The Matt Mercer Effect Is a Myth! 

I my personal experience I was never accused of not being enough like Matt but I was told the game wasn't enough like CR. I used to be a Critter. I've met Matt a couple of times and he is one of the best persons in the planet. The reason I stopped following CR is because I suppose I grew out of it but I still love and respect them a lot. I suppose I stopped feeling identified with the community, which definitely has a lot of bad actors (I've been in conventions where CR was doing panels and I can testify there is a lot of crazy going on there among the audience, so I can believe the Matt Mercer effect definitely happens). There were also lots of amazing people. But not for a million years it would occur to me to blame Matt for it. Quite the opposite.

I have a unique instance where critical role helped me as a player. When I started, I didn’t really get it. I didn’t want to roleplay. I didn’t understand what the game *could* be. Or how much depth my character *could* have. I started watching CR after we finished our second module, and I saw those actors really putting themselves out there, and having an amazing time doing it. It was good modeling behavior, if you will. I never expected the game to be like CR, but I altered my play style to be more immersed in the world the DM was presenting.

I don't think it's a "myth", I believe the phenomenon manifests differently than its name suggests. It influences new DMs in how they should present or express the game; what is necessary and what is important for player fun. Critical Roll is approachable for younger people to enjoy some nerdy drama, but not really written for grognards. It is run viewer-experience first. It is to DnD gaming what Iron Chef is to cooking. This is very different than most peoples' first DnD experiences, historically, and emphasizes very different things than even the DMG or PHB do.

I'm kinda an oddball with this, the Mercer effect for me has been the opposite. I've been running a game for 12 years. I discovered Critical Role just a few years ago, but instead of my players expecting the game to be like Critical Role, I tried to run it like critical role (or as well as I could on I shoestring budget). No one has had a problem with it (I'm no voice actor), but they don't always embrace it as I might. I don't say, "How do you want to do this?" I say, "Finish Him" which basically is the same thing, but more Mortal Kombat style. But, it hasn't been an issue since I'm the DM and the only one swinging for the fence like that. But it has helped me improve here and there as a DM. Plus, I know my players would not tolerate some of the things Matt has done on Critical Role, which makes me feel that I'm meeting a challenge even he hasn't, maybe.

I’ve seen another video similar to this from Seth Skorkowsky (look him up, he’s great too for this kind of stuff). For him, it’s the story of Jeff, and it’s very much the same idea of the Mercer Effect. If someone already has a GM they watch or play with, then that will color the lens through which they view your game. It’s a problem though when someone says “That’s not how Person X does it,” and won’t accept that you’re not Person X. Advice of something like “Well, I saw this person do it like this, and I really liked it. Is it possible to try something like that?” is awesome in my opinion. But, if someone is going to complain that I’m not a great actor or impressionist, that I fumble on my words or rulings at times, or that my stories aren’t as epic, then that’s someone I’ll eventually just say “Look, I’m sorry you’re not having as much fun as you want, and I’m doing what I can. But, just complaining won’t help, so either tell me what you’re asking for, change your own mind, or walk away.” If your partner always complains about how you’re not as good as their ex, then you can tell them, “I’m your partner. Either you can work with me to make this relationship work, or go back to your ex.”

I was asked a couple of times a few years ago (when CR was around it's peak) whether I was worried about this 'Matt Mercer Effect' and my response was basically; No - I'm not trying to run a game like Critical Role, I'm running my game in my way and I can do plenty of stuff that Critical Role can't despite it's budget - my terrain is better than anything the CR production team have put on the table, my home-brew system runs a lot faster and smoother than the D&D 5th/Pathfinder blend Matt uses and best of all my players are not attention seeking show-offs who have to over-react to everything that happens for the cameras. Also while I'm not a voice actor I can do plenty of voices and accents so I'm not worried by that aspect. But the point is that GMs need to look at what makes their games special and use that to make their game the best they can be. Run your game not Matt Mercer's game, do what he can't.

