There are a lot of positives....but also some negatives.
As mentioned, many influencers have contributed to the explosion in popularity of the current edition, making D&D much more inclusive and accessible to learn about and get into. From celebrities streaming epic campaigns with loads of creativity and passion, Youtubers sharing the lore and history of the franchise, influencers giving advice on all manner of topics both for players and DMs, and others just creating fun builds, cool monsters and all manner of other content related to D&D.....there is a lot of wonderful content to follow.
However, I’ve found that often times people will use different influencer’s advice and opinions that they are fans of as gospel to how to play their D&D games, or use the opinions of different influencers to attack or speak down to others when opinions differ. Not to mention that just like everyone else, influencers (no matter their experiences or knowledge) are fallible people with their own biases. Some are much better at telling you that upfront, and expressing that it’s ok to have a difference of opinion on how you enjoy D&D. Others.....not so much.
Honestly though, it’s not too different from any other fandom. Their are positives and negatives to any large group of people who are passionate about the same thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
So that's a tip of the iceberg(and a viewing into what I personally sometimes might consume) for D&D Content. People like Jeremy absolutely have influence in the game, because they write the material. Also, as a recognized authority figure, even though their views might not reach a lot of people IMMEDIATELY, their thoughts spread far and wide. Jeremy gets some flack because he has said in the past hey, run the table how you want(echoing the DMG) and that he'd run certain things different(because he's the DM), but when he speaks on twitter he speaks to RAW and RAI. No personal interpretations. That's fine, and then people echo that guidance. D&D has always had a problem of WELL AKTUALLY IN THE BOOK IT STATES, and I think with social media its easier to get clarity to reinforce that, and sometimes its taken too far.
Mercer, his influence is obvious. Critical Roll has changed the fandom, it just has. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. We also have a coined term of the Matt Mercer effect as it relates to how people perceive the hobby and DMs. Matt though, and even though some people might not like Critical Roll, I think everyone agrees he(and the rest of the cast) are SUPER careful on how they wield this influence. Matt isn't shy about sharing opinions, but he does so from a realistic position. Being inclusive, bringing everyone into the hobby but not being afraid to say that the toxic elements should be called out and gotten rid of. I'd argue that it was Critical Roll that was largely responsible for the upcoming D&D Movie.
Joe is the next one I'd talk to. Joe is weird, because to an outside audience, most people wouldn't know that the guy who plays a character from Magic Mike(or insert any other popular movie he's been in) is a HUGE D&D nerd. That being said, Joe isn't shy about being inclusive. There are PLENTY of videos out there that talk about him teaching D&D to kids in hospital wards to pass the time. Dude is a great ambassador for the hobby.
Geek And Sundry prior to the Critical Roll split had this HUGE opportunity to really seize on how they affected table top, but the fact was the vast majority of their audience only cared for Critical Roll, and I think that's an important call out. There are a great clip of fans who are fans of critical roll, but for the most part don't really care about participating in a local D&D game. This isn't negative or positive, its an interesting talking point.
Todd obviously is an authority figure. Used to work on this website, has done work with NBC(full disclosure, I work for Comcast who owns NBC) reporting on DND. Now he has his own youtube channel talking with some very popular D&D voices....but isn't really gaining a lot of traction. Has a new D&D game over at Demiplane with Adam "Badeye" and others, so obviously is still into content creation and discussion, but overall if you were to ask today how he is influencing the game? To me, the answer is "He's not". That might change in the future, but right now? To me, he isn't. Loved his magic missile video though.
Colville has more traction to the direct to consumer audience than Todd does right now, and that's because he has cultivated his content around direct to consumer intent, whereas Todd has done this for a living behind the scenes here at Fandom/D&D Beyond for years. Colville is responsible for a lot of the story for the game Evolve, which ended up being shut down in 2018 so obviously has experience creating worlds for mass consumption. Colville to me is the only one who presents his opinions sometimes as an authoritative stance while not being one. When you use the phrase "These DMs are doing it wrong", that's why you can say it. I don't think that's done with the intent of shaming people, but people could absolutely perceive that, and the way his videos are presented where its just his face, nothing else, front facing camera can definitely give off a vibe of "Well, its me, you're here for me, lets go".
People like Treantmonk, Nerd Immersion, XP To Level 3, Jocat? The latter has a bigger following than the prior 3, and I think XP To Level 3 is definitely not afraid to tell people his opinions on stuff, which is fine. These just talk about game mechanics, updates, etc. XP To Level 3 has funny videos, but they are never really presented in a way that's like OMG HE HATES THE GAME. His latest video talked about CR and why its garbage(which I agree). It never SPEAKS to it in any detail, it just does a comedy sketch on why that is. I think that's very digestible to the current audience. Rather than beat you over the head with the thought, lets just make you laugh while presenting the idea.
I think by and large most use their platforms just for true discussion or positive change, and even Colville I don't think he's TRYING to be negative, it can just be perceived that way sometimes.
I think that the guys who just review/rehash others stuff need to just go. This means Nerdarchy and the like. They never really contribute new content just comment on others content.
