Anti-Mercer effect

I've heard a lot about the so-called "Mercer Effect." Although I hadn't watched it at all, the Critical Role D&D stuff on YouTube was, according to the definition of this phenomena, causing people to feel inadequate because their games weren't as good as that of Matt Mercer and his gang of professional voice actors. 

I've finally watched some Critical Role. Not a lot, mind you. I've seen the first three episodes, so about 8-9 hours worth. No doubt, the game goes on to better heights. But honestly, I'm not sure what all of the to-do is about. He is a good GM, let's be clear. I recognize that. And because of their professional role, the gang is certainly capable of a level of perfomance in character that few groups will ever match. I can't do accents and funny voices like Mercer and his guys do. 

But other than that, I was struck by how... normal the whole thing really was. My old group played about as well as they do. Our GMs were as good as him, or at least presented a very similar quality game. Games I played when I went to GenCon and a few other group activities were as good (granted, I didn't play in any "general pool" GenCon game, I played with people that I already knew from online. For better or for worse, I've lost touch with pretty much all of them in the years since, but we had some good games at the time.)

So, I dunno. If this is an example of an extraordinarily good game, I guess that means that most of my experience in the last several years has also been extraordinarily good, and I didn't really know it? I thought we were a bit more average. Not to knock Mercer's game nor to elevate my own, but again; I find the experience of watching him entertaining enough that I'll keep going (for now) but I don't find his game extrordinarily extraordinary. In fact, I find it extraordinarily... ordinary, if that makes sense.

Granted, I think a lot of the Mercer Effect discussion is geared towards new GMs, new players, and unreasonable expectations for people who lack experience. I've heard that specifically said, and I think that it's a valid observation. Then again, the only way to get experience is to... y'know, go out and get experience. But what I'm saying is that it's certainly possible to get enough experience to run a game that's comparable to theirs. I expect and demand nothing less myself, as a matter of fact. 

I think this goes back to something that I've said before, and maybe need to reiterate; the most important variable that determines how good your game will be is who you play with. One of the reasons I haven't gamed much in the last few years is that my old gaming group ending up breaking up; people moved, people got busy, had kids, had career changes, etc. And I don't think gaming is worth it to do with just anybody. If you're not gaming with people who you like to hang out with, then it's not worth doing. And while everyone has to start somewhere, and I'm patient with newer players, or those who maybe are more shy and less "into it"—eventually you want to migrate to playing with people who play the game well, either by helping newer or less experienced players to get there, or focusing on finding better players. Or, maybe more to the point, and maybe better stated than simply "better players"; players who want the same thing out of the experience as you do, or at least complementary things. One of the things that can cause even good players to have friction at the table is just coming at it with different expectations on what the game is to offer.

Anyway, I suppose the anti-Mercer effect comes into play when after hearing the Mercer game talked up as some kind of pinnacle to be aspired to, and finding that watching it, it seems little different than the games I'm used to (minus the better accents), that I must have a pretty good game, I guess. Rather than feeling discouraged that my games don't measure up, I find that I'm more likely to rest on my laurels thinking that I've already "arrived." Neither is a good attitude, of course. You are where you are, and the only way to move to somewhere else that you prefer to be is to jump in and get practice at doing what you want to be better at.

Maybe I should find some accent classes so I can better mimic some regional British accents, or something?

UPDATE: I'm on the fourth episode, and yeah—I mean, this stuff is over five years old, and there's tons more out there since.However, I believe what I wrote above is still very true. In fact, I find the gameplay much more mechanistic than I'd like, but that's mostly an artifact of the system being used rather than of the skill of the DMing or playing either one. I prefer describing things in much more naturalistic rather than mechanistic terms, and I prefer players who think "what would I do in this situation if it were actually me?" rather than looking over their character sheet to see which super-power to bring to bear. (That wasn't meant as a pun, but if you've watched the second episode, you know that bears feature a fair bit.)

In other words, the anti-Mercer effect for me even goes to show me how much I don't really love the systems that they're using, and how I demand something even better, I suppose.

And doesn't every group need a Tiberias and a Grog? Without them, the game doesn't seem to really do much or go anywhere, and wherever it does go and whatever it does do, it isn't nearly as fun.