Mercer effect I agree generally doesn't exist, but influence of the internet and live plays I think have had an influence. My experience has been of over twenty players across four different D&D groups since 2020 (I've been DMing longer, but this is my recent experience). I rarely if ever have new players drop into the game that's too much of a risk to the group dynamic. Across these groups of strangers, I've had problems with 5 in total. Session Zero didn't help with that, nor did public, or private chats with the player in question. Ultimately, their play style is different to mine, not that they are a 'bad' player. Of those five players, one had main character syndrome where they effectively wanted to recreate Percy from Critical Role and no matter how much I tried to encourage or cajole the player they just wanted to be Percy and play that character. They were promptly removed from the group - I'm not the DM for them. Our playstyles aren't compatible. Not a Mercer effect I'll agree. Two of them did have rules issues with the way I adjudicated. Now I make clear at the top of the session zero, and throughout play - I don't care what Sage Advice says, nor what Jeremy Crawford says. I'm going to consider what's written in the book as published. That's how I've played since the 90's. Let's decide what's right for OUR table. In these two cases (different groups) both players moaned about how SA and other groups, and other DMs would rule differently. Not a problem at first but once a decision had been taken I got deluged with how unfair it was and how not right it was. I'd get long conversations outside of game time. That I don't have time or inclination for and simply removed the two players explaining why publicly to both the party and the removed players. I am happy to have these discussions in the game session itself but not in my own time, and certainly not rehashing the same point over and over, just because the player found some forum post or (no offense intended) RU-vid video. Finally the remaining players left themselves because they themselves stated it wasn't what they thought it would be. It didn't feel like what they did on Dimension 20. Fair point, as I mentioned to them every table has a different dynamic, they could stay or leave and it was up to them. I'm not going to hold it against them one way or the other. My point here, at least from my own experience is that the influence of the internet has changed the hobby a lot. Playing in the college library with just PHB and DMG of the day we couldn't or didn't run to the internet to check a rule. We agreed on it as a group around the table. We understood that this was what worked for OUR table. I feel like people are so eager to run to the internet these days to support their viewpoints and arguments that they kinda lose sight of that. Mercer just happens to be an easy to villify figure...especially if you've had a player call out your lack of accents, or their lack of fun, or whatever. Mercer effect doesn't really exist I agree, the influence of external factors though...I feel like it does personally.

I think it really impact new players and dms, so you don't see many testimonies on reddit where really invested players are. As a dm, I experienced it from players who never played and had just seen critical role, where disappointed and never played again. So not really in the community.

When Critical Role first came out it was bad in Az at least. I'm an Old Guy , I used minis and did what accents I can but man! Some acted like they were paying you to play. Its faded quite a bit now I think. In fact honestly CR isnt talked about as much anymore here anyway.

Im still shocked Critical Role is popular. It just feels like that 2012 Big-Bang-Theory "I'm a nerd cause Felicia Day exists" thing.

I started watching CR last year. I actually got to start playing D&D this year. And Im FUCKING LOVING it! Wanted to play 30 years now, but never could find a group. So, I was not expecting a 1 to 1 ratio. But I am having a blast, and our DM has definetely hit us with some serious shit that makes me gasp, facepalm, or laugh my ass off.

I worked as a professional GM, so I had many different groups; some just for oneshots, some for long campaigns. it's not a "mercer effect", that's only for critical role fans and not that many actually watch the show (I was the only one in over 50 GM), but the term is more broad, it's used for people that have an expectation instead of a real passion. just like your NBA example. it might not be mercer: maybe it's colville, maybe it's aabria, maybe it's axiom, maybe it's matt, maybe it's gianandrea... the point it's that people watch a show (maybe even just stranger things) and come to the table expecting something without actually realizing how it works. hell, some don't even have the BASIC REQUIREMENTS to play. "oh everyone can play dnd, don't be a dick" no. you can learn to play dnd, you can learn the rule, you can discover a passion, you can find a good playstyle, you can find the right synergy, you can learn manners, you can even fake it, but you CANNOT play if you don't want to interact with people, you CANNOT play if you don't want to react to the world, you CANNOT play if you lack immagination or can't pretend. not saying it in a hurtful way, some people are just unable too, it's just how it is. you can't pretend you are in a forest? you can't imagine yourself moving your arm holding a sword? you can't believe you are paying bread with gold to a person that it's not actually me, but a townfolk? ok, this is not for you, I don't have to force it. many just come to a session to just be with other people and hearing a story or other people talk, and as long as that's enough for you and you might need it, it's ok! but others come and desire entertainment without actually wanting to partecipate, unless it's for twisting the story, not making it go as it would in a static media like a book and see what would happen. they want to be engaged, but not to actually engage. I had sessions with people devoid of life (and I would be to, after being a client of that horrible organization I worked for) that would make small questions or just stay silent watching me, forcing me to probe stuff from them, using NPC to progress the story and just reach a conclusion, or even just have me yap for 3 hours straight to avoid the silence. the mercer effect exist and it's not even about players being bad or cunts. and before someone points it out, I know my worth, I'm a seriously good GM and my many players confirmed it, as well as managing to keep the same group for over 3 years without anyone getting fed up. and I saw the level of other PRO, I reapeat PRO, GMs while working for that group, so I'm much more confident in this. but tbh, this stuff is no worth saying, since the right anwser already exist: if you want a DM at the level of mercer, you need to be a player on the level of bailey, o'brian or taliesin (and the others)(sorry others, just forgot the surname).