The issue some people have with Colville is really mostly presentation. I'm not saying they're wrong or should get over it, I absolutely get why he might rub someone the wrong way. Where Mercer usually presents a number of ideas or suggestions about whatever subject the video is about, Colville presents his opinion and his experiences. He fairly regularly points out that those are just his opinions actually, but that can get lost pretty easily in the closeup shots and fast-paced talking and video cuts. In the end it's all just talking points though - if you like Colville's ideas more often than not the fact that he goes deeper into them than Mercer does into his broader selection of possibilities is a good thing; if Colville's ideas are usually not quite what you'd do, the Mercer buffet is almost certainly more helpful. I quite like both.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Spideycloned.... dam! Well done. Terrific capture of this topic. You are definitely braver then me on this one!
<opinion> The one thing I would like to (carefully) add is the whole "player agency" crap and how *I* believe it has damaged the game. Some of the people/groups you listed above I've listened to on occasion, and the second they start talking about ensuring "player agency" is when I move onto something more interesting, like boiling turnips, or painting cow horns videos. All "player agency " really means, when you boil it down to its roots, is to give the kiddies what ever they need and/or let them do what ever they want in order to make them happy. Dr. Spock on steroids. Spare the rod, spoil the child thing. Any DM who gives into that nonsense is part of the problem.
My closing point is that there are influencers out there (some listed above) that propagate stupid %&*#@%#$ ideas and deserve to have their D&D cards revoked and put in timeout. </opinion>
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Husband, Father, Veteran, Gamer, DM, Player, and Friend | Author of the "World of Eirador" | http://world-guild.com "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." ~Gary Gygax
Positive: Increasing exposure/popularity of the hobby. Lots more people coming into the hobby means increased sales, which means the companies will keep producing product, making new content, and the like. The danger in RPGs has always been that they will go the way of Rolemaster, which died when ICE went under, or the Hero System, which still technically exists but has been on life support for over a decade. Increasing the audience leads to increased sales which allows the company to keep going, expand, hire more creators, produced more materials, and the like. It also leads to 3rd party development such as all the stuff one finds on DM's Guild and whatnot. As an example, Sandy Petersen made a whole bunch of 5e adaptations of the Cthulhu stuff -- which would not have happened if 5e weren't so popular. This, increasing popularity gives us more content, more options, more of everything we have struggled for so many years to just have at all, in our hobby. (Look at how dice companies have exploded with dice made from tons of different materials in many different styles -- you didn't see that sort of thing in the 80s.)
Positive: Showing examples of how these games are run. I have learned a lot about how to run and play Savage Worlds by watching the Saving Throw ETU game, for example. Saving Throw's show taught me how Bennies work, how Dramatic Tasks are run, and how combat maneuvers work in SWADE. And although I long ago stopped watching it, when starting up in 5e, the early episodes of Crit Role and Chain of Acheron taught me about things like when to call for ability checks, how to run a surprise round, how to run a 4E style skill challenge (which both Mercer and Coleville did at least once on the episodes I watched) and how certain spells with very complicated text descriptions work.
Negative: For so many people, because these content creators are "experts" and so popular, their way of doing things can be considered not only the "best" way (it's usually not) but the only way (which it definitely is not). If you aren't doing it like Mercer or Coleville or Perkins, you're doing it wrong. If your house rule disagrees with what Crawford said in a tweet, you're doing it wrong. If you aren't following Taking20's advice on how to do this, you're doing it wrong. This happens with fans, of course... and it happens even though many of these content creators will explicitly say (as I know I have heard both Taking20 and Coleville do on multiple occasions), "This is how I do it in my game, but you don't have to do it like that in yours." Indeed many of them will say this is how they do it, but here are some other ways they have heard about (Coleville, for example, in talking about how to run a West Marches game, which he has never personally done himself, or Skorkowsky talking about ways of running a vanilla Call of Cthulhu game, even though he mostly plays and prefers Pulp Cthulhu.)
Negative: Mimic syndrome. A lot of both players and DMs seem to be trying to mimic what they see on these streams, rather than doing their own thing. The players on Crit Role do voices, so we have to do voices. The players on Saving Throw use props and wear glasses, hats, and other outfits that their characters would wear while being in character, so we all have to go out and buy props now. I get the sense that for some people, they don't actually want to play a game of D&D -- they want to play a game of Critical Role, or Chain of Acheron. Or they don't want to play Savage Worlds ETU, they want to play Saving Throw. So individual players or sometimes even whole groups will try to copy what they saw "on TV" instead of getting together as a group and making their own game, their own house rules -- their own fun. This is probably the biggest negative - stifling of creativity. People trying to play their tiefling like Jester (CR) or Judge (Chain) instead of finding their own tiefling voice, or DMs trying to run a city like Capital (Chain) or run the ETU campus exactly like Callarman does it (Saving Throw), instead of making their own city or making the ETU campus their own.
In the old days, we never had anyone else to watch or learn from, which made it a lot harder, but... we also had nobody else to copy, so we did our own thing. Our group had rules no other group had; we played our own way; there was no one to watch to "find out we were doing it wrong," so we did what we liked, and of course, it wasn't wrong. We got our own ideas, rather than using other people. We played elves and dwarves and orcs our way, not Coleville's way or Mercer's way or Skorkowsky's way.
