Chaosmancer
Legend
I don’t think we’re using different approaches to try to communicate the same thing here. When I say “I don’t think the Matt Mercer Effect is a real thing,” I don’t mean critical role doesn’t have an effect on the hobby. That would be kind of naive. It definitely does have an effect, I just don’t think it has the specific effect people typically use the term “Matt Mercer effect” to describe - namely, creating unrealistic expectations in new players who get into the game through CR. I mean, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn it has happened, but I don’t think it’s a widespread problem.
Yeah, I knew what you meant. I shouldn't have been typing so late at night, made my response a bit sloppy.
Right, I just don’t think the metaphor works. D&D is just not analogous to sports like that. Movies works a little better, but I still don’t think it communicates your point well.
Which I actually think is part of the problem, to a degree. We don't have a good analogue for this. DnD is something that doesn't quite line up with the types of things that usually get a person famous. We are used to thinking about famous people being "the best" at something, but you can't be the best at DnD, that isn't how the game works, and in fact, we've got a bit of a sore spot from people who have claimed to be "the best at DnD" or "winning DnD".
So, part of the backlash might just be an innate disconnect. How can someone be famous because of DnD, if you can't be the best at DnD?
I think it shows that our views of fame are changing to a degree, but I could see that being a reaction from people.
Oh, no doubt. Matt is an excellent DM, even if his style isn’t what I prefer. And I think it’s a great thing that new players have an easily-accessible and entertaining example of D&D being played - again, even if it’s not the style I prefer, it still helps to demystify the game for people. My partner got into D&D thanks to Critical Role, so I’m no stranger to the advantage that is. All I’m saying is, I think the alleged disadvantage of those new players having distorted expectations of what a game should look like is way overblown. Maybe once in a while a new player or DM will be a bit disappointed their home game doesn’t look quite like Critical Role, but I don’t think most new players really expect it to, and of those who do, I don’t think most are going to make a fuss about it.
I fully agree
True.
But...
When you watch a basketball game you see one person who is Jordan and twenty people who aren't. And there's a physical aspect that becomes apparent when you look at a hoop: you know how high you can jump.
If you'd never seen a basketball court or played before your early teens, and then watch a whole bunch of Jordan highlight reels—hundreds of hours—you might think it's easier than it looks. When handled the ball you might be surprised how hard it is to run and dribble at the same time.
And if you play in a group, you might be surprised by how much they don't play like a professional team.
I hope this doesn't come across as rude, but my response to that is "and?"
This literally happens with every professional field in entertainment or sports. Every time you have a kid watch professional wrestling, or baseball, or soccer, or literally anything you have the same effect. And we figure out quite quickly that just because we see someone do something and make it look easy, or do it in a certain way, doesn't mean we can or should.
I'm not arguing that it never happens, I'm actually saying that it always happens, and it is something that people have been dealing with in every field for decades. It isn't a problem, at worst it is a minor nuisance.
My point is - it's not just Mercer who people want to emulate in gaming. I think the OSR movement is based around ideals of Gygaxian play - the Gygax Effect, if you will. It's just not identified as such (and there are probably all sorts of reasons why that get into intergenerational gamer politics).
And it's not just the gamer community where we see this... or where we see problems. I pointed out Kevin Smith working in Judd Apatow's style, but a lot of directors and other artists will do so deliberately and understand how they're working someone else's mojo, in part, because they've been educated in their art. They're engaging in exploring, not trying to compete. But to expound a bit more, we also have problematic approaches such as fan edits and fan fiction that purport to have "better" versions of their source material such as the version of Phantom Menaces without Jar-Jar. Those really are examples of amateurs thinking they can do as well as or better than the professionals. But as Charlaquin said, it's harder to pull that off in sports since you can't argue that an unsuccessful attempt at a field goal is better than a successful field goal - there are certain objective measures of success/failure that don't exist in art forms. That, however, clearly does not apply to coaching and play calling since armchair quarterbacks have been claiming they can do a better job helming a team since football became a spectator sport.
Got it, we are pretty much in agreement then.
I will say though, I have read some excellent fanworks that improve on the work of the professionals. More and more I come around to the idea that while the professionals are amazing, sometimes they make huge gaffs and especially in the realms of writing, it is possible for an amateur to have a better vision and presentation.
After all, everyone started as an amatuer, professional just means you get paid for your work.