The Critical Role Effect

[jjordan]

My feeds have been tossing this up at me in various forms for a little while. It looks like it's just a few people grousing but it got me thinking. The basic idea is that Critical Role (and High Rollers and other roleplaying game streams) set a very high bar and when new players, inspired by these broadcasts, go out to play for real they end up being disappointed.

This seems understandable. When you look at Critical Role, for example, you're seeing professionally trained actors (voice actors at that) who are also a cohesive group of fairly long-time friends. They are playing the game and having fun, yes, but they are also aware that they are entertaining and are working together to do this.

But rather than focus on why your game isn't as good as Critical Role, maybe take a look at what players can learn from Critical Role and bring back to their game to make it better. Some of the things I notice are:

-Roleplay. The players roleplay their characters. They do voices (which isn't necessary) and they emote (which is something that can be done) and they do things that make sense for their characters.
-Teamwork. I don't mean well-oiled execution of actions. I mean that they support the roleplay the other players have done and go with it.
-They don't argue the rules in game. They look up spell details (usually before it's their turn to cast, but not always), they look up details about familiars, and magic items, and feats. But they don't spend ten or twenty minutes arguing the interpretation of the rules once the DM has made a ruling. Granted Matt's usually correct, but still.
-They take turns. Sometimes you're a supporting character and sometimes you're the lead. Both are important. Everyone gets to play.

Your takeaway?

[MadBear]

I think your list is a fairly apt way to pull some positive takeaways from Critical Role. I love that show, and I love DMing, but my group is a tight nit band that's been together for over a decade, so I don't ever worry about "New" players.

[Unoriginal]

My takeaway is: there is no reason to not acknowledge an issue because it's linked to a work which gives positive things.

The Critical Role effect, or the Matt Mercer effect, are not the fault of Critical Role/Matt Mercer, at all. Calling it the "Critical Role effect" isn't a slight against the show.

It is not DMs failing to measure up or the like, either. I would never focus on "why [my] game isn't as good as Critical Role"


It's simply viewers having false expectations. And if and only if they're not willing to let go said expectations after being told the facts, it becomes an issue. Same thing happen any time viewers got expectations from the media they consumed.


Maybe CR teaches some things to players, too, but those who are reasonable enough to learn things from CR are probably not in the "can't accept their expectations were false" category, so I doubt there is much overlap between the benefits and the issue.

In any case, Critical Role is a great work, we don't need to try to find ways it makes players on top of that.

[MikeRoxTheBoat]

I've been into the idea of D&D for 20 some odd years, but only recently started playing, due to finally having a decent online platform for it, as well as the popularity boost making it almost a non issue trying to join a game. Critical Role was a big push into me actively trying to find a game.

I think the biggest effect is that it's harder for me to imagine myself playing a Beer & Pretzels type game. I'm playing a Dungeon of the Mad Mage game that's like that (megadungeons seem more accommodating of that style), but I'm definitely less invested in it. I enjoy the combat aspects of the game, but I equally enjoy talking with NPCs and interparty dialogue between PCs. I know there have been a couple of games where people seemed confused that I cared about NPCs at all, including the DM at one point.

[Unoriginal]

I've been into the idea of D&D for 20 some odd years, but only recently started playing, due to finally having a decent online platform for it, as well as the popularity boost making it almost a non issue trying to join a game. Critical Role was a big push into me actively trying to find a game.

I think the biggest effect is that it's harder for me to imagine myself playing a Beer & Pretzels type game. I'm playing a Dungeon of the Mad Mage game that's like that (megadungeons seem more accommodating of that style), but I'm definitely less invested in it. I enjoy the combat aspects of the game, but I equally enjoy talking with NPCs and interparty dialogue between PCs. I know there have been a couple of games where people seemed confused that I cared about NPCs at all, including the DM at one point.

That's sad, DotMM has *tons* of NPCs with interesting or funny personalities that can be interacted with.

[GlenSmash!]

My takeaway?

You can always take an approach from a player, no matter how seemingly insane and turn it into an Ability Check. Above all else, this is my favorite thing Mercer does well.

Of course it's still up to you if a roll is necessary, which is a harder concept to glean from just watching the show.

[Kalashak]

Not to detract from your point, but I think saying the Matt Mercer Effect is Critical Role setting the bar so high regular games can't live up to it is a fairly unflattering way of framing it.