Which, again, is what all of these guys would tell you to do if you asked them. But it's very hard after watching people who are this good and this experienced at the game, not to "do what they did." Even if they tell you not to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It is not Mr. Mercer’s fault every other player discovering the hobby via CR thinks they’ll go out on an a epic adventure that’ll be a tale for the ages, but a lot people expect the wrong thing from the game, sure sometimes you’ll go on a storybook adventure that you and your friends will talk about for years to come, but most of the time that’s not the case, you’ll just be a couple of people just having a grand old time playing make-believe, but idk. The Mimic effect.
It’sthe fan base’s own fault every other firearm user has round-trimmed glasses and clean-cut grey hair, or every CR fan’s monk is a Beauregard clone, but I really can’t fathom why people enjoy these types of copycat characters, but that’s just my opinion.
Spideycloned.... dam! Well done. Terrific capture of this topic. You are definitely braver then me on this one!
<opinion> The one thing I would like to (carefully) add is the whole "player agency" crap and how *I* believe it has damaged the game. Some of the people/groups you listed above I've listened to on occasion, and the second they start talking about ensuring "player agency" is when I move onto something more interesting, like boiling turnips, or painting cow horns videos. All "player agency " really means, when you boil it down to its roots, is to give the kiddies what ever they need and/or let them do what ever they want in order to make them happy. Dr. Spock on steroids. Spare the rod, spoil the child thing. Any DM who gives into that nonsense is part of the problem.
My closing point is that there are influencers out there (some listed above) that propagate stupid %&*#@%#$ ideas and deserve to have their D&D cards revoked and put in timeout. </opinion>
I don't think that's what they mean by player agency though. As a DM, and this is one of the things I think Colville states very well, there are clear differences between the DM who makes the lore, the players who play the game and the potential viewers who consume the content.
For shows like critical role, viewers get invested in the overall story and how those characters are interacting, but sometimes forget it's not Caleb at the table, it's Liam. Mercer has ideas and story but ultimately he lets the table drive the story because he wants them to get invested. From there he spins the tale. DMs too often want to be seen as this epic tolkien esque story writer, and then get upset when the players don't do the thing that they created. Step back, observe what they are doing and use that as your driving force.
Using the tolkien analogy, the ring is the DM. It has wants, needs, and obviously a direction on where it goes. Frodo is the player, constantly doing something else and going in weird directions. The ring calls out to the plot, and brings the nazgul, faramir, gollum, etc and brings frodo back on task, but then the player takes back over.
That's what player agency is. You can make a compelling character, and your character might have all the in game motivation to do the things, but if you as the player don't? Then you won't.
Spideycloned.... dam! Well done. Terrific capture of this topic. You are definitely braver then me on this one!
<opinion> The one thing I would like to (carefully) add is the whole "player agency" crap and how *I* believe it has damaged the game. Some of the people/groups you listed above I've listened to on occasion, and the second they start talking about ensuring "player agency" is when I move onto something more interesting, like boiling turnips, or painting cow horns videos. All "player agency " really means, when you boil it down to its roots, is to give the kiddies what ever they need and/or let them do what ever they want in order to make them happy. Dr. Spock on steroids. Spare the rod, spoil the child thing. Any DM who gives into that nonsense is part of the problem.
My closing point is that there are influencers out there (some listed above) that propagate stupid %&*#@%#$ ideas and deserve to have their D&D cards revoked and put in timeout. </opinion>
I don't think that's what they mean by player agency though. As a DM, and this is one of the things I think Colville states very well, there are clear differences between the DM who makes the lore, the players who play the game and the potential viewers who consume the content.
For shows like critical role, viewers get invested in the overall story and how those characters are interacting, but sometimes forget it's not Caleb at the table, it's Liam. Mercer has ideas and story but ultimately he lets the table drive the story because he wants them to get invested. From there he spins the tale. DMs too often want to be seen as this epic tolkien esque story writer, and then get upset when the players don't do the thing that they created. Step back, observe what they are doing and use that as your driving force.
Using the tolkien analogy, the ring is the DM. It has wants, needs, and obviously a direction on where it goes. Frodo is the player, constantly doing something else and going in weird directions. The ring calls out to the plot, and brings the nazgul, faramir, gollum, etc and brings frodo back on task, but then the player takes back over.
That's what player agency is. You can make a compelling character, and your character might have all the in game motivation to do the things, but if you as the player don't? Then you won't.
I like your explanation, but I think it only captures one aspect of PA. I think there is a great (older) article and long discussion on this over at the The Angry GM that interested folks should check out. More in-depth, good read.
Husband, Father, Veteran, Gamer, DM, Player, and Friend | Author of the "World of Eirador" | http://world-guild.com "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." ~Gary Gygax
As with many things, they impact D&D only as much as people let them impact D&D. As for how many people let them influence their D&D, that's difficult for me to say. It has been a very long time since I watched any of their stuff. Lately, I focus more on the rules-as-fun folks - homebrew worlds, custom content, house rules, and the like. (I call them Chapter 9 D&D gamers because of Chapter 9 in the DMG.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Mercer has ideas and story but ultimately he lets the table drive the story because he wants them to get invested. From there he spins the tale. DMs too often want to be seen as this epic tolkien esque story writer, and then get upset when the players don't do the thing that they created. Step back, observe what they are doing and use that as your driving force.
