Critical Role. Good/Bad/Other?

[Dumbledorff]

I don't watch Critical Role, Rollplay, Missclicks, Harmontown or any of the other various celebrity D and D shows or podcasts. I'm leery of idiosyncratic rules interpretations getting widespread traction, and I'm doubly nervous about appeals to authority based on some people who make money from streaming D and D as spectator entertainment.

As a fan of CritRoll and a few other streams as well id have to agree If i have to hear one more time well well Matt Mercer does this or Well they let them do this im gonna go to jail for beating someone to death with a PHB

[GlenSmash!]

As a fan of CritRoll and a few other streams as well id have to agree If i have to hear one more time well well Matt Mercer does this or Well they let them do this im gonna go to jail for beating someone to death with a PHB

Ironically, Mercer is super open about the many houserules used in his games, and very much a proponent of doing what works for your table.

[Anonymouswizard]

Spoiler: off topic whining/whingeing

Show

I'm not going to address the rest of the post (which others have done well first), but I find the use of the term "upper-middle-class" annoying, as it largely seems to be used to just mean "Rich but they know some people who are richer", or "People who shop at Whole Foods".

Bah!

And frankly "middle-class" seems effectively meaningless as well, as the goalposts that define the term keep changing.

It's just simpler to divide the population into an "Upper" and "Lower" classes, so which half are you?

And by that standard, I was lower class for 4/5th's of my life.

Boom done.

Unless you have a working definition of "UMC"?

Spoiler

Show

Alright, it's the English definitions, not American ones, but...

Working class: you strand up to work, with some exceptions. Includes professional footballers.

Lower middle class: most tradespeople, call centre workers and low level clerical staff. Or a self employed WC jobs.

Middle middle class: clerical workers, teachers, middle managers, small business owners.

Upper middle class: doctors, lawyers, rich people without titles and who don't have to stand up top work.

Upper class: aristocracy. You're not really upper class here unless your family has a title.

To my understanding the American system is based more on income and earnings than what sort of job you're expected to get. Technically what job your parents have is more important, somebody who grew up Middle Middle Class working a Lower Class job would generally be considered to be MMC (because the classes very much have their own cultures).

While the aristocracy do have a traditional place in the Church of England, a proper vicar is expected to be Middle Class (any variation) in an Upper Class house on a Lower Class salary.

[2D8HP]

Spoiler

Show

Alright, it's the English definitions, not American ones, but...

Working class: you strand up to work, with some exceptions. Includes professional footballers.

Lower middle class: most tradespeople, call centre workers and low level clerical staff. Or a self employed WC jobs.

Middle middle class: clerical workers, teachers, middle managers, small business owners.

Upper middle class: doctors, lawyers, rich people without titles and who don't have to stand up top work.

Upper class: aristocracy. You're not really upper class here unless your family has a title.

To my understanding the American system is based more on income and earnings than what sort of job you're expected to get. Technically what job your parents have is more important, somebody who grew up Middle Middle Class working a Lower Class job would generally be considered to be MMC (because the classes very much have their own cultures).

While the aristocracy do have a traditional place in the Church of England, a proper vicar is expected to be Middle Class (any variation) in an Upper Class house on a Lower Class salary.

Spoiler: off topic response

Show

That's pretty interesting, thanks!

[strangebloke]

Stupid people will always exist, but they are no fault of Matt Mercer or his players.

...You know what? Screw clarification. I was perfectly clear about this. Read my posts.

[Hastati]

I personally don't like watching other people play D&D (or any other RPG to be honest), I'd rather play myself. I tried watching CR, but it just didn't do anything for me. I did watch some Acquisitions Incorporated and enjoyed that, but I don't really have any desire to watch more. Having said that, I totally respect CR and all the other people who put actual play videos out there. Anything that gets people interested in D&D is a really good thing, so more power to them all. I think they have been an absolute boon for D&D and RPGs in general. I've been playing these silly make believe games for 40 years this year (don't tell my kids I have no intention of ever growing up) and there have never been more people talking about them than now. More importantly, the people who play them, and how they play and enjoy them, is becoming more diverse every day. How great is that?

[DracoKnight]

...You know what? Screw clarification. I was perfectly clear about this. Read my posts.

I don't think that Jerrykhor was attacking you, Strange. So let's calm down before a flamewar starts and this thread gets shut down.
...
...
...
...

