Critical Role PSA: You are not Matt Mercer

[prabe]

Thank you for that explanation. Having been in embarrassing situations before I get it. I do really think had you been in that seat Matt would have at least tried to put a stop to the stuff that bothered you. And I think the other players would have acted differently too.

May you find the game you love.

I'd like to think that Mercer has a feel for his players' sensibilities and sensitivities, yes. And he doesn't seem like the sort to be an intentional bully. OTOH, no DM is right for everyone.

I have found the games I love, but I'm DMing them, which makes it hard to play in them. No plan is perfect. ;-)

 

[Chaosmancer]

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but something occurred to me that I wanted to write down. I'll probably catch up to it later when I've finished reading the thread.

I'm not a golfer, but is the "Tiger Effect" a bad thing in golf? Is there a negative "Manning Effect" in American Football or a "John Wayne effect" that people complained about in the 50's?I think I remember hearing about a "Kirby Effect" in comics when I studied them a few years back (referring to Jack "The King" Kirby).

I wonder this because I don't think I've encountered this idea in other entertainment media very often, and Mercer is probably going to be seen as the first "big star" of DnD. I mean, sure, Gygax and Arneson were the creators of the game, but beyond that I don't know if there are really any players that got this "famous" for playing the game, not like Perkins and Mercer, and there is no "Chris Perkins Effect".

So, I'm a little... curious I suppose, why "The Mercer Effect" is seen so negatively. I mean, literally all I think would be required is to tell players "Those guys are professional actors. We aren't." and that would take away a lot of the expectations put forth onto people. I mean, telling your Pee-Wee Football team, "Guys, you aren't Peyton Manning, he is a professional." is pretty standard, right? Why is this so hard for the DnD community?

 

[BRayne]

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but something occurred to me that I wanted to write down. I'll probably catch up to it later when I've finished reading the thread.

I'm not a golfer, but is the "Tiger Effect" a bad thing in golf? Is there a negative "Manning Effect" in American Football or a "John Wayne effect" that people complained about in the 50's?I think I remember hearing about a "Kirby Effect" in comics when I studied them a few years back (referring to Jack "The King" Kirby).

I wonder this because I don't think I've encountered this idea in other entertainment media very often, and Mercer is probably going to be seen as the first "big star" of DnD. I mean, sure, Gygax and Arneson were the creators of the game, but beyond that I don't know if there are really any players that got this "famous" for playing the game, not like Perkins and Mercer, and there is no "Chris Perkins Effect".

So, I'm a little... curious I suppose, why "The Mercer Effect" is seen so negatively. I mean, literally all I think would be required is to tell players "Those guys are professional actors. We aren't." and that would take away a lot of the expectations put forth onto people. I mean, telling your Pee-Wee Football team, "Guys, you aren't Peyton Manning, he is a professional." is pretty standard, right? Why is this so hard for the DnD community?

My guess at least is the same reason there are so often "How do I deal with a problem player?" type posts in various D&D communities. Since the answer to both problems is "talk to them".

 

[billd91]

I'm not a golfer, but is the "Tiger Effect" a bad thing in golf? Is there a negative "Manning Effect" in American Football or a "John Wayne effect" that people complained about in the 50's?I think I remember hearing about a "Kirby Effect" in comics when I studied them a few years back (referring to Jack "The King" Kirby).

I wonder this because I don't think I've encountered this idea in other entertainment media very often, and Mercer is probably going to be seen as the first "big star" of DnD. I mean, sure, Gygax and Arneson were the creators of the game, but beyond that I don't know if there are really any players that got this "famous" for playing the game, not like Perkins and Mercer, and there is no "Chris Perkins Effect".

So, I'm a little... curious I suppose, why "The Mercer Effect" is seen so negatively. I mean, literally all I think would be required is to tell players "Those guys are professional actors. We aren't." and that would take away a lot of the expectations put forth onto people. I mean, telling your Pee-Wee Football team, "Guys, you aren't Peyton Manning, he is a professional." is pretty standard, right? Why is this so hard for the DnD community?

I don't think it's just a "Mercer Effect". I think there's a recognizable "Gygaxian Effect" in various message board discussions about how the game is played, maybe particularly among the OSR enthusiasts. It's just not called that, as far as I can tell, and may be a bit less defined.

I would also argue that it's not just among RPGers. You see it in movies too. There are plenty of directors who will explore another influencing director's style. To give you an example, Zak and Miri Make a Porno is about as Judd Apatow a movie as I've seen that isn't directed by Judd Apatow. I think Kevin Smith was deliberately exploring Apatow's style. And you see that with movies that aren't by Wes Anderson but really feel like they might be.