It's great if you can do what Mercer does. Not every one can. Not every DM is capable of weaving a tale out of whatever the players happen to feel like RPing about tonight. And DMs who can't do that shouldn't (a) feel like that "have to" because that is what Mercer does, or worse (b) be told they are "doing it wrong" because they aren't doing it how Mercer does.
I didn't watch Season 1 of Crit Role and I only watched about 60 episodes of Season 2. But I can tell that, in addition to just OD'ing on D&D, which was the main reason, one of the secondary reasons I stopped watching Crit Role was because it felt aimless. This is not to criticize how they play, but to point out that, again, it is not the only or the right way to play (or DM). Some tables like a much more linear, structured story than what Mercer provides at his table. Some groups might like a lot more dungeon crawling and less socializing than the Crit Role people do. There is no right or wrong.
BUT... there are DMing styles out there and not every DM is suited to every style. Guy from Great GM came up with 4 styles recently.... Epic, Open, Player, and Accidental. And his point is that not everyone as a DM, is going to be equally good at all of these. And I would add that not every player would like playing in all of these. Mercer runs what Guy would call a Player campaign. Coleville (in the Chain) runs more of an Epic campaign. There is no right or wrong here -- it's up to what you and your players would like.
So yes, it's great that Mercer, who with his players is enjoying running a Player campaign and is great at it, to let the players decide what to do and then just organically make it all happen, and you can't tell whether he was actually prepared for what they did tonight or not. But I sure as heck can't do that, and I don't think it makes me a bad DM. There are things I do that Mercer probably wouldn't be as comfortable with either. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I believe that their overall effect on the hobby is overwhelmingly positive. Matthew Colville quite literally taught me how to be a good DM. I don't care about Shadeflayer's opinion on this guy, as I saw his rant about him on the other thread, because I know my own personal experience with Colville. He taught me the job of the DM and how to do it well. He taught me how to harness my creativity and use it to create fun for my players. He taught me what D&D can look like and why it doesn't have to look like that (hint: because everyone's fun is different and we like different things).
I got into D&D 4 years ago. I knew almost nothing about it before my cousin introduced me to it besides for a few small facts; like that nerds played it and it had funny dice that you rolled for everything. After playing a few sessions with him and a few friends, I decided that I loved D&D and needed to learn as much as I could about it as quickly as physically possible, so I decided to search "how to play D&D" on Youtube, and one of the first things that popped up was Matt Colville's "Running the Game" series. I decided to watch the first video in the series, and then the next, and then the next, and so on until I watched all of the 50 or so videos that were in that series 4 years ago. (And, mind you, his videos are long. The average length in that series was probably somewhere between 20 and 30 minutes.)
The reason I watched all of his videos is because it actually and sincerely helped me learn about both the history of D&D and how to be a good player and DM at the table. I learned all sorts of things that I had never heard at any other of the D&D influencers' channels, about Jack Vance's influence on D&D, how to homebrew monsters, and why Sam Riegel was crying in the second-to-last episode of Critical Role Season One. I could tell that he honestly cared about D&D and wanted to share his years of experience with others in order for them to be able to be good DMs and players. I saw D&D for what it truly is, "the most fun you can have with your mind, ever", as Colville puts it.
Other influencers were also teaching helpful information, like the Dungeon Dudes and Taking20, but none of them as well as Matt Colville.
D&D influencers can have negative effects on the hobby, but these negative effects are small enough that they may as well not exist. XP to level 3's meme videos are annoying, but as long as people are aware that he is making jokes, it's not actually hurting anyone/anything in the game (I quite like a lot of his campaign stories and How to Play [insert class] series, but could do without the FiReBaLl-type videos). Matt Mercer may give an unachievably high bar for what D&D is "supposed to look like", but I find that the "Matt Mercer Effect" in practice is so minor that it may as well not exist.
D&D influencers, IMO, have an overwhelmingly positive impact on the hobby. No one gives better DM advice than Matthew Colville. No one. No one makes better animated campaign story videos than Dingo Doodles, and no one makes better D&D joke videos than JoCat. Whether their contribution to the community is solely for humor or for actual heart-felt advice on how to run the game, D&D influencers have a positive effect on the hobby.
I believe that their overall effect on the hobby is overwhelmingly positive. Matthew Colville quite literally taught me how to be a good DM. I don't care about the OP's opinion on this guy, as I saw his rant about him on the other thread, because I know my own personal experience with Colville. He taught me the job of the DM and how to do it well. He taught me how to harness my creativity and use it to create fun for my players. He taught me what D&D can look like and why it doesn't have to look like that (hint: because everyone's fun is different and we like different things).
