#after the tweeter proposes the CA should have been the final arc of the game

[luckthebard]

I'm gonna say something potentially controversial here, but I've been thinking a lot about some of the complaints regarding the final story arc of campaign 2. And I think it would really benefit a lot of the fandom to consider how much of that disappointment came from the tension between expectations of written narrative story beats that need to be resolved, and the reality that what we're all watching is not a traditionally crafted narrative, but a D&D game.

To get a bit more specific: The idea that the Cerberus Assembly was "abandoned" as a plot point or final arc is the one I see most often. But let's imagine what that would have looked like. Going after Ludinus and Trent would not have involved direct confrontation. It would have been of high importance to two characters (Beau and Caleb) far more than others, and utilized their skillsets more. It would have had quite a few moments of stalled momentum and downtime, because it's not a situation that lent itself to epic battle, but rather a politically delicate one requiring patience. Furthermore, for all that some people love to accuse some of the players of "main character syndrome," ending the campaign with an arc like that would absolutely have prioritized some characters over others, and given other players relatively little to do. And that's something important to consider, as a DM.

And that's sort of the crux of it. I'm far from belonging to the twitter ttrpg crowd that hates on D&D as a system every chance it gets, but the fact is D&D is a system that is better at supporting some kinds of narratives over others - just on the level of making sure everyone at a table can participate equally and have fun! And while D&D could support a slow-burn espionage arc, if you really wanted it to, that is not the kind of story I would run as a DM for 7 players, particularly if it's the kind of story that would lead to several of the characters best positioned sitting around and doing nothing. (As an aside, I could totally see a CA arc like that working far better at a smaller table. The effectiveness of the system is also related to the dynamics at the table and the number of players.) As a DM, one of the first priorities is to make sure all of your players feel engaged, involved, and that they can be active participants in the narrative, and feel heroic. The Somnovum arc was not only something that called and tied back to a lot of the themes of the whole campaign, it was also connected emotionally to every character through Lucien/Molly. That is absolutely not true of the Cerberus Assembly, which is why I'm of the opinion that, had the CA been the final arc of the campaign, it would have fallen flat.

This is the same issue around "why didn't they do a full game session resolving Zeenoth and Beau's dad?" - because while as a narrative that trial would have been interesting for Beau, what would the other players have been doing in such a scenario of several gaming sessions besides just sort of sitting around or getting into trouble and "derailing" the main focus? (And this is almost another point entirely, but I think this is at least some of the problem some people had watching the episode where Caduceus reunites with his family - that was very heavily RP focused on one character, and so when other players at the table were asked what they were doing in order to keep them engaged, they took actions that viewers perceived as taking away from what would have, in a traditional narrative, been the sole focus of the whole 4 hours - Caduceus RPing with his family. Tension, again, between traditional narrative expectations and storytelling through a gaming system.) At the end of the day, Critical Role is a D&D game, and as a game it is going to shift toward and support some narrative pathways more than others simply because that is the best way to keep all of the players involved and playing a game.

And here's the final thing: neither of those two storylines I pointed to actually got "dropped" - they were just RPed and addressed in the epilogue, which largely operated outside of the confines of the game system and focused more on pure, individualized RP. Matt even said something to this effect in the wrap-up -- the Cerberus Assembly take-down would probably work better as a story outside of the confines of D&D. It's, frankly, a little weird to me how often I still see people claiming these things "weren't addressed" when the epilogue clearly spent time making sure they were. I would read the hell out of a "Caleb and Beau take down corrupt government officials" book. Likewise, I think "Beau and Yasha wander the wastes of Xhorhas" would make a brilliant comic book. If the D&D game is the structure for the story, then yeah, some individual character narrative beats might not get resolved in the game itself. That's what the epilogue was for! And the reason I think this happened in C2 in a way it didn't in C1 was, the C2 characters were created differently and just individually had more complicated narratives and problems. C2 pushed a little more against the confines of what D&D is able to accomplish in supporting a narrative, which was both fascinating to watch and just exposed the difference between traditional narratives and gameplay narratives all the more.