 

[Charlaquin]

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but something occurred to me that I wanted to write down. I'll probably catch up to it later when I've finished reading the thread.

I'm not a golfer, but is the "Tiger Effect" a bad thing in golf? Is there a negative "Manning Effect" in American Football or a "John Wayne effect" that people complained about in the 50's?I think I remember hearing about a "Kirby Effect" in comics when I studied them a few years back (referring to Jack "The King" Kirby).

I wonder this because I don't think I've encountered this idea in other entertainment media very often, and Mercer is probably going to be seen as the first "big star" of DnD. I mean, sure, Gygax and Arneson were the creators of the game, but beyond that I don't know if there are really any players that got this "famous" for playing the game, not like Perkins and Mercer, and there is no "Chris Perkins Effect".

So, I'm a little... curious I suppose, why "The Mercer Effect" is seen so negatively. I mean, literally all I think would be required is to tell players "Those guys are professional actors. We aren't." and that would take away a lot of the expectations put forth onto people. I mean, telling your Pee-Wee Football team, "Guys, you aren't Peyton Manning, he is a professional." is pretty standard, right? Why is this so hard for the DnD community?

Well first of all, I don't think the “Matt Mercer effect” is a real thing. It’s been pointed out a few times in this thread that accounts of players and DMs actually expecting their games to be just like Critical Role seem to always be third-hand. It looks less like a genuine phenomenon to me and more like a poor attempt at scaremongering targeted at old fogies who don’t like all this newfangled streaming business (which is itself a bit of a caricature).

Second of all, the quality of play in sports can be objectively measured, where DMing and playing is far more subjective. Fans setting Matt Mercer as an example of quality DMing is far more dubious than setting Tiger Woods as an example of quality golfing. Tiger undeniably golfs well, whereas opinions on Matt’s DMing are varied. Which, again, I think is the point of the alleged “Matt Mercer effect” - to scare gatekeep-y folks who are already worried that streaming is “ruining D&D” by saying “look, new players are treating The Bad Internet DM as a benchmark for good DMing! Won’t someone please think of the newbies!”

 

[Chaosmancer]

I caught up!

My guess at least is the same reason there are so often "How do I deal with a problem player?" type posts in various D&D communities. Since the answer to both problems is "talk to them".

I can see that, but I wonder still why this particular subject always seems to start negatively. People rarely open a topic like this to talk about how "The Mercer Effect" inspired them to create a new campaign and they are loving every minute of it. Or how the "Mercer Effect" showed them that DnD is a game that is inclusive to everyone and that cool people play it.

It is always "how do we deal with players wanting to be actors like Sam Reigel" or "How do we deal with DMs feeling inadequate next to Mercer"

That's why I brought up other famous people in their respective fields, not neccesarily the best, just famous. Would you expect people to go to a basketball game and complain about the unrealistic expectations set by Shaq or Jordan? Why do we associate Mercer with problem players while rarely talking about the positive aspects within the community.

I don't know if the video is still up, but I remember in Season 1, back when they still had time to read letters, they would constantly get mail from people about how CR helped them through a rough time in their lives, or helped inspire them to create, to the point where I remember they had a video, I think it was almost an hour, that was just full of dedications people gave for the positive impact CR and/or DnD had on their lives.

That is just as much the "Mercer Effect" as people coming to the table and expected houserules that you don't use.

I don't think it's just a "Mercer Effect". I think there's a recognizable "Gygaxian Effect" in various message board discussions about how the game is played, maybe particularly among the OSR enthusiasts. It's just not called that, as far as I can tell, and may be a bit less defined.

I would also argue that it's not just among RPGers. You see it in movies too. There are plenty of directors who will explore another influencing director's style. To give you an example, Zak and Miri Make a Porno is about as Judd Apatow a movie as I've seen that isn't directed by Judd Apatow. I think Kevin Smith was deliberately exploring Apatow's style. And you see that with movies that aren't by Wes Anderson but really feel like they might be.

It is late and I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your point. Could you elaborate?

Well first of all, I don't think the “Matt Mercer effect” is a real thing. It’s been pointed out a few times in this thread that accounts of players and DMs actually expecting their games to be just like Critical Role seem to always be third-hand. It looks less like a genuine phenomenon to me and more like a poor attempt at scaremongering targeted at old fogies who don’t like all this newfangled streaming business (which is itself a bit of a caricature).

I disagree with a catch.

I think there is an effect Matt Mercer and CR has had on the Dungeons and Dragons community. I do not believe it is being accurately portrayed very often in these discussions, but if DnD lasts another hundred years and gets a comprehensive history, Mercer gets a full chapter in that history.

But I do agree, I think the anecdotes do seem to be blown a little out of proportion.

