Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074020

• unnaturally constant cheeriness
• unnatural high attention span

Again, that's the part where they're ACTING. No one would care if they just used their acting skills to portray the characters; it's that they use their acting skills to portray a player who's super-excited and super-emotive, like some housewife in a tv ad being near orgasmic about finding a better household cleanser.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1075458Again, that's the part where they're ACTING. No one would care if they just used their acting skills to portray the characters; it's that they use their acting skills to portray a player who's super-excited and super-emotive, like some housewife in a tv ad being near orgasmic about finding a better household cleanser.

It doesn't take a trained actor. Give me a 100 bucks and I'll be really attentive and engaged for 4 hours as well.

I can't stand these kinds of videos long enough to watch them, so take this as the uninformed opinion that it is:

It seems from the descriptions that y'all are making that the "staging" is somewhat akin to what professional sports announcers do.  Obviously, they don't know the exact direction of everything (i.e. not "scripted"), but they do have a very good idea of some of the possibilities, and have "rehearsed" dealing with those.  No one pretends that the two or three people in the booth (backed by their legion of stat guys, camera guys, etc.) are aware of the outcome before it start, but no one pretends that they are the same thing as people watching at home, however well prepared or informed, either.  

You can't observe something involving other people without potentially changing it.  And the more obviously observed it is, the more likely and dramatic the changes.  That's proven human psychology.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1075491I can't stand these kinds of videos long enough to watch them, so take this as the uninformed opinion that it is:

It seems from the descriptions that y'all are making that the "staging" is somewhat akin to what professional sports announcers do.  Obviously, they don't know the exact direction of everything (i.e. not "scripted"), but they do have a very good idea of some of the possibilities, and have "rehearsed" dealing with those.  No one pretends that the two or three people in the booth (backed by their legion of stat guys, camera guys, etc.) are aware of the outcome before it start, but no one pretends that they are the same thing as people watching at home, however well prepared or informed, either.  

You can't observe something involving other people without potentially changing it.  And the more obviously observed it is, the more likely and dramatic the changes.  That's proven human psychology.

I like your analysis. But it leaves the question - does this make it fake? And if so, is it then possible to stream a game that is not fake?

People are on good behavior for the cameras but that doesn't make it fake, any more than anything else on TV is being fake. Obviously you don't act like you're sitting in your underwear at home when you're on TV. But you're still you.

Quote from: Haffrung;1074077The "Mercer effect" is players expressing dissatisfaction with their DM because he doesn't do things the way Mercer does. A corollary effect is players reluctant to take up DMing because, with examples like Mercer and Perkins of how DMs are supposed to run a game, the bar is set intimidatingly high.

And as noted before. This is not just limited to YouTube replays. It goes back at least as far as the 80s and definitly the 90s where there were players expecting big dungeon dioramas with minis and 3d terrain for example, or those believing minis were needed to play and thus not getting into the game.

And as also noted. There are allways going to be people who see one example of something and for god unknown reasons become mentally locked in believing this is how all gaming is everywhere forever. It is not limited to RPGs. Seen it in board games, animation, writing, LARPing, costuming, freaking model rocketry even.

Quote from: RoyR;1075500I like your analysis. But it leaves the question - does this make it fake? And if so, is it then possible to stream a game that is not fake?

Well, if my analogy holds, it isn't a binary question.  A sport broadcast is always somewhat fake.  Parts of it are; parts of it are not.

It is not possible to stream a game without changing how the game is played.  As in, whatever the players think about it, they will change.  Now, it is possible to deliberately play in the way that one would as if it were streamed, even when it is not.  So over time, it would eventually become true that streaming that particular group wouldn't alter how they played in any measureable way.   They play the "streamed way" whether they are actually streamed or not.  In the same way that a sports caster will have developed habits of speech and mind that will not completely turn off, even when the cameras aren't rolling.

You get a similar dynamic in a courtroom when the proceedings are televised.  That's a more serious example, because it has potentially serious consequences for the people involved.

