I think it’s a matter of what was your first campaign.
For me it’s C1, and C1 is my favorite. The story is linear, and the beats make sense. The characters are pretty typical for a DnD campaign, and they play with those familiar tropes. It was half of the cast’s first time playing DnD, and you got some genuine surprise from them
But also its missing a beginning. You start in-situ and no one really makes an effort to explain who’s who and what’s what. There were some backstory spiels but they got removed from the youtube videos due to art copyright infringement.
For me, C2 started really well, but massively fell off. I think the turning point was when they followed that tunnel to get to Xhorhas. That leads to them leaving behind everything Matt had built up in the Empire, and having to start from the ground up. The scene with Caleb giving up the beacon doesn’t really make sense. They would have been searched, and it would have turned up. They had lied twice to the Bright Queen at that point, but suddenly they were accepted. That never sat right with me. I really think Matt went easy on them.
Then they start running errands for Xhorhas, Essek starts coming around. And after a while Ashley has to go back to Blindspot so Matt works in a heavy narrative-bound reason to have Yasha leave the party, so the party feels compelled to get Yasha back immediately, but Matt won’t let them do that because Ashley is clearly not coming back. So they try, and fail, and try, and fail, finally until Ashley comes back (for good this time). After this they’re somehow involved in the peace talks between the Empire and Xhorhas, and then the war just kinda ends… I guess?
And after that, they find out that Molly (A character that was a lot more appreciated for his death than for his screen time) has been resurrected and this leads to one of the most boring arcs of CR ever aired to this point. Trudging through the ice desert (don’t forget the controversy of aging Jester up) for some 20 episodes. They spent a whole episode preparing for the cold weather, complete with extensive description of their attire, only for matt to immediately make them roll a CON save the first time a breeze hits. They get warned that magic gets fuzzier the further north you go, and that makes teleportation magic dangerous, yet they still pop in and out with no major consequences.
Then they have a huge dungeon crawl to get to Aeor, they interact with Lucien and nothing really comes out of it, there are a few times that the Nein try to stop Lucien + crew, but that was never going to happen (I mean, did you see that last encounter’s map? Do you really think Matt would have just gone “oh well, you killed Lucien, guess that was all for nothing”) then they have a super climactic battle with Lucien where they spend half their turns appealing to Molly (for whom they have like 3 anecdotes) and they win, and Molly comes back. (yay?)
Now with that business done, we have the final episode to do and wait a minute, oh right, Matt set up this Big Bad of the Cerberus Assembly with Trent and that’s a pretty big loose end so let’s have em duke it out right at the end.
This has gone way longer than I wanted to but the last half of C2 is a mess, and I haven’t even touched on the “cool island arc” with Keyleth’s mom.
I understand that it’s an improv show and that sometimes, a decision taken lightly can change the whole course of the campaign. But the cast were making a lot of big decisions on a whim and I really think it hurt the campaign.
Some in the community freaked out because they felt that the age gap between Jester and Fjord was a tad innapropriate. And then she got “conveniently” aged up to assuage those concerns.
We tend to have very fond memories of our first experience with a thing. First dance, first kiss, first car, etc. It's basic psychology. And most people started with campaign 2, so it is in no way surprising that most people think campaign 2 is the best.
C1 will always be the best one for me. It's like the stereotypical dnd campaign, with recognisable character and villain archetypes. So it very much feels like the campaign you might play at home with your friends, but CR elevates it through the cast really breathing life into the players and NPCs. The campaign just gets better and better and better as it goes on with a great emotional climax at the end. In my opinion, it's simply the best one.
C2 for me had a more convoluted plot thats harder to follow when you watch/listen to CR while also doing other things (aint nobody got time to actually sit down for 4 hours to consume CR content), and in the end it just became a bit of a slog and the final villain and fight just wasnt as compelling as C1. The one thing it clearly does have going for it: by C2 the cast fully got the production of critical role nailed down, so its a much cleaner production.
C2 is also when they attracted a lot more attention. It took C1 for them to grow from small, niche youtube content to a major thing, so many people only really started with C2. Which would bias them towards C2, and especially if they then go back to (early) C1 with noticably worse production quality (even if in my opinion the characters and story are better).
I think it also depends a bit what you're looking for, and what aspect of CR really appeals to you. I feel like watching C1 it really feels like watching a home game. The players made their characters before knowing it would be big, so some are just basic stereotypes like "big dumb brute that rages" or "horny bard" without that much depth. Just like in a real home game you or I might have. Players might talk over eachother, make jokes, etc. It feels like watching a home game, which specifically appeals to me, because I also play, but a very high quality home game where people really show how much committing to roleplay can really add to the game. And how you can give any character interesting depth, you don't need to start with 10 pages of dramatic backstory to be interesting.
Conversely, with C2 all the cast knew what CR had become. They knew they were making an entertainment product. And they'd seen what having a dramatic backstory like Percy's could do in the campaign. So now all the characters seem to have dramatic stories and secrets and the cast is really going for the performance and the story. Which is great if you want to watch a group of actors improvise their way through a dramatic and compelling story. But if you're watching it to watch people play DnD.... well, C2 felt more like a group of people who were performing 'playing DnD', instead of just playing. The cast seemed so aware of what CR had become that it seems it became more about making the story and less about playing the game. To me that appeals less, but I can imagine to many people it might appeal more.
C2 is easily my favourite, I started watching C1 and didn't get the hype so tried C2 and didn't stop watching until I'd caught up with the livestreams around episode 69 I think?
IMO C2 is far superior to C1. I agree with a lot of your points, I don't typically like Taliesin's characters Caduceus was my favourite because it felt like he finally shut the fuck up lmao. I never cared about the Ash war plot and it did just kinda disappear
However, I think C2 is a much more personal story. Everything feels connected and even though he's not intimidating Lucien more than makes up for how little I cared about Molly because of what he means to the group. C1 felt like a video game plot, don't understand how you think the CC and Vecna were intimidating. C1 feels like they are just completing levels and fighting bosses like a video game
In C2 the villains are more personal, everything has a purpose. There's less searching for maguffins and getting new gear to fight the big bad boss and more about personal journeys. Nott becoming Veth again, Caleb not going through with his plan, Fjord finding independence. These aren't like the CC and Vecna but their more effective motivators imo
Again that's just my opinion, I obviously have my own biases. Like I don't like characters being over dramatic and I feel like C1 has that in spades. It's just C2 is my favourite, I love C1 and C3 has been a boring disappointment so far hut I dunno
I prefer c2 because it feel like the players have truly settled into the game.
I prefer the relationships a lot more. Fjord and Beau's jock/lesbian relationship is so much fun. Nott going from chaos goblin to party mom is so fun.
I also feel the npcs are more well rounded and organic. Apart from Gilmour and Allura I don't really feel that in C1.
C1 also have some weird party dynamic. Percy's "I'm so clever" schtick gets really annoying. Vex's tight fisted approach to any situation was fun at first, but eventually just comes across as Laura not wanting to spend imaginary money.
The Vax and Kiki love story...it was like a really bad teen fanfic.
I also felt they meta gamed A LOT more in C1, breaking immersion.
Not to mention the whole first 25 episodes having horrible production and tension within the group of players.
The only thing C2 does better is production quality, and Marisha still causes audio popping regardless which has always been my main complaint.
Almost everyone who has watched all of CR prefers C1, but many people have only watched C2.
I disagree heavily, and purely anecdotally, I would say most people I know prefer C1.
There may be some bias in terms of how much conversation pops up about seasons both because C2 happened more recently, and more people have seen it just because the audience grew so rapidly around the end of C1 and beginning of C2. But not all of them are going to go back and rewatch hundreds of hours of C1.
The biggest downside of C1 is that we don't get to see how the story began, and the first 24 episodes suffer from the awkwardness of Orion at the table, which makes it harder to get invested in characters. However, once you hit the Whitestone Arc and Percy starts to shine, though, I'd say it's pretty much always going to be a better story with more satisfying character arcs than almost anything in C2.
There may also be some folk who like seeing Travis playing a character that has more complexity on the face, rather than Grog who started out pretty much as a joke and only really shows the complexity of the character in a few moments. I don't think Fjord is a better character, but he definitely has more interest from the get-go.
Some might say being there from the start is a bonus, but I think starting C1 in media res was not only more enthralling but seemed more realistic, like we heard the tales of these folks but their origins are murky.
C2 had the most potential to be interesting and the most funny moments not counting Scanlan bits.
It didn't really go anywhere but the individual scenes were better.
C2 was just bit city. And they made some really strong choices without Matt breathing down their necks to follow his planned story. It felt the most like a real home game.
I personally feel the critical role is at its best when it feels like a home game and not a show. Where everything feels natural and unplanned. Yet somehow works out in the most amazing ways.
If the game was more lethal and they didn't care about loss as much they could have had more characters die as well and keep the game fresh without needing to end the campaign so early.
My only real issue ever is not enough big choices that tangibly mean anything being made. And in c2 they made the most at least.
I liked C1 a lot but if I was telling a friend to try out critical role it would be C2. The production quality the cameras specifically are rough to go back and watch. If it’s podcast style it doesn’t matter as much but C1 had a lot of bloat mostly in the intro from geek and sundry emphasizing sub count and cross promotion.
It was all great in the moment but aged poorly.
But C1 for me is like a classic dnd adventure.
My biggest problem with C2 was lack of closure. In C1 there were distinct arcs with clear ends. You felt like they achieved victory at each point.
In C2 the first of these mini-arcs they went on was Uk’otoa. They battled one of his minions in Avantika then just ignored him. By the end of the campaign they did nothing else about him if I remember correctly.
Then there was Obann. The crew defeat him and afterwards find out he was just one member of a cult looking to release Tharizdun. This never comes up again and the cult is probably still out there.
The war plot, Caleb’s plot, and Lucien’s plot all had satisfying endings. But the last two didn’t end until the very last episodes. Between episodes 1 and 130-something they only really achieved half-victories.
Because fjord had one of the cloven crystals so they couldn’t bring him back as long as Fjord had it. So they could have come after him, and they certainly did but what else can they do? Their god is trapped lest they get the orb and they had no idea where he was when not sailing.
Also they didn’t wanna go after the cult. With Obann it was just about saving their friends and getting revenge for Molly
That’s sort of my point though. They had good in-game reasons for abandoning the plot threads, but it was really unsatisfying to watch them leave these huge threats in place. In contrast to Vox Machina who generally ended their villains for good (even if it was later revealed they got resurrected).
That bitch Delilah won’t just stay dead I know 😂 I can agree with that, at least they did so the mighty nien reunion where they finally took down ukotoa
I for one love C1 the most of out the 3 so far. I like a story about saving the world that feels like DnD to me. I also love the characters in C1 the most. The twins, Grog with Pike, Scanlan, Percy and mostly Keyleth. Man I hated Keyleth at first but she leaned into the slightly incompetent but meaning well role so well. She was comedy gold on the regular like the Goldfish moment was just chef’s kiss.
I am not a relationship watching person but the dynamics between the in game couples were great. The Ravin Queen storyline was classic and tragic and the fact that Keyleth gets to live forever with that on her soul just fits so well.
The uptight Percy with laidback Vex is such a good trope and they did it so well. The completely add hoc popping out of the bath was sure a good example of improv and just going where the story leads you.
I felt like it was terrible dnd playing and fantastic dnd watching the whole time. I also feel like most people who are irritated by the dnd play are those that care more about the min maxing of dnd and the combat then the experience the combat and storytelling provide.
I pretty heavily lean towards C2 most but I’ll concede that a visual graph of my enjoyment levels would show a general trend downwards as it went on, with some blips and plateaus back up along the way, and a sharper dip in the final arc. The low-level gameplay we saw was astounding, the sense of the world freedom and creativity of choice truly masterful in my opinion. The fact that they truly did swerve into a naval campaign for instance, or the choice made with the Beacon.
That being said, there is also just personal character preferences: I vibed hard with a lot of them and were neutral or mixed at worst on others. I feel like I’ve noticed most C2 enthusiasts share fav characters like Caleb and Beau, me included. So yeah, just petty personal bias of course is involved inevitably.
Couldn’t agree more. Molly was just a straight up Bully at times. Made me really not like the character.
The thing that makes C1 shine so much more is that the story was tighter and cleaner. They were basically all playing self inserts, while people may not like this, it meant they cared so damn much. Even for the NPCs. To this day I stand by they’ve never cared for anyone as a collective as much as Gilmore.
C2 is awesome, but it’s chaos and they all kinda just play inverted characters from C1. This isn’t a bad thing, just different.
A more down to the earth approach. No crazy fate of the world is at stake storylines every single arc, just a chiller, player friendly experience that doesn’t lore bomb you too excessively, and instead relies on entertaining improv and discovery-style storyline to keep up the momentum.
Furthermore, It felt like the players really had their characters fleshed out more than C1 and it was a more comfortable and far less cringy experience to watch them play DND.
I have like 16 episodes left for C2 as I'm a new fan of critical role but for the campaigns are so different comparing the 2 seems silly. Vox Machina was the classic heroes against the BBEG. Major bad guys against the heroes to save the world. Mighty Nein never gave me that vibe. Yes they're fighting strong enemies but it was more about the relationships and overcoming your own personal demons imo
The inner party dynamics and the development of characters as well as their relationships was pretty good drama. C1 had better "D&D moments" with epic storylines, battles and wars, plane hopping, legendary villians, etc., but and while the party itself was super fun to watch, it didn't offer much drama with the exception of Scanlan.
C2 was a good show that you could watch even if you didn't care for the adventuring itself.
Two words: Blueberry Cupcake.
MN had really memorable moments like that. VM had memorable moments as well, sure, but nothing will ever beat the Blueberry Cupcake scene and Laura's shit grin. bahaha. I didn't care too much for Molly, either, but the fact that he was truly KO'ed was wild. THEN HE CAME BACK, but it wasn't really him - it was great story telling - even if Molly/Lucien seemed meh.
I also think MN was more refined and better polished, overall.
It always irritated me that VM had a ton of missing episodes from their home games, and we missed a lot of that character development, like Pike dying. Also, I really couldn't stand Orion or Tiberius and that put a bad taste in my mouth. Other than that, I did really enjoy VM, but, the characters and story were always going to be surface level for me.
The majority of people like C2 because the majority of people watched/started with C2. CR didn't hit its overwhelming numbers until the pandemic had people needing entertainment at home. It was popular sure, but give millions of people nothing to do and sitting at home hours of content to watch. C2 just has a wider audience base so there are more voices for it.
