Talk:Critical Role campaign two

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 March 2021 and 15 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brenhaze21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why does this List article exist separately from the Critical Role article?
After multiple discussions on Talk:Critical Role (1, 2, 3) about the length of plot summaries (100+ episodes for each campaign), consensus was to spin out a list article for episodes due to WP:SPINOFF & MOS:TVSPLIT. This ongoing project started at Draft:List of Critical Role episodes and discussion there led to the decision to spilt campaign 1 & 2 into separate list articles (see also MOS:TVOVERVIEW "Multiple pages"). Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 January 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved  (t · c)  buidhe  05:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Critical Role (campaign two) → The Mighty Nein – The current title is not really specific enough. This is effectively the second season of Critical Role, but as it focuses on a group of adventurers knowm by the name "The Mighty Nein", that seems like a more accurate title. Alternatively, "The Mighty Nein (Critical Role)" might work. 1.129.104.85 (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The current title follows the Wikipedia style for TV shows (WP:TVSEASON, WP:CRITERIA - Consistency). While this is a web series, we've been following the TV style conventions in this article and the other related CR articles (such as List of Critical Role episodes). The series is named Critical Role not "The Mighty Nein". Even their spinoff comicbook includes Critical Role in the official title (see Critical Role: Vox Machina Origins). It might be appropriate to add a "Mighty Nein" redirect to this article. We could also add further details at Critical Role (disambiguation) if needed. Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment @: while following the conventions of most television series makes sense, I think that the nature of Critical Role means that these conventions make sense up to a point, but then they become restrictive (which is why I suggested the rename). For one, there are over a hundred episodes in a single "season", and with every episode being longer than a feature film, following things like MOS:PLOT is practically impossible. So renaming this article something like "Campaign Two: The Mighty Nein (Critical Role)" makes a lot of sense to me. 1.129.104.49 (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment @IP user (1.129.104.85/1.129.104.49): I disagree that size means we can't follow MOS:PLOT. For example, One Piece has 1000+ chapters in the manga and it handles the size by splitting up their list articles: Lists of One Piece chapters, List of One Piece chapters (1–186), List of One Piece chapters (807–current), etc. Also, WP:RS refer to campaigns 1 & 2 so that's the acceptable nomenclature in coverage of the show (ex: 1, 2, 3) in addition to how the show refers to itself (see dropdown menus that list "campaign 1" & "campaign 2"): https://critrole.com/filter/campaign-2/. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note @IP user (1.129.104.85/1.129.104.49): This comment is a bit off topic but you might benefit from creating an account rather than continuing to edit anonymously since your IP address has changed between your proposed move & your follow up comment. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose page move. I am not seeing the argument that the current article title is not specific enough. It unambiguously and concisely identifies the article topic and complies with convention. However, support creation of redirects for plausible search terms as appropriate. Lowercaserho (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – whilst I'm not tied to the current title; it seems WP:PRECISE enough. If we want more specificity in the title; Critical Role: The Mighty Nein campaign would be better than "The Mighty Nein" (IMO). If we do that we should probably rename the campaign one article Critical Role: the Vox Machina campaign at the same time. The reason for suggesting having "campaign" in the title is down to the existence of the VM Origins comics - plus, if you'll forgive me for ignoring WP:CRYSTALBALL for a second, the forthcoming VM animated series and announced MN Origins comics. I know official names often count for naught, but I was curious as to what the CR channels call the campaign... Their Twitch channel uses "Critical Role Campaign 2", and their YouTube Channel uses "Campaign 2: The Mighty Nein". I could only find a single, third party source that referred to the second campaign as "The Mighty Nein". Little pob (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note I have dropped notes on the talk pages of WikiProject Television and WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons inviting more voices to join the discussion. Please notify any other projects/editors that you feel might be interested, but bare in mind WP:CANVASS. Little pob (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose — if anything, it should be moved to a variation of the existing, "Critical Role (Campaign 2)", "Critical Role: Campaign 2", etc. This title is already specific enough. In fact, the proposed is very unspecific: is this referring to the Mighty Nein campaign, the fictional adventuring group, the upcoming Mighty Nein Origins comics? Also, per WP:COMMONNAME this campaign is referred to in the official channels, in RSes per Sariel, and even in my personal experience in the relevant online spaces as "Campaign 2". ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just expanding on reasoning for why my suggestions. Personally, I think that per general guidance from WP:NUMERAL and the style used by the official channels, it should be at Critical Role Campaign 2 or Critical Role: Campaign 2. I have no preference between the colon punctuation or not, but the campaign is never referred to with the word spelled out, it uses the numeral, and typically it uses the capitalized C in campaign. The prior suggestion of Campaign 2: The Mighty Nein (Critical Role) doesn't follow any coherent article naming convention, which is unaffected by how much plot length will be here; the series is introduced at the top of every episode as Critical Role, so it makes sense to foreground that as the first part of the title. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  00:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment - There is current consensus that a move to the proposed title is opposed. However, there have been a few proposals for alternate titles, as well as a simultaneous RM discussion in relation to Season 1 which may also have an impact upon this article. Hence, relisting to enable further discussion and a clearer consensus to emerge across both articles. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Arc designations?
