Brennan Lee Mulligan to GM Critical Role Campaign 4

Critical Role's fourth campaign will launch on October 2nd, with Brennan Lee Mulligan behind the GM Screen. Critical Role announced that Mulligan, best known as the DM for Dropout's Dimension 20, will be the Game Master for the entirety of Campaign 4. The announcement was made this evening ahead of tonight's live show in Indianapolis, with Mulligan running a campaign in a brand new world assumably created just for the show. Critical Role stated that more cast announcements and other details about the campaign, such as what game system it will use, will be revealed in the coming months.

Mulligan has worked with Critical Role in the past, with both of his Exandria Unlimited miniseries having received high praise from fans. The news is also a major shakeup as this will be the first time that a full-length Critical Role campaign has not featured Matt Mercer or the world of Exandria. Both Mercer and Exandria are "taking a break" according to a press release, although Mercer is working on a second Age of Umbra miniseries that will assumably be released sometime in 2026.

 

[bedir than]

I dont see it, but appreciate the perspective.

A D&D wizards has many more options in a given round, imo

 

[Scribe]

A D&D wizards has many more options in a given round, imo

Maybe, but I think the D&D Wizard is poor design. I also do not see how that changes the story, beyond 'so I'm really special and get all the options' for whoever plays a 5.5 Wizard.

 

[Seramus]

Maybe, but I think the D&D Wizard is poor design. I also do not see how that changes the story, beyond 'so I'm really special and get all the options' for whoever plays a 5.5 Wizard.

It's a heck of a power fantasy above what DH caters to, and power fantasies are a very popular genre. I would say the entry level power for DH is higher than D&D, but D&D has a far higher power level in the end.

Of course, there are far better systems for power fantasies (Nobilis, Exalted, Scion, etc).

 

[Amphytrion]

I think Daggerheart is better at social conflict, but D&D is better at tactical combat especially events those that feature a wide variety of magic.

I think there is some merit to this theory, though I wouldn't categorize 5e's combat as eminently tactical. It's very... imprecise, in a way that Draw Steel, or PF2, or 4e, or a few other games have addressed.

My impression (and I may be wrong) is that a significant contingent of D&D's player base is not all that into tactical combat. This doesn't mean they dislike combat, just that they don't care much for complexity or optimization or positioning, etc. For that precise reason, they don't bother at all with the UA process, and therefore the UA captures the feedback of the smaller part of the player base that is very much into builds, tactical combat, etc.

This skewed polling in UAs has paradoxically led to a game that relies more on combat abilities in the newest edition, when a large chunk of the younger audience is much more interested in the narrative aspects of the game. 5.5/5e 2024 probably should have attempted to offer some interesting mechanics for social conflict to cater to that large part of the base, even if they were optional.

 

[overgeeked]

Of course, there are far better systems for power fantasies (Nobilis, Exalted, Scion, etc).

Just about any superhero system will do a far better job of power fantasy than any fantasy-themed game. If people really want power fantasy, they should look there. They absolutely blow away anything you see in D&D, Daggerheart, Exalted, etc.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I also do not see how that changes the story, beyond 'so I'm really special and get all the options' for whoever plays a 5.5 Wizard.

I have it on good authority -- my mom -- that I am, in fact, special.

 

[OB1]

I'd argue that it's not combat, but the monster ecosystem that makes D&D special. It's an amazing bit of world building that can really drive campaigns and ground them. One of my big problems with Age of Umbra specifically (and DH in general) is that the monsters are built only to be a specific kind of challenge for a certain level of PC. Mercer described these massive creatures that sounded terrifying but the mechanics didn't match the description, and, IMO, that caused many of the combats to fall flat. The system does it's job of letting the adversaries start each combat with a blitz that puts the PCs on the ropes, and then the PCs fight back and are victorious. All perfectly balanced.

I have the same problem with video games where enemies level up with the character (Skyrim, Assassains Creed Odyssee, ect.) BG3 on the other hand. I mean, you can walk into an impossible fight if you take the wrong turn at the wrong level, and it makes the world feel so much more coherent, so much more dangerous, so much more real.

It get's messy sometimes, but that messiness is what makes D&D so replayable. It creates uniqueness and quirks from the system.

 

[nyvinter]

That's a GM thing. The whole only face appropriate monsters are there in newer D&D as well, it's up to the GM to handle if they want to go outside of that. (And if you're uncertain of how a game runs you tend to stick with the guidelines, be it Combat Ratings or Battle Points.)

That said, I do think they should have included using higher tier adversary in the Battle Points guidelines and not just lower ones. But also consider also that had Velk been a balanced to the tier, he'd have been dogmeat because he'd only have used half the battle points used to make a challenge for four players.