"How do I beat the Matt Mercer effect?"

On Reddit, a user named Mister-builder asked Matthew Mercer how to deal with folks who unfavourably compare their home game to that of Critical Role's videos. Matt took to Reddit to pen a reply.

"I'm running a campaign for a lot of first-timers, and I'm dealing with a lot of first-timer problems (the one who never speaks up, the one who needs to be railroaded, the NG character being played CN and the CN character being played CE). Lately, however, there's a new situation I'm dealing with. A third of my group first got interested in D&D because of Critical Role. I like Matt Mercer as much as the next guy, but these guys watched 30+ hours of the show before they ever picked up a D20. The Dwarf thinks that all Dwarves have Irish accents, and the Dragonborn sounds exactly like the one from the show (which is fine, until they meet NPCs that are played differently from how it's done on the show). I've been approached by half the group and asked how I planned to handle resurrection. When I told them I'd decide when we got there, they told me how Matt does it. Our WhatsApp is filled with Geek and Sundry videos about how to play RPG's better. There's nothing wrong with how they do it on the show, but I'm not Matt Mercer and they're not Vox Machina. At some point, the unrealistic expectations are going to clash with reality. How do you guys deal with players who've had past DM's they swear by?

TL;DR Critical Role has become the prototype for how my players think D&D works. How do I push my own way of doing things without letting them down?"

​

Here was the reply from Matthew Mercer:

"Seeing stuff like this kinda breaks my heart. Regardless, the fact of the matter is our style of play is just that...our style of play. Every table is different, and should be! If they just want to “copy” what we do, that’s not very creative nor what makes the game magic at the table.

I DO believe that it’s important for any gaming group to discuss expectations early into a campaign so everyone can get on the same page and avoid dissonance. However, it’s EVERYONE’S responsibility at the table to provide and add to the experience for everyone to enjoy themselves and the story, not just the DM. As I saw some comments below mention, you want a particular style of game? That level of commitments rests on YOUR shoulders. Consolidate your style and wishes with those of the other players and DM, and somewhere in that unique mix you will find your table’s special style of storytelling.

Need I also remind your players that we are a table of professional actors, and I have been DMing for well over 20 years. We have spent our lives training in particular skills that allow us to get as immersed in the characters as we enjoy doing. Anyone can jump in as deeply, should they wish to, but EXPECTING that immediate level of comfort and interest is unfair and absurd. Do they want a deep, convoluted emotional journey like Scanlan? They better be able to bring it like Sam did. No? Then sit down and just have fun finding your own path.

PLUS, our style isn’t for everyone! Hell, just scan the comments below to see how many folks don’t like us, haha. I’ve played with many different players, ran games of many different styles and focuses, and I can tell you... there is so much fun variety to how a TTRPG can be played, they’re limiting their chances to enjoy it by trying to “play it just like us”.

Anyway, I say the best course is have a very frank conversation with them about these things. Clearly say that your game will feel like YOUR game (meaning you and the players together), and it’s THEIR responsibility to bring to the table what facet they want to see in it. Show them this post, if it helps. In fact, show them this message:

“Guys. Relax. Your DM is kicking ass, and is doing this for YOUR enjoyment and journey. Appreciate that, listen, build with them, and make this something UNIQUE. Abandon expectations and just have fun together as friends.”

Anyway, so sorry. Things like this are never my intent. It’s a weird, wild west these days. Your gonna be great, friend.

 

[Charlaquin]

My knowledge of anime basically ceased when I left college in 1998 or so.
I've heard of Full Metal Alchemist but seen none of it.
I know nothing about Blue Exorcist.
I've heard of Adventure Time but never seen an episode.
I've heard of Overwatch but never played it and never heard "It's High Noon".
I know nothing about Last of Us.
I don't know which Spider-Man game you are referring to, but I've played none of them.
I know nothing about Uncharted.
I, however, have heard of Gears of War.
I know nothing about Smash Ultimate.
I don't know what Rapture in Burial at Sea is. Is it a game? A movie?

I couldn't actually pick out Liam's voice but I own X-Com 2 and Burning Crusade and I know my characters have talked to at least one of the characters he voices in Burning Crusade. So I must have heard his voice at least once.