Where did the arc designations come from? I may have simply missed them, but all arc designations I know of are entirely fan organized, which makes them inappropriate as segmentations here. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure were they've come from. They arc names and episode splits differ somewhat from those I've seen on the Fandom wiki and Reddit though. (I'm not suggesting we switch to using those, as both are listed as "unreliable" on the WP:RSPSRC list). Little pob (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, those are what I was thinking of. If there isn't anything officially dividing the arcs up, then I propose we just remove them entirely. Either way, it's wholly inappropriate for the plot section, which should just be written straight through. The episode list is very long, so there's merit to separating the list into subsections. I propose doing so by years aired or in 50 episode chunks. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  22:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm removed the arc separations from the article and divided the episode list into years, which actually happens to separate them into chunks of ~50. (Well, more like 40-46ish.) This should make the list decent to navigate without relying on non-official / fannish arc splits. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  03:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Following up here rather than at List of Critical Role episodes just to keep the conversation in one place. This source for campaign 1 specifically calls out the "Briarwood" arc & the "Attack of the Conclave" arc with episode numbers. Also, most coverage of the animated show mentions the Briarwood arc in the context of it being adapted (for example: 1,2). I think breaking it down by year works for now but for campaign 2, we should keep an eye out for their new show Crit Recap Animated which will recap specific arcs. That will give us the official breakdown. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Tis true, 'tis true. It crossed my mind, but the lack of such divisions and "arc names" for every single arc makes it sort of useless in the episode listings, though it's absolutely useful in the context of discussion specific episode chunks. I think until then, we should steer clear of arc designations until there's an official breakdown for all of them, such as in the Recap Animated as mentioned. Will keep an eye out. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  05:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Crit Recap Animated has dropped two episodes so far (the first in February, the second in April): Come Together (Campaign 2, Episodes 1-8) and Secrets of Zadash (Episodes 9-16). At that release rate, it'll be ages until we have the full official list of arcs so I guess I'll plan to check back in on this in like a year. Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Critical Role's Campaign 2 wrap up is including official arc designations so I'll work on that over the next few days. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little wary of using the designations from the wrap up show. I didn't get the impression that they were set-in-stone official names for and demarcations of the arcs so much as just what they were informally using for that one show. If they start using the same names elsewhere or if other reliable sources start echoing them, then absolutely we should adopt them as well, but I think it would be premature to do so now. Lowercaserho (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree in part because a) they refer to the various arcs by number when talking about the arcs during the wrap up show and b) on each arc title page they included a formal arc name which makes it seem official (at least to me). The episode is behind the Twitch paywall but should be on YouTube by Monday if anyone else wants to verify the following breakdown:

Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Arc 1: Episodes 1-25 - Come Together
 * Arc 2: Episodes 25-47 - The Bad Guys
 * Arc 3: Episodes 48-69 - The Bright Queen's Favor
 * Arc 4: Episodes 70-91 - Swords and Angels
 * Arc 5: Episodes 92-112 - Family Ties
 * Arc 6: Episodes 113-141 - Weird Magic
 * Well, given that we're in a situation where we're using a primary source and where two reasonable individuals acting in good faith can disagree over the interpretation of that source, I would still urge caution. If you do want to use this, it's probably better to state the source rather than repeating it in wiki-voice. That is, something along the lines of "in a post-campaign wrap-up show, the show was split into the following arcs" rather than "the show has these arcs". That said, this is also probably something where other opinions would be helpful, as and when people have an opportunity to watch the show. Lowercaserho (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * So, here's something I've been thinking about: do we actually NEED to use arc designations? It strikes me now, thinking about it, as too WP:INUNIVERSE. No other series divides this way, and the year divisions are reasonably short enough sections. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Quick update: Not that I think we need to necessarily change from the year breakdown to an arc breakdown, but their new streaming service Beacon uses the arcs titles which were used in the 2021 wrap-up show (https://beacon.tv/series/campaign-2-the-mighty-nein; click on Episodes and they popup in a dropdown menu). Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Synopsis/Plot
I just reduced the plot section a bit but it still needs to be reduced by ~400-500 words per MOS:TVPLOT. However, technically, it is suppose to be a prose summary (500 words) or an episode by episode summary in the table (200 words per episode) but not both. Given the length of Critical Role, I think it makes sense to have both as an exception to the style guideline. We could also consider moving the reduced prose plot summary to the List of Critical Role episodes. Thoughts? Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; I know you're going off MOS:TVPLOT given the episodic structure, but I think it's worth looking at MOS:FILMPLOT as well given that individual episodes (like "Fair-weather Faith") can be as long as two films. MOS:FILMPLOT says the following:
 * ''"Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range."