Second of all, the quality of play in sports can be objectively measured, where DMing and playing is far more subjective. Fans setting Matt Mercer as an example of quality DMing is far more dubious than setting Tiger Woods as an example of quality golfing. Tiger undeniably golfs well, whereas opinions on Matt’s DMing are varied. Which, again, I think is the point of the alleged “Matt Mercer effect” - to scare gatekeep-y folks who are already worried that streaming is “ruining D&D” by saying “look, new players are treating The Bad Internet DM as a benchmark for good DMing! Won’t someone please think of the newbies!”

I can see that, but I want to clarify my point.

I was trying to come up with "famous" people in their fields, not neccesarily the best. And, by default of how the world works, people famous within a field tend to be very good within that field.

But, look at John Wayne. Was he a good actor? I assume so, but I'm also positive film critics could name a half a dozen actors who were better than him. But Wayne was incredibly famous and affected the Culture.

I think also, that if we step back and think about it, the new players that come from Critical Role are 100% right. Mercer is the Best DM they have ever seen. He is also probably the only DM they have ever seen.

In fact, thinking about it, most people will likely have had only around a dozen DMs, some people far far less than that. And those new players will have never seen your (speaking to the invisible "you" over that way) DMing style.

But I also think it is fair to say that while you might not like Mercer's style, he is an excellent GM. I won't say the greatest or the best, but I think even his worst critics will admit he gets a solid B as a GM. And he is visible. When I first picked up DnD books around the age of twelve, that didn't exist for me. I was in college before I ever played a single game, and I refused to run until I had played, because I had no idea what to do. I had no idea what DMing "looked" like. But now, there is a highly visible, competent DM. And if you don't like him, there are about another dozen you could refer to, but people who don't have someone to ask "hey, what is DnD" might still stumble across Critical Role and see what it is that we all love.

And, I think that is worth getting a few players who insist on things being a certain way.

 

[Charlaquin]

I disagree with a catch.

I think there is an effect Matt Mercer and CR has had on the Dungeons and Dragons community. I do not believe it is being accurately portrayed very often in these discussions, but if DnD lasts another hundred years and gets a comprehensive history, Mercer gets a full chapter in that history.

But I do agree, I think the anecdotes do seem to be blown a little out of proportion.

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.

I can see that, but I want to clarify my point.

I was trying to come up with "famous" people in their fields, not neccesarily the best. And, by default of how the world works, people famous within a field tend to be very good within that field.

But, look at John Wayne. Was he a good actor? I assume so, but I'm also positive film critics could name a half a dozen actors who were better than him. But Wayne was incredibly famous and affected the Culture.

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.

I think also, that if we step back and think about it, the new players that come from Critical Role are 100% right. Mercer is the Best DM they have ever seen. He is also probably the only DM they have ever seen.

In fact, thinking about it, most people will likely have had only around a dozen DMs, some people far far less than that. And those new players will have never seen your (speaking to the invisible "you" over that way) DMing style.

But I also think it is fair to say that while you might not like Mercer's style, he is an excellent GM. I won't say the greatest or the best, but I think even his worst critics will admit he gets a solid B as a GM. And he is visible. When I first picked up DnD books around the age of twelve, that didn't exist for me. I was in college before I ever played a single game, and I refused to run until I had played, because I had no idea what to do. I had no idea what DMing "looked" like. But now, there is a highly visible, competent DM. And if you don't like him, there are about another dozen you could refer to, but people who don't have someone to ask "hey, what is DnD" might still stumble across Critical Role and see what it is that we all love.

And, I think that is worth getting a few players who insist on things being a certain way.

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.

 

[Jester David]

It is always "how do we deal with players wanting to be actors like Sam Reigel" or "How do we deal with DMs feeling inadequate next to Mercer"

That's why I brought up other famous people in their respective fields, not neccesarily the best, just famous. Would you expect people to go to a basketball game and complain about the unrealistic expectations set by Shaq or Jordan?

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.

Why do we associate Mercer with problem players while rarely talking about the positive aspects within the community.

Because the internet is a relentlessly horrible place full of whiners upset about something.

So people are going to complain about Mercer... unless you go to reddit.com/r/criticalrole[/QUOTE]

 

[billd91]

It is late and I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your point. Could you elaborate?

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.

 

[Lem23]

@Charlaquin do you mind if I ask what your GM style is if it differs so much from Mercer's?

I'm honestly a little perpelexed by people that aren't GMing like Mercer; as I said above, it's been the style we've used for 30-40 years now. I thought that was the standard GMing style, and expected more from someone that people have been lauding. If his style is somehow superior to such an extent that people are saying they can't live up to his standards, I'm seriously wondering how they GM a game!