Critical Role PSA: You are not Matt Mercer

[S'mon]

If we are, in fact, all knowing creatures that is true. However, experimenting with things that we have not experienced can open our eyes to possibilities that we had not considered when we set our goals.

Green Eggs and Ham.

At best estimate, I've played with over 200 DMs. I've watched thousands. I have stolen things from most of them, whether it was an administrative technique to run games more smoothly, an acting technique that conveyed something to the table really well, an idea for a new spell, a new monster build, or a physical prop (ok, I didn't steal the prop - but I did go out and buy my own). However, Matt Mercer is one of the 5 DMs I have heard run games the most - and I have stolen more things from him than from any other DM despite having come across his games nearly 40 years after I started to play and establish my methods. He is excellent at:

1.) Handling players that do not know the rules without making them feel bad.
2.) Using silence and pacing to create a more dramatic presentation.
3.) Misleads.
4.) Building upon what players try to do rather than negating it.
5.) World building (he started with one town and slowly built his entire campaign world from it in an organic way).
6.) Evolving the complexity of his campaign as the players explore it.
7.) Writing the characters into the story rather than letting the characters explore his story.

In short, while he uses his acting skills very well, he is also excellent at the project management skills that make an exceptional DM.

Even if you do not want to play a style of game that mimics Critical Role, you can learn a heck of a lot from listening to him DM. I really wish that they'd add a show to Critical Role that talks about some of his techniques and then shows clips of those techniques in practice.

I haven't watched the show much, but I did notice that Mercer is pretty well the only 'Internet GM' other than Matt Colville who gives consistently good GMing advice.

 

[Charlaquin]

I haven't watched the show much, but I did notice that Mercer is pretty well the only 'Internet GM' other than Matt Colville who gives consistently good GMing advice.

That’s funny, I don’t find either of their GMing advice consistently good (though they both do give advice that is occasionally good). On the other hand, I’ve read advice from a number of other DMs whose advice I would describe as consistently good. The Angry GM, The Alexandrian, our own @iserith ...

 

[Oofta]

A lot of people seem to focus on the voice acting, mannerisms sound effects and so on that's part and parcel of CR.

All of that is great. But it's not the only reason for it's appeal. The other part is the engagement, the world building and depth. It's a great example of one style of play. Is that style going to fit everyone? Of course not.

The other thing that it shows is good give-and-take, people that simply enjoy playing the game together as a group. The players obviously aren't min/maxing grognards, the fact that they don't always know the rules is kind of a plus. It shows that you don't have to have system mastery in order to have fun playing the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

A lot of people seem to focus on the voice acting, mannerisms sound effects and so on that's part and parcel of CR.

All of that is great. But it's not the only reason for it's appeal. The other part is the engagement, the world building and depth. It's a great example of one style of play. Is that style going to fit everyone? Of course not.

The other thing that it shows is good give-and-take, people that simply enjoy playing the game together as a group. The players obviously aren't min/maxing grognards, the fact that they don't always know the rules is kind of a plus. It shows that you don't have to have system mastery in order to have fun playing the game.

I think the aspect of CR that most distorts players’ expectations is actually not Matt so much as the players. They are basically always in-character apart from the occasional small digression, and they regularly interact with each other in character, sometimes at great length. I suppose Matt’s quirky NPCs contribute to this as well. Basically, Critical Role has a whole lot of talking in character, which is part of what I am getting at when I point out that as a performance it has different demands than a private game does. I don’t doubt that they genuinely enjoy all the in-character banter, but it’s also something that makes for a better show but might end up detracting from a non-publicized game.

Not to say that my players don’t interact in character, with each other or with NPCs. But that interaction is a huge focus of Critical Role, and arguably one of its primary points of appeal. Whereas, in my experience that’s not a focus of most games I’ve run or played in.

 

[S'mon]

That’s funny, I don’t find either of their GMing advice consistently good (though they both do give advice that is occasionally good). On the other hand, I’ve read advice from a number of other DMs whose advice I would describe as consistently good. The Angry GM, The Alexandrian, our own @iserith ...

Oh, I guess I meant Youtube GMs. I value The Alexandrian a lot, I find Angry GM pretty terrible, I have no opinion on iserith.

 

[Oofta]

I think the aspect of CR that most distorts players’ expectations is actually not Matt so much as the players. They are basically always in-character apart from the occasional small digression, and they regularly interact with each other in character, sometimes at great length. I suppose Matt’s quirky NPCs contribute to this as well. Basically, Critical Role has a whole lot of talking in character, which is part of what I am getting at when I point out that as a performance it has different demands than a private game does. I don’t doubt that they genuinely enjoy all the in-character banter, but it’s also something that makes for a better show but might end up detracting from a non-publicized game.

Not to say that my players don’t interact in character, with each other or with NPCs. But that interaction is a huge focus of Critical Role, and arguably one of its primary points of appeal. Whereas, in my experience that’s not a focus of most games I’ve run or played in.

I've had games where we had nearly as much inter-PC interaction as I've seen in the game. I basically asked everyone to stay in character while at the table. It depends on the group, what they enjoy, expectations and game.

So I disagree that it's public vs private, it's play style and preference.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, I guess I meant Youtube GMs. I value The Alexandrian a lot, I find Angry GM pretty terrible, I have no opinion on iserith.

Yeah, if you limit it to YouTube DMs, I’d say Matt Colville is the best I’ve seen. Mercer’s advice from what I’ve seen isn’t bad, it just isn’t particularly actionable. Lots of generic platitudes, not so much useful advice. Though I suppose that is better than most other well-known YouTube DMs, who in my experience all occasionally give straight-up bad advice. The Angry GM is a pretty abrasive dude and I disagree with him politically, but his advice is consistently excellent.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've had games where we had nearly as much inter-PC interaction as I've seen in the game. I basically asked everyone to stay in character while at the table. It depends on the group, what they enjoy, expectations and game.

So I disagree that it's public vs private, it's play style and preference.

It’s definitely a play style preference, but that amount of character dialogue is good for a show. For a game it might or might not be a good thing depending on what you like, though I generally think the amount that goes on in CR can set an expectation that most games that aren’t also shows won’t live up to.

 

[Fenris-77]

The Angry GM is a pretty abrasive dude and I disagree with him politically, but his advice is consistently excellent.

This might as well be the pitch on the front page of his blog. I agree on all counts.

 

[robus]

I've had games where we had nearly as much inter-PC interaction as I've seen in the game. I basically asked everyone to stay in character while at the table. It depends on the group, what they enjoy, expectations and game.

Whilst I’m not super concerned about being in character I would like it if my players expressed interest in the other characters. Next campaign I’m going to try and foster that. Up till now I’ve been learning the ropes.