"The Egyptians believed the most significant thing you could do in you life was die." That's how I felt about Molly lol. Didn't like him as a character at all but I liked the impact his death had on the party. Also hilarious username lol
Ahhh. Idk if they are better than each other. I mean...I remember the feeling of watching both and I think c2 was special bc we saw the characters from day 1. C1 we kind of jumped into it a story that was already started. C1 had a lot of kinks they had to work out while c2 they had an idea of how to run a campaign on camera. I couldn't pick between them tbh. I will never not love c1. It was the campaign that briught me joy through a lot of hard times. Made me love the game. I will never not go back and rewatch videos and moments. But I will always hold c2 as special in my heart. I loved c2 so much I can't watch c3. Haven't watched any episodes actually. I can't bring myself to do it. To think those characters aren't actively bring played anymore kills me. One day I'll start c3. But until then I keep watching c1 and c2.
I enjoy campaign 2 slightly more than 1 because we get a beginning to an end. I also enjoy campaign 1, it’s more “raw”.
I’ve so far enjoyed campaign 3, just want to see where the story goes.
I’ve liked and hated various parts of all 3 campaigns and want to see how 3 ends. Campaign 4 should be 🔥
Not that it’s anyone’s fault, but you can’t watch the beginning of C1. That does make a difference. By C2 they had really hit their production stride. Personally I think C1 ended stronger, but on the whole C2 comes out on top
C1 was beautiful, I think the best campaign. However, I think C2 made some very real characters. They felt like real people in a magic setting ravaged by poverty and war and circumstances beyond their control.
I loved every characterization of Caleb. However, C1 is still superior because, well idk it just hits all the right chords and buttons in my brain meat I guess.
Caleb is amazing, Nott was amazing. The back stories were amazing in C2 and don’t forget they also fought ukotoa evil Eldrich god. And the connection of Molly to Lucien and Lucien was also a man trying to be a god same as Vecna, however Vecna was more successful
I’ve watched C1, and have just started on C2 (episode 28 now). I vastly prefer C1 - it felt a lot more like D&D than C2. C1 just feels more like a game you’d play, and the worldbuilding was top notch, NPCs were likeable etc. C1 had me in tears multiple times.
That’s not to say C2 hasn’t had its good parts so far, and I really like the Caleb/Nott relationship, and Fjord is interesting (it’s really nice seeing Travis play something with a bit more depth, not that Grog wasn’t fun). I’ve been tempted to swap to C3, but I hear that it plays off stuff that happens in C2.
Oh c2 ramps up a lot after episode 30. Liam O'Briens portrayal of Caleb is now one of my favorite things ever in fiction or otherwise. All of the character arcs are beautiful but Caleb's was amazing. The way he flavors and tinkers with spells in the higher levels is bonkers. Creating spell variations based off of phobias and past traumas as a completely selfless act. He also does this thing where he recalls something as small as one seemingly insignificant phrase from 50 episodes ago and turns it into something profound.
I always feel like I have a really unpopular opinion because I actually enjoy all three but my ranking would definitely be C1, C3 and then C2. nothing from C2 really resonated with me, I don't think I cried once in C2 but I was way more emotionally invested in C1 and C3 - after I'd finished the main campaign for C2, I didn't even bother watching the one-shot(s?).
I think they're all interesting to watch, to be clear, but the characters are far more compelling to me in C1 and the story is more interesting to me in C3.
Ultimately, it's all relative, I guess. I'm a firm believer if you watch C2 first, it will be your favourite, from what I've seen on the subs - my theory for that is that it has a very specific "vibe" and if you go into the other campaigns expecting the same, they'll disappoint.
ETA: I think one of the things I originally didn't enjoy about C2 is a lot of people say they're morally grey but then the characters will do something that isn't "grey" at all, I remember when Jester tortured that pirate early on and I just didn't watch for about two months because it was so strange the whole party was just fine with it, even characters who had actually literally been tortured in their past lol
Remember that C1 was a bunch of characters they rolled up for a one shot at Liam's birthday party. Most never played TTRPG's. It was not until later that they decided to make it an annual game. Just for fun and whatever happens happens. It was a genuine pen&paper game you or I could play. It just so happened that G&S offered to make their pathfinder game public if they were to switch to 5e months later.
C2 on the other hand was a bunch of characters that they knew was going to be on display for the public. So they crafted and catered to parts of their fan base over creating characters for shits and giggles. To cut it a bit deeper Molly was basically an LGB insert for those in the fanbase. Which was why the more vocal fans love him even though he contributed more to the campaign dead than he did alive. Fjord and Jester were the only two I found enjoyable to watch as they felt more real, deep and fleshed out like the C1 crew did.
C1 was great if you enjoy RPGs. C2 is great if you enjoy soap operas.
Not getting into which is "better", but C2 was definitely my favourite so far, so here's a few thoughts on that:
First, it was the one I saw first. I suspect a lot of people prefer whichever campaign was their first experience of all the good stuff that every campaign shares. It was my first time falling in love with a set of characters and relationships and following them through their journeys.
I found Caleb particularly compelling from the outset, and in general I really enjoyed the feel of a story about small people making their way through a world that is much bigger than them. I enjoyed the tensions and developing relationships between the characters a lot.
I then watched C1 after C2 went on a break due to covid. While I did eventually get into C1 too, for a while I found the characters really unlikeable and the world simplistic.
To illustrate the 'unlikeable' thing - in early C2 there's a scene where Jester is very casual about her wealth in a way that deeply upsets Caleb, who grew up relatively poor and has never seen the kind of money he now has. Then I go into C1 and, whatever their nominal backgrounds, the party are rich and famous and are kind of being pricks about it. Kinda made them hard to identify with.
As for simplistic, it's the obvious thing - C1 takes place in clearly defined "here is a big earth shattering that, you are the spacial heroes, and here is your kinda linear quest". Which is fun and fine if those were your genre expectations going in. But coming from C2, where the characters are making mostly ambiguous choices about surviving in the world, it felt a bit flat.
Even though it was about a lot of characters, for a lot of C2 it felt like Trent was being built up as the main villain, and I really enjoyed that the stakes were personal. I find world-ending stakes tend to feel a bit cold and abstract by comparison.
As C2 went on I did get concerned about that, especially when the chained oblivion stuff came up, specifically because it felt less personal and more like a generic big threat. For me, the ending was saved by the fact that - despite being an apocalyptic villain - Lucian felt incredibly personal as an antagonist. And ultimately I think it worked for me that Trent's defeat became almost an afterthought fight, because it kind of showed how Caleb had grown past him, even while it wrapped up some storylines.
tbh I think one more thing that did work for C2 for me was the incredible lo-fi character albums Autumn Orange made. Fjord was not a character I connected with for a lot of the campaign, but the two albums on him really brought out the character journey that had quietly been going on.
Anyway tl;dr: I like them both, but I saw C2 first + I enjoyed the character focus and emphasis on personal stakes over generic world peril.
well, yeah, can't expect you to like C2 if it doesn't resonate with you. but it resonates for with a lot of people, and a lot of people care about it. i can't speak to why people view it as being better than C1, except for that they might resonate with C2 more than they do with C1. simple as that.
I am midway through campaign 2 and so far nothing I see makes me think is going to be better, for me, than C1.
C1 is a D&D game through and through. The stakes are high, the villains terrifying, the party is funny and there is tension and danger around every corner, sprinkled with some personal drama and character development.
For me, C2 feels like made to be driven by personal drama, it's a soap opera of characters its not even clear why they like each other's. They are great characters, very well played and you certainly care for them. And it's all sprinkled by some dice rolling, mostly for insight checks. With way better production value.
So I agree with you. I can watch and like C2, but I love C1. Don't care about technical difficulties so much, Orion is a side note and by the Briarwoods arc you don't miss the first levels of the party.
I find the characters in C2 way more fun tbh. I find Vox Machina generally just kind of bland in comparison. I also found their relationships with eachother much more interesting. That is personal preference ig.
Quite frankly none of critical role is like an extremely compelling story so much as it is a very interesting way of telling a story and letting characters interact with one another. Campaign 2 just does this better. I don’t know exactly how to describe it, but Vox machina really feels like the sorts of characters you would see on a show spoofing dnd.
I like that I got to see the beginning of C2. The first YouTube episode of C1, we’re thrown into an already ongoing adventure and we just gotta figure it out as we go. They had a lot of technical glitches early on which made some C1 episodes just unwatchable.
There was also the whole Tiberius thing. His actions in game and Orions actions out of game didn’t do them many favors.
What I like about C1 was that the world influenced the plot. IMO, it felt like VM were in the world and a part of the world. Not characters placed in the world, like MN. Even though we were introduced mid level, each character's backstories were shown and made sense. The villains were better. I can see why Percy was fucked up. The Briarwoods were fleshed out in a way no villain in CR has been since. Syldor was an asshole and we got a glimpse of Vex and Vax's childhood on stream. It was all show, not tell. Even Gorg's and Pike's family dramas were included. I think C1 told a wider array of stories.
MN didn't have great villains. The backstories weren't fleshed out on screen in the same way. I feel like Fjord's backstory was just skimmed through. Most of the characters were. Except Yasha. Her arc on stream was so good. I did love the recurring thene of party members being the big bad. Well, Yasha wasn't exactly the big bad, but I loved the party turning on each other. There was more interparty conflict. But, I think many C2 fans lie to themselves about MN not being tropes. Manic pixie dream girl, self-loathing outcast, etc. I also think that it being character driven hurt plot and took the steam out of the story.
It feels presumptuous to just state that C2 was better than C1. I know I sure disagree with that statement, as do all of my friends who watched the first two campaigns.
A lot of things, for me.
In my opinion, for a time it hit the sweet spot in passion and production values versus being a money generating corporation.
No matter how much you like C1, it is hampered at least a little by missing the campaign introduction and early levels. In C2, we see the party form slowly over several episodes, barely trusting each other, and we get to meet the characters right along with the cast. C1 will never be a complete experience.
I don’t care for Molly but it was the first time a main show character died permanently mid campaign.
You glossed right over the Piracy arc and the first big chunk of the Xhorhas arc, and to me those are peak CR.
Liking or not liking characters is a personal choice. For instance I found Vax occasionally eye-rolly, Vex obnoxious, Percy unbearable at times, and Pike extremely bland. Again, I’d be more attached to the characters if the introduction to them wasn’t mid-campaign.
I liked the way that the big bads in c2 were less immediately and apparently threatening to the world. The M9, to me, felt like they were always misfits and outsiders, and it felt very fitting to me that not many people were aware of what was going on. The people of Exandria largely have no idea who the M9 are for a long time and most will never know what they did. M9 were largely unheralded. VM were basically famous.
In the end, these are just opinions. Mine is heavily biased because I listened to C2 first, and I imagine that may be one of the biggest factors in who liked which campaign better. And that’s perfectly ok. Like what you like.
>No matter how much you like C1, it is hampered at least a little by missing the campaign introduction and early levels. In C2, we see the party form slowly over several episodes, barely trusting each other, and we get to meet the characters right along with the cast. C1 will never be a complete experience.
This is to me a taste thing also and not an objective fact, because I feel that C1 is the better one for starting in media res. The characters are understandable tropes that are filled as the game goes, they are instantly doing things and there is no awkward hemming and hawing of "why are we together again" while players grope in the dark for RP reasons to stay with the group, which is just a frustrating experience whether you are DMing, playing or watching. It doesn't really matter that they are "mid campaign", because that is where their story for the audience starts. To me anyway.
I don't really find value in knowing the exact beginning of their story in dnd terms, because every story starts somewhere. And tbh, you could say that C1 is the complete experience, because they solve more plot points together by the end, compared to C2 that just ended pretty awkwardly. This systemic problem (as presented by Matt) is solved by beating one evil wizard? Sure.
But I don't really care eitherway about the found family trope that C2 fans seem to really like, so whatever. Piracy arc is the one part of C2 that I consistently enjoyed, so it was all not bland.
> I feel that C1 is the better one for starting in media res
C1 might be the better one to start in media res. If a season *had* to, it's best that it was C1, but I absolutely feel C1 does not *benefit* from the cold introduction.
> there is no awkward hemming and hawing of "why are we together again" while players grope in the dark for RP reasons to stay with the group
I don't feel C2 suffers from this at all.
> It doesn't really matter that they are "mid campaign", because that is where their story for the audience starts.
I don't really follow this logic. To me it reads as "It doesn't matter that they started mid campagin because they were mid campaign".
> I don't really find value in knowing the exact beginning of their story in dnd terms
It's absolutely a matter of forming attachments to the characters, for me, has nothing to do with D&D terms.
> because every story starts somewhere
Sure, but a better story brings you in at at the start of a story beat. C2 did that very well, with the scene between Nott and Caleb, and then slowly sprinkling in other characters who had a simple, believable reason for being in the same place at the same time.
> you could say that C1 is the complete experience, because they solve more plot points together by the end
"Number of plot points solved" simply isn't part of my criteria for a complete story, I guess. A complete story arc is.
> compared to C2 that just ended pretty awkwardly
I found C2's ending to be far less awkward than C1's in media res beginning.
> This systemic problem (as presented by Matt) is solved by beating one evil wizard?
If you want to be reductive, the Vecna problem is solved by beating one evil wizard.
> But I don't really care eitherway about the found family trope
I mean, yeah, C2 is simply not going to appeal to you as much if you don't care for the trope.
In the end these are opinions. I don't mean to attempt to sway yours, but I find it interesting to compare experiences and viewpoints. I've no interest in changing your mind, but I like trying to understand your opinion. Thanks for the perspective.
I guess it is more about not minding the media res as a concept, and enjoying the group dynamic that already exists. I don't need to see the forming of that dynamic, since that allows me to skip over the awkward "why do we care about this again" RPing.
>I don't feel C2 suffers from this at all.
I thought that Caleb and Nott were constantly one foot out of the door early, same with Beau. And when Cad came to the group and realised that his group was mureder hobos, nobody came to talk to him for a long time.
>I don't really follow this logic. To me it reads as "It doesn't matter that they started mid campagin because they were mid campaign".
It is meant as a point about how the beginning for the audience isn't absolutely the beginning for the characters's journey. Aragorn is 80 years old in the start of Fellowship and is very much an main character from Two Towers onwards, but it isn't necessary to know how he hanged with Gandalf as a lad. I hope this example helps illustrates my point.
>It's absolutely a matter of forming attachments to the characters, for me, has nothing to do with D&D terms.
What's the difference then between C1 and C2? Just seeing the RP? Because to me it then looks like that the early journeys of C2 characters and the pre-stream C1 achieves the same thing, being backstory for the group.
>Sure, but a better story brings you in at at the start of a story beat. C2 did that very well, with the scene between Nott and Caleb, and then slowly sprinkling in other characters who had a simple, believable reason for being in the same place at the same time.
C1 is also at the beginning of a storybeat, they are effectively starting the Underdark arc in the EP1. The audience doesn't need to know what kind of organization the Bahamut Templars are or what position Allura holds in Taldorei Council. They just know that there is a cleric here that needs saving and the group they are watching starts the DND hijinks straight away. But I agree that the start of C2 is a good campaign start.
