move by the DM to enforce his will over your characters. Its not cool and its not fun. I really cant think of a situation where Id be ok with that.

The second kind is behind the scenes, akin to the wizard of oz "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", and can create fun scenarios because of the shared illusion.

They both end up the same though. This big bad boy is going to get beat, this area will be reached, this mcguffin will be found. The styles are different but the end is the same. The difference is significant however and Ill never say that the second style cant be a fun, well run, and enjoyable game.

[MadBear]

The first kind is not really that different from the second kind except for one major thing. The first kind of railroading is aggressive, in your face, and tyrannical move by the DM to enforce his will over your characters. Its not cool and its not fun. I really cant think of a situation where Id be ok with that.

The second kind is behind the scenes, akin to the wizard of oz "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", and can create fun scenarios because of the shared illusion.

They both end up the same though. This big bad boy is going to get beat, this area will be reached, this mcguffin will be found. The styles are different but the end is the same. The difference is significant however and Ill never say that the second style cant be a fun, well run, and enjoyable game.

Sure, you can say that they end up the same. I find there to be a meaningful difference which is why I differentiate between them (railroading=bad, game on rails= a style that can be fun). So despite the disagreement on what it's called, it seems we agree on the more substantive part.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just a few things:

I've had a club of high schoolers who DM each other, and that first DM 100% does exist. It wasn't 3 tunnels, but rather 3 buildings the players were trying to sneak into. The DM hard fast stopped them from going to any of the building except the tavern (where his villain was). So while I agree that the vast majority of games don't go that way, some absolutely do. And it's games like that, that'd I'd call railroading in a negative bad sense.

Games like Mercers there are definitely rails (at least in the first campaign), but the players can make meaninful choices, it's just not completely free (like a sandbox). In fact, most WOTC campaigns are on rails to some degree. In that sense, I don't see a game on rails as a bad thing at all. In that sense, it's just preference. Some prefer sandbox, others a narrative that restricts the players to some varying degree. I'm ok with that.

What I'm not ok with, is people who conflate the first scenario with the second, because they have definite differences.

I agree with this. I've had groups that actively searched for rails to follow. Sandbox =/= good, constrained play =/= bad.

A railroad is a particular pathology of constrained play--one in which the DM without buy-in forces the game down a particular path, denying meaningful actions by the players.

Sandbox has its pathologies as well--the "empty white room" style (where the DM expects the players to generate everything without actually laying out the landscape (physical and metaphorical)) is notable one.

I've noticed a tendency to call anything that imposes constraints (even by player choice!) as a railroad. If they've bought into the goal and different actions they take (different paths, literal or figurative) alter the following scenarios in a meaningful way, it's not a railroad (in the pejorative sense). It may be constrained, but it's not bad.

Multi-chapter module play (AL hardcovers, for example) will always be constrained. That's a hard requirement. In fact, some of the worst-reviewed portions of the AL hardcovers were the most "open"--players and DMs felt it didn't give enough direction, leaving them hanging as to what to do next.

[War_lord]

Games like Mercers there are definitely rails (at least in the first campaign), but the players can make meaninful choices, it's just not completely free (like a sandbox).

Please identify how Mercer's group was artificially constrained in their choices at any point in the game.

I can't agree with even the most moderate attempt to define "constrained" play in this thread, because the definition of "constrained" being used is "if anybody in the game at any point feels that there's an obvious way forward, that's rails". To which I say, then every game is a railroad. Except the "wide open sandbox" type of game, which in my experience falls apart pretty quickly because the players end up wandering about waiting for something to happen.

[Anonymouswizard]

Please identify how Mercer's group was artificially constrained in their choices at any point in the game.

I can't agree with even the most moderate attempt to define "constrained" play in this thread, because the definition of "constrained" being used is "if anybody in the game at any point feels that there's an obvious way forward, that's rails". To which I say, then every game is a railroad. Except the "wide open sandbox" type of game, which in my experience falls apart pretty quickly because the players end up wandering about waiting for something to happen.

At this point I'm just glad Darth Ultron isn't in this thread, or we'd also get somebody claiming that MM is wrong for not railroading enough.

But yeah, at this point the definition of 'railroading' has become so broad that it's essentially meaningless. I've been considering using 'scripted' or 'ordained' to refer to 'scene A to scene B to scence C' adventures, or even scripted to refer to adventures with time constraints or other limitations but no quantum ogres or major funnels, but I don't think it'll catch on.

[War_lord]

I don't even like "scripted" because that still brings up the mental image of things being preordained so that the players must follow the one true path. And I don't think that's how good DMing works, and I don't think it's what Mercer is doing. To me one of the signs of a great DM is that they're so good at improvisation and changing their plans that no matter what the party does the DM is able to create the illusion that they've accounted for everything, even if they're actually making it up as they go along. Mercer is a professional voice actor, it shouldn't be surprising that an actor knows how to improv, and improv is a key skill when it comes to running D&D. So I think he's just that good a DM.

