"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]

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.

Pretty much this. It’s worth noting however, that this level of description in spell casting is a marked change from the first campaign, wherein the generally did what most players do in my experience and just said “I cast [spellname].” I don’t know for certain, but I’m pretty sure this was something they talked about as a group when preparing for campaign 2, that as a piece of performance art as well as a game, it would suit their needs to be more descriptive with their spell casting. Which is awesome, but I wish they would have addressed it. Told the audience it was a thing they decided to do because of their game’s unique concerns, instead of just doing it. It was a missed opportunity to lead by example.

Also, one time when they had a guest star on, she just said “I cast [spellname]” (I forget what spell), and Matt asked her what it looked like. This was her first time playing D&D, she clearly had no idea what he was talking about. She was visibly uncomfortable being put on the spot like that, and he didn’t help by clarifying, “in this game, we like to embellish our spell casting with a little personalized description, I’m giving you the opportunity to describe what it looks like when your character casts this spell.” He just kind of repeated, “what does it look like when you cast it?” She, still clearly uncomfortable, looked to her spell card for an answer, and gave kind of an awkward non-description of doing hand gestures and chanting an incantation. It was really uncomfortable to watch, especially because I’ve seen that kind of interaction in games I’ve been in plenty of times before, and it’s always indicative of poorly communicated table expectations. It was extra jarring to see from Matt, who I usually think is pretty good, even if I don’t always agree with all of his DMing choices. All I could think was, “I hope nobody looks at that and thinks it’s normal, acceptable behavior from a DM.”

There have been a few other examples of times I’ve had similar reactions. It’s not often, and I forgive Matt because he’s only human, but I can’t help but feel that as influential as he is in the D&D community right now, I wish he would address those moments when they come up. Good group dynamics are all about regular and open communication, and Critical Role just doesn’t model that well.

 

[Umbran]

See, I don't get this. Do people really evaluate other roleplayers based on their acting ability?

Folks will evaluate others based on whatever metrics they value at the moment. They will also be... dare I say a touch uneven about it - humans evaluate their own performance differently than they evaluate how others are doing. If Joe and Sally are actually doing roughly the same quality work, Joe may think he's doing a really good job, but think Sally is a bit sub-par. Sad, but generally true.

 

[Mercador]

See, I don't get this. Do people really evaluate other roleplayers based on their acting ability? Some of the gamers whose company/participation I most enjoy are terrible actors, but they are very good at coming up with courses of action that are both in-character and surprising. The fact that they deliver it in third-person monotone in no way detracts from the entertainment value. In fact, it may improve it because it leaves the details to my imagination, which is better than any acting.

I don't say it's bad or not. Just saying that the Critical role table is entertaining because they are trained actors. If you want to follow some dude RPG table with normal people, it will be less entertaining and that's normal, you haven't been trained as an actor.

However, for YOUR game, it's totally up to you, no one force you to stream your game on the net. On my side, I know that theater and improvisation that I made when I was a teenager really helps me to get in different characters, but I'm the DM after all.

 

[Mercador]

Folks will evaluate others based on whatever metrics they value at the moment. They will also be... dare I say a touch uneven about it - humans evaluate their own performance differently than they evaluate how others are doing. If Joe and Sally are actually doing roughly the same quality work, Joe may think he's doing a really good job, but think Sally is a bit sub-par. Sad, but generally true.

You just explain why there's so much sadness in this world of social media

 

[BookBarbarian]

I don't say it's bad or not. Just saying that the Critical role table is entertaining because they are trained actors. If you want to follow some dude RPG table with normal people, it will be less entertaining and that's normal, you haven't been trained as an actor.

However, for YOUR game, it's totally up to you, no one force you to stream your game on the net. On my side, I know that theater and improvisation that I made when I was a teenager really helps me to get in different characters, but I'm the DM after all.

I would even go far as to say the things that make my game the best it possibly can be would make for a terrible streaming show.

How many times would an audience want to hear me say "What do you do?" to each individual player rotating through all of them making sure they get equal spotlight?

I don't think I would want to watch that, but doing it has dramatically improved the quality of my home game.

 

[iserith]

I think if this is an issue for your table, the best way to approach it in my view is to say that, as a principle for the group, everyone should see the game as a conversation. And the quality of that conversation, like every other conversation in life, is dependent upon each individual doing the best he or she can to make that conversation great. It doesn't fall solely upon the DM.

To the extent Critical Role can be considered a success, it's because the conversation they are having is entertaining to people who are observing, but not participating, in it. But it's clear (even though I don't think it's particularly good) that everyone at the table is making an effort to produce an interesting conversation. That's a good shared goal for the group in my opinion.

As well, no group should compare themselves to Critical Role. Instead, as I see it, they should compare themselves to the group they were last session. If the play experience being produced by the group is marginally better this session than it was last session, then that's a win that will pay off greatly over time.

 

[Bawylie]

I think if this is an issue for your table, the best way to approach it in my view is to say that, as a principle for the group, everyone should see the game as a conversation. And the quality of that conversation, like every other conversation in life, is dependent upon each individual doing the best he or she can to make that conversation great. It doesn't fall solely upon the DM.

To the extent Critical Role can be considered a success, it's because the conversation they are having is entertaining to people who are observing, but not participating, in it. But it's clear (even though I don't think it's particularly good) that everyone at the table is making an effort to produce an interesting conversation. That's a good shared goal for the group in my opinion.

As well, no group should compare themselves to Critical Role. Instead, as I see it, they should compare themselves to the group they were last session. If the play experience being produced by the group is marginally better this session than it was last session, then that's a win that will pay off greatly over time.

I about fell in love with the first paragraph of this post.

Also - you won’t ever replicate CR’s chemistry, because you aren’t those people. You’re gonna have your own chemistry with your people. And that’s ultimately much better because it’s uniquely yours.

 

[Morrus]

I about fell in love with the first paragraph of this post.

Also - you won’t ever replicate CR’s chemistry, because you aren’t those people. You’re gonna have your own chemistry with your people. And that’s ultimately much better because it’s uniquely yours.

It does rather suggest an amusing response to a player complaining the game you’re running isn’t as good as Critical Role: “I suggest you play better then!”

(Not a recommended response!)

 

[BookBarbarian]

It does rather suggest an amusing response to a player complaining the game you’re running isn’t as good as Critical Role: “I suggest you play better then!”

(Not a recommended response!)

When it boils down to it I think this is just about the only advice there is. Oh we get into specifics of what "play" we are trying to improve, (Edit: and we argue endlessly about what "better" is) but it's all variants on the same theme.

Still it's nice to be less blunt about it. Verbal Judo is in my experience more effective than verbal Karate. Still when it gets to be after 11pm I tend to forget and go verbal street fighter.

 

[iserith]

When it boils down to it I think this is just about the only advice there is. Oh we get into specifics of what "play" we are trying to improve, but it's all variants on the same theme.

Still it's nice to be less blunt about it. Verbal Judo is in my experience more effective than verbal Karate. Still when it gets to be after 11pm I tend to forget and go verbal street fighter.

Yeah man. As I see it, players have a right to a great game. But that comes coupled with a responsibility to take part in making it so. You can't have the right without the responsibility. And I have absolutely no problem telling someone that they suck and how. It may not be what they want to hear, but not saying anything is not helping them grow, nor improving the game experience. (Of course, other players also do this, directly or indirectly. It's not all on the DM.)