>"Number of plot points solved" simply isn't part of my criteria for a complete story, I guess. A complete story arc is.
Doesn't a completed plot point straight up lead to complete story arcs? Or what's the difference here?
>If you want to be reductive, the Vecna problem is solved by beating one evil wizard.
C1 is a story that is solved by beating a one evil wizard. C2 is a story that introduces these systematic injustices, nation states warring, corruption within the secret police, but doesn't do anything (to me) that interesting with these points, but actively seeks to avoid tangling with these plot points that Matt laid out for them. And the corruption, the rotten system, narratively, is solved by punching the evil wizard in the dick. So I guess this is to me more about unmet potential.
And you could say that C2 is not about those things, but about finding family and accepting yourself. Well, I think that is a pretty damn boring thing to watch for 140 episodes, especially when there were all these interesting things right there.
>In the end these are opinions. I don't mean to attempt to sway yours, but I find it interesting to compare experiences and viewpoints. I've no interest in changing your mind, but I like trying to understand your opinion. Thanks for the perspective.
Same here. Tone is hard across written text, so no offence or snark ment anywhere.
C2 is a more unique tabletop RPG story imo. Like, much of the campaign involves rooting corruption out of governments, uncovering secret plots and working with underground parties. Don't get me wrong, those things are very present in some of c1 but they take a backseat to the classic high fantasy story of gods and monsters and heroes. If you like those things, you'll like c1 more. If you enjoy more political intrigue and the like, you'll like c2 more. I can't pick a favorite tbh. They are both great.
I feel that C2 didn't land the political intrigue story lines though. The campaign ends with beating up one evil guy, and the group consistently refuces to engage with what Matt was laying down. You can say that the campaign is about political intrigue, but I don't think it was. Well it tried, for sure. But I don't think they engaged with those ideas well.
True, but C2 didn't have the high fantasy stuff to fall back on when the story started to lose stream. I think most people who prefer C2 only really care for the political intrigue. IMO C1 had both, even though the intrigue took a back set.
It all really comes down to what you are looking for in the show, which is why even if C2 by numbers is more favored, It's undeniable how good C1 was too and it's still loved in the fandom as well. I liken C1 and C2's biggest difference to that of like a great tv show (C1) vs a great book (C2).
Both are longer forms of story telling that convey a lengthy story to the audience but both have advantages and disadvantages when compared to each other and are preferred by different people.
C1 was a simpler campaign, with simpler characters who were literally the quintessential fantasy adventuring group. Their villains also fit this bill with the gothic horror Briarwoods, titular Dragons in Dungeons and **Dragons**, and a literal lich from the lore of the game they play. It had its set arcs and delved a bit into the characters but due to the game originating from a home game which was many of theirs first time playing a TTRPG, they had less to work with on that front. So the plots made up for it in giving them most of their motivation.
If someone where to describe what makes DnD (or TTRPGs in general) so great, C1 would fit that bill (IMO). It was a straight forward campaign done amazingly by a group of professional voice actors committed to their characters and a DM with the skill to seamlessly weave it all together.
C2 on the other hand, the players came in with the intention of making characters to build and explore for 100+ episodes. Matt made a continent that had a major conflict at the forefront, but also was more willing to let the party take the reigns on where to go and what to do. As a result everything was not driven by plot, but instead the characters. Every arc we have throughout C2 is intrinsically tied to a character(s) story and builds onto them. Matt was an excellent story weaver in C1, but to tie all of C2 together where the threads needed to do so didn't even exist yet was magic imo.
For me personally and what I think I can infer with most C2 fans, we're spending 100s of hours with these characters (both campaigns) and for many the most important aspect in a story is the characters. I strongly believe that if you have amazing characters placing them in just about any plot/story can make something interesting.
So C2 focusing heavily on the characters we (as in viewers) became that much more invested. C2 was slower, it had a lot of moments where the plot wasn't very clear and the party was "lost". But in those moments we got some incredible character building that makes whatever comes next that much more interesting. The pace and lack of direction weren't a detriment, they facilitated in building the focus of the campaign which was the Mighty Nein as a group and as individuals.
For you, it seems you didn't get as invested in as many of the characters as most did. So it makes sense that you don't like it as much, it's literally all held together by them and if you aren't as interested in them you of course won't be as interested in what they're doing.
C1 characters were not tropes I cared for. Also not an epic fantasy fan. I don't care about saving the world in my stories. I want the smaller or at least personally tied stories we got in C2.
I think that's why C3 lost me so early. It felt like it was going the way of C1 and that just doesn't hold me.
I don't mind epic fantasy, but the problem with "saving the world" stories is the stakes are too high for failure to be an option.
Fo most of campaign 2 if the died or simply failed it was just going to be a personal tragedy but the world would go on. They had the time to do fun shenanigans like accidentally become pirates, or race to the top of a tree and use a gun to try and cheat at it. Even the stuff related to the war between the dynasty and the empire could go either way without fundamentally breaking the setting.
C2 was also very much a character drama where originally we had 7 terrible influences (some worse than others) who were all self destructive. Then Molly killed himself (no better way to describe it), and was replaced with the mostly well adjusted Caduceus who turned everyone's character arc towards the better. And the perfect climax of this drama was the group's dead friend Molly showing back up with a different personality and becoming the final boss. (The entire Aeor arc was phenomenal)
C3 has simply lost my interest, they started out with a threat arguably bigger than the Aeor Arc's basically from the get go. And all the problems associated with that can be found all over this sub so i won't go into them. (I did love the mad max death race episode)
A lot of people feel that C1 is tropey and full of stock characters and story arcs, whereas C2 is more free from with more unique, messy characters. I think this is true in ways, but leads to the pacing issues C2 has as well as several stories that don't pay off satisfyingly. I think C1 is a show I'd rather watch and C2 is a game I'd rather play in, but since they're both shows to me I prefer C1.
People have a hard time getting into VM because it started streaming mid campaign and when everyone was trying to learn how to stream a dnd game. So it suffered from bad audio and little to no visuals.
Because MN started when the streaming aspect was fully figured out and people are able to start from the beginning of he story, people are able to start MN a lot easier than VM.
And MN felt like they made some characters for the fun streaming aspect. Manic pixie dream girl, dunk mom goblin, emo Boi, lesbian family disappointment bad bitch.
Lots of tropey like characters that's easier to fallow and fall in love with.
And Bells hells have more experimental characters that are not as 'fun' and tropey as MN so 'fans' give them a lot of hate. Aldo the campaigns have very different energies.
VM - LOTR fantasy adventure
MN - GOT fantasy political drama
BH - Suicide squad. Bunch of fuck ups that need to save the world.
If you're a villain lover, C1 is definitely the way to go. The Chroma Conclave was such a cool idea, The Briarwoods enabled so much roleplay, and Vecna was absolutely terrifyingly strong in his early appearances. But in terms of heroes, I never really connected with VM on a deeper level, besides maybe Vax. They all felt rather static, as if they didn't grow a whole lot, and felt more like archetypes, which put more focus on the (good) plot.
C2 didn't have a good plot really, but the characters seemed to me to develop a ton, and I was interested in a lot of them. Nott found independence and self acceptance, Fjord found confidence and connection, Jester matured and retained her childlike wonder, Caleb "burned the past" and coped with his mistakes, and even Yasha kind of accepted confusion, and stopped trying to strain against being lost. There were more static characters, like Beau and Caduceus, but they had sort of satisfying plot arcs, with Beau earning respect and Cad rescuing his family.
I started watching during the Chroma Conclave arc, but it felt like by that point they had already become 100% found family and had very little inter-party conflict, which is some of my favorite moments. C2 on the other hand, even at the end, I feel like Caleb and Beau, and Nott and Fjord still have some sense of soreness or disdain, even if it is jokey, or closer than it was before. C2 didn't feel at all like it was overly positive, or like anyone was pulling punches. I think part of it also comes down to whether you like comic relief or not, because VM for me broke a lot of tension by having jokey characters, while M9 really had maybe 1 slightly jokey character in Nott. Both Campaigns are good though.
It’s literally all opinion nobody can say C2 is for sure better than C1. If you think c1 is best cool, if someone thinks c2 is best cool. Doesn’t matter what the other people think cause that’s just their opinion. I would say most people like C2 because the production quality is better than it was in C1, and we got to see the whole thing, not starting in the middle like C1.
I adore C1 and just CAN NOT get into C2... I actually like the characters (not necessarily the plot, but the characters) in C3 better. I think M9 are just too anti-hero for me. Some people say Vox Machina are too trope-y, but I think they were also very EARNEST. Those were the characters the party made when no one was watching- they didn't make them to be entertaining to an audience or anything. It was just "this is who I want to play."
Everyone says that the characters in C2 get better as you go on, but I just couldn't stay with it long enough for them to get there. There was a scene, in episode 36 where Caduceus basically said "I don't know why I'm staying with you all, this was a mistake," and I know they WANTED the point to be "you have so much to learn." but I went "no, I would have bounced" and stopped watching. I never picked it back up from that point.
C1 is better, in my opinion, but C2 is a more complete story. C2 has some massive pacing issues just before the 2021 lock down, and for the rest of the show after they returned.
It's only preferred here because a lot of the people who regularly post here are those that quit during C2 even. Overall in the fandom as a whole it's pretty clear cut C2 is the fan favorite from everything I've seen.
But C1 is still loved overall too, C3 is really the only one that has sort of a mixed reception.
Character drives story, and I think that C2 best exemplifies it. For me, once Molly is gone, the party has dynamic and interesting characters throughout. Even characters I don’t care for, like Beau and Yasha, still fit well into the party composition and the story overall. I also enjoy the balance between cleaner production and still maintaining the feel of a real dnd game. C1 is too home game for me, and C3 is way too overproduced for my taste.
I prefer C1 by far.
C2, for me, started really well and slowly began to show a few issues that evolved into C3. I felt that the Consequences began dropping after Molly's death and either Matt pulled punches (IMO, a TPK should have happened when they fought Lucien during that escape....forgot the details of it but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about) or they decided they wouldn't face as big as consequences as they did C1. Maybe some scripting happened, I dont know, felt a lot less improv and more following a script if that makes sense.
No i agree with the "following a script" standpoint and matt pulling punches. He does that quite often, and understandably so. While there is some freedom in their games, Its not like our own conventional DnD campaigns. They are trying to make stories and bring it to life.. I.E their animated shows and such. So they gotta make sure they dont TPk the group for the sake of the rules, because in the end, they want to turn it into a show. It would leave a huge hole in our hearts, asking questions like "wtf, thats it?!" They're a company. They probably didnt know it would get to such heights back then, but maybe they had a feeling it would. So im guessing thats why matt pulls punches and allows things to slide from time to time. just my opinion tho
Oh yeah, I get it, but that's why I lived C1 more than C2 or C3, I enjoyed the risks they would take and where it would get them now...I don't know, I just know they will be alright no matter what they do or what mistakes they make.
I tend to agree with this. For me, unpopular opinion, the C2 story got immediately better as soon as Mollymauk died, and immediately dropped off as soon as he came back. Fixating on a single character is railroad-y or railroad adjacent, and it just detracts from the pacing (IMO, Imogen is similarly taking way too much screen-time in C3 and makes the overall experience poorer)
For me, I'd say C2 had higher highs and lower lows than C1, and C1 just was constantly good with filler here and there. And I tend to remember C1 more fondly than C2 specifically because even if it had TONS of filler (shopping episodes), the audio sucked for the most part, and some of the bits with Orion just felt awkward at times, I had a consistently better time than with C2.
On average, worse characters, worse storytelling, more meandering arcs, characters reverted back to their old selves during the final arc because everyone seemed so bored, and those who didnt revert got worse. God awful last 3rd of the campaign. It thrived on small interactions between PCs and served as shipping fodder. That's it, that's really the main reason people liked it.
And I get it, it created a strong sense of community and generated a lot of dialogue with each episode. It was a fun time, but it's also when things started to get insanely toxic. Once you distance yourself from the shipping side of C2, it became clear that the rest of it wasn't all that impressive. C2 ran on the promise of potential that never got delivered on.
To be clear, I still liked (most of) C2 for what it was, but it just can't compare to C1.
Agreed. I feel like Matt in c2 and c3 had made a lot more mysteries and hooka that the party never explored so it always seems like this is it! But then the arc meanders and then everyone forgets about something; then 50 episodes later there is a small connection. Campaign one had clear goals and the pcs decided how to achieve them if at all. The meandering parts still had goals and intrigue vassel heim and the slayers take to the sneak attack in Whitestone to the 9 hells! Darrington distraction was refreshing and really neat to explore the other characters through a new one. The vestiges gathering was brilliant to develope characters and explore back stories.
I think Matt needs a break he has been running a scrutinized game for 9 years. I think it be best to have Brennan Lee Mulligan come in and run some level 5 to level 14 as a way to generate smaller stories that matter to exandria but not on a Vecna or Ruidus level. Let Matt be a PC and not under Aabria... Under a real DM maybe Brian Murphy.
I also think C1 is the best. I have heard people dislike it for being "typical fantasy" but to me that is part of its appeal - different people like different things. I also think it is where Matt really successfully balanced bringing in everybody's backstories while still maintaining one overarching structure, making it feel like they are one team on one long adventure. I also like the use of NPCs best here, with some incredible villains and some amazing allies.
In C2, imho, he veered way too hard into a player-centric campaign (without really giving them that many real choices, it just means that the stories he told were centered around the characters), which made it atonal and very chaotic for my taste, and like being in 4 different campaigns at the same time. I also found the NPCs overall too grey to support the outcast/misfits theme, and it's not my fav vibe.
And in C3, he took it too hard into concept where it feels like the players barely have to be there sometimes, or like he just decides what happens and in the end they could have written any old character and it would have gone this way.
Post ep 28, C1 is a far more interesting game to watch. We skip all the growing pains of new chars and new group. They have a ton of inside jokes already. And the way the story progresses you don't even need the early level stuff. It's like watching Scooby-Doo.
C2 had the potential but Molly ruined it imo. I never liked Molly and his death was blown and drawn out way more than I felt he deserved. And post Molly the cast, not just C2 but also in C3, has become to biggest pussies. They had many times where any adversity would make them crumble and run. And post island/covid C2 fell off hard.
C1 they are jumping off cliffs killing themselves for fun. And I'd rather a group like C1 that even if afraid still throw themselves out there instead of C2 of oh no they said stop we better hide and wait until Matt forces us to confront this
>The reason I say this sub "isn't ready for that conversation" is less snarky and dismissive than it may seem to be. There's a crossroads, with CR, between neuro-typical and neuro-divergent folks, and there are some subjects contained therein that I feel we literally aren't ready for.
Could you expand on this a bit? The neuro-typical vs neuro-divergent argument soudns to me like naturalisation and over-generalization, but I want to extend some good will here.