 * I think Critical Role definitely qualifies for this. One of the trickiest things that I have found is being able to summarise a plot without actually knowing what is relevant at the time. Case in point, Gelidon's return. When Gelidon appeared during the Uthodurn arc, I don't think anyone anticipated her coming back like this (but I discovered the show during lockdown, so maybe more experienced critters could). I then had to go back and add Gelidon to the relevant episodes and it's easy to lose track of the word count. Likewise, there are elements that seem important but never really go anywhere, such as the clearly abusive relationship between Jester and Artagan (I'll never know why M9 didn't kill him on Rumblecusp). Why do you think I added the "setting" sub-section? It was because episode summaries contained references to the Clovis Concord without actually explaining what that was. Likewise, there are key characters played by Mercer&mdash;Essek springs to mind&mdash;that I think need to be established in the article before popping up mid-synopsis. So I think we do need some kind of campaign summary early in the article. 1.144.109.66 (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * More granular details like that, such as Gelidon, don't need to be in the plot section as they are fine existing in the episode summaries themselves. The plot section is for the most broad and over-arching details of the plot, for as long as the plot section exists. I wonder if there's a way to push the article toward a "Synopsis" and list of episode structure, in the way that Firefly (TV series) is formatted, where "Synopsis" isn't really a plot summary but rather a broad overview of the format and premise of the series as a whole. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  06:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I like User:TenTonParasol's Firefly example. I kind of think the setting section is unnecessary since Exandria exists. The main thing is that this article already has episode by episode summaries. We don't need to get bogged down in undue details (see WP:PLCUT, MOS:PLOT, & WP:FANCRUFT) and there are other websites (the Fandom Wikia comes to mind) which go into greater detail. For example, I think mentioning Gelidon in the prose summary is unnecessary since the party has had about 2 encounters with the dragon versus Essek who has become a reoccurring NPC that the party often interacts with. Editors will probably always have to go back and update summaries as key context changes. That's just the nature of Wikipedia. Side notes: I think you would benefit from making an account & you should use edit summaries when you edit both article & talk pages. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think having a brief setting section is worth having, just to contextualize relevant details about the plot here. I do think the setting section is in a good place right now, but I generally agree that it should not get too into the weeds. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  06:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the "Firefly" example is a poor one because the series was cancelled mid-season. It never really got past its premise; the entire point of "Objects in Space" is that Mal accepts River as a member of his crew.
 * "For example, I think mentioning Gelidon in the prose summary is unnecessary since the party has had about 2 encounters with the dragon"
 * I agree. What I meant is that prior to "Fair-weather Faith", Gelidon was a dragon who appeared in a single episode, and the summary for that episode simply mentioned her as a dragon. However, the fight with Gelidon gave the Tombtakers the chance to steal the Bag of Holding and break the alliance, knowing that the Nein were weakened. Therefore, the fight is significant and it is more concise to refer to Gelidon by name in the episode outline. So that the reader is not left asking "who is Gelidon?", we had to go back and add Gelidon's name to the episode that she first appeared in. That's what I meant when I said that it was hard to anticipate what would be important.