I own a PS4 because I won it at my work Holiday Party last year. The only games I own are Lego games my wife plays. I've never played it. The video games I play are all PC games and none are FPS games. Most are strategy type games where voice work doesn't really matter and a few are CRPGs but none of the Critical Role people did any voice work for what I own except Liam for Burning Crusade a dozen years ago.

It's really easy to miss entire genres when they don't interest you.

Ok, so why the comment about not recognizing any of the cast’s other work? Of course you wouldn’t have heard of them if you don’t engage with any of the media they work in.

Rapture is the fictional underwater city in which the majority of the Bioshock games take place. It’s a crumbling dystopia in most of the games, Burial at Sea was an expansion to one of the games, which took place in Rapture before its total societal collapse.

 

[Charlaquin]

It’s less about seeing people you know playing D&D. And more to do with the synergy between vocal acting and D&D.

So much of how a character is presented in a game comes from their “voice” and how are they act and sound, their word choices and volume. Even a skilled actor can’t deliver that as well, as they rely so much more on physicality.
As voice actors, they’re trained in maintaining an accent and delivering emotion in their words. Which really works so well with roleplaying. The game basically becomes an improv radio play.

Seeing actors whose work you enjoy playing D&D is a significant part of the appeal for some people. That’s what got me to check it out. I knew of many of the cast through their voice acting work, but I didn’t know anything about them as people, they were just names and faces behind characters I liked. I thought it would be cool to get a glimpse of how the people those names and faces belong to spend their free time, especially since D&D is an interest I evidently have in common with them. I was delighted to find out that Lust and Mustang are married and play D&D with Mephisto, Ellie, and McCree, and wanted to see what such a game would look like. (I didn’t really know Liam since he doesn’t do many lead roles, or Talisen or Marisha cause they aren’t in as much that I’m familiar with, but now I recognize Liam all over the place, and I enjoy Marisha and Talisen both a lot on the show).

I mean, the vocal talent is a big part of the appeal too, but don’t underestimate the draw of celebrity.

 

[jmucchiello]

Er, his point is still correct, if rather blunt. You handle it by communicating with your players about expectations. I mean, his response really is the same as Matt Mercer's response. He's just less diplomatic.

Thanks, I think.

 

[jgsugden]

As a DM, you world build with your players. If your players want to borrow from Mercer's games for inspiration, it isn't a bad thing. His game is well run with energetic and enthusiastic players. If, as a DM, I had players try to borrow heavily from Mercer's game, I'd find a way to work with it.

I planned for Russian sounding Dwarves and they want their Dwarf to sound Celtic? Not a problem. I might switch my plan, add a foreign clan that has a Celtic accent, or help the PC come up with a background for their dwarf amongst the race that does sound Celtic.

They want to play a noble gunslinger in my world that doesn't have guns? I'll add the guns as the invention of their PCs, just as Perceviel invented them.

Their Dragonborn Sorcerer is named Tiberius and talks like a stuffy jerk? So what? That can be a fun PC for a party. So what if it isn't original.

The players are not playing in the DM's world. They're playing in the game world that they create together. I'd be grateful that my PCs took their hints from such a great source.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

im thinking, for example, about the way they describe their use of material and somatic components when casting spells. An awesome choice for a streamed performance, but might not be reasonable to expect at every table.

For those of us not in the know, how do they describe their use of material and somatic components?

 

[MarkB]

For those of us not in the know, how do they describe their use of material and somatic components?

Each in their own way, honestly. Liam, playing the wizard, likes to spice the flavour of his spell descriptions with a line or two about how he employs a spell's components, which does a nice job of making his spellcasting feel weighty and visceral. Laura, playing the trickster cleric, doesn't worry about describing material components at all, but often heavily embellishes her spells' visual elements, giving them a unique look and feel in keeping with her character.

I guess the point is that these things work well in a performance piece, providing descriptive touchstones to let the audience visualise the action, but in a home game they'd tend to drag and potentially feel like needless spotlight hogging in comparison to other players who just want to say what action they're taking and roll the dice.

