Critical Role Announces Age of Umbra Daggerheart Campaign, Starting May 29th

An 8-part Daggerheart miniseries is coming from Critical Role. Announced today, Age of Umbra is a new Actual Play series featuring Matthew Mercer as game master and co-founders Ashley Johnson, Laura Bailey, Liam O’Brien, Marisha Ray, Sam Riegel, Taliesin Jaffe, and Travis Willingham as players. The new miniseries will take up the bulk of the summer months, providing more of a break to the core cast ahead of an assumed fourth full-length D&D campaign.

Daggerheart is a new TTRPG developed by Critical Role's Darrington Press. Although the base game is intended to be a high fantasy RPG, the game includes several "campaign frames" that add additional rules for specific types of stories. Age of Umbra was developed by Mercer and draws inspiration from games like Dark Souls, Tainted Grail, and Kingdom Death: Monster.

The miniseries will air on Beacon, Twitch, and YouTube, with episodes airing every Thursday. The first episode debuts on May 29th, with Session 0 airing on various Critical Role platforms on May 22nd.

The full description of the series can be found below:

Age of Umbra

is an eight-part Daggerheart mini-series from Critical Role of dark, survival fantasy, debuting May 29 on Beacon, Twitch, and YouTube. Set in the Halcyon Domain, a world abandoned by gods and consumed by darkness, the series begins by following five people from the isolated community of Desperloch as they fight to protect their own in the face of rising horrors.

The Halcyon Domain is a lethal, foreboding land where the souls of the dead are cursed to return as twisted, nightmarish forms. A dark, ethereal mass known as the Umbra roams and holds these fiendish monstrosities, further corrupting anything it touches. Sacred Pyres keep the corruption at bay, and small communities endure through cooperation. Out in the beyond, whispers speak of ancient secrets and powers, wonders of a lost age, ready for discovery to those brave enough (or foolish enough) to seek them.

Game Master Matthew Mercer leads fellow Critical Role co-founders Ashley Johnson, Laura Bailey, Liam O’Brien, Marisha Ray, Sam Riegel, Taliesin Jaffe, and Travis Willingham in a high-stakes actual play exploring hope, sacrifice, and survival in a world where death is only the beginning.

 

[Imaro]

Isn't the series only 6 episodes?

 

[Baron Opal II]

And, to emphasize what @nyvinter said, character death meant the player was done in this mini-series. ... I can't imagine why anyone would choose perma death (with just a critical success on something) in that situation.

I wonder if that will become a considered option around episode 4-5? You've had a good run, but still time for a replacement to shine.

 

[The Soloist]

Isn't the series only 6 episodes?

I believe it's 8 episodes.

 

[Imaro]

I believe it's 8 episodes.

Ah ok, thanks...

 

[The Soloist]

During the fight at the beginning of episode two, if you look at Travis, his arms are crossed on his chest, and he seems to be thinking: WTF, we're going to get a TPK if Matt continues like this. He is not a happy camper. Usually, he is very confident in combat.

Travis' body language and facial expressions disagree with those who say Matt is not trying hard enough to kill PCs.

 

[overgeeked]

During the fight at the beginning of episode two, if you look at Travis, his arms are crossed on his chest, and he seems to be thinking: WTF, we're going to get a TPK if Matt continues like this. He is not a happy camper. Usually, he is very confident in combat.

Travis' body language and facial expressions disagree with those who say Matt is not trying hard enough to kill PCs.

I've never really understood this mindset and that's as someone who's often described as a killer referee. The referee should never, ever, ever actively try to kill the PCs.

First, the referee can literally say "rocks fall, everyone dies" and the PCs are dead or the referee can throw infinite dragons at the PCs until they die. So there's no point at all in "trying" to kill the PCs. The gods of the setting are the referee's puppets. If the referee wanted the PCs dead, they'd die. Simple as.