[MadBear]

Please identify how Mercer's group was artificially constrained in their choices at any point in the game.

I can't agree with even the most moderate attempt to define "constrained" play in this thread, because the definition of "constrained" being used is "if anybody in the game at any point feels that there's an obvious way forward, that's rails". To which I say, then every game is a railroad. Except the "wide open sandbox" type of game, which in my experience falls apart pretty quickly because the players end up wandering about waiting for something to happen.

Yep, you are in some sense right. I think that we might be better to define railroading-->open white sandbox as a spectrum. On one hand, the players can make absolutely no meaningful choices, because the DM scripts everything. On the other, you have a game where the players wander around aimlessly waiting for something to happen.

Neither are the average game though.

I've seen, and heard people describe games like Mercer's as railroading, which I don't think it is. It is a game on rails though, in which the characters have a definite story that Mercer has laid out for them to accomplish.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
railroad-------------------on rails---------------------middle ground --------------------------sandbox----------------------------------wide open sandbox

not fun ----------------can be fun--------------where I see most games-------------------can be fun---------------------------------- never seen done

[apepi]

I like it, but my main critique of it is that as q viewer it is so hard to keep track of what is happening. The 3d models look nice and all but it is hard to keep track as a viewer. Honestly I liked it better when Mercer just had 2d maps that he just drew.

[Anonymouswizard]

I like it, but my main critique of it is that as q viewer it is so hard to keep track of what is happening. The 3d models look nice and all but it is hard to keep track as a viewer. Honestly I liked it better when Mercer just had 2d maps that he just drew.

I'll point out that the sheer number of 3D 'maps' is what's making me assume that MM is Quantum Ogring a bit. I suspect we'll see some of them, such as 'generic village', multiple times, but I suspect he only has access to a certain number of 'maps' in each session and only a certain number of encounters he's prepared per map, especially as, from what I can see, there doesn't generally seem to be a break or a helper delivering the maps, although I wouldn't be surprised if there's an off-screen helper.

If it was mainly 2D maps with a few 3D ones for big setpiece encounters I'd be assuming far fewer QOs.

Not to say that they might not just have spent the money for like 200 maps and have a man who occasionally runs to the storeroom to get the require one. The 3D maps certainly do make it look more impressive, although I'm also in the disliking them boat.

Then again I stopped watching it again, because four hours a week is really too much for me. I don't have the capacity to listen on my way to and from work, and when I'm off work I have ore important things to do.

[Mordaedil]

Apparently he makes like dozens of sets now a days because he's never quite sure what the players are going to do, but he basically spends all of his free time making them like "adult LEGO's". But he does plan these combat maps mostly for one session ahead, but he's apparently had maps that went unused because the players did things that circumvented the sets.

Most of the time, they seem happy to play according to the whims of what the DM has planned, but it's important to remember that despite playing for seemingly so long, they are still quite new to the hobby. None of them have sat down to read the book from one end to another and they don't even really read their own class very thoroughly. This isn't such a bad thing, because it makes the moments of where the hobby's specialness hit that much harder, where they go "we can do that?"

Liam for instance, has finally realized the power of "I, Liam don't know that, but my character, Caleb, does know." a thing they never thought about in the first season that could have spared them a lot of pain.

[dehro]

I remember at least a few instances where Matt asked a crew member to bring him the map on the right or on the left, clearly indicating that he has at least two options depending on where the team was heading towards. Back in the day of 2D maps, I'm sure he brought more than that. Marisha actually has mentioned several times that their house is a receptacle of minis, maps, set pieces and pages of annotations and material for the campaign.

[Stray]

I'll point out that the sheer number of 3D 'maps' is what's making me assume that MM is Quantum Ogring a bit. I suspect we'll see some of them, such as 'generic village', multiple times, but I suspect he only has access to a certain number of 'maps' in each session and only a certain number of encounters he's prepared per map, especially as, from what I can see, there doesn't generally seem to be a break or a helper delivering the maps, although I wouldn't be surprised if there's an off-screen helper.

If it was mainly 2D maps with a few 3D ones for big setpiece encounters I'd be assuming far fewer QOs.

Not to say that they might not just have spent the money for like 200 maps and have a man who occasionally runs to the storeroom to get the require one. The 3D maps certainly do make it look more impressive, although I'm also in the disliking them boat.

Then again I stopped watching it again, because four hours a week is really too much for me. I don't have the capacity to listen on my way to and from work, and when I'm off work I have ore important things to do.

3D maps are mostly Dwarven Forge modular tiles sets and as far as I know he has a lot of these sets. So he can quickly set up a variety of maps before the game or even piece something together during the break. 2D maps, while easier on the eyes in my opinion, were hand drawn by him and he can prepare far fewer of those beforehand. If he was "quantum ogring", he was doing it back in the day. Now he doesn't need "generic town map", he has box full of "generic houses" and "generic cobblestone streets" and so on. Even when there is only one path to the objective, usually there is some time pressure with circumstances changing depending how fast they act, if they rest or get distracted by something on the side etc.