My gut reaction--and a big part of why I don't watch streamed games--is that I find them either unwatchable or inauthentic.   For the subset of "inauthentic" that might be called "fake", I suppose I find them fake.  I'm not sure that helps much.  I'd say "inauthentic" is less forceful than "fake" on the surface, but probably more damning in the long run.  The more charitable interpretation is, "changed to be so different that is its own thing."

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1075516Well, if my analogy holds, it isn't a binary question.  A sport broadcast is always somewhat fake.  Parts of it are; parts of it are not.

It is not possible to stream a game without changing how the game is played.  As in, whatever the players think about it, they will change.  Now, it is possible to deliberately play in the way that one would as if it were streamed, even when it is not.  So over time, it would eventually become true that streaming that particular group wouldn't alter how they played in any measureable way.   They play the "streamed way" whether they are actually streamed or not.  In the same way that a sports caster will have developed habits of speech and mind that will not completely turn off, even when the cameras aren't rolling.

You get a similar dynamic in a courtroom when the proceedings are televised.  That's a more serious example, because it has potentially serious consequences for the people involved.

My gut reaction--and a big part of why I don't watch streamed games--is that I find them either unwatchable or inauthentic.   For the subset of "inauthentic" that might be called "fake", I suppose I find them fake.  I'm not sure that helps much.  I'd say "inauthentic" is less forceful than "fake" on the surface, but probably more damning in the long run.  The more charitable interpretation is, "changed to be so different that is its own thing."

I agree that doing something in front of an audience of any kind, if only of one or a single microphone, do change how people behave. So if your definition of an authentic game is that the game is done without any audience at all, then it follows that streamed games are inauthentic. One interesting aspect of this would be how you see games of strangers, or games in public places like at a convention. Because also here people change how they behave and thus are, to a varying degree, inauthentic by this use of the word.

But listening to Pundit I don't think this is the whole issue that he has with Critical Role. This as he is stressing that Critical Role is a "show" and neither "real" nor "real dnd", but he fails to state what he defines as a "show" or "real". Or that being inauthentic is what Jaeger is defining as "staged".

I think the main 'Mercer Effect' is that among new players these days I get a higher proportion of good looking, well dressed, young professionals, and fewer catpissmen - though the latter were always pretty rare.

Edit: I do have one new guy who doesn't actually smell of cat urine, but his aspergery PMs are starting to annoy me.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1075491I can't stand these kinds of videos long enough to watch them, so take this as the uninformed opinion that it is:

It seems from the descriptions that y'all are making that the "staging" is somewhat akin to what professional sports announcers do.  Obviously, they don't know the exact direction of everything (i.e. not "scripted"), but they do have a very good idea of some of the possibilities, and have "rehearsed" dealing with those.  No one pretends that the two or three people in the booth (backed by their legion of stat guys, camera guys, etc.) are aware of the outcome before it start, but no one pretends that they are the same thing as people watching at home, however well prepared or informed, either.

That's an interesting comparison.

I just watched a Youtube video called Matt Mercer: How to Be a Good Dungeon Master. It's a reverential fanboy* summation of how awesome Mercer is at D&D and how you can be too if you learn to be like him. And we know how awesome Mercer is by the theatrical, emotional, over-the-top reactions of his players that the video captures. They gasp in astonishment. Recoil in horror. Clutch one another in rapturous joy. They cry.

This video has 639k views. Shitloads of people are getting their expectations about what D&D is from this sort of thing. And while there's some good advice in it, I suspect it's also setting up a lot of players for disappointment and frustration. Why aren't our D&D session like that? Why doesn't my DM make me astonished or frightened or rapturous with joy? Why doesn't he make me cry?

I suspect it's also convincing a lot of prospective DMs that they can't do this. Can't make people hug one another in jubilation or recoil in horror. Can't make them cry. Can't be a good DM because they're just a guy who knows the rules to the game and has some cool ideas for adventures.

* Is it just me, or has this sort of exaggerated, gushing, performative shout-it-from-the-mountaintop love of content creators become more prominent in recent years? I see it on goodreads too, in the reviews of fantasy books. It seems to be a way to gain status in fandom. Is this just a geek thing, or a digital native thing?

