DrJawaPhD
Hero
I said plot points, not an entire campaign plot. Advocating in favor of DMs having some idea about what plot points could be coming up in the next session is about as hot a take as claiming the sky is blue.
Critical Role Is Critical Role Scripted
- Thread starter Clint_L
- Start date
The funny thing is that D&D has always allowed players to talk about possible plot beats between each other, make plans about how they are going to handle things, talk to the DM about background elements for your character that might show up later in game, etc. And it's clear to me that, besides Mercer himself, the party does very little actual planning between games. They've even said they have a group chat for that kind of thing, but it sure seems like they don't use it. 
Clint_L
Legend
In the video, Mercer states that anyone who comes to a game and gives the DM and other players grief for not performing like professional actors who have been playing together for 13 years has only themselves to blame "for being an a**hole."
Omak Darkleaf
Oath of Sloth
Cool. I have hear him express that same sentiment before in interviews. Mercer has always struck me as a genuinely decent fellow.
The player in question—“Mister Smith”—was most assuredly not. Mister Smith turned out to be the most complete realization ever encountered by yours truly of the “that guy” archetype. He argued about every ruling that didn’t benefit him; he bossed other players around on their turns; he sulked when he didn’t get his way; he munched harder than any munchkin I’ve ever seen; he completely eschewed roleplay; he brazenly cheated; and he derived obvious pleasure from insulting and verbally abusing other people at the table.
That’s all his comment to me was—an insult, not a critique. But I that didn’t register on me at the time. I’d just started playing 5e after taking twenty years off from gaming. Not only was going from AD&D to 5e a big adjustment for me, I’m by nature a shy person and the performative aspect of DMing was taking a toll on my nerves; not only did I not do voices, I was also self-conscious about not doing voices. I expect that Mister Smith knew that and that’s why he told me to DM more like Mercer.
In hindsight, I now suppose that had I been a DM more like Mercer, Mister Smith would have told me to tone down the theatrics, stop the melodramatics, and put a lid on the stupid voices. And, if there were no Critical Role—if Matt Mercer’s D&D prowess were unknown to the gaming public—Mister Smith would have simply insulted me in some other way (which he routinely did).
So I don’t blame Mercer for the “Mercer effect” rhetoric voiced by uncouth players. Malcontents will be malcontents. The kind of people who make abusive comments like that will have one insult or another ready to roll off the tongue no matter what. No DM deserves to have “that guy” at the table.
Meech17
WotC President Runner-Up.
I think this is the big point that confuses people. Players in CR have slightly different motivations than players in casual home games. There's a very popular Magic: The Gathering Commander show called "Game Knights" that get's the same accusations, and they've talked about it in Q&A videos, and I think it comes down to the same thing.
You present a player with a choice. One option is the more rational one. It has a higher chance of success, a higher chance of the character achieving their goals. It's boring though. It's simple, straight-forward, and doesn't offer a lot of room for complications, which is probably what makes it the more rational choice.
Option two is the opposite. It's less likely to succeed, there's more room for conflict. On the flip side, if it does work it'll be way more dramatic and way cooler. Even if it doesn't work it will probably end up being interesting while it fails.
In a casual home game, the players are probably more likely to take option one with the higher chance of success. They don't want to fail.
When it comes to a produced show, the players are going to weigh these choices differently. Their primary goal isn't to win the game. It's to make compelling content. They're going to look at these options, and while option one might be the more rational choice.. If they think option two will lead to better content, and better moments they'll go that way.
They talked about this in Game Knights. They intentionally powered down their decks. They recognized that some of the most powerful cards that consistently help win the game, also lead to consistently predictable play patterns. So while these cards may further the game plan of winning.. They don't make for as interesting content, and making interesting content is more important than winning.
EDIT: I was trying to make the point not so much that content creators would be more likely to choose un-optimal options and that non-content creator players would be less likely to do so.
It was more the point that someone playing D&D for a recorded production would choose to err on the side of interesting, exciting, or dramatic as their main motivation, whereas someone playing the game under regular circumstances would probably have other priorities.
Last edited:
The way I see it, I might not be Matt Mercer as a DM but the people who have complained weren’t Liam O’Brien or Laura Bailey either.
Bingo. And we know this just by reading the pages and pages and pages of threads here with people sending inordinate amounts of time worrying about stuff like "game balance" and "challenge ratings". All this talk about the mechanics-- making sure all the combats have all numbers within certain parameters to give every character and every archetype an equal chance of making sure they all contribute equally to every fight, with exactly the specific chances of survival or death for every character against every monster as calculated by the DM that they want to give their players so that they are "challenged".
And I'd say this is not even a matter of "home game" versus "actual play" separation. Rather it's each individual table's desire of "board game" versus "theatrical drama". The former are those that find the drama coming out of playing the board game... and the latter are those that use the board game mechanics to help embellish and randomize the theatrical narrative the entire table is working together to create. More often than not I think Actual Plays (because they do have an audience watching) tend to be tables that emphasize and prefer the latter... but that's not always necessarily the case. And while there are a shitton of home games where the tables just want to roll dice and kill stuff and couldn't care less about the "story" going on in the campaign... there are many tables that do and their games look a lot like Critical Role in tenor or tone when all is said and done. And how much it looks like it is dependent on how prepped and prepared the individual DM is with the narratives happening in their game world... how willing the players are to just "go with it" and take the more dramatic-- if not more dangerous-- turn just because it looks and feels cool, it fits the motivations of their character, and they aren't concerned with trying to "win" every encounter they meet... and how good all the players are at improvisation (both in action and in dialogue.)
I've had plenty of players do what makes sense for their PCs or what will be fun instead of making the optimal choice. I do it myself sometimes. You may not play with people that choose option 2, I do. All the time.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Which is funny and maybe kind of ironic since the jokes for Hollywood Squares were all pre-written by the show's writing staff. So, a lot of prep work, actually.
Similar Threads