I got into D&D 4 years ago. I knew almost nothing about it before my cousin introduced me to it besides for a few small facts; like that nerds played it and it had funny dice that you rolled for everything. After playing a few sessions with him and a few friends, I decided that I loved D&D and needed to learn as much as I could about it as quickly as physically possible, so I decided to search "how to play D&D" on Youtube, and one of the first things that popped up was Matt Colville's "Running the Game" series. I decided to watch the first video in the series, and then the next, and then the next, and so on until I watched all of the 50 or so videos that were in that series 4 years ago. (And, mind you, his videos are long. The average length in that series was probably somewhere between 20 and 30 minutes.)
The reason I watched all of his videos is because it actually and sincerely helped me learn about both the history of D&D and how to be a good player and DM at the table. I learned all sorts of things that I had never heard at any other of the D&D influencers' channels, about Jack Vance's influence on D&D, how to homebrew monsters, and why Sam Riegel was crying in the second-to-last episode of Critical Role Season One. I could tell that he honestly cared about D&D and wanted to share his years of experience with others in order for them to be able to be good DMs and players. I saw D&D for what it truly is, "the most fun you can have with your mind, ever", as Colville puts it.
Other influencers were also teaching helpful information, like the Dungeon Dudes and Taking20, but none of them as well as Matt Colville.
D&D influencers can have negative effects on the hobby, but these negative effects are small enough that they may as well not exist. XP to level 3's meme videos are annoying, but as long as people are aware that he is making jokes, it's not actually hurting anyone/anything in the game (I quite like a lot of his campaign stories and How to Play [insert class] series, but could do without the FiReBaLl-type videos). Matt Mercer may give an unachievably high bar for what D&D is "supposed to look like", but I find that the "Matt Mercer Effect" in practice is so minor that it may as well not exist.
D&D influencers, IMO, have an overwhelmingly positive impact on the hobby. No one gives better DM advice than Matthew Colville. No one. No one makes better animated campaign story videos than Dingo Doodles, and no one makes better D&D joke videos than JoCat. Whether their contribution to the community is solely for humor or for actual heart-felt advice on how to run the game, D&D influencers have a positive effect on the hobby.
I'm OP and I didn't have a rant so you may be misunderstanding....
Matt Mercer
Matt Coleville
Taking20
How do you think they impact 5e and TTRPGs in general?
Positive, they bring awareness, and new players to the game.
There are a lot of positives....but also some negatives.
As mentioned, many influencers have contributed to the explosion in popularity of the current edition, making D&D much more inclusive and accessible to learn about and get into. From celebrities streaming epic campaigns with loads of creativity and passion, Youtubers sharing the lore and history of the franchise, influencers giving advice on all manner of topics both for players and DMs, and others just creating fun builds, cool monsters and all manner of other content related to D&D.....there is a lot of wonderful content to follow.
However, I’ve found that often times people will use different influencer’s advice and opinions that they are fans of as gospel to how to play their D&D games, or use the opinions of different influencers to attack or speak down to others when opinions differ. Not to mention that just like everyone else, influencers (no matter their experiences or knowledge) are fallible people with their own biases. Some are much better at telling you that upfront, and expressing that it’s ok to have a difference of opinion on how you enjoy D&D. Others.....not so much.
Honestly though, it’s not too different from any other fandom. Their are positives and negatives to any large group of people who are passionate about the same thing.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
I think all the Matt's ( i.e., Matt mercer, Matt coleville ) have boosted D&D's popularity tremendously and I think that's great.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
Agree, if I hadn't (by chance) seen a fananimated clip on Critical Role I wouldn't have known of D&D.
I can't remember which one it was, but it def was one of these three xD
Well, seeing as this is my thread title from the other thread, here we go fam:
Let's look at a lot of different, "popular" D&D search terms and go from there:
Todd Kenreck: https://www.youtube.com/c/ToddKenreck/videos
Jeremy Crawford: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Jeremy Crawford
Joe Manganiello: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Joe Manganiello D&D
Matt Colville: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Matt Coleville
Geek and Sundry: https://www.youtube.com/c/GeekandSundry/videos (compare pre and post Critical Roll association)
Treantmonk: https://www.youtube.com/c/TreantmonksTemple/videos
Matt Mercer: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Matt Mercer
Taking20: https://www.youtube.com/c/Taking20/videos
XP to Level 3: https://www.youtube.com/c/XPtoLevel3/videos
Jocat: https://www.youtube.com/c/JoCat/videos - AKA crap guide to D&D
So that's a tip of the iceberg(and a viewing into what I personally sometimes might consume) for D&D Content. People like Jeremy absolutely have influence in the game, because they write the material. Also, as a recognized authority figure, even though their views might not reach a lot of people IMMEDIATELY, their thoughts spread far and wide. Jeremy gets some flack because he has said in the past hey, run the table how you want(echoing the DMG) and that he'd run certain things different(because he's the DM), but when he speaks on twitter he speaks to RAW and RAI. No personal interpretations. That's fine, and then people echo that guidance. D&D has always had a problem of WELL AKTUALLY IN THE BOOK IT STATES, and I think with social media its easier to get clarity to reinforce that, and sometimes its taken too far.