As for ME and my opinion of Critical Role, I quite enjoy Campaign 2 and Thursday is one of the highlights of my week. (Despite playing in 4 campaigns weekly.) Campaign 1 doesn't do as much for me, but I've only ever managed to get to episode 5 there. I did watch the finale of Campaign 1, and holy f*cking balls it was great. There's a moment in there that absolutely breaks me.

Maybe it's just because we're getting to know these characters along with the players, or maybe it's because I'm watching it live...I dunno, Campaign 2 just seems to tickle my fancy.

THAT SAID: I disagree with Mercer on a couple of his rulings, and I don't think that players should expect their DM to rule everything the same way he does. Every DM is different, and players need to accept that. By trying to force your DM to run his game like Matt Mercer, you're ignoring a lot of the cool things your DM does do.

[Zippee]

Ironically, Mercer is super open about the many houserules used in his games, and very much a proponent of doing what works for your table.

He may well be but not on the show or in a Session Zero equivalent episode (heck we didn't even see the level one intro games for S2). From a show viewer perspective what he says on reddit or at cons or in other media is practically irrelevant. So if you drop in to view, you're just faced with a very homebrew interpretation of D&D with no heads up that it is very homebrew, let alone what the homebrew is. Added to which is the fact that much of the homebrew seems to centre on areas of the rules that are (if forum questions are anything to go by) often misunderstood, misapplied or ignored/forgotten.

Guess that's not so much a criticism of Mat so much as it is of G&S. And I'm speaking as a drive-by viewer on YouTube (and now podcast for S1), no idea if there is more info available on the subscription or live channels but if there is then that's a clique based info trough and that doesn't help - in fact IMO it makes it worse!



BTW I've seen several posters comment on the large size of the group. That strikes me as odd, given that before 3ed hardwired in an expectation of the 4 PC team, our expectation was a minimum PC group of 6. Of course prior to late 1ed the inclusion (of occasionally large groups) of henchmen and hirelings made number of PCs debateable but the number of players was always 6+. I currently still play with 6 players as the norm. It surprised me that the group size was seen as an issue. Not a thing that bothered me at all.

[DracoKnight]

BTW I've seen several posters comment on the large size of the group. That strikes me as odd...

Me too, but I realize I'm an outlier. Our group is 11 players + the DM. I've taken a couple turns DMing for the group, and so 7 seems like a mercifully small number of players. I'd only have to double the encounter size instead of triple or quadruple it.

[mephnick]

Me too, but I realize I'm an outlier. Our group is 11 players + the DM. I've taken a couple turns DMing for the group, and so 7 seems like a mercifully small number of players. I'd only have to double the encounter size instead of triple or quadruple it.

Man I'm sorry but that sounds so boring as a player even with a tightly run ship. How do you even get a word in with 10 other players at the table?

[napoleon_in_rag]

Me too, but I realize I'm an outlier. Our group is 11 players + the DM. I've taken a couple turns DMing for the group, and so 7 seems like a mercifully small number of players. I'd only have to double the encounter size instead of triple or quadruple it.

How long does a single round of combat take? An hour?

[Arkhios]

Man I'm sorry but that sounds so boring as a player even with a tightly run ship. How do you even get a word in with 10 other players at the table?

How long does a single round of combat take? An hour?

I dunno, if everyone is an adult/mature enough, doesn't goof around and talk out of turn, and pays attention 100% of the time, it could work.

Gygax himself ran D&D for 20? 30 people at a time?

[ChainsawFlwrcld]

I personally don't like watching other people play D&D (or any other RPG to be honest), I'd rather play myself. I tried watching CR, but it just didn't do anything for me. I did watch some Acquisitions Incorporated and enjoyed that, but I don't really have any desire to watch more. Having said that, I totally respect CR and all the other people who put actual play videos out there. Anything that gets people interested in D&D is a really good thing, so more power to them all. I think they have been an absolute boon for D&D and RPGs in general. I've been playing these silly make believe games for 40 years this year (don't tell my kids I have no intention of ever growing up) and there have never been more people talking about them than now. More importantly, the people who play them, and how they play and enjoy them, is becoming more diverse every day. How great is that?

Hey there fellow old timer! I got my red box for Christmas 1978.

I love the rise of the Twitch role playing streams because it brought a new generation's attention to my preferred hobby. I had a 4-5 year drought in playing because all my gamer friends were busy adulting. Critical Role pops into existence and suddenly non gamer friends are talking about D&D and now I've got 2 weekly groups and a monthly all with new people and new GM's.