As a player, I will tend to describe a spell or ability in some detail the first time I use it, but thereafter will take it as read and just say what I'm doing game-mechanically. Other players will find their own balance between flavour and expediency.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I think you’re blowing the reaction out of proportion. The vibe I’m getting from this thread is more mild annoyance than indignant nerdrage. I’m certainly not upset over the way Critical Role is run, or over the fact that players who got into the game through Critical Role are looking for a Critical Role-like experience.

Here's my take. The story isn't about how or if gamers should deal with unrealistic expectations influenced by something done on TV or YouTube. It is about how Matt Mercer mindfully and respectfully addressed the community as a whole about this nonsensical issue, and in a way that was without ego, or offensive, or even shaming... you know, the way most things are handled on the internet these days. And rather than praise or thank Mercer for his actions and how he has handled it, we think of more bandaid fixes to protect the people of the internet, aka the real victims!, from more ego bruises and invisible boo-boos.

And we all know the solution for this. It is the same as it always has been, and always will be. Talk with your players. Set expectations as a group. If you can't agree on a decision and won't be happy with group, then find others who are more in step with you. We are not all voice actors. We don't belong on a show. And we don't play for an audience except each other at the table. Cheers!

 

[Umbran]

Thanks, I think.

I hope you don't mind the following.

It is ironic that a couple people here are talking about how it is all about communication... but there are severe flaws in how they communicate their points about communication. The showcase that this isn't as easy as it looks matters for this discussion.

Example: jmucciello here, closed his piece with "To me this isn't even a molehill." And note how Morrus responds to this, rather than the real meat of the post? That's because such an addition, especially at the impactful start or end of a piece, makes it about the speaker, and trivializes the issue for anyone for whom it is *not* a molehill: "This is about communication, and I, of course, don't have any issues with communication..."

I mean, it is great for you that this isn't a major issue. But also... so what? Other people are not you. Their groups are not yours. Its status as a non-problem for you is not, itself, useful to anyone else.

To wit - if you are going to help someone out, don't make it about you. Make it about them.




Similarly, there was a poster up-thread who said, "Maybe grow thicker skin, and be open to improving." Because, if their skin isn't think enough, stabbing them is supposed to be *helpful*?

Making a ton of assumptions, misstating a need (they need to be open to *criticism* - whether the changes the players think they want count as improvements for all concerned is a separate question) and positioning it as a statement of how bad the recipient is are all great ways to make sure your message doesn't get across. Communication is a two-person process, and criticism is unlikely to be taken well if it is not given well.

Yep - you are dealing with a human being. It is not sufficient to deliver information. To be helpful, it ought to be delivered in a way that does not negatively engage the recipient's emotions, because that dong so keeps their analytical mind from engaging on the matter.

 

[Mercador]

These guys are actors, don't expect to be as good as trained actors, you'll be disappointed.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I hope you don't mind the following.

It is ironic that a couple people here are talking about how it is all about communication... but there are severe flaws in how they communicate their points about communication. The showcase that this isn't as easy as it looks matters for this discussion.

Example: jmucciello here, closed his piece with "To me this isn't even a molehill." And note how Morrus responds to this, rather than the real meat of the post? That's because such an addition, especially at the impactful start or end of a piece, makes it about the speaker, and trivializes the issue for anyone for whom it is *not* a molehill: "This is about communication, and I, of course, don't have any issues with communication..."

I mean, it is great for you that this isn't a major issue. But also... so what? Other people are not you. Their groups are not yours. Its status as a non-problem for you is not, itself, useful to anyone else.

To wit - if you are going to help someone out, don't make it about you. Make it about them.




Similarly, there was a poster up-thread who said, "Maybe grow thicker skin, and be open to improving." Because, if their skin isn't think enough, stabbing them is supposed to be *helpful*?

Making a ton of assumptions, misstating a need (they need to be open to *criticism* - whether the changes the players think they want count as improvements for all concerned is a separate question) and positioning it as a statement of how bad the recipient is are all great ways to make sure your message doesn't get across. Communication is a two-person process, and criticism is unlikely to be taken well if it is not given well.

Yep - you are dealing with a human being. It is not sufficient to deliver information. To be helpful, it ought to be delivered in a way that does not negatively engage the recipient's emotions, because that dong so keeps their analytical mind from engaging on the matter.

Wait...are you 100% sure you're a gamer? The phrase "on the spectrum" generally refers to the other side of the mid-point.