 * ''"We don't need to get bogged down in undue details (see WP:PLCUT, MOS:PLOT, & WP:FANCRUFT)"
 * I'm well aware of these. But I have found that it pays to keep track of sub-plots in case they become plots. It makes writing the synopses a lot easier to keep them cohesive. When the Nein found the corrupted arboretum, Mercer acknowledged that he did it deliberately to give Jaffe a plot thread to pull on. Whether or not he decides to follow through&mdash;and Mercer was surprised by Jaffe's reaction to it&mdash;remains to be seen. That does not mean that the arboretum should be ignored in the article.
 * "I do think the setting section is in a good place right now, but I generally agree that it should not get too into the weeds."
 * I'm of the same opinion, but would leave the door open to an expansion if need be. Say for the sake of argument that the Nein go from Eiselcross to Tal'Dorei and spend several episodes there (the other shackles binding Tharizdûn have to be somewhere), then extending the section to mention where in Tal'Dorei they go would be entirely justified. 1.144.109.66 (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My Firefly example is more for overall article structure, not for length of summary. If something later becomes relevant, then we do as other ongoing television articles do and insert earlier mention. It's not up to us to include every single detail in attempt to predict what may or may not become relevant. I think that makes me in agreement with you, 1.144.109.66. However, think the plot summary could be cut down a little bit more, but I don't think that's necessarily a big, big priority right now given Sariel did do a decent cut down already. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  06:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/1.144.109.66 & if either of you enjoy writing plot summaries, Critical Role (campaign one) still needs summaries for episodes  39-115. I did a chunk of them but in general, it's not my cup of tea. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't actually seen the first campaign, so I cannot be of any help there, unfortunately. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen it, either. I probably won't get around to it any time soon. 1.129.108.26 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Strained relationship
Regarding describing the relationship between Jester and Artagan as being "temporarily strained". It's objectively untrue that it was "never strained", I mean, Jester multiple times is literally crying from stress because she isn't sure what to do with the information that the Traveler is not an actual deity. It's important context as to the significance of the reveal in that sentence. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  04:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Jester cries when she cannot find pastries and she cries when someone nearly wipes the party out. Her only distress is as the thought of losing her powers. So I wouldn't read too much into it since she never questions the nature of their relationship. If you describe a relationship as being "strained", it suggests that there is tension between the parties to it. No such tension exists between Jester and the Traveller. She might be unsure about what to do with the knowledge that the Traveller is not a god, but she never actually makes a decision or does anything (to the point where Mercer pretty much has to break character as the Traveller). In her mind, she and the Traveller are always going to be together. 1.144.108.85 (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:TenTonParasol that "temporarily strained" is a good description. It starts around the reveal of his true identity (episode 94) & by the time they get to Rumblecusp you can definitely see the stress in their relationship (episode 103 makes that obvious). I like "temporarily" because towards the end of the Rumblecusp arc, Jester puts herself in mortal danger when clinging to the Traveler (episode 108). Regardless, let's avoid the edit warring. If we can't reach a consensus here, there's always Requests for comment. Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If you ask someone what they think a "strained relationship" means, and they're likely to tell you that it means a relationship where there is some kind of friction or tension between the people in it. Where is that friction or tensiom here? Jester is stressed by the revelation that the Traveller is not a god, but it never fundamentally changes their relationship. She stresses over the idea of losing her power&mdash;not whether she should give it up, but whether it would be taken from her&mdash;and she stresses over how best to help the Traveller, but there is no strain between them. She never challenges him for lying to her or considers any alternative to their relationship. 1.129.108.67 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Jester questions the nature and future of their relationship in 2.105: "And also, at the end of it, if he doesn't want to be a god, what does that mean for me and him? Or... I don't know. (sighs) I don't know."
 * Laura says in the Talks Machina for 2.108-109: "Jester always gave him the benefit of the doubt, and loves him with her entire heart, so if he would have not seen that what they were doing was not acceptable, in his own way, then Jester would have probably walked away. I don’t know if she would have walked away from him, but it would have been a big issue for her." It's a statement that Jester did indeed have issue with what Artagan was doing and the reason it didn't break was Artagan came around to where she was in the end, and these points are derived from the fact that the Traveler is not a real deity. Laura says that, the period of time covered there has pushed Jester to no longer adore him "without boundaries", signaling a change in the relationship.