It's a "now we can pump out so much content on a theme that you don't have to consume anything else" thing.  (along with a "almost no one has to labor hard for 12 hours a day to survive" thing)
 
There were people in 1860 who loved Charles Dickens books like today's geeks love star wars.  But they couldn't have devoted their life to it had they tried.

What an interesting thread!  

I don't think it's fair to say that pornographic sex is not 'real sex'.  I mean, clearly the participants are paid to look like they're having more fun than they probably are and there is a lot more consideration for the audience than you would find in a personal relationship that wasn't being recorded.  But that same couple with the same personal relationship would probably play to the camera more, pretend that they're enjoying it more, or spend less time negotiating their positions.  I'm not a fan of watching games online no matter how much they try to make it fun for me, but I certainly don't think it isn't 'real' because it's designed for an audience.  I don't even think it is 'uncommon' - I know that there are a lot of pornographic movies released - at what point would 'real sex' become less common than porn sex?  I'm pretty sure that real sex is more common, but I bet for a lot of adult entertainers, they see more of the fake type than the real type.  It's a matter of perspective.  

If you take someone that is really good at pornography, I think they might bring some of that into the 'real sex' realm.  If you really have sex with a porn star (say, because she's your girlfriend) the line for you between 'real' and 'porn' might be a little blurry.  

Which ultimately just goes to the point that different people play D&D and emphasize different things.  I'm tempted to agree that a gaming group where people are polite must be fake, but that's just a dig at the people who like gaming enough to spend hours of their real life arguing about it online with strangers.  

Saying 'it must be fake because nobody could be that good' is unconvincing.  How do you make a determination like that?  That's like saying Olympic gymnastics is fake because nobody could move their body like that.  It's not common by any means, but there are teams of elite gymnasts from nearly every country in the world - but I've probably never met anyone that could do that in real life - but that's just a reflection of the social circles I run in.  

There are people that might see Matt Mercer's game and hope for something like that.  They may be disappointed and they may leave the hobby - that doesn't hurt anyone.  There's also some non-zero number that probably will enjoy the hobby and join it for life.  There's even a small chance that a very small number set out to achieve the apparently insurmountable and make games that are really that fun.  

In any case, even if the people playing aren't really that happy or really that scared, among a certain type of person PRETENDING that you are is just as fun as actually feeling that emotion.  Like, it's a known thing with actors.  There's even a name for it - acting.  It's not weird that actors would enjoy acting when they're doing non-acting things.  In fact, it is less weird than me pretending that a walk through the National Park is exploring a fantastic forest.

It's ridiculous to expect people to stop doing what they're doing if they're having fun with it to avoid giving other people the 'wrong ideas' about the hobby.  Most people are going to realize that gaming is variable in how much fun it is - like a TV series there are good sessions and bad sessions; you just hope on the whole it's worth the time you're putting in.  If you're playing with friends, it probably is.  What's wrong with that?

Quote from: estar;1070456You know what boring in general, listening to other gamers talk about in detail about playing in a campaign.

What even more boring is watching a video of RPG hobbyists playing in a session.

Matt Mercer was one of the people to figure out how to make a video of hobbyists playing a session NOT boring.

Kudos for him. Not my cup of tea but I will give props to him for figuring it out and making it work enough to earn money from it.

And I agree with S'mon, Critical Role has been a benefit to the hobby. There is more than enough room on the ship to accommodate what he is doing.  

If turns out in the long run to be something different enough to be own thing. Then the tabletop RPG hobby will continue chug along like when CRPGs turned out to be their own thing and one that grew to a far larger audience than the hobby that spawned them.

This would be my take on Critical Role as well.  I have not watched much of it myself because I just cant get into watching other people play and on the other hand having actors play is a genius idea for getting people interested in playing themselves.

You are always going to have personalities with followings and at the moment we have the Matt Mercer effect, next month it might be the Matt Colville effect.

[video=youtube_share;zCZFubgKsk8]https://youtu.be/zCZFubgKsk8?t=1569[/youtube]

You guys should watch Matt Colville talk about how streaming affected his D&D game in this interview. He points out how a lot of the changes we see (like lack of tabletalk) aren't planned but just happen organically as the players try to focus in front of the camera. Then he says that's great. lool