I've read several people mention that CR fans tend to expect things to be overly dramatic. Just suck it up and play. D&D made it through the World of Darkness era where an awful lot of the D&D games switched over to Vampire or Werewolf. The World of Darkness fascination gave role playing a boost in general and introduced a lot of females to gaming. Who know what this fad may introduce to our hobby.

[Beelzebubba]

He may well be but not on the show or in a Session Zero equivalent episode (heck we didn't even see the level one intro games for S2). From a show viewer perspective what he says on reddit or at cons or in other media is practically irrelevant.

You're wrong. having watched it all, he's said it often, starting with the few episodes. It's especially true after an episode's dramatic resolution hinges on a ruling or house rule that generated a lot of friction online from people from people like you. The entire cast has all cracked some kind of joke about 'chat is telling us it's wrong', 'the internet is yelling at me', etcetera. It isn't every episode, but it's often enough that anyone who regularly watches absolutely knows they have a house-ruled home brew game.

Also, you also are ignoring how online fandom works. Look at the YouTube views of their convention appearances, look at the discussions in all sorts of other places - there is a hugely vibrant community that's distributed over many, many different communities online. And things like 'why did Tiberius cast 2 second level spells in his action' come up, and 'that's a house rule' is always one of the first responses.

Critical Role did not happen in a vacuum. The Alpha, Twitch and YouTube broadcasts don't either, and it's disingenuous to force them to hew to some standard that assume they do - or have to.

So if you drop in to view, you're just faced with a very homebrew interpretation of D&D with no heads up that it is very homebrew, let alone what the homebrew is. Added to which is the fact that much of the homebrew seems to centre on areas of the rules that are (if forum questions are anything to go by) often misunderstood, misapplied or ignored/forgotten.

Running a game with a lot of individual house rules and 'rulings not rules' is exactly the same as any table in any game in the world. And, people 'hacking the game' to make it their own is an explicit design goal of this edition, told far and wide by Mearls, Crawford and the other designers. It even says as much on the literal second page of both the PHB and DMG. So I don't see why he has to be 100% by the book on his own game, or have elaborate disclaimers. That's what D&D is supposed to be. (BTW, when he does games that are officially sanctioned by D&D - say, the Vin Diesel one-shot - he is explicitly by the book.)

If you have ever seen the 'what Critical Role means to me' video, there are people balling their eyes out in happiness about what they've brought to the community and the game. So, you can disapprove all you want, but they're doing far more to make more people happy than anyone I've seen who complain about it here.

Ultimately, people who come to the game that are the type to learn RAW will do so, people who don't won't, and when they meet, people with social skills will figure it all out. Stop thinking you need to save anyone from themselves.

[Tanarii]

I dunno, if everyone is an adult/mature enough, doesn't goof around and talk out of turn, and pays attention 100% of the time, it could work.

Gygax himself ran D&D for 20? 30 people at a time?

Gygax used party callers, sometimes multiple when the PCs were running several simultaneous groups. Effectively co-DMs with a PC, that had the area of responsibility for organizing the party's group actions and responses, and then communicating them to the DM.

I've done that before (both as a player and as a DM) and it's a whole different ballgame and style of play.

Ultimately, people who come to the game that are the type to learn RAW will do so, people who don't won't, and when they meet, people with social skills will figure it all out. Stop thinking you need to save anyone from themselves.

Generally those of us who don't like Mercer's niche way of running games are more concerned with saving ourselves from those who have been trained to think it's the way things ought to be.

[Anonymouswizard]

BTW I've seen several posters comment on the large size of the group. That strikes me as odd, given that before 3ed hardwired in an expectation of the 4 PC team, our expectation was a minimum PC group of 6. Of course prior to late 1ed the inclusion (of occasionally large groups) of henchmen and hirelings made number of PCs debateable but the number of players was always 6+. I currently still play with 6 players as the norm. It surprised me that the group size was seen as an issue. Not a thing that bothered me at all.

I've very rarely been in such a large group. 4-5 is normal for me, I was once in a twelve player group but that ended up with nobody getting focus (causing players to leave after a few months until we were down to about seven people, the group is now four+GM). I think this comes from a mixture of more complex characters and most other games working under the assumption of 3-5 PCs, as well as most 3.X modules either being for 4 PCs (including the Paizo adventure paths unless I'm very much mistaken).