[Unoriginal]

Not to detract from your point, but I think saying the Matt Mercer Effect is Critical Role setting the bar so high regular games can't live up to it is a fairly unflattering way of framing it.

I would say it's overly flattering for the Matt Mercer effect, and massively unflattering for other DMs.

[holywhippet]

-They don't argue the rules in game. They look up spell details (usually before it's their turn to cast, but not always), they look up details about familiars, and magic items, and feats. But they don't spend ten or twenty minutes arguing the interpretation of the rules once the DM has made a ruling. Granted Matt's usually correct, but still.

I watched the first episode and about half the second IIRC. Matt seemed a bit unclear on some of the rules and some of the players did as well. One decided to drop his invisibility just before dimension dooring out of a building he'd snuck into - dimension door isn't concentration so he didn't need to. One of the characters asked about mithral armour and was asking if it would be a problem being stealthy in it. Matt assured him that it would be too clinky to be stealthy in it. Mithral has literally only one purpose in 5th edition and that is to not give disadvantage to stealth. Finally they were ambushed by umber hulks and the barbarian didn't get to act in the surprise round - his level was high enough that he should have had feral instinct though.

[MikeRoxTheBoat]

I watched the first episode and about half the second IIRC. Matt seemed a bit unclear on some of the rules and some of the players did as well. One decided to drop his invisibility just before dimension dooring out of a building he'd snuck into - dimension door isn't concentration so he didn't need to. One of the characters asked about mithral armour and was asking if it would be a problem being stealthy in it. Matt assured him that it would be too clinky to be stealthy in it. Mithral has literally only one purpose in 5th edition and that is to not give disadvantage to stealth. Finally they were ambushed by umber hulks and the barbarian didn't get to act in the surprise round - his level was high enough that he should have had feral instinct though.

Yeah, they were just transitioning from Pathfinder in those first episodes. I didn't have a problem with it the first time I listened, but going back and listening now that I have an understanding of the game makes me scratch my head a bit at some of his rulings. To everyone's credit, though, they seem to take the ruling and run with it, then correct it later if something needs correcting. I like that it keeps things moving for the most part. That's something that I've picked up on in my games. If something's ruled weird, I'll question it, then if it gets vetoed, I'll just roll with it.

[jjordan]

Yeah, they were just transitioning from Pathfinder in those first episodes. I didn't have a problem with it the first time I listened, but going back and listening now that I have an understanding of the game makes me scratch my head a bit at some of his rulings. To everyone's credit, though, they seem to take the ruling and run with it, then correct it later if something needs correcting. I like that it keeps things moving for the most part. That's something that I've picked up on in my games. If something's ruled weird, I'll question it, then if it gets vetoed, I'll just roll with it.

I agree. The second season/campaign is a better place to start to get a real feel for the effect people are referring to. They move to a custom sound-stage, Matt's pretty much got the rules down, the players have gotten most of the rules down, and they're starting at level one rather than porting their 9th level characters over from the Pathfinder campaign they were running. They've also got a genuine budget and it shows in the production values.

[TheCleverGuy]

I watched the first episode and about half the second IIRC. Matt seemed a bit unclear on some of the rules and some of the players did as well. One decided to drop his invisibility just before dimension dooring out of a building he'd snuck into - dimension door isn't concentration so he didn't need to. One of the characters asked about mithral armour and was asking if it would be a problem being stealthy in it. Matt assured him that it would be too clinky to be stealthy in it. Mithral has literally only one purpose in 5th edition and that is to not give disadvantage to stealth. Finally they were ambushed by umber hulks and the barbarian didn't get to act in the surprise round - his level was high enough that he should have had feral instinct though.

The Critical Role group had been playing Pathfinder for a long time before switching to 5e for the stream, so a lot of the early episodes especially have some confusion with the different rules between systems (full disclosure here, I've personally only played 5e, so I'm not an expert on what those differences are). Also, a few of the players, including Scanlan the Bard and Grog the Barbarian (who you call out specifically) were completely new to D&D when they started.

Anyway, messing up some rules isn't a huge deal, and if anything I think it's good to show that encyclopedic knowledge of the rules iusnt necessary to have fun.