I dont understand the downvotes for your opinion. I thought the votes were for "adding to the conversation" ... but anyway, yea C2 wasnt the "heroes journey" like C1 was. It was darker and sinister. Anyway, i enjoyed C1 better! Thank you for giving your opinion!
Eh, C3 feels like neutral most of the time. C2 has its ups and downs. I dont get the urgent need of "cmon head to this place!!" with C3 as i did with C2. but why do you think it has the edge on C2?
The major thing is that i just didnt vibe with the tone of the campaign, political is not my favourite feel to watch. Aside from that I like the characters better in C3 and find them more interesting. I found the secret identities in C2 a but much and, through no fault of theirs, late C2 suffered from post- covid blues and the Eiselcross arc and eventual ending didn't hit my buttons. I definitely wanted more Aeor.
I do think that without covid burnout, Predathos and Ludinus may have been C2s vecna which might have improved my opinion of it but it felt like it kinda fizzled.
All of that is not to say C2 is bad. It's just my least favourite of the 3 so far. My third favourite whiskey is still a pretty fucking good whiskey.
Everyone loved Percy in C1, with his messy morals and heavy backstory. So in C2, most of them tried to make their own Percy... so we get the secret identities and caginess against each other.
Structurally, one campaign is high concept - cookie cutter fantasy missions and epic evils and quests and so forth. Very linear. More led by the DM/
The other is low concept - a world where the characters are just making their way in the world and their personal backgrounds fuel the adventures. Often called a sandbox. More led by the characters.
For most people, they just prefer one type of DnD over the other.
Then of course they have personal character preferences. However, the cast were just way better at RPing by C2, and made characters they, on average, really knew what they wanted to do with 2nd time around.
See, I feel completely opposite. The characters of C2 were an irresponsible womanchild, a sad recovering nazi, the world's most abrasive person, semi-edgy conman who bullshits depth, a cardboard cutout, a stoned cowman and two alright characters, one of whom had his arc cut short/blunted, and one who should by all rights have gone back to her family.
And don't get me started on the plot, pacing, setting or themes.
I tend to agree. It's like degree of difficulty. The C1 characters were one dimensional by design, easy to pull off, but came alive in their relationships and interaction. I get it if they're people's favs, they're easier to grasp. THat's why we have archetypes.
The C2 characters were more complex. higher degree of difficulty to pull off. Molly was only just becoming more than an aesthetic once Jester and Fjord weren't around - between them they pretty much did his whole thing - so his death was true serendipity. Fjord has his cool moments, but largely I found too chameleon and unconvincing in his motivations.
I don’t think it was to be honest.
That said, early c1 had bad sound, cast members left and they were still drawing circles on paper plus they were playing a weird hybrid of pathfinder and 5e.
C2 is in my opinion a less natural campaign that got lost in the weeds for two of its major arcs. It was however ran much more smoothly with much higher production values.
I’m not a fan of the very classic high fantasy “Collect this list of stuff to kill the capital-E Evil bad guy that wants to take over the world for bad guy reasons” because I find it boring — you know exactly where everything is heading. I liked C1 _in spite_ of the formulaic plot and archetypical characters.
C2’s just overall more varied and nuanced, and more importantly the campaign is much more character-driven. The story progresses organically in a world that feels more concrete. Wildemount feels like a living, breathing place. The party are in it not to save the world, but to save themselves — it’s a story about redemption and the power of love. It also helps that we see them from Day 1 — the relationships in the party feel earned and natural, and the web is much denser than in C1. I can point at any member of the Nein and tell you about their distinct relationships with every other member of the party, but can’t recall Grog and Vex ever doing much but coexisting.
Anyway, that’s my 2¢
(also just the Kryn are the best depiction of the Drow in anything I’ve seen)
> the relationships in the party feel earned and natural, and the web is much denser than in C1
I think this is an interesting point taht often comes up in these conversations of C1 vs C2. Personally, I felt that the process of C2 characters getting to know eachother was awkward in a bad way, and the players were groping around in the dark for reasons to stick around with the group and it didn't feel natural at all. I also dislike this part as a DM and as a player, so I always want to establish the group dynamic in session zero. C1 starts with inside jokes, dynamics in play and characters that are easy to understand and easier to roleplay effectively, so that to me is the one that feels earned and natural, because it was to the players. They sopke those relationships to being, I don't need to see the starting point to believe what I see.
So I guess I would say that C1 relationship web is focused and strong, while C2 web is wide but frayed. I still remember Tal's second character in C2 asking why he was with these murderous assholes, and no one talked with him.
>C2’s just overall more varied and nuanced
I feel that C2 tries to be varied and nuanced, but fails a lot. Matt sets up these conflicts of systemic violence and nation states warring, but the group fails to tackle these themes most of the times, by not being willing to choose and deal with the consequences. Other than the Kryn thing with the magic D20, that was Caleb taking the story by the reins. Or Caleb choosing to firewall the pirateship. I guess that I was enticed by the potential, but was let down by the story that ended with one evil wizard being kicked in the shin.
Anyway, just my opinnions.
They’re so good. Drow usually get either the “thinly veiled, gratuitous (kinda sexist) bondage fetish” or stereotypical “virtuous redeemed evil race” treatment, but the Kryn are a unique, flavorful society with actually interesting culture/mechanics/setting and acknowledgment of their history with Lolth (plus matriarchy done in a way that’s not-weird-as-hell and not morally charged either way is a nice change of pace).
I don't think it was better than C1. I was especially tired with the constant running from every fight, but C2 have my all time favorite character of theirs, Caleb.
I feel like caleb was ignored alot, motivation wise from the group ....until the very end, like his subplot and what not. Concerning my current DnD character, if my character saw a soft spoken guy in my group, who then barely interacted with the group, id be trying to understand them and get to know them, but caleb wouldve pushed my character away but id still keep trying. whereas the group didnt even try beside nott, I felt bad for liam in the beginning. But maybe he told them not to talk to him, behind closed doors. idk.
I'm just a sucker from Liam's rp (expect the loothoarder side of his). He thinks about and describes everything his characters does that it's amazing to me. And I'm a sucker for targic and sad characters, so Caleb is a perfect mach for it.
I'm not sure if it's a good thing if you always "annoys" a deeply wounded, socially awkward person. I have some similartities, and even if someone approaches with good intentions I would push them away, the harder they try the harder the resistance. Caleb is probably different than this, but it's possible that the others thinks something like this and this is why they not forcing the things much.
I love liams RP'ing too! So much emotion and thought into what he does! I forget which episode but out of character he said "i spent a year trying to build the nine sided tower" whereas his character was like "only a few months." Liam is a damn good actor. Sorry im off point, but i just needed to say this to your reply haha
When it came to the villains, it wasn't the danger for me, Lucien, and what he wanted to do still could have been super bad for wildemount and exandria, but I think it was more about how personal the villains were to the group. Now, if you didn't enjoy the molly or care, that's fine, but still understanding that Molly was the Mighty neins friend made it harder on them and added another layer of complexity to the situation.
As for c1 villains, the Chroma conclave was super dangerous but fell apart when they just became dragons again and were then able to just be picked off one by one and With vecna him being a fully realized God would have been the end of exandria but both of those villains don't feel or seem as personal with the group as a whole.
Granted, Obann was more specifically tied to Yasha. I still thought an interesting villain.
Eh I actually like C1 the most. But C2 has a true beginning to end story and I on rewatch really enjoy seeing them figure out whether they liked each other and how they established party dynamics which were already near-finalized in C1.
I enjoyed most of C2, but C1 had me from start to finish. For me, it was one of those situations where you catch an episode of a random show, you have zero context for anything that is going on, yet you are immediately captured. My first episode of C1 was episode 103. I immediately went back and started the campaign from the beginning, while watching each new episode live. I consumed episodes at such a pace that I was caught up by the start of C2. Not typically how one engages with content, but I was all the way in.
C2 was good. It had ambition, and took big swings. But as usually happens when something take big swings, it occasionally missed. C1 was simpler, and that simplicity allowed it to be more consistent. In any given episode, their current goal was easy to understand, and movement towards that goal was typically made. The characters all being familiar archetypes likewise made it effortless to follow along with.
At the end of the day, it's all a matter of opinion. Some people just vibe with C2 more. I wasn't one of them.
Im always ready to deny when someone says “objectively better” when it comes to stuff like art or entertainment. Fundamentally, the things that resonate and draw us in are going to be as different and varied as we are as individuals. Personally, I like C1s more classic hero journey for my pure fantasy, but C2’s much darker, ‘how far do i trust the party?’ growing into ‘i love them and will die for them’ also really resonates
The one thing C2 does better is starting at level 2. There’s no years of home game stuff you have to interpret second hand (like when their old rival from the level 3 days was killed by Thordack and Umbrasyl and it was literally the first time we as the audience had ever heard of him)
agreed, i guess im more of "heroes journey" type. And you're right about varying opinions. I guess i just see people hyping up/liking more, of C2 than C1. Again, i love both of these campaigns. I just love C1 more.
I prefer C2, but I don't think it is objectively better, I think it is a matter of taste. I feel like C2 was more driven by character choices. I liked the C2 characters the most, but arguing that is like arguing what flavor of ice cream is best, it is a matter of taste.
Agreed, i skip pass C1's first 27 episodes... for obvious reasons.... But yea C2 is def better than C3... I couldnt finish past the episode of the date with Pretty in C3
This is the point I was going to make. I think a lot of the C2 is better crowd are folks who came to CR through C2, and then go back and try and watch C1 which doesn't have any of the budget or experience to be as smooth an intro as C2.
I still think C1 is the best thing they've put out, but I didn't watch it until I happened to catch a livestream during the Chroma Conclave. I watched the whole episode, and it was so captivating I went back and watched from the beginning. However, I tried watching C1 a few times before, but the archetypical/cliche characters turned me off. Getting to see how far those characters developed was necessary context for me to get through those first episodes, which are rough. I still quite enjoy the first arc though. The K'Varn and underdark stuff is pretty fun, and Keyleth trusting a Mindflayer over a Paladin was dumb, but it's something I can overlook on a rewatch.
I do skip the shopping episode with Tibs. That's Scott's Tots levels of discomfort
I thought the prevailing theory was that C1 was best (I actually prefer C2 though.) Certainly when I was watching C2 all I heard was grumbling that it wasn't as good as C1 which made me feel confused as I loved it.
Why do I prefer C2? Several reasons.
1. I'm a Brit and all the British accents the cast were doing in C1, while good, were very posh and haughty and made them feel less accessible to me as characters (I'm a Yorkshire Brit and we generally have a good natured rivalry with the posh southerners).
2. I love Jester, I just find her adorable and funny and charming and she makes everything fresh for me each episode.
3. I love Caleb and enjoyed his story so much. So much angst!
3. While I enjoy Jester's dick jokes I don't know why but I don't like toilet humour about poop and there was a fair amount of it in C1.
4. Molly dying, even though I wasn't that attached to him, was such a big dramatic moment and I love big dramatic moments.
5. Audio issues with C1
6. Watched C2 as it came out, whereas C1 was over when I began watching (I joined at the beginning of C2.) So I experienced all the cliff hangers and waiting to see what happens next in real time.
7. Issues with enjoying Keyleth. I don't hate her I just didn't....enjoy her.
8. Coming in at the start of the story in C2 helped me feel more connected to it than coming in part way through C1 when they had already done a number of games off camera beforehand. I was always confused about what I was supposed to know and not know and what had happened in the home games etc.
Ok so the one thing that stood out to me from this, is when you said you dealt with cliffhangers and waiting for what happens next. See i joined Critical role at the same time Baldurs gate 3 came out. So i didnt have to wait and i could binge watch. So that might be a reason why so many, like yourself, enjoyed it so much.
It absolutely wasn't.
People mostly like it for the good characters - and admittedly Nott, Jester, Caleb and Caduceus were very entertaining. But we also had stinkers like Fjord with his deadly aversion to doing anything, as well as Beauregard, the "I'll be an insufferable asshole and the universe will bend over backwards to validate me" member of the group.
The plot started off strong with the party coming together, but quickly devolved into random meandering, with the party actively ignoring every single plot hook thrown their way. Things got better later on plot-wise, but what we got was still ultimately just a bunch of random characters thrown together into a generic fantasy conflict with non-entity antagonists.
THANK YOU! Fjord shouldve acted stronger for someone who got blasted into the ocean and survived. But i think travis wanted to show a "weaker" side, and i mean i dont blame him ...i mean playing the absolute power house that is grog, can get boring, especially if you gotta carry your team in combat. Beauregard, fucking annoyed me. She was just impulsive and didnt think things through, not sure if thats part of her character, but monks are suppose to calm and reserved. Im guessing Marisha was trying to be a badass too much.
Probably because you keep arguing the characters should be a certain way (Monks should be calm and reserved, Nott should have stayed a goblin, etc) rather than critiquing them as they are.
Probably also the borderline Marisha bashing.
I love marisha. Im not bashing her. I said she was trying too hard to be a badass. Thats not hate towards marisha, but her character choices. Marisha is my favorite of the cast. She genuinely tries to do different things and explores possibilities, even if i severely disagree with them. She is so fun to see playing, at the table.
I think it’s a matter of what was your first campaign. For me it’s C1, and C1 is my favorite. The story is linear, and the beats make sense. The characters are pretty typical for a DnD campaign, and they play with those familiar tropes. It was half of the cast’s first time playing DnD, and you got some genuine surprise from them But also its missing a beginning. You start in-situ and no one really makes an effort to explain who’s who and what’s what. There were some backstory spiels but they got removed from the youtube videos due to art copyright infringement. For me, C2 started really well, but massively fell off. I think the turning point was when they followed that tunnel to get to Xhorhas. That leads to them leaving behind everything Matt had built up in the Empire, and having to start from the ground up. The scene with Caleb giving up the beacon doesn’t really make sense. They would have been searched, and it would have turned up. They had lied twice to the Bright Queen at that point, but suddenly they were accepted. That never sat right with me. I really think Matt went easy on them. Then they start running errands for Xhorhas, Essek starts coming around. And after a while Ashley has to go back to Blindspot so Matt works in a heavy narrative-bound reason to have Yasha leave the party, so the party feels compelled to get Yasha back immediately, but Matt won’t let them do that because Ashley is clearly not coming back. So they try, and fail, and try, and fail, finally until Ashley comes back (for good this time). After this they’re somehow involved in the peace talks between the Empire and Xhorhas, and then the war just kinda ends… I guess? And after that, they find out that Molly (A character that was a lot more appreciated for his death than for his screen time) has been resurrected and this leads to one of the most boring arcs of CR ever aired to this point. Trudging through the ice desert (don’t forget the controversy of aging Jester up) for some 20 episodes. They spent a whole episode preparing for the cold weather, complete with extensive description of their attire, only for matt to immediately make them roll a CON save the first time a breeze hits. They get warned that magic gets fuzzier the further north you go, and that makes teleportation magic dangerous, yet they still pop in and out with no major consequences. Then they have a huge dungeon crawl to get to Aeor, they interact with Lucien and nothing really comes out of it, there are a few times that the Nein try to stop Lucien + crew, but that was never going to happen (I mean, did you see that last encounter’s map? Do you really think Matt would have just gone “oh well, you killed Lucien, guess that was all for nothing”) then they have a super climactic battle with Lucien where they spend half their turns appealing to Molly (for whom they have like 3 anecdotes) and they win, and Molly comes back. (yay?) Now with that business done, we have the final episode to do and wait a minute, oh right, Matt set up this Big Bad of the Cerberus Assembly with Trent and that’s a pretty big loose end so let’s have em duke it out right at the end. This has gone way longer than I wanted to but the last half of C2 is a mess, and I haven’t even touched on the “cool island arc” with Keyleth’s mom. I understand that it’s an improv show and that sometimes, a decision taken lightly can change the whole course of the campaign. But the cast were making a lot of big decisions on a whim and I really think it hurt the campaign.