Me too, but I realize I'm an outlier. Our group is 11 players + the DM. I've taken a couple turns DMing for the group, and so 7 seems like a mercifully small number of players. I'd only have to double the encounter size instead of triple or quadruple it.

I've been in groups of such size, and it can be really boring. Even in a game with fast turn resolutions and one opponent it can still take half an hour to resolve a round of combat, fifteen minutes if everybody is quick and you don't use tactical movement.

[Beelzebubba]

Generally those of us who don't like Mercer's niche way of running games are more concerned with saving ourselves from those who have been trained to think it's the way things ought to be.

Calling him 'niche' is incredibly disingenuous. Every single game I have ever played in has been as house-ruled as his game. You can literally say the same thing about anyone who's played at another table before yours.

Again, there is absolutely nothing new going on here, and it's 90% graybeard grousing.

File off the serial numbers and I've read your complaint, word-for-word, in 80's Dragon Magazine.

[Tanarii]

Calling him 'niche' is incredibly disingenuous. Every single game I have ever played in has been as house-ruled as his game. You can literally say the same thing about anyone who's played at another table before yours.

I wasn't talking about house ruling. I was talking about running a game for and by voice actors, and the deep character immersion and hugely over-descriptive everything that results. Edit: and in many RPGs other than D&D it wouldn't be that niche. Many have specifically been designed to enhance that style of play. But it's not the standard for D&D games, so new players walking in to one expecting can be problematic.

The slow speed is IMO unfortunately somewhat normal in gaming.

Customizing and house rules are very normal in any non-official play game. (Or in grey beard times, conventions and tourneys)

[Zippee]

You're wrong. having watched it all, he's said it often, starting with the few episodes. It's especially true after an episode's dramatic resolution hinges on a ruling or house rule that generated a lot of friction online from people from people like you. The entire cast has all cracked some kind of joke about 'chat is telling us it's wrong', 'the internet is yelling at me', etcetera. It isn't every episode, but it's often enough that anyone who regularly watches absolutely knows they have a house-ruled home brew game.

Whoa, there fella, chill. I have never generated friction online at CR so you can keep your accusations to yourself - you have absolutely no idea what type of people I am.

You are misreading me. I didn't say it wasn't clearly homebrewed, I said it wasn't clear what the homebrew rules were/are by viewing. I did say that if the viewer didn't know D&D at all then s/he'd have no idea that homebrew was a thing, so s/he'd naturally assume the game was RAW - actually they wouldn't because the concept would likely never come to mind.

Having watched and listened to both series, I know that the homebrew is not detailed as part of the broadcast (at least not in any meaningful sense, the odd random comment doesn't qualify as explanation). It doesn't matter to me if its done elsewhere, nor should it have to. I have no interest in and do not engage in the chat, comments or other CR media - I'm viewing a tube and/or listening to a podcast, so all I have is what is in the stream/broadcast. I agree he does occasionally comment [presumably in reaction to chat] on rulings such as to mention he uses flanking, I think the quote was "yes it's in the rules, check out the DMG" - that was back in S1, haven't checked the dates but probably when the DMG was new. But this is random commentary not explanation.

Also, you also are ignoring how online fandom works. Look at the YouTube views of their convention appearances, look at the discussions in all sorts of other places - there is a hugely vibrant community that's distributed over many, many different communities online. And things like 'why did Tiberius cast 2 second level spells in his action' come up, and 'that's a house rule' is always one of the first responses.

What's fandom got to do with it? Why should I need to be a fanboy to understand how the game is being played? Why on earth would I want to view such things? A first response on a tube that isn't even part of the playlist, let alone accessible as a podcast is never going to inform me or any number of other people of anything. I have no interest in what chat is saying or what tube comments are being frothed over.

The tube/cast is of the game, it's clearly homebrewed (which is fine) but the details are not transparent. If I have an interest in how the game is being homebrewed why should I have to engage with several other forms of media let alone be required to immerse myself in the mire of fandom to find out?

Critical Role did not happen in a vacuum. The Alpha, Twitch and YouTube broadcasts don't either, and it's disingenuous to force them to hew to some standard that assume they do - or have to.

It's not about fandom - if you're a fan and absorb everything broadcast then fine you probably know far more than me or any number of other people. Most people are not fanboys.

Who's forcing anyone to any standard except you; who seem to be trying to force anyone who comments to conform with your version of acceptable CR viewer, as if not being immersed in fandom means someone has no right to an opinion on CR. Your comments seem to be directly reinforcing why I said that if the details are only available on the subscription alpha or live feeds (or whatever other platform 'fandom' permeates) then it's a clique and IMO cliques are never a good thing.