[Snowbluff]

I watched the first episode and about half the second IIRC. Matt seemed a bit unclear on some of the rules and some of the players did as well. One decided to drop his invisibility just before dimension dooring out of a building he'd snuck into - dimension door isn't concentration so he didn't need to. One of the characters asked about mithral armour and was asking if it would be a problem being stealthy in it. Matt assured him that it would be too clinky to be stealthy in it. Mithral has literally only one purpose in 5th edition and that is to not give disadvantage to stealth. Finally they were ambushed by umber hulks and the barbarian didn't get to act in the surprise round - his level was high enough that he should have had feral instinct though.

I think it's better to understand that sometimes people make mistakes. If something ends up being inconsistent because a rule was misremembered, it better to try and do better in the future than try and backtrack.

[jjordan]

I would say it's overly flattering for the Matt Mercer effect, and massively unflattering for other DMs.

It is unflattering for other DMs. That's the point being made by the authors of the articles/podcasters. I think it's unfair to blame the show (or Matt) because people didn't find the game they were looking for based on their experience of the show. My point was to flip those criticisms on their head; instead of saying why isn't my game more like the show players can ask what they can bring from the show to their game.

[Tanarii]

Your takeaway?

My takeaway is that Critical Role & Matt Mercer set a very low bar that is easy for DMs and Players to surpass. It's full of what not to do. Starting with bore your players with poor pacing.

[Keravath]

I've watched the first 9 or 10 episodes of the first series of Critical Role. It wasn't bad. Matt Mercer is a decent DM.

However, the voice skills, acting skills and character playing experiences of all of the players and the DM, since they are all in the industry, is way above average. At the beginning of the series it was clear that the game system was new to all of them. They were transitioning an existing campaign from Pathfinder to 5e and weren't quite sure how they wanted things to work. Low-light vision vs darkvision vs regular vision was one early example.

As for pacing, it seems to me that the players enjoy the role playing game as much as the combat and other aspects, maybe even more. They enjoy the NPC encounters and enjoy how Matt narrates them. As a result, I think some of the "slow" pacing is due to the what the players enjoy (what their game is about) rather than necessarily what works best for an audience. (I haven't seen any of the second series so things may have changed ... when it started, it really had the feel of watching a typical D&D session rather than something "made for TV".) [I haven't seen the players bored in any of the episodes I watched though it was pretty easy for the audience to get bored at places since they aren't typically as invested in the storyline and characters as the players].

[Corran]

My takeaway is that Critical Role & Matt Mercer set a very low bar that is easy for DMs and Players to surpass. It's full of what not to do. Starting with bore your players with poor pacing.

I quickly fell out of love with that show. It surprises me somewhat how popular it is.

My biggest issue with dnd streams in general, is that most DM's tend to go very easy on players. Especially if the players cannot take defeat/character death well. So in order not to jeopardize the show (because these streams are not just your average dnd game, they are shows, they are meant to entertain, so there is no room for whining or arguing), the campaigns tend to be easy and predictable, in a sense that there is no or very little risk involved. I prefer having in my games the rare moments of whining after a TPK or character death, than know beforehand that there is no chance of that happening. I have the same preference when I am watching a dnd stream.

[Zhorn]

The Critical Role Effect (the Matt Mercer Effect rolls of the tongue so much better) I see as the flipside of decades of negative stereotypes to D&D and table top RPGs in general.

To new players that have not had any exposure to the medium before, it was just as likely that they would be shocked that such a past time could even entertaining, let alone that they would enjoy it.

I had been into fantasy fiction and the like for a while before my first ever game, which was my first ever experience with D&D (about 13 years ago using 3.5), and that still didn't go over well with me. The players were all welcoming, they did voices and emoted their roleplay, they were quick on their turns and engaged in the actions of others, and combat was organised and showed a strong sense of teamwork, all the while with quips and joking around.
But it was very much like that cringe worthy SNL skit (employee of the month), and as a first dive in... that was too much for me. Character was never broken even when they left the table, and all their out of game interactions were flavoured in this roleplay element. It was too far down the rabbit hole and played into the outsider view of the stereotype too strongly that it scared me off until the last couple of years.

Critical Role got me back into the hobby, and has me passionately engaged with the story and roleplay elements at the table. Imagine what a lot of those new players would have been expecting to happen at the table without having seen any of the popular d&d streams online?

[Trustypeaches]

My takeaway is that Critical Role & Matt Mercer set a very low bar that is easy for DMs and Players to surpass. It's full of what not to do. Starting with bore your players with poor pacing.

