Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7983524" data-attributes="member: 6779196">He’s far more expository than I am. I prefer to keep the exposition to a minimum so we can get on with the actual game. I also don’t focus as much on interacting with NPCs. Time spent talking to quirky townies is time not spent making consequential decisions, which in my view is the point of the game.Matt’s narration style is also very different than mine. He tends to describe in terms of the characters’ experience, (e.g. “as you step into the chamber, you see [whatever]”) and frequently describes the character’s actions in the resolution of said action. I try to avoid starting my narrative sentences with “you” and I never tell the players what their characters do. That’s a big pet peeve of mine. The conversation of my games also flows differently than his. In my games, an action must have a clear goal and approach, and I will only call for a check if the action has the possibility of succeeding, the possibility of failing, and a cost for attempting and/or consequence for failing. In contrast, Matt will often call for checks simply because an action was declared, even though the outcome isn’t uncertain (e.g. calling for a Perception or Investigation check when there isn’t actually anything to be found.) Along these lines, he’ll call for checks to resolve action declarations I would consider incomplete. For example, Sam often just says “I check for traps” and Matt calls for an Investigation check, whereas I would ask that the player tell me what their character is doing to try to determine the presence of traps.The last two points are related - it becomes necessary to describe what a character is doing as part of the resolution of the action if you call for a check with only a goal and no approach. As well, for all Matt’s exposition, I find he doesn’t always sufficiently telegraph hidden elements (such as traps); this makes it difficult for the players to describe clear approaches since they don’t have enough information to decide how to interact with the environment, which in turn necessitates the DM describing the character’s action since the player did not. It’s all interconnected.To be clear, I don’t think his style is superior. He is very descriptive, he does great sound-effects, and he makes very entertaining NPCs. If those are things you value highly in the game, you’ll like his style. But the alleged “Matt Mercer Effect” (which remember, I don’t believe is a real thing) isn’t that Matt Mercer sets an impossibly high standard. It’s that he creates very particular expectations. The (IMO unfounded) fear is that players who get into the game through critical role will have their idea of quality DMing set by what they’ve seen Matt Mercer do, and that they will consider DMs who do things differently to be doing them poorly.</blockquote>

Verification