Disingenuous? Really how's that then. Suggesting a Session Zero equivalent episode would be beneficial isn't disingenuous it's no more than a suggestion.

Running a game with a lot of individual house rules and 'rulings not rules' is exactly the same as any table in any game in the world. And, people 'hacking the game' to make it their own is an explicit design goal of this edition, told far and wide by Mearls, Crawford and the other designers. It even says as much on the literal second page of both the PHB and DMG. So I don't see why he has to be 100% by the book on his own game, or have elaborate disclaimers. That's what D&D is supposed to be. (BTW, when he does games that are officially sanctioned by D&D - say, the Vin Diesel one-shot - he is explicitly by the book.)

And this is relevant to my post how? Of course he's empowered to run the game anyway he and his players like, just as you are. But if you broadcast your game, it would be very helpful to the viewer to know what the premise and homebrew is. This is no different to having a session zero at your table - it's good manners, good planning and just plain sensible to ensure everyone is on the same page from the get go. And stop with the straw men "100% RAW" - "elaborate disclaimers" these are your terms not mine, I haven't suggested such (although I'm happy to admit I'd prefer a game closer to RAW and like you, I'm entitled to my opinion).

If you have ever seen the 'what Critical Role means to me' video, there are people balling their eyes out in happiness about what they've brought to the community and the game. So, you can disapprove all you want, but they're doing far more to make more people happy than anyone I've seen who complain about it here.

Nope never seen such a thing, not interested in seeing such and would consider such things to be heavily fanboy orientated and of no interest to me. Personally I can't imagine why anyone would want to view such a thing but if that's your thing, go right ahead.

And I'm not disapproving of anything - that's your opinion that you are imposing on me. Please stop doing that. I have, to the contrary, said several times that I think CR is very beneficial and overall a good thing for the hobby. Nor am I complaining, I'm commentating - there is a very significant difference. You seem to be on a very high horse, you want to be careful you don't fall off.

Stop thinking you need to save anyone from themselves.

Stop presuming you know what my intent or goals are - you clearly don't. And you clearly can't read a post without internalising it into your own knee-jerk reaction defensiveness. That IMO is a sure sign of frothing fandom - if you think CR is the bees knees and can do no wrong, is absolutely perfect and couldn't be better than whoopee for you. I tend to disagree, I think it could be improved - mostly by better editing and better direction. And as I already said, I think that lays at the feet of G&S not Mercer.

[Beelzebubba]

I wasn't talking about house ruling. I was talking about running a game for and by voice actors, and the deep character immersion and hugely over-descriptive everything that results. Edit: and in many RPGs other than D&D it wouldn't be that niche. Many have specifically been designed to enhance that style of play. But it's not the standard for D&D games, so new players walking in to one expecting can be problematic.

The thing I want to know is: of the new players that are playing that way, how many are darkening the door of your 20-years running group?

From everything I can see, the new generation are playing their games with each other, so they're living their lives in parallel. Are you getting multiple people coming to your D&D game who are incredibly put out that your game is different?

Let's say it's attracting a different style of player, one that - as an aggregate of gaming groups - loves the florid role playing. If enough of them come, then by definition, aren't they now 'the standard'? And we, the decaying elders with their well-thumbed Moldvay Basic on the shelf, are no longer the ones setting the tone of the 'right' way to play?

Look - I've met a bunch of people who watch Critical Role. None of them take the damn thing as seriously as your hand-wringing supposes. Most of them laugh at the antics, admire the role playing, and get floored by how many voices Matt seems to have mastered, but they know they're not capable of that stuff themselves, and they just play they way that's comfortable to them.

It's like saying 'oh god, Zlatan is so damn good at football (note: the version actually played with feet), I hope the kids don't learn from his example and try all those things that won't work for them' and getting worried. Meanwhile, everyone goes out there, finds out after a few minutes that they're never ever going to be that 'good', and then settles in to the rhythm and style of the game that they can physically and mentally accomplish.

Besides, of the DMs I know, all of the ones who watch Critical Role also watch Matt Colville, who does a damn good job of representing the Old School, and repeatedly says that CR is not how most play the game. So, it's not like CR is in a vacuum there either.

I think most people are smarter than you're giving them credit for. Either that, or where I live has an incredibly high ratio of 'people who can discern the difference between entertainment and a game they'd play'. You tell me.