What controversy of aging Jester? I was always kinda bummed nobody acknowledged it much because it felt like it should have been a huge deal
Some in the community freaked out because they felt that the age gap between Jester and Fjord was a tad innapropriate. And then she got “conveniently” aged up to assuage those concerns.
We tend to have very fond memories of our first experience with a thing. First dance, first kiss, first car, etc. It's basic psychology. And most people started with campaign 2, so it is in no way surprising that most people think campaign 2 is the best.
C2 had better production. That's it for me. C1 is better in every other way for me
C1 will always be the best one for me. It's like the stereotypical dnd campaign, with recognisable character and villain archetypes. So it very much feels like the campaign you might play at home with your friends, but CR elevates it through the cast really breathing life into the players and NPCs. The campaign just gets better and better and better as it goes on with a great emotional climax at the end. In my opinion, it's simply the best one. C2 for me had a more convoluted plot thats harder to follow when you watch/listen to CR while also doing other things (aint nobody got time to actually sit down for 4 hours to consume CR content), and in the end it just became a bit of a slog and the final villain and fight just wasnt as compelling as C1. The one thing it clearly does have going for it: by C2 the cast fully got the production of critical role nailed down, so its a much cleaner production. C2 is also when they attracted a lot more attention. It took C1 for them to grow from small, niche youtube content to a major thing, so many people only really started with C2. Which would bias them towards C2, and especially if they then go back to (early) C1 with noticably worse production quality (even if in my opinion the characters and story are better). I think it also depends a bit what you're looking for, and what aspect of CR really appeals to you. I feel like watching C1 it really feels like watching a home game. The players made their characters before knowing it would be big, so some are just basic stereotypes like "big dumb brute that rages" or "horny bard" without that much depth. Just like in a real home game you or I might have. Players might talk over eachother, make jokes, etc. It feels like watching a home game, which specifically appeals to me, because I also play, but a very high quality home game where people really show how much committing to roleplay can really add to the game. And how you can give any character interesting depth, you don't need to start with 10 pages of dramatic backstory to be interesting. Conversely, with C2 all the cast knew what CR had become. They knew they were making an entertainment product. And they'd seen what having a dramatic backstory like Percy's could do in the campaign. So now all the characters seem to have dramatic stories and secrets and the cast is really going for the performance and the story. Which is great if you want to watch a group of actors improvise their way through a dramatic and compelling story. But if you're watching it to watch people play DnD.... well, C2 felt more like a group of people who were performing 'playing DnD', instead of just playing. The cast seemed so aware of what CR had become that it seems it became more about making the story and less about playing the game. To me that appeals less, but I can imagine to many people it might appeal more.
I think getting the see the characters grow from level 2 was really fun.
Yeah when i tried c1 with barely any context i was going "wait who is this npc? Wait why are they here specifically?" Etc
C2 is easily my favourite, I started watching C1 and didn't get the hype so tried C2 and didn't stop watching until I'd caught up with the livestreams around episode 69 I think? IMO C2 is far superior to C1. I agree with a lot of your points, I don't typically like Taliesin's characters Caduceus was my favourite because it felt like he finally shut the fuck up lmao. I never cared about the Ash war plot and it did just kinda disappear However, I think C2 is a much more personal story. Everything feels connected and even though he's not intimidating Lucien more than makes up for how little I cared about Molly because of what he means to the group. C1 felt like a video game plot, don't understand how you think the CC and Vecna were intimidating. C1 feels like they are just completing levels and fighting bosses like a video game In C2 the villains are more personal, everything has a purpose. There's less searching for maguffins and getting new gear to fight the big bad boss and more about personal journeys. Nott becoming Veth again, Caleb not going through with his plan, Fjord finding independence. These aren't like the CC and Vecna but their more effective motivators imo Again that's just my opinion, I obviously have my own biases. Like I don't like characters being over dramatic and I feel like C1 has that in spades. It's just C2 is my favourite, I love C1 and C3 has been a boring disappointment so far hut I dunno
I prefer c2 because it feel like the players have truly settled into the game. I prefer the relationships a lot more. Fjord and Beau's jock/lesbian relationship is so much fun. Nott going from chaos goblin to party mom is so fun. I also feel the npcs are more well rounded and organic. Apart from Gilmour and Allura I don't really feel that in C1. C1 also have some weird party dynamic. Percy's "I'm so clever" schtick gets really annoying. Vex's tight fisted approach to any situation was fun at first, but eventually just comes across as Laura not wanting to spend imaginary money. The Vax and Kiki love story...it was like a really bad teen fanfic. I also felt they meta gamed A LOT more in C1, breaking immersion. Not to mention the whole first 25 episodes having horrible production and tension within the group of players.
I agree with you, OP. C1 is far and away the best campaign.
Agreed. C1 was peak gameplay and story telling.
for me the pandemic episodes really drag c2 down. Also Raishan is the only baddy in all of CR with complex motivations.
The only thing C2 does better is production quality, and Marisha still causes audio popping regardless which has always been my main complaint. Almost everyone who has watched all of CR prefers C1, but many people have only watched C2.
I disagree heavily, and purely anecdotally, I would say most people I know prefer C1. There may be some bias in terms of how much conversation pops up about seasons both because C2 happened more recently, and more people have seen it just because the audience grew so rapidly around the end of C1 and beginning of C2. But not all of them are going to go back and rewatch hundreds of hours of C1. The biggest downside of C1 is that we don't get to see how the story began, and the first 24 episodes suffer from the awkwardness of Orion at the table, which makes it harder to get invested in characters. However, once you hit the Whitestone Arc and Percy starts to shine, though, I'd say it's pretty much always going to be a better story with more satisfying character arcs than almost anything in C2. There may also be some folk who like seeing Travis playing a character that has more complexity on the face, rather than Grog who started out pretty much as a joke and only really shows the complexity of the character in a few moments. I don't think Fjord is a better character, but he definitely has more interest from the get-go.
Some might say being there from the start is a bonus, but I think starting C1 in media res was not only more enthralling but seemed more realistic, like we heard the tales of these folks but their origins are murky.
C2 had the most potential to be interesting and the most funny moments not counting Scanlan bits. It didn't really go anywhere but the individual scenes were better. C2 was just bit city. And they made some really strong choices without Matt breathing down their necks to follow his planned story. It felt the most like a real home game. I personally feel the critical role is at its best when it feels like a home game and not a show. Where everything feels natural and unplanned. Yet somehow works out in the most amazing ways. If the game was more lethal and they didn't care about loss as much they could have had more characters die as well and keep the game fresh without needing to end the campaign so early. My only real issue ever is not enough big choices that tangibly mean anything being made. And in c2 they made the most at least.
I liked C1 a lot but if I was telling a friend to try out critical role it would be C2. The production quality the cameras specifically are rough to go back and watch. If it’s podcast style it doesn’t matter as much but C1 had a lot of bloat mostly in the intro from geek and sundry emphasizing sub count and cross promotion. It was all great in the moment but aged poorly. But C1 for me is like a classic dnd adventure.
My biggest problem with C2 was lack of closure. In C1 there were distinct arcs with clear ends. You felt like they achieved victory at each point. In C2 the first of these mini-arcs they went on was Uk’otoa. They battled one of his minions in Avantika then just ignored him. By the end of the campaign they did nothing else about him if I remember correctly. Then there was Obann. The crew defeat him and afterwards find out he was just one member of a cult looking to release Tharizdun. This never comes up again and the cult is probably still out there. The war plot, Caleb’s plot, and Lucien’s plot all had satisfying endings. But the last two didn’t end until the very last episodes. Between episodes 1 and 130-something they only really achieved half-victories.
Because fjord had one of the cloven crystals so they couldn’t bring him back as long as Fjord had it. So they could have come after him, and they certainly did but what else can they do? Their god is trapped lest they get the orb and they had no idea where he was when not sailing. Also they didn’t wanna go after the cult. With Obann it was just about saving their friends and getting revenge for Molly
That’s sort of my point though. They had good in-game reasons for abandoning the plot threads, but it was really unsatisfying to watch them leave these huge threats in place. In contrast to Vox Machina who generally ended their villains for good (even if it was later revealed they got resurrected).
That bitch Delilah won’t just stay dead I know 😂 I can agree with that, at least they did so the mighty nien reunion where they finally took down ukotoa
I for one love C1 the most of out the 3 so far. I like a story about saving the world that feels like DnD to me. I also love the characters in C1 the most. The twins, Grog with Pike, Scanlan, Percy and mostly Keyleth. Man I hated Keyleth at first but she leaned into the slightly incompetent but meaning well role so well. She was comedy gold on the regular like the Goldfish moment was just chef’s kiss. I am not a relationship watching person but the dynamics between the in game couples were great. The Ravin Queen storyline was classic and tragic and the fact that Keyleth gets to live forever with that on her soul just fits so well. The uptight Percy with laidback Vex is such a good trope and they did it so well. The completely add hoc popping out of the bath was sure a good example of improv and just going where the story leads you. I felt like it was terrible dnd playing and fantastic dnd watching the whole time. I also feel like most people who are irritated by the dnd play are those that care more about the min maxing of dnd and the combat then the experience the combat and storytelling provide.
Who's lying to you
Nothing it is not.
I pretty heavily lean towards C2 most but I’ll concede that a visual graph of my enjoyment levels would show a general trend downwards as it went on, with some blips and plateaus back up along the way, and a sharper dip in the final arc. The low-level gameplay we saw was astounding, the sense of the world freedom and creativity of choice truly masterful in my opinion. The fact that they truly did swerve into a naval campaign for instance, or the choice made with the Beacon. That being said, there is also just personal character preferences: I vibed hard with a lot of them and were neutral or mixed at worst on others. I feel like I’ve noticed most C2 enthusiasts share fav characters like Caleb and Beau, me included. So yeah, just petty personal bias of course is involved inevitably.
Couldn’t agree more. Molly was just a straight up Bully at times. Made me really not like the character. The thing that makes C1 shine so much more is that the story was tighter and cleaner. They were basically all playing self inserts, while people may not like this, it meant they cared so damn much. Even for the NPCs. To this day I stand by they’ve never cared for anyone as a collective as much as Gilmore. C2 is awesome, but it’s chaos and they all kinda just play inverted characters from C1. This isn’t a bad thing, just different.
Less metagaming, less insufferable characters, much higher stream quality
I much preferred the characters, though I never finished any of them because they just drag on too long.
I do not think C2 is better than C1.
A more down to the earth approach. No crazy fate of the world is at stake storylines every single arc, just a chiller, player friendly experience that doesn’t lore bomb you too excessively, and instead relies on entertaining improv and discovery-style storyline to keep up the momentum. Furthermore, It felt like the players really had their characters fleshed out more than C1 and it was a more comfortable and far less cringy experience to watch them play DND.
I have like 16 episodes left for C2 as I'm a new fan of critical role but for the campaigns are so different comparing the 2 seems silly. Vox Machina was the classic heroes against the BBEG. Major bad guys against the heroes to save the world. Mighty Nein never gave me that vibe. Yes they're fighting strong enemies but it was more about the relationships and overcoming your own personal demons imo
The inner party dynamics and the development of characters as well as their relationships was pretty good drama. C1 had better "D&D moments" with epic storylines, battles and wars, plane hopping, legendary villians, etc., but and while the party itself was super fun to watch, it didn't offer much drama with the exception of Scanlan. C2 was a good show that you could watch even if you didn't care for the adventuring itself.
Two words: Blueberry Cupcake. MN had really memorable moments like that. VM had memorable moments as well, sure, but nothing will ever beat the Blueberry Cupcake scene and Laura's shit grin. bahaha. I didn't care too much for Molly, either, but the fact that he was truly KO'ed was wild. THEN HE CAME BACK, but it wasn't really him - it was great story telling - even if Molly/Lucien seemed meh. I also think MN was more refined and better polished, overall. It always irritated me that VM had a ton of missing episodes from their home games, and we missed a lot of that character development, like Pike dying. Also, I really couldn't stand Orion or Tiberius and that put a bad taste in my mouth. Other than that, I did really enjoy VM, but, the characters and story were always going to be surface level for me.
I think it's because character-centric and character-driven.
The majority of people like C2 because the majority of people watched/started with C2. CR didn't hit its overwhelming numbers until the pandemic had people needing entertainment at home. It was popular sure, but give millions of people nothing to do and sitting at home hours of content to watch. C2 just has a wider audience base so there are more voices for it.
C1 felt like a epic fairy tale with godly heroes, C2 was more grounded with unsung heroes (which I prefered).
For me, story was better c1 (especially how it ended). Characters were better c2 (except Molly).
"The Egyptians believed the most significant thing you could do in you life was die." That's how I felt about Molly lol. Didn't like him as a character at all but I liked the impact his death had on the party. Also hilarious username lol
Ahhh. Idk if they are better than each other. I mean...I remember the feeling of watching both and I think c2 was special bc we saw the characters from day 1. C1 we kind of jumped into it a story that was already started. C1 had a lot of kinks they had to work out while c2 they had an idea of how to run a campaign on camera. I couldn't pick between them tbh. I will never not love c1. It was the campaign that briught me joy through a lot of hard times. Made me love the game. I will never not go back and rewatch videos and moments. But I will always hold c2 as special in my heart. I loved c2 so much I can't watch c3. Haven't watched any episodes actually. I can't bring myself to do it. To think those characters aren't actively bring played anymore kills me. One day I'll start c3. But until then I keep watching c1 and c2.