I'm curious to hear what other bad habits and practices you feel Critical Role showcases / encourages.

[Arkhios]

I quickly fell out of love with that show. It surprises me somewhat how popular it is.

Same. Though I can kinda relate to these shows being easy for an inexperienced consumer to watch and enjoy, as they're easily approachable via youtube and the like.

The problem with these shows is that in most cases they don't seem to follow the rules by the book, and almost seem to follow a loose script which has been rehearsed in advance. The dice rolls that are shown seem to be only for show, while the results of those rolls are still handwaved to match the script. For the audience who might have never played the actual game themselves, this paints a misleading image of how the game should run its course. For an inexperienced viewer, the illusion of rules mastery by the DM and the other players can lead to misunderstandings and thus, false expectations when they end up having their first actual game sessions.

[Urukubarr]

Same. Though I can kinda relate to these shows being easy for an inexperienced consumer to watch and enjoy, as they're easily approachable via youtube and the like.

The problem with these shows is that in most cases they don't seem to follow the rules by the book, and almost seem to follow a loose script which has been rehearsed in advance. The dice rolls that are shown seem to be only for show, while the results of those rolls are still handwaved to match the script. For the audience who might have never played the actual game themselves, this paints a misleading image of how the game should run its course. For an inexperienced viewer, the illusion of rules mastery by the DM and the other players can lead to misunderstandings and thus, false expectations when they end up having their first actual game sessions.

I think that is quite the conspiracy and really downplays the sheer amount of work matt does with his setting and prep work. a lot of very good DM's can do the same, and keep a game looking and playing very fluid despite player actions, this is all down to prep work and improvisation and ho well the DM knows their world and the areas their players are in, if you have a good idea of everything within the players immediate travel vicinity and whats going on, its very easy to keep the game fluid even if they decided to **** off from what you thought they were going to do. (you can spot this at times in crit role, matt just does a great job of covering it by knowing his setting, its very common for him to come up with many NPC's on the spot)

now it is a very narrative driven game so its lethality is more based on once again what the characters do given the information they are given. for instance you give the players a possible out of a bad situation before hand or half way through, or give warnings (in game) that things are going to be bad or people may die. if the players continue then the gloves come off and the dice fall where they may, its not fair to just punish the players for things they didn't know or good decision they make, but if they make a dumb decision that was their choice? go for it (molly's death, he was low on life in front of a big bad and used an ability that he knew could drop him into negs in an encounter they knew was a bad idea. he paid the price for it, and the rest of the players have been WAY more cautious ever sense)

but it also depends on what your players want, for instance my group does not like morally grey quests and prefers dungeon encounters, they like a bit of rp and a bit of narrative, but for the most part want to do encounters. so that's how I run the game, I would never try to run a game in a fashion my players did not want to play because its the game I want to run, DM's are there to serve (though not at the exclusion of their own fun)

but yeah I tend to have players make the choice of where they are going next or what they are doing fall at the end of a session so that I can plan everything out for where they are going and also a lot of the area around it. this avoids having to try to come up with stuff half way through a session. the setting can help too, for instance ravenloft only has one main town. so you know if they are going to a town, its the one main town, no need to come up with a town and all its NPC's on the spot. (I recommend if your new and starting out, base all your adventures out of one okay sized main town, that way you only need to come up with one blacksmith, one general store, etc. as you get better, have distant travel to a second town so they cannot just be there instantly but give you behind the scenes time between sessions to prep for it, etc.)



a lot of good DM'ing comes down to just knowing how to deal with that kind of stuff. matt mercer is a long time DM, he knows his players very well, he knows his setting extremely well (its his, he does not have to read setting descriptions from a book, its all in his head, its really easy to explain things when you have such a great mantle picture of it), he has years of DM experience dealing with curveballs in crazy things players do, his DMing SHOULD look easy, he has set up everything in his favor, that's what you want to do, regardless of the type of game your running.