I don't love that this is named after one guy, but it's not so much a myth as it is a misunderstanding. It's the inevitable thing that happens when something niche goes mainstream. We've all seen it, whether we are metal heads, American Buddhists or ttrpg players. Some people get ideas about what a thing is/isn't or must/mustn't be when they have little experience with the depth and breadth of what it can be. We should call it "mainstream syndrome" or "normie brainrot" instead of "the Mercer effect." Also, we should attempt to bring the normies up to speed with us, instead of insulting then for not fully understanding what they have discovered.

It's my opinion that players who don't like the way the game is being run--for whatever reason--should GM their own games (no hostility here, being sincere). The hobby needs GMs, and the complainers can find out what it's like trying to be Matt Mercer. And guess who else started running games because they were dissatisfied with the GM--Matt Mercer.

I think the Mercer effect isn't something that happens, like, at the table. But some dungeon masters feel pressured to master a nice story, with plot twists, emotional apeal and crying players, like them. Even when no one reali says they have to. That's what I call the Mercer Effect, and I've seen this a lot, including with me. Several times I got me thinking "but why aren't the players invested and interested in the story like I see in that shows? What's wrong with the plot I wrote? Is it too simple?".

I have DMd for 20 years and have always done it the way Mat Mercer does, my friends all DM that way as well, it is t a Matt Mercer style it is just a way of DMing

Great vid. Well said. I've had similar thoughts before. My current DM is a stranger from the internet (friend of an internet friend) who has become a great connection and delightful friend of mine. His DM style is great, not perfect, but great... and I treasure the time we get to play together. Early on, the group had a chat about the CR of it all and DM said he like matt but hates the effect. He then gave the most generalized, detailless, description of a past issue with a CR expecting player. And I thought... i don't believe this really happened... but who cares. No biggy. Lets play some Dnd. Over the last year of playing weekly games (dm is still great) but i noticed in his stories... none of his friends watch CR and he only plays with his friends. I'm in the first group he picked up cause we were friends of friends. So.... who was this friend in the past that watched CR and had unrealistic expectations? After that initial story was told 1+ yr ago... they ceased to exist. So... perhaps that story was a fabrication all along, simply because it was the "in" thing to complain about at the time.

I’ve never had this problem but I haven’t DMed at a convention since he became so popular either. You’re right though, talk it out

Very good video thank u 🙏

The internet and people with far too much time on their hands accounts for much of the drama surrounding these communities, neglecting the fact that role-players as a whole are drama queens as is. These games originally would have all typically been played with people you already knew, friends or friends of friends and not random thrown together games on the internet to be played with strangers. It's a past time, a hobby and none of it, even for a single minute, is worth stressing over. Negotiate and resolve things or abandon the game and find something else to do. We're people sitting at tables, rolling dice and making up nonsense for our characters to fight and overcome. None of it matters. People need to get over themselves. You can choose to wallow in the negativity or move on and make things positive again. The negativity will always be there, always. Take the positives, the good ideas, go and have fun.

I'm definitely someone who was brought back into tabletop RPG (and the D&D brand specifically) through CR, and although I stopped after their first campaign (I just loved the original cast and couldn't bring myself to move on), the only Mercer effect I can report as a DM has come from myself and my desire to be as masterful a storyteller as Matt. If it weren't for his example (and that of Matt Coleville) I never would have taken the steps to begin my own campaign!

Always struck me as mostly made up. Players do compare GMs and talk happily about the styles they like. My style is somewhat similar to Matt’s, and my players love it. Not because of any similarity to Mr. Mercer but because it’s the way I have been running for 30 years and that’s what they’ve come to expect from me. My players also like the GMing style of our friend __, whose style is nothing like mine or Matt’s. Or Brennan, or Abriyah, or any others for that matter. I really enjoy D20Play’s actual plays, and his style is the polar opposite of mine and I doubt he would enjoy playing at my table very much. We all have different skills and preferences, and that’s okay.

I absolutely hate the supposed Matt Mercer effect and the discourse around it so I'm glad to see people pushing back against it. In a sense I fundamentally disagree with the premise of the video. I absolutely believe that there is a Matt Mercer effect that exists, but it isn't to set unreasonable expectations at gaming tables around the world. Rather it is to inspire people, just like those in professional sports - to take their hobby seriously, to put time and effort into crafting and participating in these potentially incredible experiences. I think it's absurd that effect Matt is named after is one where he is accused of pushing people away from the hobby, when it is widely recognized that Critical Role almost single handedly pushed the hobby into a new golden age.

Critical role effect not Matt Mercer effect my experience was players and dm unable to recognise critical role is just a setting and not that important. My experience was players copying characters from their campaigns. The dm had a great setting, but threw it all away over his obsession. All he had to do was ask as the mess he made in his first game led to me running my game on Exandria explaining how my character was banished from Exandria into the entirely separate world his was set upon. He ultimately didn’t give a darn about either game and his actions whilst he was running his game was annoying enough. I had enough and quit. It’s been a couple of years since then but it hasn’t changed my mind about this myth.