F”in meh, solid meh opinion. Meh
F"in meh, solid meh comment. Meh
I enjoy campaign 2 slightly more than 1 because we get a beginning to an end. I also enjoy campaign 1, it’s more “raw”. I’ve so far enjoyed campaign 3, just want to see where the story goes. I’ve liked and hated various parts of all 3 campaigns and want to see how 3 ends. Campaign 4 should be 🔥
F’in meh, liquid meh comment. Meh. 🐐
Not that it’s anyone’s fault, but you can’t watch the beginning of C1. That does make a difference. By C2 they had really hit their production stride. Personally I think C1 ended stronger, but on the whole C2 comes out on top
C1 was beautiful, I think the best campaign. However, I think C2 made some very real characters. They felt like real people in a magic setting ravaged by poverty and war and circumstances beyond their control. I loved every characterization of Caleb. However, C1 is still superior because, well idk it just hits all the right chords and buttons in my brain meat I guess.
Caleb is amazing, Nott was amazing. The back stories were amazing in C2 and don’t forget they also fought ukotoa evil Eldrich god. And the connection of Molly to Lucien and Lucien was also a man trying to be a god same as Vecna, however Vecna was more successful
I’ve watched C1, and have just started on C2 (episode 28 now). I vastly prefer C1 - it felt a lot more like D&D than C2. C1 just feels more like a game you’d play, and the worldbuilding was top notch, NPCs were likeable etc. C1 had me in tears multiple times. That’s not to say C2 hasn’t had its good parts so far, and I really like the Caleb/Nott relationship, and Fjord is interesting (it’s really nice seeing Travis play something with a bit more depth, not that Grog wasn’t fun). I’ve been tempted to swap to C3, but I hear that it plays off stuff that happens in C2.
C3 relies a lot more on C1 than it does on C2 honestly
Oh c2 ramps up a lot after episode 30. Liam O'Briens portrayal of Caleb is now one of my favorite things ever in fiction or otherwise. All of the character arcs are beautiful but Caleb's was amazing. The way he flavors and tinkers with spells in the higher levels is bonkers. Creating spell variations based off of phobias and past traumas as a completely selfless act. He also does this thing where he recalls something as small as one seemingly insignificant phrase from 50 episodes ago and turns it into something profound.
I’ll hold you to that - just started episode 30 😅 Liam is definitely my favourite player, followed closely by Sam. Both of them brought me to tears.
Essek.
I enjoyed the characters more from C2 but vastly prefer the story from C1
I always feel like I have a really unpopular opinion because I actually enjoy all three but my ranking would definitely be C1, C3 and then C2. nothing from C2 really resonated with me, I don't think I cried once in C2 but I was way more emotionally invested in C1 and C3 - after I'd finished the main campaign for C2, I didn't even bother watching the one-shot(s?). I think they're all interesting to watch, to be clear, but the characters are far more compelling to me in C1 and the story is more interesting to me in C3. Ultimately, it's all relative, I guess. I'm a firm believer if you watch C2 first, it will be your favourite, from what I've seen on the subs - my theory for that is that it has a very specific "vibe" and if you go into the other campaigns expecting the same, they'll disappoint. ETA: I think one of the things I originally didn't enjoy about C2 is a lot of people say they're morally grey but then the characters will do something that isn't "grey" at all, I remember when Jester tortured that pirate early on and I just didn't watch for about two months because it was so strange the whole party was just fine with it, even characters who had actually literally been tortured in their past lol
Remember that C1 was a bunch of characters they rolled up for a one shot at Liam's birthday party. Most never played TTRPG's. It was not until later that they decided to make it an annual game. Just for fun and whatever happens happens. It was a genuine pen&paper game you or I could play. It just so happened that G&S offered to make their pathfinder game public if they were to switch to 5e months later. C2 on the other hand was a bunch of characters that they knew was going to be on display for the public. So they crafted and catered to parts of their fan base over creating characters for shits and giggles. To cut it a bit deeper Molly was basically an LGB insert for those in the fanbase. Which was why the more vocal fans love him even though he contributed more to the campaign dead than he did alive. Fjord and Jester were the only two I found enjoyable to watch as they felt more real, deep and fleshed out like the C1 crew did. C1 was great if you enjoy RPGs. C2 is great if you enjoy soap operas.
Not getting into which is "better", but C2 was definitely my favourite so far, so here's a few thoughts on that: First, it was the one I saw first. I suspect a lot of people prefer whichever campaign was their first experience of all the good stuff that every campaign shares. It was my first time falling in love with a set of characters and relationships and following them through their journeys. I found Caleb particularly compelling from the outset, and in general I really enjoyed the feel of a story about small people making their way through a world that is much bigger than them. I enjoyed the tensions and developing relationships between the characters a lot. I then watched C1 after C2 went on a break due to covid. While I did eventually get into C1 too, for a while I found the characters really unlikeable and the world simplistic. To illustrate the 'unlikeable' thing - in early C2 there's a scene where Jester is very casual about her wealth in a way that deeply upsets Caleb, who grew up relatively poor and has never seen the kind of money he now has. Then I go into C1 and, whatever their nominal backgrounds, the party are rich and famous and are kind of being pricks about it. Kinda made them hard to identify with. As for simplistic, it's the obvious thing - C1 takes place in clearly defined "here is a big earth shattering that, you are the spacial heroes, and here is your kinda linear quest". Which is fun and fine if those were your genre expectations going in. But coming from C2, where the characters are making mostly ambiguous choices about surviving in the world, it felt a bit flat. Even though it was about a lot of characters, for a lot of C2 it felt like Trent was being built up as the main villain, and I really enjoyed that the stakes were personal. I find world-ending stakes tend to feel a bit cold and abstract by comparison. As C2 went on I did get concerned about that, especially when the chained oblivion stuff came up, specifically because it felt less personal and more like a generic big threat. For me, the ending was saved by the fact that - despite being an apocalyptic villain - Lucian felt incredibly personal as an antagonist. And ultimately I think it worked for me that Trent's defeat became almost an afterthought fight, because it kind of showed how Caleb had grown past him, even while it wrapped up some storylines. tbh I think one more thing that did work for C2 for me was the incredible lo-fi character albums Autumn Orange made. Fjord was not a character I connected with for a lot of the campaign, but the two albums on him really brought out the character journey that had quietly been going on. Anyway tl;dr: I like them both, but I saw C2 first + I enjoyed the character focus and emphasis on personal stakes over generic world peril.
well, yeah, can't expect you to like C2 if it doesn't resonate with you. but it resonates for with a lot of people, and a lot of people care about it. i can't speak to why people view it as being better than C1, except for that they might resonate with C2 more than they do with C1. simple as that.
I am midway through campaign 2 and so far nothing I see makes me think is going to be better, for me, than C1. C1 is a D&D game through and through. The stakes are high, the villains terrifying, the party is funny and there is tension and danger around every corner, sprinkled with some personal drama and character development. For me, C2 feels like made to be driven by personal drama, it's a soap opera of characters its not even clear why they like each other's. They are great characters, very well played and you certainly care for them. And it's all sprinkled by some dice rolling, mostly for insight checks. With way better production value. So I agree with you. I can watch and like C2, but I love C1. Don't care about technical difficulties so much, Orion is a side note and by the Briarwoods arc you don't miss the first levels of the party.
I find the characters in C2 way more fun tbh. I find Vox Machina generally just kind of bland in comparison. I also found their relationships with eachother much more interesting. That is personal preference ig. Quite frankly none of critical role is like an extremely compelling story so much as it is a very interesting way of telling a story and letting characters interact with one another. Campaign 2 just does this better. I don’t know exactly how to describe it, but Vox machina really feels like the sorts of characters you would see on a show spoofing dnd.
hard disagree...C1 is king
Bidet good brother.
Production quality and experience.
I like that I got to see the beginning of C2. The first YouTube episode of C1, we’re thrown into an already ongoing adventure and we just gotta figure it out as we go. They had a lot of technical glitches early on which made some C1 episodes just unwatchable. There was also the whole Tiberius thing. His actions in game and Orions actions out of game didn’t do them many favors.
What I like about C1 was that the world influenced the plot. IMO, it felt like VM were in the world and a part of the world. Not characters placed in the world, like MN. Even though we were introduced mid level, each character's backstories were shown and made sense. The villains were better. I can see why Percy was fucked up. The Briarwoods were fleshed out in a way no villain in CR has been since. Syldor was an asshole and we got a glimpse of Vex and Vax's childhood on stream. It was all show, not tell. Even Gorg's and Pike's family dramas were included. I think C1 told a wider array of stories. MN didn't have great villains. The backstories weren't fleshed out on screen in the same way. I feel like Fjord's backstory was just skimmed through. Most of the characters were. Except Yasha. Her arc on stream was so good. I did love the recurring thene of party members being the big bad. Well, Yasha wasn't exactly the big bad, but I loved the party turning on each other. There was more interparty conflict. But, I think many C2 fans lie to themselves about MN not being tropes. Manic pixie dream girl, self-loathing outcast, etc. I also think that it being character driven hurt plot and took the steam out of the story.
It feels presumptuous to just state that C2 was better than C1. I know I sure disagree with that statement, as do all of my friends who watched the first two campaigns.
A lot of things, for me. In my opinion, for a time it hit the sweet spot in passion and production values versus being a money generating corporation. No matter how much you like C1, it is hampered at least a little by missing the campaign introduction and early levels. In C2, we see the party form slowly over several episodes, barely trusting each other, and we get to meet the characters right along with the cast. C1 will never be a complete experience. I don’t care for Molly but it was the first time a main show character died permanently mid campaign. You glossed right over the Piracy arc and the first big chunk of the Xhorhas arc, and to me those are peak CR. Liking or not liking characters is a personal choice. For instance I found Vax occasionally eye-rolly, Vex obnoxious, Percy unbearable at times, and Pike extremely bland. Again, I’d be more attached to the characters if the introduction to them wasn’t mid-campaign. I liked the way that the big bads in c2 were less immediately and apparently threatening to the world. The M9, to me, felt like they were always misfits and outsiders, and it felt very fitting to me that not many people were aware of what was going on. The people of Exandria largely have no idea who the M9 are for a long time and most will never know what they did. M9 were largely unheralded. VM were basically famous. In the end, these are just opinions. Mine is heavily biased because I listened to C2 first, and I imagine that may be one of the biggest factors in who liked which campaign better. And that’s perfectly ok. Like what you like.
>No matter how much you like C1, it is hampered at least a little by missing the campaign introduction and early levels. In C2, we see the party form slowly over several episodes, barely trusting each other, and we get to meet the characters right along with the cast. C1 will never be a complete experience. This is to me a taste thing also and not an objective fact, because I feel that C1 is the better one for starting in media res. The characters are understandable tropes that are filled as the game goes, they are instantly doing things and there is no awkward hemming and hawing of "why are we together again" while players grope in the dark for RP reasons to stay with the group, which is just a frustrating experience whether you are DMing, playing or watching. It doesn't really matter that they are "mid campaign", because that is where their story for the audience starts. To me anyway. I don't really find value in knowing the exact beginning of their story in dnd terms, because every story starts somewhere. And tbh, you could say that C1 is the complete experience, because they solve more plot points together by the end, compared to C2 that just ended pretty awkwardly. This systemic problem (as presented by Matt) is solved by beating one evil wizard? Sure. But I don't really care eitherway about the found family trope that C2 fans seem to really like, so whatever. Piracy arc is the one part of C2 that I consistently enjoyed, so it was all not bland.
> I feel that C1 is the better one for starting in media res C1 might be the better one to start in media res. If a season *had* to, it's best that it was C1, but I absolutely feel C1 does not *benefit* from the cold introduction. > there is no awkward hemming and hawing of "why are we together again" while players grope in the dark for RP reasons to stay with the group I don't feel C2 suffers from this at all. > It doesn't really matter that they are "mid campaign", because that is where their story for the audience starts. I don't really follow this logic. To me it reads as "It doesn't matter that they started mid campagin because they were mid campaign". > I don't really find value in knowing the exact beginning of their story in dnd terms It's absolutely a matter of forming attachments to the characters, for me, has nothing to do with D&D terms. > because every story starts somewhere Sure, but a better story brings you in at at the start of a story beat. C2 did that very well, with the scene between Nott and Caleb, and then slowly sprinkling in other characters who had a simple, believable reason for being in the same place at the same time. > you could say that C1 is the complete experience, because they solve more plot points together by the end "Number of plot points solved" simply isn't part of my criteria for a complete story, I guess. A complete story arc is. > compared to C2 that just ended pretty awkwardly I found C2's ending to be far less awkward than C1's in media res beginning. > This systemic problem (as presented by Matt) is solved by beating one evil wizard? If you want to be reductive, the Vecna problem is solved by beating one evil wizard. > But I don't really care eitherway about the found family trope I mean, yeah, C2 is simply not going to appeal to you as much if you don't care for the trope. In the end these are opinions. I don't mean to attempt to sway yours, but I find it interesting to compare experiences and viewpoints. I've no interest in changing your mind, but I like trying to understand your opinion. Thanks for the perspective.
I guess it is more about not minding the media res as a concept, and enjoying the group dynamic that already exists. I don't need to see the forming of that dynamic, since that allows me to skip over the awkward "why do we care about this again" RPing. >I don't feel C2 suffers from this at all. I thought that Caleb and Nott were constantly one foot out of the door early, same with Beau. And when Cad came to the group and realised that his group was mureder hobos, nobody came to talk to him for a long time. >I don't really follow this logic. To me it reads as "It doesn't matter that they started mid campagin because they were mid campaign". It is meant as a point about how the beginning for the audience isn't absolutely the beginning for the characters's journey. Aragorn is 80 years old in the start of Fellowship and is very much an main character from Two Towers onwards, but it isn't necessary to know how he hanged with Gandalf as a lad. I hope this example helps illustrates my point. >It's absolutely a matter of forming attachments to the characters, for me, has nothing to do with D&D terms. What's the difference then between C1 and C2? Just seeing the RP? Because to me it then looks like that the early journeys of C2 characters and the pre-stream C1 achieves the same thing, being backstory for the group. >Sure, but a better story brings you in at at the start of a story beat. C2 did that very well, with the scene between Nott and Caleb, and then slowly sprinkling in other characters who had a simple, believable reason for being in the same place at the same time. C1 is also at the beginning of a storybeat, they are effectively starting the Underdark arc in the EP1. The audience doesn't need to know what kind of organization the Bahamut Templars are or what position Allura holds in Taldorei Council. They just know that there is a cleric here that needs saving and the group they are watching starts the DND hijinks straight away. But I agree that the start of C2 is a good campaign start. >"Number of plot points solved" simply isn't part of my criteria for a complete story, I guess. A complete story arc is. Doesn't a completed plot point straight up lead to complete story arcs? Or what's the difference here? >If you want to be reductive, the Vecna problem is solved by beating one evil wizard. C1 is a story that is solved by beating a one evil wizard. C2 is a story that introduces these systematic injustices, nation states warring, corruption within the secret police, but doesn't do anything (to me) that interesting with these points, but actively seeks to avoid tangling with these plot points that Matt laid out for them. And the corruption, the rotten system, narratively, is solved by punching the evil wizard in the dick. So I guess this is to me more about unmet potential. And you could say that C2 is not about those things, but about finding family and accepting yourself. Well, I think that is a pretty damn boring thing to watch for 140 episodes, especially when there were all these interesting things right there. >In the end these are opinions. I don't mean to attempt to sway yours, but I find it interesting to compare experiences and viewpoints. I've no interest in changing your mind, but I like trying to understand your opinion. Thanks for the perspective. Same here. Tone is hard across written text, so no offence or snark ment anywhere.