[Arkhios]

I think that is quite the conspiracy and really downplays the sheer amount of work matt does with his setting and prep work. a lot of very good DM's can do the same, and keep a game looking and playing very fluid despite player actions, this is all down to prep work and improvisation and ho well the DM knows their world and the areas their players are in, if you have a good idea of everything within the players immediate travel vicinity and whats going on, its very easy to keep the game fluid even if they decided to **** off from what you thought they were going to do. (you can spot this at times in crit role, matt just does a great job of covering it by knowing his setting, its very common for him to come up with many NPC's on the spot)

now it is a very narrative driven game so its lethality is more based on once again what the characters do given the information they are given. for instance you give the players a possible out of a bad situation before hand or half way through, or give warnings (in game) that things are going to be bad or people may die. if the players continue then the gloves come off and the dice fall where they may, its not fair to just punish the players for things they didn't know or good decision they make, but if they make a dumb decision that was their choice? go for it (molly's death, he was low on life in front of a big bad and used an ability that he knew could drop him into negs in an encounter they knew was a bad idea. he paid the price for it, and the rest of the players have been WAY more cautious ever sense)

but it also depends on what your players want, for instance my group does not like morally grey quests and prefers dungeon encounters, they like a bit of rp and a bit of narrative, but for the most part want to do encounters. so that's how I run the game, I would never try to run a game in a fashion my players did not want to play because its the game I want to run, DM's are there to serve (though not at the exclusion of their own fun)

but yeah I tend to have players make the choice of where they are going next or what they are doing fall at the end of a session so that I can plan everything out for where they are going and also a lot of the area around it. this avoids having to try to come up with stuff half way through a session. the setting can help too, for instance ravenloft only has one main town. so you know if they are going to a town, its the one main town, no need to come up with a town and all its NPC's on the spot. (I recommend if your new and starting out, base all your adventures out of one okay sized main town, that way you only need to come up with one blacksmith, one general store, etc. as you get better, have distant travel to a second town so they cannot just be there instantly but give you behind the scenes time between sessions to prep for it, etc.)



a lot of good DM'ing comes down to just knowing how to deal with that kind of stuff. matt mercer is a long time DM, he knows his players very well, he knows his setting extremely well (its his, he does not have to read setting descriptions from a book, its all in his head, its really easy to explain things when you have such a great mantle picture of it), he has years of DM experience dealing with curveballs in crazy things players do, his DMing SHOULD look easy, he has set up everything in his favor, that's what you want to do, regardless of the type of game your running.

*Humbly tips a tin-foil hat*

Admittedly, the way I see these shows is based on very narrow perspective, which is why I am with Corran here. I lost interest to Critical Role very early on, and the others that I have tried to watch later felt much the same to CR. Maybe it's not entirely accurate perception of them, I don't know for sure. But it's the surface feeling I've had from watching what little I have. Based on what I've seen, it has felt rehearsed and not completely improvised in the long run.

[Unoriginal]

*Humbly tips a tin-foil hat*

Admittedly, the way I see these shows is based on very narrow perspective, which is why I am with Corran here. I lost interest to Critical Role very early on, and the others that I have tried to watch later felt much the same to CR. Maybe it's not entirely accurate perception of them, I don't know for sure. But it's the surface feeling I've had from watching what little I have. Based on what I've seen, it has felt rehearsed and not completely improvised in the long run.

Matt Mercer writes a lot of notes, including branching paths for how he think things could go and how the NPCs could react. But no, it is not rehearsed or anything like that.

Dunno why people always think that RPing is scripted. In another D&D livestream I watch, where they play Dungeon of the Mad Mage, people were accusing them of scripting because the goth Bard took Talk with the Dead and [spoiler warning] there is one room in the dungeon where this spell in particular is useful.

[KorvinStarmast]

To everyone's credit, though, they seem to take the ruling and run with it, then correct it later if something needs correcting. I like that it keeps things moving for the most part.

Yeah, that's a good example to set.
For my money, the pace of play on CR is too slow.

[Jophiel]

The basic idea is that Critical Role (and High Rollers and other roleplaying game streams) set a very high bar and when new players, inspired by these broadcasts, go out to play for real they end up being disappointed.

It's a bit of sad irony that these shows can act as an ambassador to the game and get people interested and then, often, the most accessible and easy to join games are Adventurers' League -- where AL is about as opposite to CR as you can get while still playing the same game. I have no idea if they were CR-inspired (I don't think I actually know anyone in person who talks about the show) but I've seen numerous people show up for AL games with their two pages of backstory that are going to be wasted on the format. And I say this as someone who enjoys AL but I know to expect 2-4 hours of casual dice rolling and moderate problem solving and not Theater Hour. I don't know the solution but I do think that the disparity makes it a worse experience for the CR-seeking newcomer than longer term campaigns where you get a chance to let your character grow in a group.