Mercer, his influence is obvious. Critical Roll has changed the fandom, it just has. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. We also have a coined term of the Matt Mercer effect as it relates to how people perceive the hobby and DMs. Matt though, and even though some people might not like Critical Roll, I think everyone agrees he(and the rest of the cast) are SUPER careful on how they wield this influence. Matt isn't shy about sharing opinions, but he does so from a realistic position. Being inclusive, bringing everyone into the hobby but not being afraid to say that the toxic elements should be called out and gotten rid of. I'd argue that it was Critical Roll that was largely responsible for the upcoming D&D Movie.
Joe is the next one I'd talk to. Joe is weird, because to an outside audience, most people wouldn't know that the guy who plays a character from Magic Mike(or insert any other popular movie he's been in) is a HUGE D&D nerd. That being said, Joe isn't shy about being inclusive. There are PLENTY of videos out there that talk about him teaching D&D to kids in hospital wards to pass the time. Dude is a great ambassador for the hobby.
Geek And Sundry prior to the Critical Roll split had this HUGE opportunity to really seize on how they affected table top, but the fact was the vast majority of their audience only cared for Critical Roll, and I think that's an important call out. There are a great clip of fans who are fans of critical roll, but for the most part don't really care about participating in a local D&D game. This isn't negative or positive, its an interesting talking point.
Todd obviously is an authority figure. Used to work on this website, has done work with NBC(full disclosure, I work for Comcast who owns NBC) reporting on DND. Now he has his own youtube channel talking with some very popular D&D voices....but isn't really gaining a lot of traction. Has a new D&D game over at Demiplane with Adam "Badeye" and others, so obviously is still into content creation and discussion, but overall if you were to ask today how he is influencing the game? To me, the answer is "He's not". That might change in the future, but right now? To me, he isn't. Loved his magic missile video though.
Colville has more traction to the direct to consumer audience than Todd does right now, and that's because he has cultivated his content around direct to consumer intent, whereas Todd has done this for a living behind the scenes here at Fandom/D&D Beyond for years. Colville is responsible for a lot of the story for the game Evolve, which ended up being shut down in 2018 so obviously has experience creating worlds for mass consumption. Colville to me is the only one who presents his opinions sometimes as an authoritative stance while not being one. When you use the phrase "These DMs are doing it wrong", that's why you can say it. I don't think that's done with the intent of shaming people, but people could absolutely perceive that, and the way his videos are presented where its just his face, nothing else, front facing camera can definitely give off a vibe of "Well, its me, you're here for me, lets go".
People like Treantmonk, Nerd Immersion, XP To Level 3, Jocat? The latter has a bigger following than the prior 3, and I think XP To Level 3 is definitely not afraid to tell people his opinions on stuff, which is fine. These just talk about game mechanics, updates, etc. XP To Level 3 has funny videos, but they are never really presented in a way that's like OMG HE HATES THE GAME. His latest video talked about CR and why its garbage(which I agree). It never SPEAKS to it in any detail, it just does a comedy sketch on why that is. I think that's very digestible to the current audience. Rather than beat you over the head with the thought, lets just make you laugh while presenting the idea.
I think by and large most use their platforms just for true discussion or positive change, and even Colville I don't think he's TRYING to be negative, it can just be perceived that way sometimes.
I think that the guys who just review/rehash others stuff need to just go. This means Nerdarchy and the like. They never really contribute new content just comment on others content.
The issue some people have with Colville is really mostly presentation. I'm not saying they're wrong or should get over it, I absolutely get why he might rub someone the wrong way. Where Mercer usually presents a number of ideas or suggestions about whatever subject the video is about, Colville presents his opinion and his experiences. He fairly regularly points out that those are just his opinions actually, but that can get lost pretty easily in the closeup shots and fast-paced talking and video cuts. In the end it's all just talking points though - if you like Colville's ideas more often than not the fact that he goes deeper into them than Mercer does into his broader selection of possibilities is a good thing; if Colville's ideas are usually not quite what you'd do, the Mercer buffet is almost certainly more helpful. I quite like both.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Spideycloned.... dam! Well done. Terrific capture of this topic. You are definitely braver then me on this one!
<opinion>
The one thing I would like to (carefully) add is the whole "player agency" crap and how *I* believe it has damaged the game. Some of the people/groups you listed above I've listened to on occasion, and the second they start talking about ensuring "player agency" is when I move onto something more interesting, like boiling turnips, or painting cow horns videos. All "player agency " really means, when you boil it down to its roots, is to give the kiddies what ever they need and/or let them do what ever they want in order to make them happy. Dr. Spock on steroids. Spare the rod, spoil the child thing. Any DM who gives into that nonsense is part of the problem.
My closing point is that there are influencers out there (some listed above) that propagate stupid %&*#@%#$ ideas and deserve to have their D&D cards revoked and put in timeout.
</opinion>
Husband, Father, Veteran, Gamer, DM, Player, and Friend | Author of the "World of Eirador" | http://world-guild.com
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." ~Gary Gygax
Positive: Increasing exposure/popularity of the hobby. Lots more people coming into the hobby means increased sales, which means the companies will keep producing product, making new content, and the like. The danger in RPGs has always been that they will go the way of Rolemaster, which died when ICE went under, or the Hero System, which still technically exists but has been on life support for over a decade. Increasing the audience leads to increased sales which allows the company to keep going, expand, hire more creators, produced more materials, and the like. It also leads to 3rd party development such as all the stuff one finds on DM's Guild and whatnot. As an example, Sandy Petersen made a whole bunch of 5e adaptations of the Cthulhu stuff -- which would not have happened if 5e weren't so popular. This, increasing popularity gives us more content, more options, more of everything we have struggled for so many years to just have at all, in our hobby. (Look at how dice companies have exploded with dice made from tons of different materials in many different styles -- you didn't see that sort of thing in the 80s.)