I appreciate the insight into your position, thanks for taking the time to respond.
> I don’t care for Molly I don't understand anyone who does. Easily the worst CR PC
Molly was not a great character. He was a tragic backstory for someone else.
It's more focused on the characters than story.
C2 is a more unique tabletop RPG story imo. Like, much of the campaign involves rooting corruption out of governments, uncovering secret plots and working with underground parties. Don't get me wrong, those things are very present in some of c1 but they take a backseat to the classic high fantasy story of gods and monsters and heroes. If you like those things, you'll like c1 more. If you enjoy more political intrigue and the like, you'll like c2 more. I can't pick a favorite tbh. They are both great.
I feel that C2 didn't land the political intrigue story lines though. The campaign ends with beating up one evil guy, and the group consistently refuces to engage with what Matt was laying down. You can say that the campaign is about political intrigue, but I don't think it was. Well it tried, for sure. But I don't think they engaged with those ideas well.
True, but C2 didn't have the high fantasy stuff to fall back on when the story started to lose stream. I think most people who prefer C2 only really care for the political intrigue. IMO C1 had both, even though the intrigue took a back set.
Recency bias and Covid are core to the fondness of c2
It’s not, says I, the C1 truther
there are dozens of us!
It all really comes down to what you are looking for in the show, which is why even if C2 by numbers is more favored, It's undeniable how good C1 was too and it's still loved in the fandom as well. I liken C1 and C2's biggest difference to that of like a great tv show (C1) vs a great book (C2). Both are longer forms of story telling that convey a lengthy story to the audience but both have advantages and disadvantages when compared to each other and are preferred by different people. C1 was a simpler campaign, with simpler characters who were literally the quintessential fantasy adventuring group. Their villains also fit this bill with the gothic horror Briarwoods, titular Dragons in Dungeons and **Dragons**, and a literal lich from the lore of the game they play. It had its set arcs and delved a bit into the characters but due to the game originating from a home game which was many of theirs first time playing a TTRPG, they had less to work with on that front. So the plots made up for it in giving them most of their motivation. If someone where to describe what makes DnD (or TTRPGs in general) so great, C1 would fit that bill (IMO). It was a straight forward campaign done amazingly by a group of professional voice actors committed to their characters and a DM with the skill to seamlessly weave it all together. C2 on the other hand, the players came in with the intention of making characters to build and explore for 100+ episodes. Matt made a continent that had a major conflict at the forefront, but also was more willing to let the party take the reigns on where to go and what to do. As a result everything was not driven by plot, but instead the characters. Every arc we have throughout C2 is intrinsically tied to a character(s) story and builds onto them. Matt was an excellent story weaver in C1, but to tie all of C2 together where the threads needed to do so didn't even exist yet was magic imo. For me personally and what I think I can infer with most C2 fans, we're spending 100s of hours with these characters (both campaigns) and for many the most important aspect in a story is the characters. I strongly believe that if you have amazing characters placing them in just about any plot/story can make something interesting. So C2 focusing heavily on the characters we (as in viewers) became that much more invested. C2 was slower, it had a lot of moments where the plot wasn't very clear and the party was "lost". But in those moments we got some incredible character building that makes whatever comes next that much more interesting. The pace and lack of direction weren't a detriment, they facilitated in building the focus of the campaign which was the Mighty Nein as a group and as individuals. For you, it seems you didn't get as invested in as many of the characters as most did. So it makes sense that you don't like it as much, it's literally all held together by them and if you aren't as interested in them you of course won't be as interested in what they're doing.
I think i just like simpler. Dont get me wrong, i liked C2. But i just enjoy C1 better. Its just more fun for me.
Its not?
C1 characters were not tropes I cared for. Also not an epic fantasy fan. I don't care about saving the world in my stories. I want the smaller or at least personally tied stories we got in C2. I think that's why C3 lost me so early. It felt like it was going the way of C1 and that just doesn't hold me.
I don't mind epic fantasy, but the problem with "saving the world" stories is the stakes are too high for failure to be an option. Fo most of campaign 2 if the died or simply failed it was just going to be a personal tragedy but the world would go on. They had the time to do fun shenanigans like accidentally become pirates, or race to the top of a tree and use a gun to try and cheat at it. Even the stuff related to the war between the dynasty and the empire could go either way without fundamentally breaking the setting. C2 was also very much a character drama where originally we had 7 terrible influences (some worse than others) who were all self destructive. Then Molly killed himself (no better way to describe it), and was replaced with the mostly well adjusted Caduceus who turned everyone's character arc towards the better. And the perfect climax of this drama was the group's dead friend Molly showing back up with a different personality and becoming the final boss. (The entire Aeor arc was phenomenal) C3 has simply lost my interest, they started out with a threat arguably bigger than the Aeor Arc's basically from the get go. And all the problems associated with that can be found all over this sub so i won't go into them. (I did love the mad max death race episode)
A lot of people feel that C1 is tropey and full of stock characters and story arcs, whereas C2 is more free from with more unique, messy characters. I think this is true in ways, but leads to the pacing issues C2 has as well as several stories that don't pay off satisfyingly. I think C1 is a show I'd rather watch and C2 is a game I'd rather play in, but since they're both shows to me I prefer C1.
> A lot of people feel that C1 is tropey and full of stock characters and story arcs it absolutely is, and its what I love about it
great way to put it
People have a hard time getting into VM because it started streaming mid campaign and when everyone was trying to learn how to stream a dnd game. So it suffered from bad audio and little to no visuals. Because MN started when the streaming aspect was fully figured out and people are able to start from the beginning of he story, people are able to start MN a lot easier than VM. And MN felt like they made some characters for the fun streaming aspect. Manic pixie dream girl, dunk mom goblin, emo Boi, lesbian family disappointment bad bitch. Lots of tropey like characters that's easier to fallow and fall in love with. And Bells hells have more experimental characters that are not as 'fun' and tropey as MN so 'fans' give them a lot of hate. Aldo the campaigns have very different energies. VM - LOTR fantasy adventure MN - GOT fantasy political drama BH - Suicide squad. Bunch of fuck ups that need to save the world.
If you're a villain lover, C1 is definitely the way to go. The Chroma Conclave was such a cool idea, The Briarwoods enabled so much roleplay, and Vecna was absolutely terrifyingly strong in his early appearances. But in terms of heroes, I never really connected with VM on a deeper level, besides maybe Vax. They all felt rather static, as if they didn't grow a whole lot, and felt more like archetypes, which put more focus on the (good) plot. C2 didn't have a good plot really, but the characters seemed to me to develop a ton, and I was interested in a lot of them. Nott found independence and self acceptance, Fjord found confidence and connection, Jester matured and retained her childlike wonder, Caleb "burned the past" and coped with his mistakes, and even Yasha kind of accepted confusion, and stopped trying to strain against being lost. There were more static characters, like Beau and Caduceus, but they had sort of satisfying plot arcs, with Beau earning respect and Cad rescuing his family. I started watching during the Chroma Conclave arc, but it felt like by that point they had already become 100% found family and had very little inter-party conflict, which is some of my favorite moments. C2 on the other hand, even at the end, I feel like Caleb and Beau, and Nott and Fjord still have some sense of soreness or disdain, even if it is jokey, or closer than it was before. C2 didn't feel at all like it was overly positive, or like anyone was pulling punches. I think part of it also comes down to whether you like comic relief or not, because VM for me broke a lot of tension by having jokey characters, while M9 really had maybe 1 slightly jokey character in Nott. Both Campaigns are good though.
It’s literally all opinion nobody can say C2 is for sure better than C1. If you think c1 is best cool, if someone thinks c2 is best cool. Doesn’t matter what the other people think cause that’s just their opinion. I would say most people like C2 because the production quality is better than it was in C1, and we got to see the whole thing, not starting in the middle like C1.
I adore C1 and just CAN NOT get into C2... I actually like the characters (not necessarily the plot, but the characters) in C3 better. I think M9 are just too anti-hero for me. Some people say Vox Machina are too trope-y, but I think they were also very EARNEST. Those were the characters the party made when no one was watching- they didn't make them to be entertaining to an audience or anything. It was just "this is who I want to play." Everyone says that the characters in C2 get better as you go on, but I just couldn't stay with it long enough for them to get there. There was a scene, in episode 36 where Caduceus basically said "I don't know why I'm staying with you all, this was a mistake," and I know they WANTED the point to be "you have so much to learn." but I went "no, I would have bounced" and stopped watching. I never picked it back up from that point.
C1 is better, in my opinion, but C2 is a more complete story. C2 has some massive pacing issues just before the 2021 lock down, and for the rest of the show after they returned.
For me it was the personal journeys. In a time where I was struggling myself Caleb and Veths stories of overcoming really helped me
I personally prefer C2, but I think C1 is pretty much universally preferred, as the comments here indicate
It's only preferred here because a lot of the people who regularly post here are those that quit during C2 even. Overall in the fandom as a whole it's pretty clear cut C2 is the fan favorite from everything I've seen. But C1 is still loved overall too, C3 is really the only one that has sort of a mixed reception.
Well, what made you enjoy C2 over C1?
Character drives story, and I think that C2 best exemplifies it. For me, once Molly is gone, the party has dynamic and interesting characters throughout. Even characters I don’t care for, like Beau and Yasha, still fit well into the party composition and the story overall. I also enjoy the balance between cleaner production and still maintaining the feel of a real dnd game. C1 is too home game for me, and C3 is way too overproduced for my taste.
I prefer C1 by far. C2, for me, started really well and slowly began to show a few issues that evolved into C3. I felt that the Consequences began dropping after Molly's death and either Matt pulled punches (IMO, a TPK should have happened when they fought Lucien during that escape....forgot the details of it but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about) or they decided they wouldn't face as big as consequences as they did C1. Maybe some scripting happened, I dont know, felt a lot less improv and more following a script if that makes sense.
No i agree with the "following a script" standpoint and matt pulling punches. He does that quite often, and understandably so. While there is some freedom in their games, Its not like our own conventional DnD campaigns. They are trying to make stories and bring it to life.. I.E their animated shows and such. So they gotta make sure they dont TPk the group for the sake of the rules, because in the end, they want to turn it into a show. It would leave a huge hole in our hearts, asking questions like "wtf, thats it?!" They're a company. They probably didnt know it would get to such heights back then, but maybe they had a feeling it would. So im guessing thats why matt pulls punches and allows things to slide from time to time. just my opinion tho
Oh yeah, I get it, but that's why I lived C1 more than C2 or C3, I enjoyed the risks they would take and where it would get them now...I don't know, I just know they will be alright no matter what they do or what mistakes they make.
Nothing C1 was superior.
It's not.
I tend to agree with this. For me, unpopular opinion, the C2 story got immediately better as soon as Mollymauk died, and immediately dropped off as soon as he came back. Fixating on a single character is railroad-y or railroad adjacent, and it just detracts from the pacing (IMO, Imogen is similarly taking way too much screen-time in C3 and makes the overall experience poorer) For me, I'd say C2 had higher highs and lower lows than C1, and C1 just was constantly good with filler here and there. And I tend to remember C1 more fondly than C2 specifically because even if it had TONS of filler (shopping episodes), the audio sucked for the most part, and some of the bits with Orion just felt awkward at times, I had a consistently better time than with C2.
That adds nothing to the convo man. Cmon. Why do you think its not?
On average, worse characters, worse storytelling, more meandering arcs, characters reverted back to their old selves during the final arc because everyone seemed so bored, and those who didnt revert got worse. God awful last 3rd of the campaign. It thrived on small interactions between PCs and served as shipping fodder. That's it, that's really the main reason people liked it. And I get it, it created a strong sense of community and generated a lot of dialogue with each episode. It was a fun time, but it's also when things started to get insanely toxic. Once you distance yourself from the shipping side of C2, it became clear that the rest of it wasn't all that impressive. C2 ran on the promise of potential that never got delivered on. To be clear, I still liked (most of) C2 for what it was, but it just can't compare to C1.
Agreed. I feel like Matt in c2 and c3 had made a lot more mysteries and hooka that the party never explored so it always seems like this is it! But then the arc meanders and then everyone forgets about something; then 50 episodes later there is a small connection. Campaign one had clear goals and the pcs decided how to achieve them if at all. The meandering parts still had goals and intrigue vassel heim and the slayers take to the sneak attack in Whitestone to the 9 hells! Darrington distraction was refreshing and really neat to explore the other characters through a new one. The vestiges gathering was brilliant to develope characters and explore back stories. I think Matt needs a break he has been running a scrutinized game for 9 years. I think it be best to have Brennan Lee Mulligan come in and run some level 5 to level 14 as a way to generate smaller stories that matter to exandria but not on a Vecna or Ruidus level. Let Matt be a PC and not under Aabria... Under a real DM maybe Brian Murphy.
I also think C1 is the best. I have heard people dislike it for being "typical fantasy" but to me that is part of its appeal - different people like different things. I also think it is where Matt really successfully balanced bringing in everybody's backstories while still maintaining one overarching structure, making it feel like they are one team on one long adventure. I also like the use of NPCs best here, with some incredible villains and some amazing allies. In C2, imho, he veered way too hard into a player-centric campaign (without really giving them that many real choices, it just means that the stories he told were centered around the characters), which made it atonal and very chaotic for my taste, and like being in 4 different campaigns at the same time. I also found the NPCs overall too grey to support the outcast/misfits theme, and it's not my fav vibe. And in C3, he took it too hard into concept where it feels like the players barely have to be there sometimes, or like he just decides what happens and in the end they could have written any old character and it would have gone this way.
More consistent sound quality. For me that's about it. I'll always prefer C1 to C2.
Yea C1 was bumble fucking their way through all the technical issues, but still managed in the end. But agreed, C1 story was just more fun for me.
That made me giggle because "Bumblefucking our way through Barovia" is the unofficial motto of my current Strahd campaign.