As far as CR itself goes, like others in the thread, it's not anything I find interesting but since they can earn a bajillion dollars on Kickstarter there's obviously a following. On the rare occasions where I have a hankering to watch some D&D, I usually find one of the B-Tier streams on Twitch which are more like watching a group play in the game shop than a polished production but still have better camera/audio quality than the guys with a $15 Logitech camera on one corner of the table.

[Unoriginal]

but I've seen numerous people show up for AL games with their two pages of backstory that are going to be wasted on the format. And I say this as someone who enjoys AL but I know to expect 2-4 hours of casual dice rolling and moderate problem solving and not Theater Hour. I don't know the solution

Maybe helping the various people who want that kind of game get in touch so that they can have a group that wants to try out the same playstyle would be a solution?

[Kurt Kurageous]

I agree that CR may skew expectations. But for all the negatives, its a huge win for the game.

MM's prep is very good, but then again it's his job/life. While I will never have the amount of time for prep (as it's never going to be my full time job), it encourages me to prep.

CP's CoS run was revealing for the same reason. I was initially unimpressed with his DMing until I looked at what he is doing in the background (interacting with computer based maps, counters, text, etc.) Unless he's got a producer doing that, it is a major distraction to a DM. I'm now impressed and wiser to the effects of a distracted DM.

I agree with the impression of a cringe-worthy serial SNL sketch or runner. I sympathize with the "too far down the rabbit hole" experience, because there are people who have too little to live for other than this game. And I sympathize with those people, for I am becoming one.

Which brings me to the new player only knowing CR. As pointed out, the table courtesy is exemplary. What more can I ask for as a fellow player or the DM? Better that than a person whose only impression of D&D was from a certain cartoon or a certain movie or worse, a certain hugely popular TV show.

Guys, his name is Demogorgon, not the demogorgon. Sigh.

[Kurt Kurageous]

...numerous people show up for AL games with their two pages of backstory...

IMO player backstory serves motive and nothing else, unless you like wasting game time. Good for them they are invested in the character. Tell 'em to keep it to themselves, and reveal it slowly over time through their play or as the game suggests. All the other players want is a physical description, and perhaps a meta look at race/class/feats for the sake of team efficiency in crisis.

[Jophiel]

Maybe helping the various people who want that kind of game get in touch so that they can have a group that wants to try out the same playstyle would be a solution?

Maybe except (a) there's always more players than DMs so it's not as though there's necessarily games for them to join, (b) they want to play and not DM and (c) it's a person every couple of weeks, not five people at a time and I doubt anyone has a strong desire to run a database of wayward D&D novices to match up after the fact. They are usually encouraged to join a local gaming Meetup group but that goes back to (a) and AL games being more common than long term campaigns.

IMO player backstory serves motive and nothing else, unless you like wasting game time. Good for them they are invested in the character. Tell 'em to keep it to themselves, and reveal it slowly over time through their play or as the game suggests. All the other players want is a physical description, and perhaps a meta look at race/class/feats for the sake of team efficiency in crisis.

That mindset is my point. They come expecting dramatic roleplaying and AL games are more about mechanics and expediency and no one cares if your character is the son of a discredited alchemist trying to find the lost secret his mother died for. "Reveal it slowly over time" doesn't really work for a string of 2-4 hour railroady one-shots, usually with a rotating group of players and fairly minimal roleplaying. AL games work for what they're good at and are terrible as an introduction to someone who got interested in the game because of Critical Role or similar shows. However they're also typically the easiest games for a new player to find unless you have a buddy introducing you to the game.

[strangebloke]

Everybody just needs to chill.

there's a lot of new people playing DND out there these days.

It's going to take some time before they get a good grasp on how things are going to work. Until then, they're going to fall back on DND in pop culture. Critical Role is a much better example for that than almost anything else, as its any actual DND home game, and one with excellent table etiquette and player involvement.

If there's any issue at all, its people who are, ah... needlessly entrenched in CR without actually playing the game. I had a couple of players who were upset at any deviation from CR style. But that's an issue with those players, and I'd still take them from "Don't deviate from OotS" or "Don't deviate from this random reddit post I read," both of which I've encountered.

See the first point. New players coming to DND always take a while to acclimate to actual play.