 * She says in the Talks Machina for 2.94: "It’s complicated, yeah. I imagine it would be really hard to have the one person, the one entity, that you think you can let all of your guard down with and be yourself turn out to not be that anymore, and you realize you have to put on the mask for them as well."


 * These all point to there being a tension in the relationship that is derived from the reveal to Jester that he is not a real god and his asking for her help—and his asking for her help is, in turn, derived from his not being a real god. All anxieties that Jester experiences are derived from that he is not a real god. Jester feeling stressed, as a result of his asking for help because he is not a real god, indicates a tension in here somewhere. Someone openly challenging or arguing with someone is not the exclusive way a tension in a relationship develops or is expressed, and lack of open arguing does not necessarily prove lack of tension or lack of strain. And, again, a relationship that is strained is not exclusively a relationship that is considering being ended. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  00:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "And also, at the end of it, if he doesn't want to be a god, what does that mean for me and him? Or... I don't know. (sighs) I don't know."

That just demonstrates my point that she us stressed over the idea of losing her power, not losing the Traveler.
 * "It's a statement that Jester did indeed have issue with what Artagan was doing and the reason it didn't break was Artagan came around to where she was in the end, and these points are derived from the fact that the Traveler is not a real deity."

Which is not evident in Critical Role. Artagan suggested killing 200 innocent people and Jester didn't bat an eye. Nor did he "come around to her" because she dug herself in deeper. She didn't ask Artagan to back down, she threw herself at him and was completely willing to be locked up with him.
 * "All anxieties that Jester experiences are derived from that he is not a real god."

No, her anxieties are derived from the thought of losing her power. Artagan might not be a god, but Jester's power is very real. She is afraid that Artagan and/or her powers will be taken from her.

Compare Jester's relationship with Artagan to the relationships between Fjord and Uk'otoa or Beau and her father. They're not healthy relationships, but Fjord and Beau recognise that and work towards fixing it, or at least making peace with it. Fjord questions Uk'otoa's intentions, recognises that he cannot contain Uk'otoa's power, accepts that he will likely be living with the consequences for the rest if his life and embraces the Wildmother as someone who can give him the strength to endure rather than solve his problens for him. Beau confronts her father, recognises her own role in the tensions between them, and is willing to let go of her resentment for the sake of TJ. Both Fjord and Beau demonstrate emotional growth, but Jester has not. Her relationship with Artagan is unhealthy; she is completely dependent at best, and he is controlling and manipulative at worst.

The mostly likely explanation for this is that because Marion is an agoraphobe, she was overly-protective of Jester. We know little about Jester's childhood, but she never really interacted with children her own age and so never learned about social interaction. Some of her behaviours are extremely worrying, ranging from inapropriate conversations (asking Essek if he is on the toilet), an inability to conceive of things beyond her own experiences (getting distracted by pastries in Uthodurn), no capacity to recognise the likely consequences of her actions (Fjord has to practically restrain her to stop her from rushing back into the mountain to fight the Laughing Hand), invading others' personal space without invitation (she starts examining Beau's eye tattoo) and so on and so forth. And then in the middle of this you get Artagan, an archfey with no sense of morality and a habit of manipulation, who makes her completely dependent on him for power and wholly devoted to her. Look at the pamphlets she makes for him&mdash;when asked why people would worship the Traveller, she is unable to articulate why beyond "because he's really cool, you guys". When she meets other followers, she becomes defensive, jealous and adversarial because she is afraid Artagan will favour someone else. 1.129.108.50 (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to comment on whether Jester's childhood affects this as we're not in the business of speculating on such connections here. Interpretation of the health of the relationship is also irrelevant. Laura, the player, has straight up disagreed with you on her own character regarding emotional growth per the provided quotes; and even then, "does not cause emotional growth" is not indicative "there is no strain or tension". But, your refutations point by point on the given quotes still literally describe a relationship with tension and strain. "Jester fears she will lose her powers bc she learned he is not actually a real god" is an argument that there is a tension, ergo a strain, in the relationship. ("She is anxious she will lose her powers because he is not actually a god is unrelated to their relationship and is not a friction related to their relationship, how?) "Learning that Artagan is not a real deity has caused Jester stress and anxiety because...." is a description that there is tension, conflict, or strain in the relationship because of a fact of the relationship. (Never mind that, like, her primary worry wasn't even over losing her magic. It came up, but was brought up by other members of the party.) Your argument rests on "well, she didn't antagonize him or openly argue with his decisions or requests, therefore there was no tension or strain between them", which is, like, incredibly narrow conception what "tension in a relationship" is. I—and, imo, you yourself actually—have provided quotes and points, both in the narrative and from the player, indicating that there is a tension and friction derived from the reveal that the Traveler is not an actual deity.