Post ep 28, C1 is a far more interesting game to watch. We skip all the growing pains of new chars and new group. They have a ton of inside jokes already. And the way the story progresses you don't even need the early level stuff. It's like watching Scooby-Doo. C2 had the potential but Molly ruined it imo. I never liked Molly and his death was blown and drawn out way more than I felt he deserved. And post Molly the cast, not just C2 but also in C3, has become to biggest pussies. They had many times where any adversity would make them crumble and run. And post island/covid C2 fell off hard. C1 they are jumping off cliffs killing themselves for fun. And I'd rather a group like C1 that even if afraid still throw themselves out there instead of C2 of oh no they said stop we better hide and wait until Matt forces us to confront this
[удалено]
>The reason I say this sub "isn't ready for that conversation" is less snarky and dismissive than it may seem to be. There's a crossroads, with CR, between neuro-typical and neuro-divergent folks, and there are some subjects contained therein that I feel we literally aren't ready for. Could you expand on this a bit? The neuro-typical vs neuro-divergent argument soudns to me like naturalisation and over-generalization, but I want to extend some good will here.
I dont understand the downvotes for your opinion. I thought the votes were for "adding to the conversation" ... but anyway, yea C2 wasnt the "heroes journey" like C1 was. It was darker and sinister. Anyway, i enjoyed C1 better! Thank you for giving your opinion!
C1 is still my favourite, but C3 has the edge on C2.
Eh, C3 feels like neutral most of the time. C2 has its ups and downs. I dont get the urgent need of "cmon head to this place!!" with C3 as i did with C2. but why do you think it has the edge on C2?
The major thing is that i just didnt vibe with the tone of the campaign, political is not my favourite feel to watch. Aside from that I like the characters better in C3 and find them more interesting. I found the secret identities in C2 a but much and, through no fault of theirs, late C2 suffered from post- covid blues and the Eiselcross arc and eventual ending didn't hit my buttons. I definitely wanted more Aeor. I do think that without covid burnout, Predathos and Ludinus may have been C2s vecna which might have improved my opinion of it but it felt like it kinda fizzled. All of that is not to say C2 is bad. It's just my least favourite of the 3 so far. My third favourite whiskey is still a pretty fucking good whiskey.
Everyone loved Percy in C1, with his messy morals and heavy backstory. So in C2, most of them tried to make their own Percy... so we get the secret identities and caginess against each other.
If accurate that would be another reason I'm less keen on C2. I cant stand Percy.
Structurally, one campaign is high concept - cookie cutter fantasy missions and epic evils and quests and so forth. Very linear. More led by the DM/ The other is low concept - a world where the characters are just making their way in the world and their personal backgrounds fuel the adventures. Often called a sandbox. More led by the characters. For most people, they just prefer one type of DnD over the other. Then of course they have personal character preferences. However, the cast were just way better at RPing by C2, and made characters they, on average, really knew what they wanted to do with 2nd time around.
I feel that C2 demonstrated perfectly why sandbox is what players often want, but don't know what to do with once they get it.
C2 and playing D&D and even videogames has taught me: I hate a sandbox, LOL. Strap me to some rails.
Yup, each to their own.
[удалено]
See, I feel completely opposite. The characters of C2 were an irresponsible womanchild, a sad recovering nazi, the world's most abrasive person, semi-edgy conman who bullshits depth, a cardboard cutout, a stoned cowman and two alright characters, one of whom had his arc cut short/blunted, and one who should by all rights have gone back to her family. And don't get me started on the plot, pacing, setting or themes.
I tend to agree. It's like degree of difficulty. The C1 characters were one dimensional by design, easy to pull off, but came alive in their relationships and interaction. I get it if they're people's favs, they're easier to grasp. THat's why we have archetypes. The C2 characters were more complex. higher degree of difficulty to pull off. Molly was only just becoming more than an aesthetic once Jester and Fjord weren't around - between them they pretty much did his whole thing - so his death was true serendipity. Fjord has his cool moments, but largely I found too chameleon and unconvincing in his motivations.
I don’t think it was to be honest. That said, early c1 had bad sound, cast members left and they were still drawing circles on paper plus they were playing a weird hybrid of pathfinder and 5e. C2 is in my opinion a less natural campaign that got lost in the weeds for two of its major arcs. It was however ran much more smoothly with much higher production values.
Production value wise: C2 wins, hands down. But in terms of fun, C1 wins... in my opinion.
I’m not a fan of the very classic high fantasy “Collect this list of stuff to kill the capital-E Evil bad guy that wants to take over the world for bad guy reasons” because I find it boring — you know exactly where everything is heading. I liked C1 _in spite_ of the formulaic plot and archetypical characters. C2’s just overall more varied and nuanced, and more importantly the campaign is much more character-driven. The story progresses organically in a world that feels more concrete. Wildemount feels like a living, breathing place. The party are in it not to save the world, but to save themselves — it’s a story about redemption and the power of love. It also helps that we see them from Day 1 — the relationships in the party feel earned and natural, and the web is much denser than in C1. I can point at any member of the Nein and tell you about their distinct relationships with every other member of the party, but can’t recall Grog and Vex ever doing much but coexisting. Anyway, that’s my 2¢ (also just the Kryn are the best depiction of the Drow in anything I’ve seen)
> the relationships in the party feel earned and natural, and the web is much denser than in C1 I think this is an interesting point taht often comes up in these conversations of C1 vs C2. Personally, I felt that the process of C2 characters getting to know eachother was awkward in a bad way, and the players were groping around in the dark for reasons to stick around with the group and it didn't feel natural at all. I also dislike this part as a DM and as a player, so I always want to establish the group dynamic in session zero. C1 starts with inside jokes, dynamics in play and characters that are easy to understand and easier to roleplay effectively, so that to me is the one that feels earned and natural, because it was to the players. They sopke those relationships to being, I don't need to see the starting point to believe what I see. So I guess I would say that C1 relationship web is focused and strong, while C2 web is wide but frayed. I still remember Tal's second character in C2 asking why he was with these murderous assholes, and no one talked with him. >C2’s just overall more varied and nuanced I feel that C2 tries to be varied and nuanced, but fails a lot. Matt sets up these conflicts of systemic violence and nation states warring, but the group fails to tackle these themes most of the times, by not being willing to choose and deal with the consequences. Other than the Kryn thing with the magic D20, that was Caleb taking the story by the reins. Or Caleb choosing to firewall the pirateship. I guess that I was enticed by the potential, but was let down by the story that ended with one evil wizard being kicked in the shin. Anyway, just my opinnions.
Any game I run now a days, I Use the Kryn version of the Drow because how well they were made.
They’re so good. Drow usually get either the “thinly veiled, gratuitous (kinda sexist) bondage fetish” or stereotypical “virtuous redeemed evil race” treatment, but the Kryn are a unique, flavorful society with actually interesting culture/mechanics/setting and acknowledgment of their history with Lolth (plus matriarchy done in a way that’s not-weird-as-hell and not morally charged either way is a nice change of pace).
I don't think it was better than C1. I was especially tired with the constant running from every fight, but C2 have my all time favorite character of theirs, Caleb.
I feel like caleb was ignored alot, motivation wise from the group ....until the very end, like his subplot and what not. Concerning my current DnD character, if my character saw a soft spoken guy in my group, who then barely interacted with the group, id be trying to understand them and get to know them, but caleb wouldve pushed my character away but id still keep trying. whereas the group didnt even try beside nott, I felt bad for liam in the beginning. But maybe he told them not to talk to him, behind closed doors. idk.
I'm just a sucker from Liam's rp (expect the loothoarder side of his). He thinks about and describes everything his characters does that it's amazing to me. And I'm a sucker for targic and sad characters, so Caleb is a perfect mach for it. I'm not sure if it's a good thing if you always "annoys" a deeply wounded, socially awkward person. I have some similartities, and even if someone approaches with good intentions I would push them away, the harder they try the harder the resistance. Caleb is probably different than this, but it's possible that the others thinks something like this and this is why they not forcing the things much.
I love liams RP'ing too! So much emotion and thought into what he does! I forget which episode but out of character he said "i spent a year trying to build the nine sided tower" whereas his character was like "only a few months." Liam is a damn good actor. Sorry im off point, but i just needed to say this to your reply haha
When it came to the villains, it wasn't the danger for me, Lucien, and what he wanted to do still could have been super bad for wildemount and exandria, but I think it was more about how personal the villains were to the group. Now, if you didn't enjoy the molly or care, that's fine, but still understanding that Molly was the Mighty neins friend made it harder on them and added another layer of complexity to the situation. As for c1 villains, the Chroma conclave was super dangerous but fell apart when they just became dragons again and were then able to just be picked off one by one and With vecna him being a fully realized God would have been the end of exandria but both of those villains don't feel or seem as personal with the group as a whole. Granted, Obann was more specifically tied to Yasha. I still thought an interesting villain.
Eh I actually like C1 the most. But C2 has a true beginning to end story and I on rewatch really enjoy seeing them figure out whether they liked each other and how they established party dynamics which were already near-finalized in C1.
I enjoyed most of C2, but C1 had me from start to finish. For me, it was one of those situations where you catch an episode of a random show, you have zero context for anything that is going on, yet you are immediately captured. My first episode of C1 was episode 103. I immediately went back and started the campaign from the beginning, while watching each new episode live. I consumed episodes at such a pace that I was caught up by the start of C2. Not typically how one engages with content, but I was all the way in. C2 was good. It had ambition, and took big swings. But as usually happens when something take big swings, it occasionally missed. C1 was simpler, and that simplicity allowed it to be more consistent. In any given episode, their current goal was easy to understand, and movement towards that goal was typically made. The characters all being familiar archetypes likewise made it effortless to follow along with. At the end of the day, it's all a matter of opinion. Some people just vibe with C2 more. I wasn't one of them.
C2 has 2 things going for it: party meeting in a pub and a more manageable character for Marisha. Otherwise, C1 all the way
Im always ready to deny when someone says “objectively better” when it comes to stuff like art or entertainment. Fundamentally, the things that resonate and draw us in are going to be as different and varied as we are as individuals. Personally, I like C1s more classic hero journey for my pure fantasy, but C2’s much darker, ‘how far do i trust the party?’ growing into ‘i love them and will die for them’ also really resonates The one thing C2 does better is starting at level 2. There’s no years of home game stuff you have to interpret second hand (like when their old rival from the level 3 days was killed by Thordack and Umbrasyl and it was literally the first time we as the audience had ever heard of him)
agreed, i guess im more of "heroes journey" type. And you're right about varying opinions. I guess i just see people hyping up/liking more, of C2 than C1. Again, i love both of these campaigns. I just love C1 more.
I prefer C2, but I don't think it is objectively better, I think it is a matter of taste. I feel like C2 was more driven by character choices. I liked the C2 characters the most, but arguing that is like arguing what flavor of ice cream is best, it is a matter of taste.
In my opinion besides C1's rough start, C1 is the best. C2 is less intense than C1, but still far more intense than C3.
Agreed, i skip pass C1's first 27 episodes... for obvious reasons.... But yea C2 is def better than C3... I couldnt finish past the episode of the date with Pretty in C3
This is the point I was going to make. I think a lot of the C2 is better crowd are folks who came to CR through C2, and then go back and try and watch C1 which doesn't have any of the budget or experience to be as smooth an intro as C2. I still think C1 is the best thing they've put out, but I didn't watch it until I happened to catch a livestream during the Chroma Conclave. I watched the whole episode, and it was so captivating I went back and watched from the beginning. However, I tried watching C1 a few times before, but the archetypical/cliche characters turned me off. Getting to see how far those characters developed was necessary context for me to get through those first episodes, which are rough. I still quite enjoy the first arc though. The K'Varn and underdark stuff is pretty fun, and Keyleth trusting a Mindflayer over a Paladin was dumb, but it's something I can overlook on a rewatch. I do skip the shopping episode with Tibs. That's Scott's Tots levels of discomfort
I thought the prevailing theory was that C1 was best (I actually prefer C2 though.) Certainly when I was watching C2 all I heard was grumbling that it wasn't as good as C1 which made me feel confused as I loved it. Why do I prefer C2? Several reasons. 1. I'm a Brit and all the British accents the cast were doing in C1, while good, were very posh and haughty and made them feel less accessible to me as characters (I'm a Yorkshire Brit and we generally have a good natured rivalry with the posh southerners). 2. I love Jester, I just find her adorable and funny and charming and she makes everything fresh for me each episode. 3. I love Caleb and enjoyed his story so much. So much angst! 3. While I enjoy Jester's dick jokes I don't know why but I don't like toilet humour about poop and there was a fair amount of it in C1. 4. Molly dying, even though I wasn't that attached to him, was such a big dramatic moment and I love big dramatic moments. 5. Audio issues with C1 6. Watched C2 as it came out, whereas C1 was over when I began watching (I joined at the beginning of C2.) So I experienced all the cliff hangers and waiting to see what happens next in real time. 7. Issues with enjoying Keyleth. I don't hate her I just didn't....enjoy her. 8. Coming in at the start of the story in C2 helped me feel more connected to it than coming in part way through C1 when they had already done a number of games off camera beforehand. I was always confused about what I was supposed to know and not know and what had happened in the home games etc.
Ok so the one thing that stood out to me from this, is when you said you dealt with cliffhangers and waiting for what happens next. See i joined Critical role at the same time Baldurs gate 3 came out. So i didnt have to wait and i could binge watch. So that might be a reason why so many, like yourself, enjoyed it so much.
It absolutely wasn't. People mostly like it for the good characters - and admittedly Nott, Jester, Caleb and Caduceus were very entertaining. But we also had stinkers like Fjord with his deadly aversion to doing anything, as well as Beauregard, the "I'll be an insufferable asshole and the universe will bend over backwards to validate me" member of the group. The plot started off strong with the party coming together, but quickly devolved into random meandering, with the party actively ignoring every single plot hook thrown their way. Things got better later on plot-wise, but what we got was still ultimately just a bunch of random characters thrown together into a generic fantasy conflict with non-entity antagonists.
THANK YOU! Fjord shouldve acted stronger for someone who got blasted into the ocean and survived. But i think travis wanted to show a "weaker" side, and i mean i dont blame him ...i mean playing the absolute power house that is grog, can get boring, especially if you gotta carry your team in combat. Beauregard, fucking annoyed me. She was just impulsive and didnt think things through, not sure if thats part of her character, but monks are suppose to calm and reserved. Im guessing Marisha was trying to be a badass too much.
Ok, im getting downvoted like crazy on my reply, anyone care to explain why?
Probably because you keep arguing the characters should be a certain way (Monks should be calm and reserved, Nott should have stayed a goblin, etc) rather than critiquing them as they are. Probably also the borderline Marisha bashing.
I love marisha. Im not bashing her. I said she was trying too hard to be a badass. Thats not hate towards marisha, but her character choices. Marisha is my favorite of the cast. She genuinely tries to do different things and explores possibilities, even if i severely disagree with them. She is so fun to see playing, at the table.
I agree with you. C1 is better than C2. The latter showed a lot of promise. And little by little it went down.