Positive: Showing examples of how these games are run. I have learned a lot about how to run and play Savage Worlds by watching the Saving Throw ETU game, for example. Saving Throw's show taught me how Bennies work, how Dramatic Tasks are run, and how combat maneuvers work in SWADE. And although I long ago stopped watching it, when starting up in 5e, the early episodes of Crit Role and Chain of Acheron taught me about things like when to call for ability checks, how to run a surprise round, how to run a 4E style skill challenge (which both Mercer and Coleville did at least once on the episodes I watched) and how certain spells with very complicated text descriptions work.
Negative: For so many people, because these content creators are "experts" and so popular, their way of doing things can be considered not only the "best" way (it's usually not) but the only way (which it definitely is not). If you aren't doing it like Mercer or Coleville or Perkins, you're doing it wrong. If your house rule disagrees with what Crawford said in a tweet, you're doing it wrong. If you aren't following Taking20's advice on how to do this, you're doing it wrong. This happens with fans, of course... and it happens even though many of these content creators will explicitly say (as I know I have heard both Taking20 and Coleville do on multiple occasions), "This is how I do it in my game, but you don't have to do it like that in yours." Indeed many of them will say this is how they do it, but here are some other ways they have heard about (Coleville, for example, in talking about how to run a West Marches game, which he has never personally done himself, or Skorkowsky talking about ways of running a vanilla Call of Cthulhu game, even though he mostly plays and prefers Pulp Cthulhu.)
Negative: Mimic syndrome. A lot of both players and DMs seem to be trying to mimic what they see on these streams, rather than doing their own thing. The players on Crit Role do voices, so we have to do voices. The players on Saving Throw use props and wear glasses, hats, and other outfits that their characters would wear while being in character, so we all have to go out and buy props now. I get the sense that for some people, they don't actually want to play a game of D&D -- they want to play a game of Critical Role, or Chain of Acheron. Or they don't want to play Savage Worlds ETU, they want to play Saving Throw. So individual players or sometimes even whole groups will try to copy what they saw "on TV" instead of getting together as a group and making their own game, their own house rules -- their own fun. This is probably the biggest negative - stifling of creativity. People trying to play their tiefling like Jester (CR) or Judge (Chain) instead of finding their own tiefling voice, or DMs trying to run a city like Capital (Chain) or run the ETU campus exactly like Callarman does it (Saving Throw), instead of making their own city or making the ETU campus their own.
In the old days, we never had anyone else to watch or learn from, which made it a lot harder, but... we also had nobody else to copy, so we did our own thing. Our group had rules no other group had; we played our own way; there was no one to watch to "find out we were doing it wrong," so we did what we liked, and of course, it wasn't wrong. We got our own ideas, rather than using other people. We played elves and dwarves and orcs our way, not Coleville's way or Mercer's way or Skorkowsky's way.
Which, again, is what all of these guys would tell you to do if you asked them. But it's very hard after watching people who are this good and this experienced at the game, not to "do what they did." Even if they tell you not to.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Well said BioWizard and spideycloned.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
While we’re at it, I’ll speak my peace.
The Matt Mercer effect
It is not Mr. Mercer’s fault every other player discovering the hobby via CR thinks they’ll go out on an a epic adventure that’ll be a tale for the ages, but a lot people expect the wrong thing from the game, sure sometimes you’ll go on a storybook adventure that you and your friends will talk about for years to come, but most of the time that’s not the case, you’ll just be a couple of people just having a grand old time playing make-believe, but idk. The Mimic effect.
It’s the fan base’s own fault every other firearm user has round-trimmed glasses and clean-cut grey hair, or every CR fan’s monk is a Beauregard clone, but I really can’t fathom why people enjoy these types of copycat characters, but that’s just my opinion.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
I don't think that's what they mean by player agency though. As a DM, and this is one of the things I think Colville states very well, there are clear differences between the DM who makes the lore, the players who play the game and the potential viewers who consume the content.
For shows like critical role, viewers get invested in the overall story and how those characters are interacting, but sometimes forget it's not Caleb at the table, it's Liam. Mercer has ideas and story but ultimately he lets the table drive the story because he wants them to get invested. From there he spins the tale. DMs too often want to be seen as this epic tolkien esque story writer, and then get upset when the players don't do the thing that they created. Step back, observe what they are doing and use that as your driving force.
Using the tolkien analogy, the ring is the DM. It has wants, needs, and obviously a direction on where it goes. Frodo is the player, constantly doing something else and going in weird directions. The ring calls out to the plot, and brings the nazgul, faramir, gollum, etc and brings frodo back on task, but then the player takes back over.