 * And, to reiterate, so it does not become lost, it ought to be included as it provides context as to why this reveal is significant to Jester as a narrative character. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Once again, I agree with User:TenTonParasol. Thanks for pulling quotes from Talks Machina - I don't keep up with that show. A lot of the IP editor's argument seems to be rooted in them not liking how the character is played and disagreeing with the player's interpretation of her actions. We can do a RfC to expand the discussion but otherwise I think "temporarily strained" is a good descriptor especially because her relationship with the Traveler is foundational to her character. Also, disclosing that the IP user tried to make a similar argument to their above argument on my talk page earlier. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Interpretation of the health of the relationship is also irrelevant."
 * It is when you are trying to portray them as having a "strained relationship". You have to define what that relationship actually is. In common parlance, a "strained relationship" is generally taken to mean a relationship where there is some kind of stressor in place, one that threatens the integrity of that relationship. How does this stressor - the discovery that Artagan is not a god - affect the integrity of the relationship? Jester never considers an existence without the Traveller despite knowledge of his deception. If anything, Jester has a strained relationship with the rest of the party because they're the ones who recognise the danger he puts her in. To present them as having a "strained relationship" implies something that is not actually there, like a reconciliation.
 * "A lot of the IP editor's argument seems to be rooted in them not liking how the character is played and disagreeing with the player's interpretation of her actions."
 * Don't try and second-guess what I'm thinking. You don't know what I'm thinking. 1.129.108.50 (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As previously stated, for strain or tension to exist in a relationship, it is not required that the parties consider ending the relationship entirely; that's basic parlance. My comment that the health of the relationship is irrelevant because strain exists in healthy, unhealthy, toxic, positive, abusive, and all other form of relationship. Tension and health exist on different axes. Frankly, I'm now very confused about your point here on that one.
 * And, well, as to how does the discovery that Artagan is not a god affect the integrity of the relationship. I feel like the question posed to me here is: how has the discovery "the Traveler is not a god" threatened the integrity of a god-cleric relationship? Which feels like a ludicrous question on its face.
 * Per previously pulled quotes, Laura states that this poses an emotional difficulty for Jester, that Jester changes how she acts around Artagan as a result, that Jester rethinks how freely she adores Artagan as a result, Jester in-narrative questions the future of their relationship if Artagan does not wish to be a god any longer, Laura states that Jester becomes wary of continuing to lie to the others that the Traveler is a god and is watchful for if Artagan wishes to continue that deception. These are not things that I am interpreting. I've quoted scenes and the player, and I am confident that I can in fact continue to pull quotes, both in-campaign and from Laura on Talks, pointing to stress in the relationship and the character experiencing anxiety over a fundamental perceived fact of the relationship being proven untrue. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  03:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that a far more accurate way of describing it would be to say that the relationship between Jester and the Traveller puts strain on the party. After all, they're the ones who are torn by it; they want to support Jester, but have to consider killing the Traveller, knowing that this will likely drive her away.
 * "I am confident that I can in fact continue to pull quotes, both in-campaign and from Laura on Talks, pointing to stress in the relationship and the character experiencing anxiety over a fundamental perceived fact of the relationship being proven untrue."
 * It hasn't happened since they arrived in Eiselcross. The last time she visibly demonstrated stress was in the fight with Lucien, and that was because they nearly got wiped out (and maybe because she lobbied to attack directly). The Traveller never came into it. 1.129.108.50 (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "temporarily strained" ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  04:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Plot sections rely on primary sources. At the end of the day, all interpretation, synthesis or analysis of the plot must be based upon some secondary source (WP:PLOTCITE). An author may describe a character as one way and critics may disagree with the creator's interpretation. That disagreement in interpretation is best suited to the Reception section. While the limited coverage of the Traveler I've found was all published before the Rumblecusp arc, none of these sources say Artagan is abusive. They highlight trickery & chaos (1, 2, 3). The CBR article states: His trickery is mostly for comedic purposes, preferring to embarrass rather than harm. He is described in the Explorer's Guide to Wildemount as chaotic neutral. It's yet to be seen what the Archfey's true intentions are. I think at this point we're not going to reach consensus so we should solicit outside opinions either at some noticeboards or through a Request for comment. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly why I've avoided personal comment on the health of the relationship, and I've relied on pointing to the character's and the player's characterizations of there being narrative stress in the relationship. I have no problem soliciting outside opinion, though in that case I'll certainly better organize the quotes in question. Though, I note that an RfC seems much, but not sure which WikiProject or other avenue seems best. I'll defer. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  04:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Characters - list or prose?