If my only exposure to RPGs was Mercer & his gang, I would never have picked up another RPG book and found another hobby.

You're just using Mercer's name for clicks at this point because the title and content don't match each other lol.

yeeeess

Not a myth, just extremely over blown.

Not a myth, at all. Does it happen as often as people online make it out to? Doubt it, but definitely not a myth.

I've had players say things like that, and I tell them to go play with Matt. Oh? He doesn't accept whiny bitches? What a coincidence; neither do I. Problem solved. The only reason problem players exist is because people choose to tolerate them.

Sorry this whole thing screams, clever marketing ploy and it's subsequent effects that sprung lives of their own. I am not engaging in it sure, but the short of it is just went VIRAL. Idk if G&G instigated this or if it had more of a natural process, regardless if it is true or not is irrelevant.

I've seen people change how they DM/play because of the show. There was no catalytic event that moulded their character; they started watching it, they told me they started watching it and I noticed their change. It didn't come from anything internal, it was copying art majors who were spoofing rolls to capitalise on an industry that people were beat up for enjoying in highschool. Maybe if we brought bullying back I'd see less animal people in my games. Wanting to be like the talking animals you saw in your afternoon cartoons as a child is representative of a well adjusted adult, isn't it?

There is something to this Matt Mercer Effect but I don't view it as all bad. True, he is our most visible ambassador, and quite a capable ambassador at that, so when new players come to the game (which is what we want) some of them might be surprised that the game doesn't run exactly how they see it online. Some of those new players will get it and move ahead becoming great players and some will have to be taught how thebgame is played and they will also move on and become great players. It's those few who remain steadfast in the belief that what they play at the table should match what they saw online. New DM's trying to run games for the first time may try to copy Matt's style. One, oof that's a hard style two copy because it demands great instincts, maniacal attention to detail and huge improv chops, most things new DM's do not come equipped with. But it's not a bad thing, you will imitate your betters in the things you love. Writers do that when they first started writing, sports players imitate their heroes when they grow up. But after a time you will pick up your own style. I am in a 5e group and we have this youngin (he's young to is because we are all older) who has started DMimg in a couple smaller campaigns for us. The first few sessions were rough, gotta admit. We could see the Mercer Effect. But he loved DMing so we let him keep going. I am happy to admit he is a really good now. He is finding his voice and his sessions are very enjoyable. I did like the basketball analogy you threw in there. However, I was thinking of another analogy from basketball that might have more relevance. The Matt Mercer effect in the NBA is called the Steph Curry Effect. Before he came into the league, 3 point shots were a thing but not prevalent. But a few years into his career people started being amazed at how well he could shoot from distance, I mean REALLY good. Also his team mate, Klay Thompson, can shoot 3 pointers as well and they became known as The Splash Brothers. But nobody said they could win a championship. In fact, a famous NBA analyst once said no jump shooting team is ever going to win a championship. That same year, Steph's team, The Golden State Warriors won their first championship. And now the Steph Curry Effect begins and every junior basketball league now has little kids trying to huck it up there from long range. Some people are complaining about it but some of those young kid are now getting into the NBA and the 3 point shot is now a viable option for every team in the league. Steph has changed then game. Some people don't like it (like some people don't like 5e) but the NBA has grown in popularity all around the world and it home. Not bad for a jump shooting kid. The NBA has changed, D&D has changed. There's no arguing that. You may agree or not whether both have changed for the best but you can't deny the popularity, and it should be celebrated. I personally don't care for 5e mainly for the reasons you stated about the end game stuff. I prefer other systems and retro clones. But I absolutely love Matt for doing what he does. He will bring in new players. Some will stay with 5e and adore and some will explore other systems and become like me. I can't wait to meet those players. So more Mercer, please.

💯% Agree! The Mercer Effect is a social media bugaboo

Nope. It's not a 'thing' so much as a meme. I've never had a player compare me to any other GM let alone Mercer. Of course, I don't play with total strangers. Even when someone 'new' joins the game, that person has had enough real-time exposure to our group to 'get it'. Everyone at my table knows how I GM, knows the house rules and knows each other to a point that we're practically family. I think that's the key to the magic people see in CR. Mercer and his players are family. There's an obvious short-hand when it comes to how disputes are handled. I'd love to CR do a game in an actual dining or front room without the lavish mood lighting and battle stages. A simple, theater-of-the-mind with maybe a battle map scribbled out in Sharpie/Dry Erase and no character illustrations. Pretty sure Mulligan would do it. Not so sure Mercer would anymore. I mean, even when he an Colbert did the Red Nose one-shot there were props, BGM and the ever present Mercer voice acting.