[Arkhios]

Gygax used party callers, sometimes multiple when the PCs were running several simultaneous groups. Effectively co-DMs with a PC, that had the area of responsibility for organizing the party's group actions and responses, and then communicating them to the DM.

I've done that before (both as a player and as a DM) and it's a whole different ballgame and style of play.

Really? Honestly, I didn't know that many details about how he was doing it. In that case, so have I. I mean, I've been a player on multiple occasions in a multi-DM event where one "Grand" DM (I'm guessing this is what Gygax did?) is telling story as a framework where multiple smaller groups are doing their part to advance a story towards a common goal, led through the game by co-DM's for each individual table.
(Pathfinder Society has special "Convention-only" scenarios (scenarios mean about 4 to 6 -hour long adventures) that are run this way).

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

I'm just curious how many people on this forum watch Critical Role? Is there anyone who was brought into the D&D fold here because of it? What are your thoughts on Matt Mercer's campaigns so far?

I've watched about half the total episodes so far.

I hadn't even considered playing D&D until I watched an episode out of sheer boredom. Since then I've started playing a SKT campaign. I'm having session zero for another campaign next week, and I'm slowly getting my friends to be willing to play. Hopefully by Christmas I'll have a seven person campaign that I'm running.

I really enjoy the campaigns so far. There have been some boring spots but that's to be expected with any show/ form of entertainment. I personally have been using it to think about what I would do in certain situations, rules adjudication and stuff like that then comparing it to what Matt actually does and how it turns out.

[Knaight]

What's fandom got to do with it? Why should I need to be a fanboy to understand how the game is being played? Why on earth would I want to view such things? A first response on a tube that isn't even part of the playlist, let alone accessible as a podcast is never going to inform me or any number of other people of anything. I have no interest in what chat is saying or what tube comments are being frothed over.

The tube/cast is of the game, it's clearly homebrewed (which is fine) but the details are not transparent. If I have an interest in how the game is being homebrewed why should I have to engage with several other forms of media let alone be required to immerse myself in the mire of fandom to find out?

If we're talking about being immersed in fandom to figure out how the game is being played trying to figure out D&D not by using actual D&D books but instead by going to a web podcast and watching that seems like it probably qualifies.

As for the details being transparent, it's one D&D campaign. If people decide to take a sample size of one as representative, that's on them, and said sample members have no need to exhaustively delineate exactly how they're non-standard every session, recorded or no.

[Tanarii]

The thing I want to know is: of the new players that are playing that way, how many are darkening the door of your 20-years running group?

Almost all of my 20+ most regular players (at least once a month) are college age.

[Drascin]

I have never watched any of these podcasts, because I'm bad at watching any sort of spectator sport, and that includes D&D, but honestly reading the replies here I am all for these Critical Role guys already and I wish them a hundred more episodes of success.

[Beelzebubba]

Almost all of my 20+ most regular players (at least once a month) are college age.

Since you're not engaging with anything else I wrote, I feel safe chalking it up to 'grumpy grognard whining about generational change' and feel fine.

[Tanarii]

Since you're not engaging with anything else I wrote, I feel safe chalking it up to 'grumpy grognard whining about generational change' and feel fine.

Do whatever makes you feel good about yourself toots.

[Anonymouswizard]

As for the details being transparent, it's one D&D campaign. If people decide to take a sample size of one as representative, that's on them, and said sample members have no need to exhaustively delineate exactly how they're non-standard every session, recorded or no.

Okay, this is probably the thing that's most important. The two potential problems with people who got into roleplaying via Critical role are that they expect all games to be like CR, or they think that CR is the best way to run a game.

I don't have a problem with the first as long as they're willing to give another style a try, although I'm not going to change to run more like MM. It's the second that's the problem, although they are thankfully rarer.

[Raif]

I think it could be improved - mostly by better editing and better direction. And as I already said, I think that lays at the feet of G&S not Mercer.

Just curious about this bit, what editing and direction? Do you mean angles and camera stuff? Or the writing? Since, it's not a written show, it's Mercer preparing a session just as any DM does.

There's no script if that's what you're getting at on CR.

[DracoKnight]

Man I'm sorry but that sounds so boring as a player even with a tightly run ship. How do you even get a word in with 10 other players at the table?

It can be, some nights are better than others. I play with a group that size because we're all close friends.

How long does a single round of combat take? An hour?

Nah, we usually have a round of combat done in under 10 minutes.