I was just wondering if it was felt amenable to convert the list structure of the character section into prose. WP:PROSE urges to prefer prose over lists, and converting to prose would more easier cover certain detail. I understand that many character sections are rendered in list format, but that is not universal: All Souls (TV series), Carnivàle, Dark Angel (American TV series), Lady Blue (TV series), Last of the Summer Wine, Final Fantasy VII, Ōkami, Dishonored. I've written up an overly lengthy draft of what a section may look like in this case. It's missing some wikilinks and citations, and the prose can be tightened up very much, but that draft is more for illustrative purposes of what a prose-version of the section can accomplish. If there's agreement to convert, I'd see to tightening up the prose, but the current draft is just to pitch the conversion per general writing guidelines toward preferring prose and ease of covering certain details. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  04:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think a better model would be the likes of No Time to Die and any of the Marvel films where there is a brief outline of who the character is, but the bulk of the entries focus on the off-camera development of the character. For example, this is the entry on Rami Malek's character in No Time to Die:
 * ''An adversary of Bond and Swann and a terrorist leader on a revenge mission. Producer Barbara Broccoli described the character as "the one that really gets under Bond's skin. He's a nasty piece of work." Malek described the character as someone who considers "himself as a hero almost in the same way that Bond is a hero". In a video on making of the film, director Cary Fukunaga described Safin as "More dangerous than anyone he's [Bond] ever encountered" and stated Safin is a "hyper intelligent and worthy adversary".
 * While I haven't seen much of Talks Machina, I imagine that it might be a useful resource for this sort of thing. For instance, I think Taliesinn Jaffe's thoughts on how he tried to make Caduceus different to Molly while still grieving for Molly (if he ever discussed such a thing) would fit this section better than an overview of each character's story arc. Especially since the actors don't always know where the characters will go; I seem to remember Travis Willingham mentioning that he chose a sailor background for Fjord on the spur of the moment. He knew nothing about Uk'otoa when he did so. On the other hand, Jaffe knew enough about Molly to know that they could end up in Eiselcross, but that he "expected that they would be on the other side of it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.108.50 (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, for sure on the out-of-universe information. I just haven't had time to pull that together because that will take time. This draft is just mostly in-universe bc that's fastest to draw up off the top of my head. Out-of-universe information can absolutely be covered in a prose-version of the cast/characters list: The Wire, Paper Mario: The Origami King, True Detective. My question is more focusing on a bulleted list versus prose section; production information needs to be included either way, and there's even possibility to add it in a production, development, creation section as is common in series articles as well, if it would become easier to manage that way. And, overviews of a character's story arc isn't necessarily uncommon for ongoing series articles, and the structure is usually different from a film, so that's worth keeping in mind. But both things can, and often are, integrated. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  05:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If it's a choice between bulleted list and prose, I say go with the list. It's more organised in list form, and I'm concerned that it would be easy to slip into plot recount in the section. And then there's the question of how you organise a prose section, particularly when it comes to having a segue between characters. 1.129.108.50 (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * My preference is list over prose. I think it is easier to read & I'm concerned that the prose style lends itself to becoming bogged down in minutiae over time. The list style leans towards concision and this article is already over 130kb. The size of the main CR article was why this & the other spinoff articles were created. Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just checked a couple of random films from Category:FA-Class_film_articles; all had the cast listed as bulleted lists – though the amount of information after each bullet point does vary greatly. Little pob (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles I've provided as examples are FA-class as well, so as stated it's not universal. And, well, plot-recount is something I've seen over the years just as easily slipped in list format as well. (I WISH list style naturally leaned toward concision.) I'm just trying to bear in mind WP:PROSE. And, I reiterate, I'm quite aware the draft is overly plot detailed—the point isn't to make a proposal for that exact draft, just to illustrate a prose version of the section. At any rate, list as is. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  15:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * First; an apology – in the rush to reply during my lunch break, I missed that your examples were FA-class. I actually have no preference for list over prose here (in a formal RfC I'd have cast a neutral !vote). I agree that prose is easier to read. However, if a reader were just looking for the one actor, it's easier to pick out that a name from a list (yes, I realise I'm deliberately ignoring  to make this point). I do have a comment on the draft though; it should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits (per MOS:TVCAST). (I have just reordered the current list to reflect the cast order in the main article.) Little pob (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh! No need to apologize, it was easy to miss. Also, thank you for the reorder! And yeah, that's always the struggle with prose versus list. Manual of style urges prose, which allows some ease of reading. Bulleted list allows for easier visual scanning for certain information and different structural advantages. I think generally consensus right now is to maintain as is, but perhaps it's potentially something to consider again in the future (or maybe not!) as we get more production information onto the page. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also! I know that it's to be ordered based on broadcast credits, but should this article use the same order presented in the main article, which I think it based on the credits order established in the first campaign, or the credits used in the first episode of campaign two? They're different orders. The campaign two opening roll is: Travis Willingham, Marisha Ray, Taliesin Jaffe, Ashley Johnson, Sam Riegel, Liam O'Brien, Laura Bailey, Matthew Mercer. I have to spot check some seasons articles later to discern if there's precedent. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "I have to spot check some seasons articles later to discern if there's precedent." Good point. The cast list in the main article, and by extension C1, is the order the cast were introduced by Matt in C1E1 – as there were no official credits until C1E50. I've just looked at a later season of House and of CSI and both use that season's cast list. On that limited sample, I've no objection to reflecting C2's opening credits in the C2 article cast order. Little pob (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Article title discussion
Most editors following this page are likely following the main article. However, just in case any of you aren't, I've started a topic that could impact the article title of this page over at Talk:Critical Role. Little pob (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Cast order
I've reorganised the cast list to reflect the order they are in within the first credit sequence for the campaign (the retro-looking, "game night" one; rather than the animated one used later in the campaign). This is inline with TV shows where the credit order changes between seasons (see the cast order differences between seasons of House and CSI). Little pob (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @RebelAndARunner with this revert the section of MOS:TVCAST I'm referring to is The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits. Little pob (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors
Thanks! The plot summaries are fine without changes? Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * From my initial check they all seemed fine. I will taker a highly detailed look into them when I have a bit more time and update you if anything changes. -OPanda (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Would you please change the status to "working" instead of "done" at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests? If it is tagged with done, the bot will remove the request. Thanks. Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, my apologies. -OPanda (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sariel Xilo, I've found a few problems here; firstly, the "Reception" section has lengthy quotations from reviews that could be summarised and shortened; particularly the Duncan/Tor and Wilde/PCGamer quotations seem a bit pointless and rambling. Secondly, in "Adaptations", I added a when after "currently"; this needs to be qualified with a time frame. Finally, I think the lede should be longer—it should summarise the entire article. Anyway, good luck with the article and cheers,  Baffle☿gab  21:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding text originally posted&#32;on User talk:Sariel Xilo&#32;([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sariel_Xilo&diff=prev&oldid=1133647521 diff])&#32;by Baffle gab1978 (talk&sdot;contribs)
 * Rephrased and reduced Wilde/PCGamer. ✅
 * Rephrased and reduced Duncan/Tor. ✅
 * Rephrased and reduced other quotations in the "Reception" section. ✅
 * Removed the "in development" sentence from the "Adaptations" section as everything announced has been released. ✅
 * Expanded the lede (used on Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2) as the model). ✅
 * Tracked completed recommendations following a GOCE review. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, hope it passed to Featured! BOZ (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Reference changes
I have changed the numerical ref names added by the visual editor to more descriptive, and human readable, names using a tool called RefRenamer. A quick check shows that it has not introduced any citation errors; but I've seen other users of the tool have posted for changes to be double-checked, so thought I'd best do the same courtesy. Little pob (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a lot easier to follow, thank you! I did not check for errors. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Jester Lavorre
Just alerting that there is currently Draft:Jester Lavorre. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for flagging! I added it to Talk:Critical Role. It'll be interesting to see if the editor finds enough sources for it to meet notability. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Critical Role which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)