That's what player agency is. You can make a compelling character, and your character might have all the in game motivation to do the things, but if you as the player don't? Then you won't.
I like your explanation, but I think it only captures one aspect of PA. I think there is a great (older) article and long discussion on this over at the The Angry GM that interested folks should check out. More in-depth, good read.
Husband, Father, Veteran, Gamer, DM, Player, and Friend | Author of the "World of Eirador" | http://world-guild.com
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." ~Gary Gygax
As with many things, they impact D&D only as much as people let them impact D&D. As for how many people let them influence their D&D, that's difficult for me to say. It has been a very long time since I watched any of their stuff. Lately, I focus more on the rules-as-fun folks - homebrew worlds, custom content, house rules, and the like. (I call them Chapter 9 D&D gamers because of Chapter 9 in the DMG.)
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
It's great if you can do what Mercer does. Not every one can. Not every DM is capable of weaving a tale out of whatever the players happen to feel like RPing about tonight. And DMs who can't do that shouldn't (a) feel like that "have to" because that is what Mercer does, or worse (b) be told they are "doing it wrong" because they aren't doing it how Mercer does.
I didn't watch Season 1 of Crit Role and I only watched about 60 episodes of Season 2. But I can tell that, in addition to just OD'ing on D&D, which was the main reason, one of the secondary reasons I stopped watching Crit Role was because it felt aimless. This is not to criticize how they play, but to point out that, again, it is not the only or the right way to play (or DM). Some tables like a much more linear, structured story than what Mercer provides at his table. Some groups might like a lot more dungeon crawling and less socializing than the Crit Role people do. There is no right or wrong.
BUT... there are DMing styles out there and not every DM is suited to every style. Guy from Great GM came up with 4 styles recently.... Epic, Open, Player, and Accidental. And his point is that not everyone as a DM, is going to be equally good at all of these. And I would add that not every player would like playing in all of these. Mercer runs what Guy would call a Player campaign. Coleville (in the Chain) runs more of an Epic campaign. There is no right or wrong here -- it's up to what you and your players would like.
So yes, it's great that Mercer, who with his players is enjoying running a Player campaign and is great at it, to let the players decide what to do and then just organically make it all happen, and you can't tell whether he was actually prepared for what they did tonight or not. But I sure as heck can't do that, and I don't think it makes me a bad DM. There are things I do that Mercer probably wouldn't be as comfortable with either. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I believe that their overall effect on the hobby is overwhelmingly positive. Matthew Colville quite literally taught me how to be a good DM. I don't care about Shadeflayer's opinion on this guy, as I saw his rant about him on the other thread, because I know my own personal experience with Colville. He taught me the job of the DM and how to do it well. He taught me how to harness my creativity and use it to create fun for my players. He taught me what D&D can look like and why it doesn't have to look like that (hint: because everyone's fun is different and we like different things).
I got into D&D 4 years ago. I knew almost nothing about it before my cousin introduced me to it besides for a few small facts; like that nerds played it and it had funny dice that you rolled for everything. After playing a few sessions with him and a few friends, I decided that I loved D&D and needed to learn as much as I could about it as quickly as physically possible, so I decided to search "how to play D&D" on Youtube, and one of the first things that popped up was Matt Colville's "Running the Game" series. I decided to watch the first video in the series, and then the next, and then the next, and so on until I watched all of the 50 or so videos that were in that series 4 years ago. (And, mind you, his videos are long. The average length in that series was probably somewhere between 20 and 30 minutes.)
The reason I watched all of his videos is because it actually and sincerely helped me learn about both the history of D&D and how to be a good player and DM at the table. I learned all sorts of things that I had never heard at any other of the D&D influencers' channels, about Jack Vance's influence on D&D, how to homebrew monsters, and why Sam Riegel was crying in the second-to-last episode of Critical Role Season One. I could tell that he honestly cared about D&D and wanted to share his years of experience with others in order for them to be able to be good DMs and players. I saw D&D for what it truly is, "the most fun you can have with your mind, ever", as Colville puts it.
Other influencers were also teaching helpful information, like the Dungeon Dudes and Taking20, but none of them as well as Matt Colville.
D&D influencers can have negative effects on the hobby, but these negative effects are small enough that they may as well not exist. XP to level 3's meme videos are annoying, but as long as people are aware that he is making jokes, it's not actually hurting anyone/anything in the game (I quite like a lot of his campaign stories and How to Play [insert class] series, but could do without the FiReBaLl-type videos). Matt Mercer may give an unachievably high bar for what D&D is "supposed to look like", but I find that the "Matt Mercer Effect" in practice is so minor that it may as well not exist.
D&D influencers, IMO, have an overwhelmingly positive impact on the hobby. No one gives better DM advice than Matthew Colville. No one. No one makes better animated campaign story videos than Dingo Doodles, and no one makes better D&D joke videos than JoCat. Whether their contribution to the community is solely for humor or for actual heart-felt advice on how to run the game, D&D influencers have a positive effect on the hobby.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'm OP and I didn't have a rant so you may be misunderstanding....
Ah, sorry, wrong person. I thought someone else was the OP. I will edit that.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No worries! I like Coleville myself actually! I like his Stronghold book a lot.