Second, there's no point. Why bother? You just proved that you're all powerful in a game that gives you unlimited power. Good for you.

Third, the goal of the referee is generally one of three things: 1) to facilitate a compelling story, or; 2) play an authentic world, or; 3) challenge the PCs. If a compelling story is the goal, the players are on board and likely itching for that dramatic death when it's appropriate. If an authentic world is the goal, it's on the players to not be dumb and get themselves killed. If this bit of the world has an army of ogres marching through it and the four 1st-level PCs decide to attack, that's not on the referee trying to kill the PCs, that's on the players for making incredibly bad choices. If challenging the PCs is the goal, then the game's meant to be hard and on that knife's edge of just hard enough or too hard.

That last one is where Age of Umbra sits. At the end of the session zero for Age of Umbra, the players explicitly asked for a deadly and challenging game.

 

[The Soloist]

I've never really understood this mindset and that's as someone who's often described as a killer referee. The referee should never, ever, ever actively try to kill the PCs.

First, the referee can literally say "rocks fall, everyone dies" and the PCs are dead or the referee can throw infinite dragons at the PCs until they die. So there's no point at all in "trying" to kill the PCs. The gods of the setting are the referee's puppets. If the referee wanted the PCs dead, they'd die. Simple as.

Second, there's no point. Why bother? You just proved that you're all powerful in a game that gives you unlimited power. Good for you.

Third, the goal of the referee is to generally one of three things: 1) to facilitate a compelling story, or; 2) play an authentic world, or; 3) challenge the PCs. If a compelling story is the goal, the players are on board and likely itching for that dramatic death when it's appropriate. If an authentic world is the goal, it's on the players to not be dumb and get themselves killed. If this bit of the world has an army of ogres marching through it and the four 1st-level PCs decide to attack, that's not on the referee trying to kill the PCs, that's on the players for making incredibly bad choices. If challenging the PCs is the goal, then the game's meant to be hard and on that knife's edge of just hard enough or too hard.

That last one is where Age of Umbra sits. At the end of the session zero for Age of Umbra, the players explicitly asked for a deadly and challenging game.

You are correct, they did ask for it, and Matt is GMing it well. The criticism that he is not doing enough doesn't stand.

 

[bergec]

I've never really understood this mindset and that's as someone who's often described as a killer referee. The referee should never, ever, ever actively try to kill the PCs.

The second edition of Unknown Armies had a piece of great gamemastering advice. It noted the tension between the GM acting as both the antagonist and the referee of the game and suggesting splitting the role. Between sessions, the GM figures out what the NPCs are doing and plots and plans against the PCs. But then, during the session, they act strictly as referee. They adjudicate the rules and run the stuff they planned between sessions. Then, during the next gap, they adjust the NPCs plans and such to account for the player actions. I've found it to be a useful way to avoid the "killer referee" trap.

 

[overgeeked]

The second edition of Unknown Armies had a piece of great gamemastering advice. It noted the tension between the GM acting as both the antagonist and the referee of the game and suggesting splitting the role. Between sessions, the GM figures out what the NPCs are doing and plots and plans against the PCs. But then, during the session, they act strictly as referee. They adjudicate the rules and run the stuff they planned between sessions. Then, during the next gap, they adjust the NPCs plans and such to account for the player actions. I've found it to be a useful way to avoid the "killer referee" trap.

Yeah. It's good advice. I'm sure it predates Unknown Armies 2E by decades as it's a variation of what I heard coming up in the 80s. Not sure it was written down anywhere before that though.

 

[Elvish Lore]

ok, I will say I love when Matt corrects Travis on how helping works in Ep 3. That is... Travis (and then the other players) started referring to helping in a shorthand manner by saying they were giving Hope to another player. Matt took the moment to say, no... players can't give hope as a standard rule... it's called helping... (implying: and it becomes part of the fiction because the player has to explain how they're helping)

It was an important distinction and I'm glad Matt made it clear. We're all learning the game.