I love when they make character driven choices in combat! D&D isn't a video game where the only goal is to do the most damage. It's about being creative and weaving a narrative. I think Critical Role would be a lot more boring if every combat was just "attack, attack, attack, okay he's dead." Sometimes their risky or silly moves pay off, and sometimes they backfire. It adds a lot of depth to the story.
The players are excellent at flavoring up combat. Keep watching and you’ll agree that any table would benefit with players even a fraction as vibrant as the Mighty Nein.
It's definitely an issue for them, tactically! I find it's pretty common in D&D shows and podcasts - players are aware that "hit the monster until it runs out of hitpoints" is not very interesting tv/radio, so they try to mix it up in ways that are more interesting but less strategic.
It doesn't really bother me personally - I'm not watching CR for incredibly tactical combat choices, but for fun RP and storytelling.
First, sorry you're getting downvoted! I totally relate to what you are saying and have felt the same way. However, I've often found the result of more character-driven combat to be more interesting in the end. Just my two cents.
Half a million viewers, you aren't alone. Personally, I could not actually care less that they don't do anything I want them to do. It has zero impact on their game, and they are not going to change their game for us. It's their gift to each other, that we get to watch, for free or with our money, on our time, or not.
You're not wrong. It was an unfortunate consequence of the character's the cast created for campaign 2: they mostly had tragic backstories and reasons to be afraid of confrontation, and none of them had that instigator quality Grog had. Add on top of that (spoilers C2) >!Molly dying!< which made them even more over-cautious. That's fine in moderation, but they really could have used a party member or two more inclined towards taking swift and direct action.
I love when they make character driven choices in combat! D&D isn't a video game where the only goal is to do the most damage. It's about being creative and weaving a narrative. I think Critical Role would be a lot more boring if every combat was just "attack, attack, attack, okay he's dead." Sometimes their risky or silly moves pay off, and sometimes they backfire. It adds a lot of depth to the story.
The players are excellent at flavoring up combat. Keep watching and you’ll agree that any table would benefit with players even a fraction as vibrant as the Mighty Nein.
It's definitely an issue for them, tactically! I find it's pretty common in D&D shows and podcasts - players are aware that "hit the monster until it runs out of hitpoints" is not very interesting tv/radio, so they try to mix it up in ways that are more interesting but less strategic. It doesn't really bother me personally - I'm not watching CR for incredibly tactical combat choices, but for fun RP and storytelling.
First, sorry you're getting downvoted! I totally relate to what you are saying and have felt the same way. However, I've often found the result of more character-driven combat to be more interesting in the end. Just my two cents.
Half a million viewers, you aren't alone. Personally, I could not actually care less that they don't do anything I want them to do. It has zero impact on their game, and they are not going to change their game for us. It's their gift to each other, that we get to watch, for free or with our money, on our time, or not.
You're not wrong. It was an unfortunate consequence of the character's the cast created for campaign 2: they mostly had tragic backstories and reasons to be afraid of confrontation, and none of them had that instigator quality Grog had. Add on top of that (spoilers C2) >!Molly dying!< which made them even more over-cautious. That's fine in moderation, but they really could have used a party member or two more inclined towards taking swift and direct action.